LUMIERA.clone/src/lib/bool-checkable.hpp
Ichthyostega 08e7e3df15 prefer more readable bool operator spelling
especially the '!' for negation is sometimes too terse
and easily overlooked.
2015-09-25 03:12:04 +02:00

124 lines
4.3 KiB
C++

/*
BOOL-CHECKABLE.hpp - mixin template for defining a safe conversion to bool
Copyright (C) Lumiera.org
2009, Hermann Vosseler <Ichthyostega@web.de>
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of
the License, or (at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
*/
#ifndef LIB_BOOL_CHECKABLE_H
#define LIB_BOOL_CHECKABLE_H
#include <boost/static_assert.hpp>
namespace lib {
namespace imp {
struct Dummy {};
}
/**
* Provide an implicit conversion to "bool".
* Inherit (mix-in) from this template by providing the
* concrete subclass type ("CRTP"). Additionally, to implement
* the specific logic of this bool check, the subclass using this
* template must provide a public function \c isValid()
*
* \par safe bool conversion
* Generally speaking, a direct automatic conversion to bool would be
* a dangerous feature, because bool is considered an "integral type" in C.
* Thus, you'd not only get the ability to write very expressive checks
* like \c if(object) -- you would also get automatic conversions to int
* where you'd never expect them. In C++ there is a well-known idiom to
* circumvent this problem. Unfortunately, this idiom isn't easy to
* grasp, involving the convoluted syntax of member pointers.
* So we try to hide away these details into a mixin.
*
* The idea this implementation is based on is the fact that a
* pointer-to-member is "somewhat a pointer" but not \em really a pointer.
* Similar to a pointer, a member pointer can be \em unbound, and this
* is the property we exploit here. But implementation-wise, a member pointer
* is a type information plus an offset into this type, and thus can't be
* converted to an integral type. Thus, depending on the result of the
* \c isValid() function, the conversion operator returns either a
* bound or unbound member pointer.
*
* @see bool-checkable-test.cpp
* @see control::Mutation usage example
*/
template< class T ///< the target type implementing \c isValid()
, class PAR = imp::Dummy ///< optional parent for inheritance chain
>
struct BoolCheckable
: PAR
{
typedef bool (T::*ValidityCheck)() const;
typedef ValidityCheck _unspecified_bool_type;
/** implicit conversion to "bool" */
operator _unspecified_bool_type() const ///< never throws
{
ValidityCheck isValid (&T::isValid);
T const& obj = static_cast<T const&> (*this);
return (obj.*isValid)()? isValid : 0;
}
bool operator! () const ///< never throws
{
ValidityCheck isValid (&T::isValid);
T const& obj = static_cast<T const&> (*this);
return not (obj.*isValid)();
}
/** safety guard: when this comparison kicks in, the compiler
* is about to use an implicit bool conversion on both sides to
* perform an equality test. This is most likely not what you want.
* Define an explicit equality comparison in the class using BoolCheckable!
*/
friend bool
operator== (BoolCheckable const&, BoolCheckable const&)
{
BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT (false && sizeof(T) );
return false;
}
};
///////////////////////////////////////TICKET #477 : consider alternative safe-bool idiom
// struct _Hidden_type
// {
// _Hidden_type* _M_bool;
// };
//
// /// This typedef is used to implement the safe_bool idiom.
// typedef _Hidden_type* _Hidden_type::* _Safe_bool;
//
// public:
// operator _Safe_bool() const
// {
// return isValid()? &_Hidden_type::_M_bool : 0; }
} // namespace lib
#endif