C++ template meta-programming kung-fu challenge (replacing a macro function definition)

Question

Situation

I want to implement the Composite pattern:

class Animal
{
public:
    virtual void Run() = 0;
    virtual void Eat(const std::string & food) = 0;
    virtual ~Animal(){}
};

class Human : public Animal
{
public:
    void Run(){ std::cout << "Hey Guys I'm Running!" << std::endl; }
    void Eat(const std::string & food)
    {
        std::cout << "I am eating " << food << "; Yummy!" << std::endl;
    }
};

class Horse : public Animal
{
public:
    void Run(){ std::cout << "I am running real fast!" << std::endl; }
    void Eat(const std::string & food)
    {
        std::cout << "Meah!! " << food << ", Meah!!" << std::endl;
    }
};

class CompositeAnimal : public Animal
{
public:
    void Run()
    {
        for(std::vector<Animal *>::iterator i = animals.begin();
            i != animals.end(); ++i)
        {
            (*i)->Run();
        }
    }

    // It's not DRY. yuck!
    void Eat(const std::string & food)
    {
        for(std::vector<Animal *>::iterator i = animals.begin();
            i != animals.end(); ++i)
        {
            (*i)->Eat(food);
        }
    }

    void Add(Animal * animal)
    {
        animals.push_back(animal);
    }

private:
    std::vector<Animal *> animals;
};

The Problem

You see, for my simple requirement of the composite pattern, I end up writing a lot of the same repeating code iterating over the same array.

Possible solution with macros

#define COMPOSITE_ANIMAL_DELEGATE(_methodName, _paramArgs, _callArgs)\
    void _methodName _paramArgs                                      \
    {                                                                \
        for(std::vector<Animal *>::iterator i = animals.begin();     \
            i != animals.end(); ++i)                                 \
        {                                                            \
            (*i)->_methodName _callArgs;                             \
        }                                                            \
    }

Now I can use it like this:

class CompositeAnimal : public Animal
{
public:
    // It "seems" DRY. Cool

    COMPOSITE_ANIMAL_DELEGATE(Run, (), ())
    COMPOSITE_ANIMAL_DELEGATE(Eat, (const std::string & food), (food))

    void Add(Animal * animal)
    {
        animals.push_back(animal);
    }

private:
    std::vector<Animal *> animals
};

The question

Is there a way to do it "cleaner" with C++ meta-programming?

The harder question

std::for_each has been suggested as a solution. I think our problem here is a specific case of the more general question, let's consider our new macro:

#define LOGGED_COMPOSITE_ANIMAL_DELEGATE(_methodName, _paramArgs, _callArgs)\
    void _methodName _paramArgs                                      \
    {                                                                \
        log << "Iterating over " << animals.size() << " animals";    \
        for(std::vector<Animal *>::iterator i = animals.begin();     \
            i != animals.end(); ++i)                                 \
        {                                                            \
            (*i)->_methodName _callArgs;                             \
        }                                                            \
        log << "Done"                                                \
    }

Looks like this can't be replaced by for_each

Aftermath

Looking at GMan's excellent answer, this part of C++ is definitely non-trivial. Personally, if we just want to reduce the amount of boilerplate code, I think macros probably is the right tool for the job for this particular situation.

GMan suggested std::mem_fun and std::bind2nd to return functors. Unfortunately, this API doesn't support 3 parameters (I can't believe something like this got released into the STL).

For illustrative purpose, here're the delegate functions using boost::bind instead:

void Run()
{
    for_each(boost::bind(&Animal::Run, _1));
}

void Eat(const std::string & food)
{
    for_each(boost::bind(&Animal::Eat, _1, food));
}

Answer 1

I'm not sure I really see the problem, per se. Why not something like:

void Run()
{
    std::for_each(animals.begin(), animals.end(),
                    std::mem_fun(&Animal::Run));
}

void Eat(const std::string & food)
{
    std::for_each(animals.begin(), animals.end(),
                    std::bind2nd(std::mem_fun(&Animal::Eat), food));
}

Not too bad.

---

If you really wanted to get rid of the (small) boilerplate code, add:

template <typename Func>
void for_each(Func func)
{
    std::for_each(animals.begin(), animals.end(), func);
}

As a private utility member, then use that:

void Run()
{
    for_each(std::mem_fun(&Animal::Run));
}

void Eat(const std::string & food)
{
    for_each(std::bind2nd(std::mem_fun(&Animal::Eat), food));
}

A bit more concise. No need for meta-programming.

In fact, meta-programming will ultimately fail. You're trying to generate functions, which are defined textually. Meta-programming cannot generate text, so you'll inevitably use a macro somewhere to generate text.

At the next level, you'd write the function then try to take out the boilerplate code. std::for_each does this quite well. And of course as has been demonstrated, if you find that to be too much repetition, just factor that out as well.

---

In response to the LoggedCompositeAnimal example in the comment, your best bet is to make something akin to:

class log_action
{
public:
    // could also take the stream to output to
    log_action(const std::string& pMessage) :
    mMessage(pMessage),
    mTime(std::clock())
    {
        std::cout << "Ready to call " << pMessage << std::endl;
    }

    ~log_action(void)
    {
        const std::clock_t endTime = std::clock();

        std::cout << "Done calling " << pMessage << std::endl;
        std::cout << "Spent time: " << ((endTime - mTime) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC)
                    << " seconds." << std::endl;
    }

private:
    std::string mMessage;
    std::clock_t mTime;
};

Which just mostly automatically logs actions. Then:

class LoggedCompositeAnimal : public CompositeAnimal
{
public:
    void Run()
    {
        log_action log(compose_message("Run"));
        CompositeAnimal::Run();
    }

    void Eat(const std::string & food)
    {
        log_action log(compose_message("Eat"));
        CompositeAnimal::Eat(food);
    }

private:
    const std::string compose_message(const std::string& pAction)
    {
        return pAction + " on " +
                    lexical_cast<std::string>(animals.size()) + " animals.";
    }
};

Like that. _{Information on lexical_cast.}

Answer 2

You could make functors instead of methods:

struct Run
{
    void operator()(Animal * a)
    {
        a->Run();
    }
};

struct Eat
{
    std::string food;
    Eat(const std::string& food) : food(food) {}

    void operator()(Animal * a)
    {
        a->Eat(food);
    }
};

And add CompositeAnimal::apply (#include <algorithm>):

template <typename Func>
void apply(Func& f)
{
    std::for_each(animals.begin(), animals.end(), f);
}

Then your code would work like this:

int main()
{
    CompositeAnimal ca;
    ca.Add(new Horse());
    ca.Add(new Human());

    Run r;
    ca.apply(r);

    Eat e("dinner");
    ca.apply(e);
}

Output:

> ./x
I am running real fast!
Hey Guys I'm Running!
Meah!! dinner, Meah!!
I am eating dinner; Yummy!

---

To keep the interface consistent, you could go one step further.

Rename struct Run to Running and struct Eat to Eating to prevent method/struct clash.

Then CompositeAnimal::Run would look like this, using the apply method and the struct Running:

void Run()
{
    Running r;
    apply(r);
}

And similarly CompositeAnimal::Eat:

void Eat(const std::string & food)
{
    Eating e(food);
    apply(e);
}

And you can call now:

ca.Run();
ca.Eat("dinner");

output still the same:

I am running real fast!
Hey Guys I'm Running!
Meah!! dinner, Meah!!
I am eating dinner; Yummy!