• <ins id="pjuwb"></ins>
    <blockquote id="pjuwb"><pre id="pjuwb"></pre></blockquote>
    <noscript id="pjuwb"></noscript>
          <sup id="pjuwb"><pre id="pjuwb"></pre></sup>
            <dd id="pjuwb"></dd>
            <abbr id="pjuwb"></abbr>

            isware

            A Description of the C++ typename keyword

            from http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~driscoll/typename.html
            The purpose of this document is to describe the reasoning behind the inclusion of the typename keyword in standard C++, and explain where, when, and how it can and can't be used.

            A secondary use

            There is a use of typename that is entirely distinct from the main focus of this discussion. I will present it first because it is easy. It seems to me that someone said "hey, since we're adding typename anyway, why not make it do this" and people said "that's a good idea."

            Most older C++ books, when discussing templates, use the following type of example:

            template <class T> ...

            I know when I was starting to learn templates, at first I was a little thrown by the fact that T was prefaced by class, and yet it was possible to instantiate that template with primitive types such as int. The confusion was very short-lived, but the use of class in that context never seemed to fit entirely right. Fortunately for my sensibilities, it is also possible to use typename:

            template <typename T> ...

            This means exactly the same thing as the previous instance. The typename and class keywords can be used interchangeably to state that a template parameter is a type variable (as opposed to a non-type template parameter).

            I personally like to use typename in this context because I think it's ever so slightly clearer. And maybe not so much "clearer" as just conceptually nicer. (I think that good names for things are very important.) Some C++ programmers share my view, and use typename for templates. (However, later we will see how it's possible that this decision can hurt readibility.) Some programmers make a distinction between templates that are fully generic (such as the STL containers) and more special purpose ones that can only take certain classes, and use typename for the former category and class for the latter. Others use class exclusively. This is just a style choice.

            However, while I use typename in real code, I will stick to class in this document to reduce confusion with the other use of typename.

            The real reason for typename

            This discussion I think follows fairly closely appendix B from the book C++ Template Metaprogramming: Concepts, Tools, and Techniques from Boost and Beyond by David Abrahams and Aleksey Gurtovoy, though I don't have it in front of me now. If there are any deficiencies in my discussion of the issues, that book contains the clearest description of them that I've seen.

            Some definitions

            There are two key concepts needed to understand the description of typename, and they are qualified and dependent names.

            Qualified and unqualified names

            A qualified name is one that specifies a scope. For instance, in the following C++ program, the references to cout and endl are qualified names:

            #include <iostream>  int main()  {    std::cout %lt;%lt; "Hello world!" %lt;%lt; std:: endl; }

            In both cases, the use of cout and endl began with std::.

            Had I decided to bring cout and endl into scope with a using declaration or directive*, they would have been unqualified names, because they would lack the std::.

            (* Remember, a using declaration is like using std::cout;, and actually introduces the name cout into the scope that the using appears in. A using directive is of the form using namespace std; and makes names visible but doesn't introduce anything. [12/23/07 -- I'm not sure this is true. Just a warning.])

            Note, however, that if I had brought them into scope with using but still used std::cout, it remains a qualified name. The qualified-ness of a name has nothing to do with what scope it's used in, what names are visible at that point of the program etc.; it is solely a statement about the name that was used to reference the entity in question. (Also note that there's nothing special about std, or indeed about namespaces at all. vector<int>::iterator is a nested name as well.)

            Dependent and non-dependent names

            A dependent name is a name that depends on a template parameter. Suppose we have the following declaration (not legal C++):

            template <class T> class MyClass {    int i;    vector<int> vi;    vector<int>::iterator vitr;        T t;    vector<T> vt;    vector<T>::iterator viter; };

            The types of the first three declarations are known at the time of the template declaration. However, the types of the second set of three declarations are not known until the point of instantiation, because they depend on the template parameter T.

            The names T, vector<T>, and vector<T>::iterator are called dependent names, and the types they name are dependent types. The names used in the first three declarations are called non-dependent names, at the types are non-dependent types.

            The final complication in what's considered dependent is that typedefs transfer the quality of being dependent. For instance:

            typedef T another_name_for_T;

            another_name_for_T is still considered a dependent name despite the type variable T from the template declaration not appearing.

            Note: I am not very familiar with the notion of dependent types in the type theory sense, but they are not quite the same thing in any case. My impression is that you could probably argue a C++ template itself is a dependent type in the type-theoretical sense, but the C++ notion of a dependent type is more like the argument to a dependent type in the type-theoretical sense.

            Some other issues of wording

            Note that while there is a notion of a dependent type, there is not a notion of a qualified type. A type can be unqualified in one instance, and qualified the next; the qualification is a property of a particular naming of a type, not of the type itself. (Indeed, when a type is first defined, it is always unqualified.)

            However, it will be useful to refer to a qualified type; what I mean by this is a qualified name that refers to a type. I will switch back to the more precise wording when I talk about the rules of typename.

            The problem

            So now we can consider the following example:

            template <class T> void foo() {    T::iterator * iter;    ... }

            What did the programmer intend this bit of code to do? Probably, what the programmer intended was for there to be a class that defined a nested type called iterator:

            class ContainsAType {    class iterator { ... }:    ... };

            and for foo to be called with an instantiation of T being that type:

            foo<ContainsAType>();

            In that case, then line 3 would be a declaration of a variable called iter that would be a pointer to an object of type T::iterator (in the case of ContainsAType, int*, making iter a double-indirection pointer to an int). So far so good.

            However, what the programmer didn't expect is for someone else to come up and declare the following class:

            class ContainsAValue {    static int iterator; };

            and call foo instantiated with it:

            foo<ContainsAValue>();

            In this case, line 3 becomes a statement that evaluates an expression which is the product of two things: a variable called iter (which may be undeclared or may be a name of a global) and the static variable T::iterator.

            Uh oh! The same series of tokens can be parsed in two entirely different ways, and there's no way to disambiguate them until instantiation. C++ frowns on this situation. Rather than delaying interpretation of the tokens until instantiation, they change the languge:

            Before a qualified dependent type, you need typename

            To be legal, assuming the programmer intended line 3 as a declaration, they would have to write

            template <class T> void foo() {    typename T::iterator * iter;    ... }

            Without typename, there is a C++ parsing rule that says that qualified dependent names should be parsed as non-types even if it leads to a syntax error. Thus if there was a variable called iter in scope, the example would be legal; it would just be interpreted as multiplication. Then when the programmer instantiated foo with ContainsAType, there would be an error because you can't multiply something by a type.

            typename states that the name that follows should be treated as a type. Otherwise, names are interpreted to refer to non-types.

            This rule even holds if it doesn't make sense even if it doesn't make sense to refer to a non-type. For instance, suppose we were to do something more typical and declare an iterator instead of a pointer to an iterator:

            template <class T> void foo() {    typename T::iterator iter;    ... }

            Even in this case, typename is required, and omitting it will cause compile error. As another example, typedefs also require use:

            template <class T> void foo() {    typedef typename T::iterator iterator_type;    ... }

            posted on 2011-06-28 17:17 艾斯維亞 閱讀(271) 評論(0)  編輯 收藏 引用

            国内精品人妻无码久久久影院导航 | 一本久久免费视频| 色99久久久久高潮综合影院| 欧美精品乱码99久久蜜桃| 久久精品国产一区二区三区日韩| 久久精品国产第一区二区| 久久久久久午夜成人影院| 久久精品国产亚洲7777| 精品久久久久久无码专区| 人妻无码精品久久亚瑟影视| 国内精品伊人久久久久av一坑| 午夜精品久久久久久久无码| 国产欧美一区二区久久| 久久精品中文无码资源站| 国产精品综合久久第一页| 久久亚洲AV成人无码电影| 久久综合鬼色88久久精品综合自在自线噜噜 | 久久国产色AV免费观看| 欧美久久天天综合香蕉伊| 91性高湖久久久久| 成人久久综合网| 久久亚洲精精品中文字幕| 麻豆久久久9性大片| 人妻系列无码专区久久五月天| 久久国产精品久久久| 人妻无码中文久久久久专区| 四虎国产精品成人免费久久 | 色欲av伊人久久大香线蕉影院| 中文字幕无码久久精品青草| 久久免费观看视频| 一本久久a久久精品综合香蕉| 午夜精品久久影院蜜桃| 性做久久久久久久久老女人 | 久久99免费视频| 91亚洲国产成人久久精品网址| 亚洲国产精品久久久久婷婷软件 | 久久精品国产精品亚洲艾草网美妙| 97超级碰碰碰碰久久久久| 久久国产精品免费| 思思久久99热只有频精品66| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片AV不 |