// 这是我在cpptips网站的邮件列表看到, 收藏先! :-)
TITLE: befriending a template in another namespace
(Source: comp.lang.c++.moderated, 6 Oct 2002)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarification: the code in a C++ tip does not imply that I think the code
exhibits good programming practice or is of production quality, only that
there is worthwhile technical content. For past tips, see
http://cpptips.hyperformix.com -Allan
"Need help meeting a development deadline? See our corporate sponsor ProSpring
Technical Staffing at http://www.prospring.net"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Snip]
AUTHOR: Herb Sutter (www.gotw.ca)
There have been several answers to this question, but they're not quite
right. This is an interesting question, so let me try to treat in a little
more depth.
Befriending Templates
---------------------
Say we have a function template that does SomethingPrivate() to the objects
it operates on. In particular, consider the boost::checked_delete() function
template, which deletes the object it's given -- among other things, it
invokes the object's destructor:
namespace boost {
template<typename T> void checked_delete( T* x ) {
// ... other stuff ...
delete x;
}
}
Now, say you want to use this function template with a class where the
operation in question (here the destructor) happens to be private:
// Example 1: No friends
//
class Test {
~Test() { } // private!
};
Test* t = new Test;
boost::checked_delete( t ); // ERROR: Test's destructor is private,
// so checked_delete can't call it.
The solution is dead simple: Just make checked_delete() a friend of Test.
(The only other option is to give up and make Test's destructor public.)
The reason that I'm writing an article about it is because, alas,
befriending a template in another namespace is easier said than done:
- The Bad News: There are two perfectly good standards-conforming
ways to do it, and neither one works on all current compilers.
- The Good News: One of the perfectly good standards-conforming ways
does work on every current compiler I tried except for gcc.
The Original Attempt
--------------------
Here's the original code:
Stephan Born <[email protected]> wrote [edited]:
// Example 2: One way to grant friendship (?)
//
class Test {
~Test() { }
friend void boost::checked_delete( Test* x );
};
Alas, this code didn't work on the poster's compiler (VC++ 6.0). In fact, it
fails on quite a few compilers. In brief, Example 2's friend declaration:
- is technically legal but relies on a dark corner of the language
- is rejected by many current compilers, including very good ones
- is easily fixed to not rely on dark corners and work on all but one
current compiler (gcc)
Why It's Legal but Dark
-----------------------
When declaring friends, there are four options (enumerated in the C++
standard, clause 14.5.3). They boil down to this:
When you declare a friend without saying the keyword "template" anywhere:
1. IF the name of the friend looks like the name of a template
specialization with explicit template arguments (e.g., Name<SomeType>)
THEN the friend is the indicated specialization of that template
2. ELSE IF the name of the friend is qualified with a class or namespace
name (e.g., Some::Name) AND that class or namespace contains a
matching non-template function
THEN the friend is that function
3. ELSE IF the name of the friend is qualified with a class or namespace
name (e.g., Some::Name) AND that class or namespace contains a
matching function template (deducing appropriate template parameters)
THEN the friend is that function template specialization
4. ELSE the name must be unqualified and declare (or redeclare) an
ordinary (non-template) function.
Clearly #2 and #4 only match nontemplates, so to declare the template
specialization as a friend we have two choices: Write something that puts us
into bucket #1, or write something that puts us into bucket #3. In our
example, the options are:
// The original code, legal because it falls into bucket #3
//
friend void boost::checked_delete( Test* x );
or
// Adding "<Test>", legal because it falls into bucket #1
//
friend void boost::checked_delete<Test>( Test* x );
The first is shorthand for the second... but ONLY IF the name is qualified
(here by "boost::") AND there's no matching nontemplate function in the same
indicated scope. This dark corner of the friend declaration rules is
sufficiently surprising to people -- and to most current compilers! -- that
I will propose no fewer than three reasons to avoid using it.
Why To Avoid Bucket #3
----------------------
There are several reasons to avoid bucket #3, even though it's technically
legal:
1. Bucket #3 doesn't always work.
As noted above, it's a shorthand for explicitly naming the template
arguments in angle brackets, but the shorthand works only if the name is
qualified and the indicated class or namespace does not also contain a
matching nontemplate function.
In particular, if the namespace has (or later gets) a matching nontemplate
function, that would get chosen instead because the presence of a
nontemplate function means bucket #2 preempts #3. Kind of subtle and
surprising, isn't it? Kind of easy to mistake, isn't it? Let's avoid such
subtleties.
2. Bucket #3 is a really edgy case, fragile and surprising to most PEOPLE
reading your code.
For example, consider this very slight variant -- all that I've changed is
to remove the qualification "boost":
// Variant: Make the name unqualified
//
class Test {
~Test() { }
friend void checked_delete( Test* x ); // OUCH: Legal, but not what you
}; // want. More about this later.
If you omit "boost::" (i.e., if the call is unqualified), you fall into a
completely different bucket, namely #4 which cannot match a function
template at all, ever, not even with pretty please. I'll bet you dollars to
donuts that just about everyone on our beautiful planet will agree with me
that it's Pretty Surprising that just omitting a namespace name changes the
meaning of the friend declaration so drastically. Let's avoid such edgy
constructs.
3. Bucket #3 is a really edgy case, fragile and surprising to most COMPILERS
reading your code.
Let's try the two options, bucket #1 and bucket #3, on a wide range of
current compilers and see what they think. Will the compilers understand the
standard as well as we do (having read the above)? Will at least all the
strongest compilers do what we expect? No, and no, respectively.
Let's try bucket #3 first:
// Example 2 again
//
namespace boost {
template<typename T> void checked_delete( T* x ) {
// ... other stuff ...
delete x;
}
}
class Test {
~Test() { }
friend void boost::checked_delete( Test* x ); the // original code
};
<richard-dawson-voice>
Survey SAAAAAYS:
</richard-dawson-voice>
Borland 5.5 OK
Comeau 4.3.01 OK
EDG 3.0.1 OK
gcc 2.95.3 ERROR `boost::checked_delete(Test *)' should have
been declared inside `boost'
gcc 3.1.1 ERROR `void boost::checked_delete(Test*)' should
have been declared inside `boost'
gcc 3.2 ERROR `void boost::checked_delete(Test*)' should
have been declared inside `boost'
Intel 6.0.1 OK
Metrowerks 8.2 ERROR friend void boost::checked_delete( Test* x );
name has not been declared in namespace/class
MS VC++ 6.0 ERROR nonexistent function 'boost::checked_delete'
specified as friend
MS VC++ 7.0 OK
MS VC++ 7.1beta ERROR 'boost::checked_delete' : not a function
For MS VC++ 6.0, the error is what the original poster reported. But you'll
get the same (or similar) error on some pretty strong and conformant
compilers, including Metrowerks 8.2, g++ 3.2, and MS VC++ 7.1. (All of these
versions were released, or went into beta, in the past month or two.)
By the way, it shouldn't surprise us that Comeau, EDG, and Intel all agree,
because they're all based on the EDG C++ language implementation. If we
collapse the list so we count only distinct compiler implementations (i.e.,
all of the ones that use EDG are the same code base), and take the latest of
each, it looks more like this:
Borland OK
EDG-based compilers OK
gcc (all versions) ERROR
Metrowerks ERROR
MS VC++ ERROR
So, in short, most C++ language implementations don't accept this version.
Let's try writing it the other standards-conforming way, for bucket #1:
// Example 3: The other way to declare friendship
//
namespace boost {
template<typename T> void checked_delete( T* x ) {
// ... other stuff ...
delete x;
}
}
class Test {
~Test() { }
friend void boost::checked_delete<Test>( Test* x );
};
<richard-dawson-voice>
Survey SAAAAAYS:
</richard-dawson-voice>
Borland 5.5 OK
Comeau 4.3.01 OK
EDG 3.0.1 OK
gcc 2.95.3 ERROR `boost::checked_delete(Test *)' should have
been declared inside `boost'
gcc 3.1.1 ERROR `void boost::checked_delete(Test*)' should
have been declared inside `boost'
gcc 3.2 ERROR `void boost::checked_delete(Test*)' should
have been declared inside `boost'
Intel 6.0.1 OK
Metrowerks 8.2 OK
MS VC++ 6.0 ERROR nonexistent function 'boost::checked_delete'
specified as friend
MS VC++ 7.0 OK
MS VC++ 7.1beta OK
If we collapse the list so that we count only distinct compiler
implementations (i.e., all of the ones that use EDG are the same code base),
and take the latest of each, it looks more like this:
Borland OK
EDG-based compilers OK
gcc (all versions) ERROR
Metrowerks OK
MS VC++ 7.0 & higher OK
Bucket #1 sure feels safer -- this works on every current compiler except
gcc, and every older compiler except MS VC++ 6.0. (This might not be the
most useful answer for the OP, who is using MS VC++ 6.0 which offers no way
to declare the friend; that is why the options for him are to make the
destructor public, or to add "<Test>" and use MS VC++ 7.x.)
Aside: It's the Namespace That's Confusing Them
-----------------------------------------------
Note that if the function template we're trying to befriend wasn't in a
different namespace, then we could use bucket #1 correctly today on all
these compilers:
// Example 4: If only checked_delete weren't in a namespace...
//
template<typename T> void checked_delete( T* x ) { // no longer in boost::
// ... other stuff ...
delete x;
}
class Test {
friend void checked_delete<Test>( Test* x ); // no longer need "boost::"
};
<richard-dawson-voice>
Survey SAAAAAYS:
</richard-dawson-voice>
Borland 5.5 OK
Comeau 4.3.01 OK
EDG 3.0.1 OK
gcc 2.95.3 OK
gcc 3.1.1 OK
gcc 3.2 OK
Intel 6.0.1 OK
Metrowerks 8.2 OK
MS VC++ 6.0 ERROR (emits a syntax error, just can't handle it)
MS VC++ 7.0 OK
MS VC++ 7.1beta OK
So the problem on most compilers that can't handle Example 2 is specifically
declaring friendship for a function template specialization _in another
namespace_. (Whew. Say that three times fast.) Alas, the poster's compiler,
MS VC++ 6.0, can't handle even this simpler case.
Summary
-------
The above demonstrates a pretty high portability price to pay for not just
writing "<Test>" as in Example 3.
Guideline: When you make a function template specialization a friend
of a class template, always explicitly write the function
template specialization's name including the template
arguments. For example:
namespace boost {
template<typename T> void checked_delete( T* x ) { }
}
class Test {
friend void boost::checked_delete ( Test* x ); // BAD
friend void boost::checked_delete<Test>( Test* x ); // GOOD
};
If your compiler doesn't allow either of these legal alternatives for the
friend declaration yet, however, you'll have to make the necessary
function(s) public -- but add a comment saying why, and make a note to
change it back to private as soon as you upgrade your compiler.[1]
Coda: Notes About Previous Responses
------------------------------------
One of the previously posted responses said the following:
>yes, its a bug. get along with a using:
Yes, it is a bug -- in most current compilers, including highly-regarded
ones. It's a dark corner, and we shouldn't rely on it.
The code proposed by the above respondent boils down to writing a
using-declaration (or equivalently a using-directive) and making the call
unqualified:
namespace boost {
template<typename T> void checked_delete( T* x ) { }
}
using boost::checked_delete; // must appear here, not in Test
// "using namespace boost;" works too
class Test {
friend void checked_delete( Test* x ); // unqualified call -- but NOT
}; // the template specialization!
The above friend declaration falls into bucket #4 above:
4. ELSE the name must be unqualified and declare (or redeclare) an
ordinary (non-template) function.
Yes, it is indeed unqualified. But it doesn't mean what that poster thought
it means (and in fact it works equally well without the "using"): What the
friend declaration is in fact doing is declaring a brand-new ordinary
non-template function at the enclosing namespace scope called
::checked_delete( Test * ).
If you try the above code, many compilers will reject it saying that
checked_delete() hasn't been defined, and all compilers will reject it if
you actually try to make use of the friendship and put a private member
access call into the boost::checked_delete() template.
The other response was:
>As a work-around, try declaring & defining an overloaded
>checked_delete for test.
The suggested code is:
namespace boost {
template<typename T> void checked_delete( T* x ) { }
}
class Test;
void checked_delete( Test* x ) { boost::checked_delete( x ); }
class Test {
friend void checked_delete( Test* x );
};
This is legal code accepted by all the above compilers, but it doesn't do
what the original poster was asking for, to wit: It does not make the
boost::checked_delete<Test>() internals able to call private members of
class Test.
[1] There are other workarounds, but they're all much more cumbersome. For
example, you could create a proxy class inside namespace boost and befriend
that.
|
本类阅读TOP10