C++ function template partial specialization?
What is specialization ?
If you really want to understand templates, you should take a look at functional languages. The world of templates in C++ is a purely functional sublanguage of its own.
In functional languages, selections are done using Pattern Matching:
-- An instance of Maybe is either nothing (None) or something (Just a)
-- where a is any type
data Maybe a = None | Just a
-- declare function isJust, which takes a Maybe
-- and checks whether it's None or Just
isJust :: Maybe a -> Bool
-- definition: two cases (_ is a wildcard)
isJust None = False
isJust Just _ = True
As you can see, we overload the definition of isJust
.
Well, C++ class templates work exactly the same way. You provide a main declaration, that states the number and nature of the parameters. It can be just a declaration, or also acts as a definition (your choice), and then you can (if you so wish) provide specializations of the pattern and associate to them a different (otherwise it would be silly) version of the class.
For template functions, specialization is somewhat more awkward: it conflicts somewhat with overload resolution. As such, it has been decided that a specialization would relate to a non-specialized version, and specializations would not be considered during overload resolution. Therefore, the algorithm for selecting the right function becomes:
- Perform overload resolution, among regular functions and non-specialized templates
- If a non-specialized template is selected, check if a specialization exist for it that would be a better match
(for on in-depth treatment, see GotW #49)
As such, template specialization of functions is a second-zone citizen (literally). As far as I am concerned, we would be better off without them: I have yet to encounter a case where a template specialization use could not be solved with overloading instead.
Is this a template specialization ?
No, it is simply an overload, and this is fine. In fact, overloads usually work as we expect them to, while specializations can be surprising (remember the GotW article I linked).
Since partial specialization is not allowed -- as other answers pointed --, you could work around it using std::is_same
and std::enable_if
, as below:
template <typename T, class F>
inline typename std::enable_if<std::is_same<T, int>::value, void>::type
typed_foo(const F& f) {
std::cout << ">>> messing with ints! " << f << std::endl;
}
template <typename T, class F>
inline typename std::enable_if<std::is_same<T, float>::value, void>::type
typed_foo(const F& f) {
std::cout << ">>> messing with floats! " << f << std::endl;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
typed_foo<int>("works");
typed_foo<float>(2);
}
Output:
$ ./a.out
>>> messing with ints! works
>>> messing with floats! 2
Edit: In case you need to be able to treat all the other cases left, you could add a definition which states that already treated cases should not match -- otherwise you'd fall into ambiguous definitions. The definition could be:
template <typename T, class F>
inline typename std::enable_if<(not std::is_same<T, int>::value)
and (not std::is_same<T, float>::value), void>::type
typed_foo(const F& f) {
std::cout << ">>> messing with unknown stuff! " << f << std::endl;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
typed_foo<int>("works");
typed_foo<float>(2);
typed_foo<std::string>("either");
}
Which produces:
$ ./a.out
>>> messing with ints! works
>>> messing with floats! 2
>>> messing with unknown stuff! either
Although this all-cases thing looks a bit boring, since you have to tell the compiler everything you've already done, it's quite doable to treat up to 5 or a few more specializations.
Non-class, non-variable partial specialization is not allowed, but as said:
All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection. —— David Wheeler
Adding a class to forward the function call can solve this, here is an example:
template <class Tag, class R, class... Ts>
struct enable_fun_partial_spec;
struct fun_tag {};
template <class R, class... Ts>
constexpr R fun(Ts&&... ts) {
return enable_fun_partial_spec<fun_tag, R, Ts...>::call(
std::forward<Ts>(ts)...);
}
template <class R, class... Ts>
struct enable_fun_partial_spec<fun_tag, R, Ts...> {
constexpr static R call(Ts&&... ts) { return {0}; }
};
template <class R, class T>
struct enable_fun_partial_spec<fun_tag, R, T, T> {
constexpr static R call(T, T) { return {1}; }
};
template <class R>
struct enable_fun_partial_spec<fun_tag, R, int, int> {
constexpr static R call(int, int) { return {2}; }
};
template <class R>
struct enable_fun_partial_spec<fun_tag, R, int, char> {
constexpr static R call(int, char) { return {3}; }
};
template <class R, class T2>
struct enable_fun_partial_spec<fun_tag, R, char, T2> {
constexpr static R call(char, T2) { return {4}; }
};
static_assert(std::is_same_v<decltype(fun<int>(1, 1)), int>, "");
static_assert(fun<int>(1, 1) == 2, "");
static_assert(std::is_same_v<decltype(fun<char>(1, 1)), char>, "");
static_assert(fun<char>(1, 1) == 2, "");
static_assert(std::is_same_v<decltype(fun<long>(1L, 1L)), long>, "");
static_assert(fun<long>(1L, 1L) == 1, "");
static_assert(std::is_same_v<decltype(fun<double>(1L, 1L)), double>, "");
static_assert(fun<double>(1L, 1L) == 1, "");
static_assert(std::is_same_v<decltype(fun<int>(1u, 1)), int>, "");
static_assert(fun<int>(1u, 1) == 0, "");
static_assert(std::is_same_v<decltype(fun<char>(1, 'c')), char>, "");
static_assert(fun<char>(1, 'c') == 3, "");
static_assert(std::is_same_v<decltype(fun<unsigned>('c', 1)), unsigned>, "");
static_assert(fun<unsigned>('c', 1) == 4, "");
static_assert(std::is_same_v<decltype(fun<unsigned>(10.0, 1)), unsigned>, "");
static_assert(fun<unsigned>(10.0, 1) == 0, "");
static_assert(
std::is_same_v<decltype(fun<double>(1, 2, 3, 'a', "bbb")), double>, "");
static_assert(fun<double>(1, 2, 3, 'a', "bbb") == 0, "");
static_assert(std::is_same_v<decltype(fun<unsigned>()), unsigned>, "");
static_assert(fun<unsigned>() == 0, "");
Function partial specialization is not yet allowed as per the standard. In the example, you are actually overloading & not specializing the max<T1,T2>
function.
Its syntax should have looked somewhat like below, had it been allowed:
// Partial specialization is not allowed by the spec, though!
template <typename T>
inline T const& max<T,T> (T const& a, T const& b)
{ ^^^^^ <--- [supposed] specializing here
return 10;
}
In the case of a function templates, only full specialization is allowed by the C++ standard, -- excluding the compiler extensions!