I am trying std::enable_if
for the first time and struggling. Any guidance would be appreciated.
As a toy example, here is a simple static vector
class, for which I want to define a copy constructor, but the behavior depends on the relative sizes of the vectors:
So the vector
class is:
template <size_t _Size>
class Vector
{
double _data[_Size];
public:
Vector()
{
std::fill(_data, _data + _Size, 0.0);
}
const double* data() const
{
return _data;
}
// ...
};
The copy constructor should support something like this: copying the first 2 elements of v3
into v2
:
Vector<3> v3;
Vector<2> v2(v3);
I tried a copy constructor for behavior 1. like this, which compiles:
template <size_t _OtherSize,
typename = typename std::enable_if_t<_Size <= _OtherSize>>
Vector(const Vector<_OtherSize>& v) : Vector()
{
std::copy(v.data(), v.data() + _Size, _data);
}
but the compiler cannot distinguish this from behavior 2. even though the enable_if
conditions are mutually exclusive.
template <size_t _OtherSize,
typename = typename std::enable_if_t<_OtherSize < _Size>>
Vector(const Vector<_OtherSize>& v) : Vector()
{
std::copy(v.data(), v.data() + _OtherSize, _data);
std::fill(_data + _OtherSize, _data + _Size, 0.0);
}
I also tried putting enable_if
in the argument instead, but it couldn't deduce the value of _OtherSize
:
template <size_t _OtherSize>
Vector(const typename std::enable_if_t<_Size <= _OtherSize,
Vector<_OtherSize>> & v)
: Vector()
{
std::copy(v.data(), v.data() + _Size, _data);
}
What is the way to do this (using enable_if
, not a simple if
statement)?
Ignoring defaults, the signature of both of those constructors is
template <size_t N, typename>
Vector(const Vector<N>&)
I.e., they're ultimately the same.
One way to differentiate them is to make the template parameter type directly dependent on enable_if
's condition:
template <size_t _OtherSize,
std::enable_if_t<(_Size <= _OtherSize), int> = 0>
Vector(const Vector<_OtherSize>& v) : Vector()
{
std::copy(v.data(), v.data() + _Size, _data);
}
template <size_t _OtherSize,
std::enable_if_t<(_OtherSize < _Size), int> = 0>
Vector(const Vector<_OtherSize>& v) : Vector()
{
std::copy(v.data(), v.data() + _OtherSize, _data);
std::fill(_data + _OtherSize, _data + _Size, 0.0);
}
As an aside, names like _Size
and _OtherSize
are reserved for the implementation and thus illegal for user code – lose the underscore and/or the capital letter.
Also, as @StoryTeller hinted at, you don't want the first constructor to apply when _OtherSize == _Size
, as the compiler-generated copy constructor has ideal behavior. Said constructor is already less specialized than the copy constructor for same-sized Vector
s, so it won't be selected during overload resolution anyway, but it would be best to make the intent clear by switching <=
to <
.
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