I wish to have a non-template class with a template constructor with no arguments.
As far as I understand, it's impossible to have it (because it would conflict with the default constructor - am I right?), and the workaround is the following:
class A{
template <typename U> A(U* dummy) {
// Do something
}
};
Maybe there is a better alternative for this (or a better workaround)?
There is no way to explicitly specify the template arguments when calling a constructor template, so they have to be deduced through argument deduction. This is because if you say:
Foo<int> f = Foo<int>();
The <int> is the template argument list for the type Foo, not for its constructor. There's nowhere for the constructor template's argument list to go.
Even with your workaround you still have to pass an argument in order to call that constructor template. It's not at all clear what you are trying to achieve.
You could use a templated factory function instead of a constructor:
class Foo
{
public:
template <class T> static Foo* create() // could also return by value, or a smart pointer
{
return new Foo(...);
}
...
};
return Foo(...); Thanks @Samuel_xL. This turned out to be a great idea for me.
template<class...>struct types{using type=types;};
template<class T>struct tag{using type=T;};
template<class Tag>using type_t=typename Tag::type;
the above helpers let you work with types as values.
class A {
template<class T>
A( tag<T> );
};
the tag<T> type is a variable with no state besides the type it caries. You can use this to pass a pure-type value into a template function and have the type be deduced by the template function:
auto a = A(tag<int>{});
You can pass in more than one type:
class A {
template<class T, class U, class V>
A( types<T,U,V> );
};
auto a = A(types<int,double,std::string>{});
types, tag, type_t templates or variants of it quite often in all sorts of contexts. Is there something in std for this?
constexpr) and b) avoiding the need to explicitly instantiate an object using {}: Use a templated inline constexpr object like template<typename _Tp> inline constexpr in_place_type_t<_Tp> in_place_type{}; in <utility> header. Check the example on cppreference where they use std::in_place_type<std::string> to pass a constexpr tag object without explicit instantiation "{}".constexpr is easier to optimize but to be honest I think that most compilers will optimize away both objects completely in this case. But why else should in_place_type be constexpr if it was not meant to be an optimization hint for compilers?As far as I understand, it's impossible to have it (because it would conflict with the default constructor - am I right?)
You are wrong. It doesn't conflict in any way. You just can't call it ever.
int *p; A a(p). 2. Prejudice or idealization ;-) There is no John Doe. There is nothing typical German... and definitely not in Johannes' words. If they sound humorless then just because C++ is humorless.Some points:
X or X& or X const
&) the compiler will generate the
default copy-constructor. T const & or T or T& then the
compiler will nevertheless generate a
default non-templated
copy-constructor, even though you may think that it shouldn't because when T = X the declaration matches the copy-constructor declaration.HTH
struct S { template<typename T> S() { } }; declares an "unreachable ctor". There is no way to deduce or pass the T. Nonetheless a default ctor is not generated since a user-defined ctor seems to exist.It is perhaps easier and more intuitive to rely on std::in_place_type_t<T> which is used in std::variant, std::any, etc for exactly the same purpose:
#include <utility>
class A {
template <typename U>
A(std::in_place_type_t<U>) {
// Do something
}
};
A a(std::in_place_type_t<MyType>{});
You could do this:
class C
{
public:
template <typename T> C(T*);
};
template <typename T> T* UseType()
{
static_cast<T*>(nullptr);
}
Then to create an object of type C using int as the template parameter to the constructor:
C obj(UseType<int>());
Since you can't pass template parameters to a constructor, this solution essentially converts the template parameter to a regular parameter. Using the UseType<T>() function when calling the constructor makes it clear to someone looking at the code that the purpose of that parameter is to tell the constructor what type to use.
One use case for this would be if the constructor creates a derived class object and assigns it to a member variable that is a base class pointer. (The constructor needs to know which derived class to use, but the class itself doesn't need to be templated since the same base class pointer type is always used.)
Here's a workaround.
Make a template subclass B of A. Do the template-argument-independent part of the construction in A's constructor. Do the template-argument-dependent part in B's constructor.
try doing something like
template<class T, int i> class A{
A(){
A(this)
}
A( A<int, 1>* a){
//do something
}
A( A<float, 1>* a){
//do something
}
.
.
.
};
Just simple to add a dummy variable like
class A {
template<typename T>
A(const T&, int arg1, int arg2);
}
