TL;DR I want to write a template function Process(T value)
that behaves differently for different values depending on the existence of a non-member function CreateProcessor<T>()
. What can I do for that?
I have a problem with SFINAE. Suppose we need to support function CreateProcessor
that returns an implementation of interface IProcessor<T>
for some type type T
.
In C++ we can't create several overloads of a function that differ only in return type, so we have to make function CreateProcessor
also be template function parametrized by T
.
Now suppose that we want to write a template function Process<T>(T value)
that works differently depending on existence of CreateProcessor<T>()
, namely it should process value
using the processor in case CreateProcessor<T>()
is implemented, otherwise it should result in error.
I attempted to write the following code:
#include <cstdio>
#include <type_traits>
// A workaround for void_t as described here: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/void_t.
template<typename... Ts> struct make_void { typedef void type;};
template<typename... Ts> using void_t = typename make_void<Ts...>::type;
// An interface for a processor that receives a value of specific type.
template<class T>
class IProcessor {
public:
virtual void process(T value) = 0;
};
// A processor for int.
class IntProcessor : public IProcessor<int> {
public:
virtual void process(int value) override {
printf("IntProcessor::process is called for value = %d\n", value);
}
};
// Template prototype.
template<class T>
IProcessor<T>* CreateProcessor();
// Template specialization for int.
template<>
IProcessor<int>* CreateProcessor() {
return new IntProcessor();
}
// Detector of CreateProcessor.
template<class, class=void>
struct CreateProcessorImplemented : std::false_type { };
template<class T>
struct CreateProcessorImplemented<T, void_t<decltype(CreateProcessor<T>())>> : std::true_type { };
// Specializations depending on existence of CreateProcessor.
template <typename T>
typename std::enable_if<CreateProcessorImplemented<T>::value, void>::type Process(T value) {
IProcessor<T>* processor = CreateProcessor<T>();
processor->process(value);
}
template <typename T>
typename std::enable_if<!CreateProcessorImplemented<T>::value, void>::type Process(T value) {
printf("Processor for requested typename is unavailable\n");
}
int main() {
Process(42);
Process("abc");
// static_assert(!CreateProcessorImplemented<char const*>::value, ":(");
/* This static_assert fails with an error:
* code.cpp:56:5: error: static assertion failed: :(
* static_assert(!CreateProcessorImplemented<char const*>::value, ":(");
*/
}
Though this results in linkage error:
/tmp/ccTQRc9N.o:code.cpp:function std::enable_if<CreateProcessorImplemented<char const*, void>::value, void>::type Process<char const*>(char const*): error: undefined reference to 'IProcessor<char const*>* CreateProcessor<char const*>()'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
My idea is that when we resolve CreateProcessorImplemented<char const*>
, decltype(CreateProcessor<const char*>())
doesn't fail because there is a template prototype IProcessor<T> CreateProcessor()
and compiler considers the decltype to be equal to IProcessor<T>
that is somehow logical but not what I need.
One way to make it work is to use wrapper struct to function
CreateProcessor
like this:Alternatively you could remove template declaration and pass the IProcessor template parameter type using function overloadings -- by creating dummy argument: