Variable number of arguments in C++?
A C++17 solution: full type safety + nice calling syntax
Since the introduction of variadic templates in C++11 and fold expressions in C++17, it is possible to define a template-function which, at the caller site, is callable as if it was a varidic function but with the advantages to:
- be strongly type safe;
- work without the run-time information of the number of arguments, or without the usage of a "stop" argument.
Here is an example for mixed argument types
template<class... Args>
void print(Args... args)
{
(std::cout << ... << args) << "\n";
}
print(1, ':', " Hello", ',', " ", "World!");
And another with enforced type match for all arguments:
#include <type_traits> // enable_if, conjuction
template<class Head, class... Tail>
using are_same = std::conjunction<std::is_same<Head, Tail>...>;
template<class Head, class... Tail, class = std::enable_if_t<are_same<Head, Tail...>::value, void>>
void print_same_type(Head head, Tail... tail)
{
std::cout << head;
(std::cout << ... << tail) << "\n";
}
print_same_type("2: ", "Hello, ", "World!"); // OK
print_same_type(3, ": ", "Hello, ", "World!"); // no matching function for call to 'print_same_type(int, const char [3], const char [8], const char [7])'
// print_same_type(3, ": ", "Hello, ", "World!");
^
More information:
- Variadic templates, also known as parameter pack Parameter pack(since C++11) - cppreference.com.
- Fold expressions fold expression(since C++17) - cppreference.com.
- See a full program demonstration on coliru.
In C++11 you have two new options, as the Variadic arguments reference page in the Alternatives section states:
- Variadic templates can also be used to create functions that take variable number of arguments. They are often the better choice because they do not impose restrictions on the types of the arguments, do not perform integral and floating-point promotions, and are type safe. (since C++11)
- If all variable arguments share a common type, a std::initializer_list provides a convenient mechanism (albeit with a different syntax) for accessing variable arguments.
Below is an example showing both alternatives (see it live):
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <initializer_list>
template <typename T>
void func(T t)
{
std::cout << t << std::endl ;
}
template<typename T, typename... Args>
void func(T t, Args... args) // recursive variadic function
{
std::cout << t <<std::endl ;
func(args...) ;
}
template <class T>
void func2( std::initializer_list<T> list )
{
for( auto elem : list )
{
std::cout << elem << std::endl ;
}
}
int main()
{
std::string
str1( "Hello" ),
str2( "world" );
func(1,2.5,'a',str1);
func2( {10, 20, 30, 40 }) ;
func2( {str1, str2 } ) ;
}
If you are using gcc or clang we can use the PRETTY_FUNCTION magic variable to display the type signature of the function which can be helpful in understanding what is going on. For example using:
std::cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << ": " << t <<std::endl ;
would results int following for variadic functions in the example (see it live):
void func(T, Args...) [T = int, Args = <double, char, std::basic_string<char>>]: 1
void func(T, Args...) [T = double, Args = <char, std::basic_string<char>>]: 2.5
void func(T, Args...) [T = char, Args = <std::basic_string<char>>]: a
void func(T) [T = std::basic_string<char>]: Hello
In Visual Studio you can use FUNCSIG.
Update Pre C++11
Pre C++11 the alternative for std::initializer_list would be std::vector or one of the other standard containers:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
template <class T>
void func1( std::vector<T> vec )
{
for( typename std::vector<T>::iterator iter = vec.begin(); iter != vec.end(); ++iter )
{
std::cout << *iter << std::endl ;
}
}
int main()
{
int arr1[] = {10, 20, 30, 40} ;
std::string arr2[] = { "hello", "world" } ;
std::vector<int> v1( arr1, arr1+4 ) ;
std::vector<std::string> v2( arr2, arr2+2 ) ;
func1( v1 ) ;
func1( v2 ) ;
}
and the alternative for variadic templates would be variadic functions although they are not type-safe and in general error prone and can be unsafe to use but the only other potential alternative would be to use default arguments, although that has limited use. The example below is a modified version of the sample code in the linked reference:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <cstdarg>
void simple_printf(const char *fmt, ...)
{
va_list args;
va_start(args, fmt);
while (*fmt != '\0') {
if (*fmt == 'd') {
int i = va_arg(args, int);
std::cout << i << '\n';
} else if (*fmt == 's') {
char * s = va_arg(args, char*);
std::cout << s << '\n';
}
++fmt;
}
va_end(args);
}
int main()
{
std::string
str1( "Hello" ),
str2( "world" );
simple_printf("dddd", 10, 20, 30, 40 );
simple_printf("ss", str1.c_str(), str2.c_str() );
return 0 ;
}
Using variadic functions also comes with restrictions in the arguments you can pass which is detailed in the draft C++ standard in section 5.2.2 Function call paragraph 7:
When there is no parameter for a given argument, the argument is passed in such a way that the receiving function can obtain the value of the argument by invoking va_arg (18.7). The lvalue-to-rvalue (4.1), array-to-pointer (4.2), and function-to-pointer (4.3) standard conversions are performed on the argument expression. After these conversions, if the argument does not have arithmetic, enumeration, pointer, pointer to member, or class type, the program is ill-formed. If the argument has a non-POD class type (clause 9), the behavior is undefined. [...]
You probably shouldn't, and you can probably do what you want to do in a safer and simpler way. Technically to use variable number of arguments in C you include stdarg.h. From that you'll get the va_list type as well as three functions that operate on it called va_start(), va_arg() and va_end().
#include<stdarg.h>
int maxof(int n_args, ...)
{
va_list ap;
va_start(ap, n_args);
int max = va_arg(ap, int);
for(int i = 2; i <= n_args; i++) {
int a = va_arg(ap, int);
if(a > max) max = a;
}
va_end(ap);
return max;
}
If you ask me, this is a mess. It looks bad, it's unsafe, and it's full of technical details that have nothing to do with what you're conceptually trying to achieve. Instead, consider using overloading or inheritance/polymorphism, builder pattern (as in operator<<() in streams) or default arguments etc. These are all safer: the compiler gets to know more about what you're trying to do so there are more occasions it can stop you before you blow your leg off.