I found this implementation of a few common features of functional programming, e.g. map / reduce: (I'm aware stuff like that is aparently coming or partially present in new C++ versions)
A part of the code:
template <typename T, typename U>
U foldLeft(const std::vector<T>& data,
const U& initialValue,
const std::function<U(U,T)>& foldFn) {
typedef typename std::vector<T>::const_iterator Iterator;
U accumulator = initialValue;
Iterator end = data.cend();
for (Iterator it = data.cbegin(); it != end; ++it) {
accumulator = foldFn(accumulator, *it);
}
return accumulator;
}
template <typename T, typename U>
std::vector<U> map(const std::vector<T>& data, const std::function<U(T)> mapper) {
std::vector<U> result;
foldLeft<T, std::vector<U>&>(data, result, [mapper] (std::vector<U>& res, T value) -> std::vector<U>& {
res.push_back(mapper(value));
return res;
});
return result;
}
Usage example:
std::vector<int> biggerInts = map<int,int>(test, [] (int num) { return num + 10; });
The type arguments T,U have to be fully qualified for this to compile, as shown in the example, with e.g. map< int,int >( ... ). This implementation is for C++11, as mentioned on the linked-to page.
Is it possible with newer C++ versions (or even 11) now to make the use of this less verbose, i.e. making the types U,T deduce automatically? I have googled for that and only found that there is apparently some improvement for class template, as opposed to function template, argument deduction in C++17. But since I only ever used templates in a rather basic manner, I was wondering whether there is something in existence that I'm not aware of which could improve this implementation verboseness-wise.
More general templates make template argument deduction easier.
One principle: it is often a mistake to use a std::function as a templated function's parameter. std::function is a type erasure, for use when something needs to store some unknown invokable thing as a specific type. But templates already have the ability to handle any arbitrary invokable type. So if we just use a generic typename FuncT template parameter, it can be deduced for a raw pointer-to-function, a lambda, or another class with operator() directly.
We might as well also get more general and accept any input container instead of just vector, then determine T from it, if it's even directly needed.
So for C++11 I would rewrite these:
// C++20 is adding std::remove_cvref, but it's trivial to implement:
template <typename T>
using remove_cvref_t =
typename std::remove_cv<typename std::remove_reference<T>::type>::type;
template <typename Container, typename U, typename FuncT>
remove_cvref_t<U> foldLeft(
const Container& data,
U&& initialValue,
const FuncT& foldFn) {
remove_cvref_t<U> accumulator = std::forward<U>(initialValue);
for (const auto& elem : data) {
accumulator = foldFn(std::move(accumulator), elem);
}
return accumulator;
}
template <typename Container, typename FuncT>
auto map(const Container& data, const FuncT& mapper)
-> std::vector<remove_cvref_t<decltype(mapper(*std::begin(data)))>>
{
using T = remove_cvref_t<decltype(*std::begin(data))>;
using ResultT = std::vector<remove_cvref_t<decltype(mapper(std::declval<const T&>()))>>;
ResultT result;
foldLeft(data, std::ref(result), [&mapper] (ResultT &res, const T& value) -> ResultT& {
res.push_back(mapper(value));
return res;
});
return result;
}
See the working program on coliru.
There was one unfortunate thing about the old map: it potentially copied the result vector at every iteration. The = in accumulator = foldFn(accumulator, *it); is a self-assignment, which might do nothing, or might allocate new memory, copy contents, then free the old memory and update the container. So instead I've changed the U for foldLeft in this case to a std::reference_wrapper. The = in that case will still "rebind" the wrapper to the same object, but that will at least be quick.
In C++14 and later, you could do away with finding T within map by using a generic lambda: [&mapper] (std::vector<U>& res, const auto& value) ...