Is it possible in C++ to check the type passed into a template function? For example:
template <typename T>
void Foo()
{
if (typeof(SomeClass) == T)
...;
else if (typeof(SomeClass2) == T)
...;
}
Template non-type arguments in C++It is also possible to use non-type arguments (basic/derived data types) i.e., in addition to the type argument T, it can also use other arguments such as strings, function names, constant expressions, and built-in data types.
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.
The switch statement in C++ is the best alternative to the lengthy if statements that are used to compare a variable to different integral values. It is a multi-way branch statement. The switch statement is the control statement that allows any value to change the control of the execution.
When C++ reaches a break keyword, it breaks out of the switch block. This will stop the execution of more code and case testing inside the block. When a match is found, and the job is done, it's time for a break. There is no need for more testing.
Yes, it is...but it probably won't work the way you expect.
template < typename T >
void foo()
{
if (is_same<T,SomeClass>::value) ...;
else if (is_same<T,SomeClass2>::value) ...;
}
You can get is_same
from std::
or boost::
depending on your desire/compiler. The former is only in C++0x.
The problem comes with what is in ...
. If you expect to be able to make some function call specific to those types within foo, you are sadly mistaken. A compiler error will result even though that section of code is never run when you pass in something that doesn't obey that expected interface.
To solve THAT problem you need to do something a bit different. I'd recommend tag dispatching:
struct v1_tag {};
struct v2_tag {};
template < typename T > struct someclass_version_tag;
template < > struct someclass_version_tag<SomeClass> { typedef v1_tag type; };
template < > struct someclass_version_tag<SomeClass2> { typedef v2_tag type; };
void foo(v1_tag) { ... }
void foo(v2_tag) { ... }
template < typename T > void foo()
{
typedef typename someclass_version_tag<T>::type tag;
foo(tag());
}
Note that you will not be suffering any runtime-polymorphism overhead here and with optimizations turned on it should result in the same or even smaller code size AND speed (though you shouldn't be worrying about that anyway until you've run a profiler).
If you want to do something specific based on the type, specialize the template:
template <typename T>
void Foo() { }
template <>
void Foo<SomeClass>() { }
template <>
void Foo<SomeClass2>() { }
// etc.
(You don't actually want to specialize the function template, though; this is for exposition only. You'll either want to overload the template if you can, or delegate to a specialized class template. For more on why and how to avoid specializing function templates, read Herb Sutter's Why Not Specialize Function Templates?)
No, however you can use partial specialization :
template<typename T>
struct Bar { static void foo(); };
template<typename T>
template<> inline void Bar<T>::foo() {
//generic
}
template<> inline void Bar<int>::foo() {
//stuff for int
}
template<> inline void Bar<QString>::foo() {
//QString
}
Edit Yes with type traits, however it's not really needed. Edit 2 type_traits example.
#include <type_traits>
template<typename T> void foo() {
using std::is_same;
if<is_same<T, T2>::value || is_same<T, T1>::value) {
/* stuff */
}
}
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