I have a problem in my application where I'd like to assert that a function application would be rejected by the compiler. Is there a way to check this with SFINAE?
For example, assume that I'd like to validate that std::transform
to a const
range is illegal. Here's what I have so far:
#include <algorithm>
#include <functional>
#include <iostream>
namespace ns
{
using std::transform;
template<typename Iterator1, typename Iterator2, typename UnaryFunction>
struct valid_transform
{
static Iterator1 first1, last1;
static Iterator2 first2;
static UnaryFunction f;
typedef Iterator2 yes_type;
typedef struct {yes_type array[2];} no_type;
static no_type transform(...);
static bool const value = sizeof(transform(first1, last1, first2, f)) == sizeof(yes_type);
};
}
int main()
{
typedef int *iter1;
typedef const int *iter2;
typedef std::negate<int> func;
std::cout << "valid transform compiles: " << ns::valid_transform<iter1,iter1,func>::value << std::endl;
std::cout << "invalid transform compiles: " << ns::valid_transform<iter1,iter2,func>::value << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Unfortunately, my trait rejects both the legal and the illegal cases. The result:
$ g++ valid_transform.cpp
$ ./a.out
valid transform compiles: 0
invalid transform compiles: 0
Your question is similar to SFINAE + sizeof = detect if expression compiles.
Summary of that answer: sizeof
evaluates the type of the expression passed to it, including instantiating a function template, but it does not generate a function call. This is the reason behind Lol4t0's observations that sizeof(std::transform(iter1(), iter1(), iter2(), func()))
compiles even if std::transform(iter1(), iter1(), iter2(), func())
does not.
Your concrete problem can be solved by evaluating the template from Lol4t0's answer for any output range that is to be supplied to std::transform
. However, the general problem of verifying in a template that a function call will compile appears to be impossible to be solved with the sizeof + SFINAE
trick. (it would require a compile-time expression that is derivable from a run-time function call).
You might want to try ConceptGCC to see if this allows you to express the requisite compile-time checking in a more convenient way.