home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   comp.lang.c++.moderated      Moderated discussion of C++ superhackery      33,346 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 31,788 of 33,346   
   =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel_Kr=FCgler?= to All   
   Re: enable_if and pure virtual functions   
   12 Jan 12 15:08:44   
   
   f2b07020   
   From: daniel.kruegler@googlemail.com   
      
   Am 12.01.2012 20:48, schrieb kelvSYC:   
   > I'm kind of confused on how enable_if and virtual functions work   
   > together.  Suppose you have this:   
   >   
   > (using your favourite implementation of enable_if here)   
   >   
   > template   
   > struct DerivedProperty;   
   >   
   > template   
   > class AbstractBase {    // CRTP, as you can't mix "virtual" and   
   > "function template", it would appear... or can you?   
      
   Yes, you cannot declare a function template that is a virtual function.   
      
   >     virtual enable_if, int>::type doSomething() =   
   > 0;   
   > };   
      
   This is an absolutely useless application of enable_if - and this has nothing   
   to do with virtual functions. In your example the declaration of doSomething()   
   will be instantiated once AbstractBase will be instantiated for some type U   
   making the    
   instantiation of AbstractBase potentially ill-formed (depending on U). The   
   only reason for such a construction would be to act as some convoluted form of   
   static assertion that would better be written as   
      
   template   
   class AbstractBase {   
    static_assert(DerivedProperty::value, "DerivedProperty not satisfied");   
    virtual int doSomething() = 0;   
   };   
      
   instead. If you want to declare a virtual function depending on some   
   constraints, it is better to do that via a base-class switch, e.g.   
      
   template::value>   
   class AbstractBase {   
    virtual int doSomething() = 0;   
   };   
      
   template   
   class AbstractBase {};   
      
   > Also, would something similar apply if the enable_if was instead a   
   > parameter instead of the return type?   
      
   This would not change anything, because in either situation the declaration of   
   the function could be ill-formed.   
      
   HTH & Greetings from Bremen,   
      
   Daniel Krügler   
      
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca