I define a Node class with template for its value type
template<class T>
class Node {
T val;
public:
Node (T & v) : val (v) {}
...
void print() { cout << v << endl; }
}
Most times, the node value of interest will be an object class, say class Foo
. In that case, use Node<Foo *>
will be more convenient. But it could also be that the node will hold primitive time, say int
. Then use Node<int>
will suffice.
The problem is, some of the function may need to behave differently based on whether T
is a pointer type or not. For example, print
should cout << *v
when it is and cout << v
otherwise.
What I've tried is to define both:
template<class T>
class Node {
T val;
public:
Node (T & v) : val (v) {}
...
void print() { cout << v << endl; }
}
template<class T>
class Node<T*> {
T* val;
public:
Node (T* v) : val (v) {}
...
void print() { cout << *v << endl; }
}
It now can choose the appropriate definition based on whether it's Node<int> or Node<int *>
But the problem become, the two definitions will share many code. I'm wondering whether there's better way to achieve this.
A template has only one type, but a specialization is needed for pointer, reference, pointer to member, or function pointer types. The specialization itself is still a template on the type pointed to or referenced.
Key differences between generics and C++ templates: Generics are generic until the types are substituted for them at runtime. Templates are specialized at compile time so they are not still parameterized types at runtime. The common language runtime specifically supports generics in MSIL.
Technical overview. There are three kinds of templates: function templates, class templates and, since C++14, variable templates. Since C++11, templates may be either variadic or non-variadic; in earlier versions of C++ they are always non-variadic.
A class template is a template that is used to generate classes whereas a template class is a class that is produced by a template.
See this: C++ template specialization, calling methods on types that could be pointers or references unambiguously
The same technique should work here, allowing you to deal with the val
as a reference (or a pointer) uniformly in both cases.
CRTP may help reduce code duplication, allowing for common code for two specializations without any overhead, as well.
Note that ownership semantics get tricky when you sometimes use a pointer and sometimes an instance -- what is the lifetime of val
if sometimes it is a pointer of an argument, and other times it is a copy of the argument, and how to you enforce it?
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With