https://svn.lrde.epita.fr/svn/oln/trunk/static

ChangeLog | 13 +++++ tests/tour.cc | 126 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 2 files changed, 133 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Index: ChangeLog from Roland Levillain roland@lrde.epita.fr

Document method checks in Static tour.

* tests/tour.cc (static_hierarchy_with_methods::test): Rename as... (static_hierarchy_with_methods::test1): ...this. (main): Adjust. (static_hierarchy_with_methods::D): New. (static_hierarchy_with_methods::test2): New. (static_hierarchy_with_method_checks): New section. Add a reference (Concept Checking).

2006-06-15 Roland Levillain roland@lrde.epita.fr

Index: tests/tour.cc --- tests/tour.cc (révision 503) +++ tests/tour.cc (révision 504) @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ #include <cassert>

#include <mlc/assert.hh> +#include <mlc/contract.hh> #include <mlc/is_a.hh> #include <mlc/cmp.hh>

@@ -394,7 +395,7 @@ namespace static_hierarchy_with_methods {

- void test() + void test1() { C c; assert (c.foo() == 4); @@ -412,20 +413,133 @@ } // end of namespace static_hierarchy_with_methods

-// FIXME: Introduce static checks of methods (kind of concept checking). +// --------------------------- // +// Enforcing method checking. // +// --------------------------- // + +/* For a given `Exact' type, consider the `A<Exact>::foo' method. + This method relies on the fact that `Exact' has an `impl_foo' + method. However, the compiler let you instantiate an a class + `A<Exact>' with an `Exact' type not fulfilling this requirement, + and even worse, you can instantiate an object of this ill-formed + type! The compiler will complain only when it tries to resolve the + call to the (missing) `impl_foo' method. */ + +namespace static_hierarchy_with_methods +{ + + // For instance, let's introduce an ill-formed concrete subclass of A. + struct D : public A<D> + { + // No `impl_foo'. + }; + + /* `D' is not a valid exact type for A. Despite this fact, we can + instantiate this template with `D', as well as an object of this + type! */ + void test2() + { + // Valid (!). + typedef A<D> A_D; + // Equally valid (!). + A_D a; + // This call would fail if it were not disabled. +#if 0 + a.foo(); +#endif + } + +} // end of namespace static_hierarchy_with_methods + + +/* Metalic proposes a concept checking tool similar to the one used in + the Boost Concept Check Library (BCCL) [2], + `mlc_check_method_impl'. We use it to check that SCOOP abstract + polymorphic methods defined in an abstract class have a valid + implementation in one of the subclasses (i.e., "between" this + abstraction and the exact type). */ + +namespace static_hierarchy_with_method_checks +{ + + template <typename Exact> + struct A : public stc::any<Exact> + { + int foo() { return this->exact().impl_foo(); } + int impl_foo() { return 1; } + int bar() { return this->exact().impl_bar(); } + + /* Method checks are placed in the destructor, since they must + reside within a function body. */ + ~A() + { + /* `foo' is abstract in `A'. Ensure A's subclasses define an + implementation for this method. */ + mlc_check_method_impl(Exact, int, bar, /* no arg */, /* no const */); + } + }; + + template <typename Exact> + struct B : public A< stc_find_exact(B, Exact) > + { + int impl_foo() { return 2; } + int impl_bar() { return 3; } + }; + + struct C : public B<C> + { + int impl_foo() { return 4; } + }; + + struct D : public A<D> + { + // No `impl_foo'. + }; + + + void test() + { + /* Invalid template instantiation, because of `impl_foo' missing. + Upon this code, the compiler would emit an error message + similar to this one: + + error: 'impl_bar' is not a member of + 'static_hierarchy_with_method_checks::D' + + */ +#if 0 + typedef A<D> A_D; + A_D a; +#endif + } + +} // end of namespace static_hierarchy_with_method_checks

+ +/*-------. +| Misc. | +`-------*/ + // Run dynamic tests. int main() { static_hierarchy_with_any::test(); - static_hierarchy_with_methods::test(); + static_hierarchy_with_methods::test1(); }

-/* References:

- [1] Coplien, James O. (1995, February). "Curiously Recurring - Template Patterns". C++ Report: 24-27. */ + +/*-------------. +| References. | +`-------------*/ + +/* [1] James O. Coplien. ``Curiously Recurring Template + Patterns''. C++ Report: 24-27. 1995, February. + + [2] Jeremy Siek, Andrew Lumsdaine. ``Concept Checking: Binding + Parametric Polymorphism in C++''. In Proceedings of the ``Workshop + on C++ Template Programming''. 2000. */