I have a visitor class resembling this:
struct Visitor
{
template <typename T>
void operator()(T t)
{
...
}
void operator()(bool b)
{
...
}
};
Clearly, operator()(bool b)
is intended to be a specialization of the preceding template function.
However, it doesn't have the template<>
syntax that I'm used to seeing before it, declaring this as a template specialization. But it does compile.
Is this safe? Is this correct?
Your code is not a template specialization, but rather a non-templated function. There are some differences there. The non-templated operator() will take precedence over a templated version (for an exact match, but type conversions will not take place there) but you can still force the templated function to be called:
class Visitor
{
public: // corrected as pointed by stefanB, thanks
template <typename T>
void operator()( T data ) {
std::cout << "generic template" << std::endl;
}
void operator()( bool data ) {
std::cout << "regular member function" << std::endl;
}
};
template <> // Corrected: specialization is a new definition, not a declaration, thanks again stefanB
void Visitor::operator()( int data ) {
std::cout << "specialization" << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
Visitor v;
v( 5 ); // specialization
v( true ); // regular member function
v.operator()<bool>( true ); // generic template even if there is a non-templated overload
// operator() must be specified there (signature of the method) for the compiler to
// detect what part is a template. You cannot use <> right after a variable name
}
In your code there is not much of a difference, but if your code needs to pass the template parameter type it will get funnier:
template <typename T>
T g() {
return T();
}
template <>
int g() {
return 0;
}
int g() {
return 1;
}
int main()
{
g<double>(); // return 0.0
g<int>(); // return 0
g(); // return 1 -- non-templated functions take precedence over templated ones
}
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