Comments on: Function Templates Partial Specialization in C++

By: Jonathan Boccara

Jonathan Boccara — Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:54:00 +0000

In reply to Pablo Hdez. Hey Pablo, I can't see why not, because Foo would be a different type than Foo<vector,V>. Do you see an issue with this? And did I understand the question well? :)

By: Pablo Hdez

Pablo Hdez — Thu, 15 Nov 2018 14:41:00 +0000

Hey Jonathan, great post. Do you think Simon Brand approach could be expanded for the case that instead of:

   
    std::vector

we have a type with multiple parameters: Foo?

By: Владимир Невзоров

Владимир Невзоров — Mon, 25 Jun 2018 18:06:00 +0000

Thank you for the post!
Althought I’m juniour developer, I understood many things from here.
But the part with a technique that Simon Brand proposed was pretty difficult for me.
The reasons I suppose that:
1. It didn’t make sense for me why do we need this.
2. Code is presented. But examples of the usage are not. Unfortunately…

By: Jonathan Boccara

Jonathan Boccara — Wed, 16 Aug 2017 17:14:00 +0000

In reply to Daniel Houck. Oh right! Yes you're absolutely right. I fixed it now, well spotted!

By: Amir Shrestha

Amir Shrestha — Tue, 15 Aug 2017 21:29:00 +0000

Chapter 13 (Partial Specialization of Function Templates) from the book C++ Templates: The Complete Guide touches little on this topic. May be the new second edition of this book covers more on this topic …

By: Daniel Houck

Daniel Houck — Tue, 15 Aug 2017 20:23:00 +0000

In reply to Jonathan Boccara. No, that renders correctly; I meant the other two, which seem to be missing their parameter lists though. For example, #1 reads as

template void f(T ); // #1

which doesn’t have the `typename T` part. I believe you meant


template <typename T> void f(T ); // #1
template <typename T> void f(T* ); // #2
template <> void f<>(int* ); // #3

and


template <typename T> void f(T ); // #1
template <> void f<>(int* ); // #3
template <typename T> void f(T* ); // #2

(I don’t know why it’s highlighting that as though everything but the first line is still a comment) Clang agrees; when I use my versions I get the results you specified (e.g. here); when I use the versions I copied I get compiler errors because it doesn’t know what `T` is.

By: Jonathan Boccara

Jonathan Boccara — Tue, 15 Aug 2017 20:01:00 +0000

In reply to Daniel Houck. Hey Daniel, I'm glad you liked the post. I'm not sure I can see the template parameters improperly formatted, is this the line


template  void f(int* ); // #3

that you're talking about?

By: Daniel Houck

Daniel Houck — Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:23:00 +0000

Thank you for writing this! By coincidence I was looking for this information shortly before you wrote the previous post in the series, so you have nice timing as well as good content.

The one issue I see is that I think your last two code snippets were improperly escaped; could you check those? Some template parameter lists look like they were eaten as unknown HTML tags.