Type erasing type erasure, `any` questions?

Question

So, suppose I want to type erase using type erasure.

I can create pseudo-methods for variants that enable a natural:

pseudo_method print = [](auto&& self, auto&& os){ os << self; };  std::variant<A,B,C> var = // create a variant of type A B or C  (var->*print)(std::cout); // print it out without knowing what it is 

My question is, how do I extend this to a std::any?

It cannot be done "in the raw". But at the point where we assign to/construct a std::any we have the type information we need.

So, in theory, an augmented any:

template<class...OperationsToTypeErase> struct super_any {   std::any data;   // or some transformation of OperationsToTypeErase?   std::tuple<OperationsToTypeErase...> operations;   // ?? what for ctor/assign/etc? }; 

could somehow automatically rebind some code such that the above type of syntax would work.

Ideally it would be as terse in use as the variant case is.

template<class...Ops, class Op,   // SFINAE filter that an op matches:   std::enable_if_t< std::disjunction< std::is_same<Ops, Op>... >{}, int>* =nullptr > decltype(auto) operator->*( super_any<Ops...>& a, any_method<Op> ) {   return std::get<Op>(a.operations)(a.data); } 

Now can I keep this to a type, yet reasonably use the lambda syntax to keep things simple?

Ideally I want:

any_method<void(std::ostream&)> print =   [](auto&& self, auto&& os){ os << self; };  using printable_any = make_super_any<&print>;  printable_any bob = 7; // sets up the printing data attached to the any  int main() {   (bob->*print)(std::cout); // prints 7   bob = 3.14159;   (bob->*print)(std::cout); // prints 3.14159 } 

or similar syntax. Is this impossible? Infeasible? Easy?

Answer 1

This is a solution that uses C++14 and boost::any, as I don't have a C++17 compiler.

The syntax we end up with is:

const auto print =   make_any_method<void(std::ostream&)>([](auto&& p, std::ostream& t){ t << p << "\n"; });  super_any<decltype(print)> a = 7;  (a->*print)(std::cout); 

which is almost optimal. With what I believe to be simple C++17 changes, it should look like:

constexpr any_method<void(std::ostream&)> print =   [](auto&& p, std::ostream& t){ t << p << "\n"; };  super_any<&print> a = 7;  (a->*print)(std::cout); 

In C++17 I'd improve this by taking a auto*... of pointers to any_method instead of the decltype noise.

Inheriting publicly from any is a bit risky, as if someone takes the any off the top and modifies it, the tuple of any_method_data will be out of date. Probably we should just mimic the entire any interface rather than inherit publicly.

@dyp wrote a proof of concept in comments to the OP. This is based off his work, cleaned up with value-semantics (stolen from boost::any) added. @cpplearner's pointer-based solution was used to shorten it (thanks!), and then I added the vtable optimization on top of that.

---

First we use a tag to pass around types:

template<class T>struct tag_t{constexpr tag_t(){};}; template<class T>constexpr tag_t<T> tag{}; 

This trait class gets the signature stored with an any_method:

This creates a function pointer type, and a factory for said function pointers, given an any_method:

template<class any_method, class Sig=any_sig_from_method<any_method>> struct any_method_function;  template<class any_method, class R, class...Args> struct any_method_function<any_method, R(Args...)> {   using type = R(*)(boost::any&, any_method const*, Args...);   template<class T>   type operator()( tag_t<T> )const{     return [](boost::any& self, any_method const* method, Args...args) {       return (*method)( boost::any_cast<T&>(self), decltype(args)(args)... );     };   } }; 

Now we don't want to store a function pointer per operation in our super_any. So we bundle up the function pointers into a vtable:

template<class...any_methods> using any_method_tuple = std::tuple< typename any_method_function<any_methods>::type... >;  template<class...any_methods, class T> any_method_tuple<any_methods...> make_vtable( tag_t<T> ) {   return std::make_tuple(     any_method_function<any_methods>{}(tag<T>)...   ); }  template<class...methods> struct any_methods { private:   any_method_tuple<methods...> const* vtable = 0;   template<class T>   static any_method_tuple<methods...> const* get_vtable( tag_t<T> ) {     static const auto table = make_vtable<methods...>(tag<T>);     return &table;   } public:   any_methods() = default;   template<class T>   any_methods( tag_t<T> ): vtable(get_vtable(tag<T>)) {}   any_methods& operator=(any_methods const&)=default;   template<class T>   void change_type( tag_t<T> ={} ) { vtable = get_vtable(tag<T>); }    template<class any_method>   auto get_invoker( tag_t<any_method> ={} ) const {     return std::get<typename any_method_function<any_method>::type>( *vtable );   } }; 

we could specialize this for a cases where the vtable is small (for example, 1 item), and use direct pointers stored in-class in those cases for efficiency.

Now we start the super_any. I use super_any_t to make the declaration of super_any a bit easier.

template<class...methods> struct super_any_t; 

This searches the methods that the super any supports for SFINAE:

template<class super_any, class method> struct super_method_applies : std::false_type {};  template<class M0, class...Methods, class method> struct super_method_applies<super_any_t<M0, Methods...>, method> :     std::integral_constant<bool, std::is_same<M0, method>{}  || super_method_applies<super_any_t<Methods...>, method>{}> {}; 

This is the pseudo-method pointer, like print, that we create globally and constly.

We store the object we construct this with inside the any_method. Note that if you construct it with a non-lambda things can get hairy, as the type of this any_method is used as part of the dispatch mechanism.

template<class Sig, class F> struct any_method {   using signature=Sig;  private:   F f; public:    template<class Any,     // SFINAE testing that one of the Anys's matches this type:     std::enable_if_t< super_method_applies< std::decay_t<Any>, any_method >{}, int>* =nullptr   >   friend auto operator->*( Any&& self, any_method const& m ) {     // we don't use the value of the any_method, because each any_method has     // a unique type (!) and we check that one of the auto*'s in the super_any     // already has a pointer to us.  We then dispatch to the corresponding     // any_method_data...      return [&self, invoke = self.get_invoker(tag<any_method>), m](auto&&...args)->decltype(auto)     {       return invoke( decltype(self)(self), &m, decltype(args)(args)... );     };   }   any_method( F fin ):f(std::move(fin)) {}    template<class...Args>   decltype(auto) operator()(Args&&...args)const {     return f(std::forward<Args>(args)...);   } }; 

A factory method, not needed in C++17 I believe:

template<class Sig, class F> any_method<Sig, std::decay_t<F>> make_any_method( F&& f ) {     return {std::forward<F>(f)}; } 

This is the augmented any. It is both an any, and it carries around a bundle of type-erasure function pointers that change whenever the contained any does:

template<class... methods> struct super_any_t:boost::any, any_methods<methods...> { private:   template<class T>   T* get() { return boost::any_cast<T*>(this); }  public:   template<class T,     std::enable_if_t< !std::is_same<std::decay_t<T>, super_any_t>{}, int>* =nullptr   >   super_any_t( T&& t ):     boost::any( std::forward<T>(t) )   {     using dT=std::decay_t<T>;     this->change_type( tag<dT> );   }    super_any_t()=default;   super_any_t(super_any_t&&)=default;   super_any_t(super_any_t const&)=default;   super_any_t& operator=(super_any_t&&)=default;   super_any_t& operator=(super_any_t const&)=default;    template<class T,     std::enable_if_t< !std::is_same<std::decay_t<T>, super_any_t>{}, int>* =nullptr   >   super_any_t& operator=( T&& t ) {     ((boost::any&)*this) = std::forward<T>(t);     using dT=std::decay_t<T>;     this->change_type( tag<dT> );     return *this;   }   }; 

Because we store the any_methods as const objects, this makes making a super_any a bit easier:

template<class...Ts> using super_any = super_any_t< std::remove_const_t<std::remove_reference_t<Ts>>... >; 

Test code:

const auto print = make_any_method<void(std::ostream&)>([](auto&& p, std::ostream& t){ t << p << "\n"; }); const auto wprint = make_any_method<void(std::wostream&)>([](auto&& p, std::wostream& os ){ os << p << L"\n"; });  const auto wont_work = make_any_method<void(std::ostream&)>([](auto&& p, std::ostream& t){ t << p << "\n"; });  struct X {}; int main() {   super_any<decltype(print), decltype(wprint)> a = 7;   super_any<decltype(print), decltype(wprint)> a2 = 7;    (a->*print)(std::cout);    (a->*wprint)(std::wcout);    // (a->*wont_work)(std::cout);    double d = 4.2;   a = d;    (a->*print)(std::cout);   (a->*wprint)(std::wcout);    (a2->*print)(std::cout);   (a2->*wprint)(std::wcout);    // a = X{}; // generates an error if you try to store a non-printable } 

live example.

The error message when I try to store a non-printable struct X{}; inside the super_any seems reasonable at least on clang:

main.cpp:150:87: error: invalid operands to binary expression ('std::ostream' (aka 'basic_ostream<char>') and 'X') const auto x0 = make_any_method<void(std::ostream&)>([](auto&& p, std::ostream& t){ t << p << "\n"; }); 

this happens the moment you try to assign the X{} into the super_any<decltype(x0)>.

The structure of the any_method is sufficiently compatible with the pseudo_method that acts similarly on variants that they can probably be merged.

---

I used a manual vtable here to keep the type erasure overhead to 1 pointer per super_any. This adds a redirection cost to every any_method call. We could store the pointers directly in the super_any very easily, and it wouldn't be hard to make that a parameter to super_any. In any case, in the 1 erased method case, we should just store it directly.

---

Two different any_methods of the same type (say, both containing a function pointer) spawn the same kind of super_any. This causes problems at lookup.

Distinguishing between them is a bit tricky. If we changed the super_any to take auto* any_method, we could bundle all of the identical-type any_methods up in the vtable tuple, then do a linear search for a matching pointer if there are more than 1. The linear search should be optimized away by the compiler unless you are doing something crazy like passing a reference or pointer to which particular any_method we are using.

That seems beyond the scope of this answer, however; the existence of that improvement is enough for now.

---

In addition, a ->* that takes a pointer (or even reference!) on the left hand side can be added, letting it detect this and pass that to the lambda as well. This can make it truly an "any method" in that it works on variants, super_anys, and pointers with that method.

With a bit of if constexpr work, the lambda can branch on doing an ADL or a method call in every case.

This should give us:

(7->*print)(std::cout);  ((super_any<&print>)(7)->*print)(std::cout); // C++17 version of above syntax  ((std::variant<int, double>{7})->*print)(std::cout);  int* ptr = new int(7); (ptr->*print)(std::cout);  (std::make_unique<int>(7)->*print)(std::cout); (std::make_shared<int>(7)->*print)(std::cout); 

with the any_method just "doing the right thing" (which is feeding the value to std::cout <<).