std :: common_type [英] std::common_type

问题描述

我开始看着 std :: common_type ，我不确定其目的和功能。
一些事情仍然让我很奇怪：

I started looking at std::common_type and am not exactly sure about its purpose and its functionality. A few things still strike me as odd:

• 参数顺序很重要： common_type< Foo ，Bar，Baz> 可能不同于 common_type< Baz，Foo，Bar> 。任一可能编译，另一个可能不。虽然从 common_type 的定义清楚，这感觉奇怪和不直观。这是缺乏普遍的解决方案还是打算？


• 实例化可能会导致编译器错误，而不是我可以处理的事情。如何检查 common_type 是否会真正编译？ is_convertible 不够，因为 common_type 可能是专门的？



• 在这种情况下仍然没有办法找出共同类型：

• Order of arguments is important: common_type<Foo, Bar, Baz> might be different from common_type<Baz, Foo, Bar>. Either might compile, the other might not. While this is clear from the way common_type is defined, it feels strange and unintuitive. Is this for lack of a universal solution or intended?
• Instantiation can result in a compiler error instead of something I can handle. How to check if common_type will actually compile? is_convertible is not enough as common_type might be specialized?

• There is still no way to figure out the common type in a situation like this:

struct Baz;
struct Bar { int m; };
struct Foo { int m; }; 
struct Baz { Baz(const Bar&); Baz(const Foo&); };

推荐的解决方案是专门化 common_type 这是乏味的。是否有更好的解决方案？

The recommended solution would be to specialize common_type which is tedious. Is there a better solution?

有关参考，请参阅N3242中的§20.9.7.6Table 57。

For reference see §20.9.7.6 Table 57 in N3242.

推荐答案

std :: common_type 被用于 std： ：duration ---如果添加 std :: duration< int> 和 std :: duration< short> ; ，那么结果应该是 std :: duration< int> 。不是指定允许的配对的无限流，而是决定委托给一个单独的模板，使用适用于？的核心语言规则找到结果： arithmetic-if

std::common_type was introduced for use with std::duration --- if you add a std::duration<int> and a std::duration<short> then the result should be std::duration<int>. Rather than specifying an endless stream of allowed pairings, the decision was made to delegate to a separate template which found the result using the core language rules applicable to the ?: arithmetic-if operator.

然后，人们看到这个模板通常很有用，它被添加为 std :: common_type ，并扩展以处理任意数量的类型。在C ++ 0x库中，它只用于成对的类型。

People then saw that this template might be generally useful, and it was added as std::common_type, and extended to handle an arbitrary number of types. In the C++0x library it is only used for pairs of types though.

你应该能够使用新的SFINAE规则来检测是否有一些实例化 std :: common_type 有效。我没有尝试过。在大多数情况下，如果没有一个共同的类型，那么没有任何有意义的你可以做任何反正，所以编译错误是合理的。

You should be able to use the new SFINAE rules to detect whether or not some instantiation of std::common_type is valid. I haven't tried though. In most cases if there isn't a "common type" then there isn't anything meaningful you can do anyway, so a compile error is reasonable.

std :: common_type 不是魔术 - 它遵循？：的规则。如果 true？a：b 将编译， std :: common_type< decltype（a），decltype（b）> :: type 会给你结果的类型。

std::common_type is not magic --- it follows the rules of ?:. If true?a:b will compile, std::common_type<decltype(a),decltype(b)>::type will give you the type of the result.

这篇关于std :: common_type的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！