digitalmars.D - Mixin replacement for switch...case?
- "Jerome" <jerome.spamable yahoo.com> Oct 22 2012
- "Jerome" <jerome.spamable yahoo.com> Oct 23 2012
- Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> Oct 23 2012
- "Jerome" <jerome.spamable yahoo.com> Oct 23 2012
- "Daniel =?UTF-8?B?S296w6FrIg==?= <kozzi11 gmail.com> Oct 23 2012
- "Jerome" <jerome.spamable yahoo.com> Oct 23 2012
- Philippe Sigaud <philippe.sigaud gmail.com> Oct 23 2012
- "Jerome" <jerome.spamable yahoo.com> Oct 24 2012
- "Jerome" <jerome.spamable yahoo.com> Oct 24 2012
- Philippe Sigaud <philippe.sigaud gmail.com> Oct 24 2012
- Philippe Sigaud <philippe.sigaud gmail.com> Oct 24 2012
- Philippe Sigaud <philippe.sigaud gmail.com> Oct 24 2012
Hi!
This is a question from a complete newbie.
Is there a way to replace switch...case statements by a mixin
template, maybe a variadic mixin template (does such a thing
exist?).
What I would want to achieve is to have this kind of syntax:
mixin Select!(value,
if0, { then0(); },
if1, { then1(); },
if2, { foo(); bar(); },
{ thenDefault(); }
);
to replace this:
switch(value) {
case if0 : { then0(); } break;
case if1 : { then1(); } break;
case if2 : { foo(); bar(); } break;
default : thenDefault();
}
The reason I ask this is because I almost never use fall through
and the verbosity of the switch statement has been driving me
crazy.
Oct 22 2012
No answer. Should I assume that it is not possible? That's something that could be done in C with a simple macro. I really would like to know to what extent mixins are a replacement for C macros for generating boilerplate code.
Oct 23 2012
Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> On 10/23/2012 11:47 AM, Jerome wrote:No answer. Should I assume that it is not possible?
If you like to be mistaken, feel free to do that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29That's something that could be done in C with a simple macro. I really would like to know to what extent mixins are a replacement for C macros for generating boilerplate code.
Use string mixins and templates for that if you have to. They are better suited for code generation than C macros. If your goal is to obfuscate the program, C macros will help you more.
Oct 23 2012
OK. I have done my homework and answered my own question based on
the Duff's Device example in the Language Reference page for
Mixins.
The solution (not variadic though) would be:
mixin template Select!(alias value,
alias if0, alias then0,
alias if1, alias then1,
alias if2, alias then2,
alias thenDefault)
{
switch(value) {
case if0 : { then0(); } break;
case if1 : { then1(); } break;
case if2 : { then2(); } break;
default : thenDefault();
}
}
and it is used this way:
mixin Select!(value,
if0, delegate { then0(); },
if1, delegate { then1(); },
if2, delegate { foo(); bar(); },
delegate { thenDefault(); }
);
no gain at all verbosity-wise I'm afraid... nevermind.
Oct 23 2012
I think this should be possible, look for eg. to std.bitmanip bitfields template On Tuesday, 23 October 2012 at 09:47:55 UTC, Jerome wrote:No answer. Should I assume that it is not possible? That's something that could be done in C with a simple macro. I really would like to know to what extent mixins are a replacement for C macros for generating boilerplate code.
Oct 23 2012
On Tuesday, 23 October 2012 at 10:40:12 UTC, Daniel Kozák wrote:I think this should be possible, look for eg. to std.bitmanip bitfields template On Tuesday, 23 October 2012 at 09:47:55 UTC, Jerome wrote:No answer. Should I assume that it is not possible? That's something that could be done in C with a simple macro. I really would like to know to what extent mixins are a replacement for C macros for generating boilerplate code.
Thanks Daniel! It's exactly what I was looking for. ;-)
Oct 23 2012
The solution (not variadic though) would be: mixin template Select!(alias value, alias if0, alias then0, alias if1, alias then1, alias if2, alias then2, alias thenDefault) { switch(value) { case if0 : { then0(); } break; case if1 : { then1(); } break; case if2 : { then2(); } break; default : thenDefault(); } }
You can get something interesting a few lines of code: template select(cases...) if (cases.length % 2 == 1) { auto select(Input)(Input input) { static if (cases.length == 1) // Default case return cases[0](); else // standard case { if (input == cases[0]) return cases[1](); else return .select!(cases[2..$])(input); } } } void main() { // With block delegates alias select!(0, { writeln("Zero.");}, 1, { writeln("One."); }, { writeln("Something else.");}) counter; counter(0); counter(1); counter(10_000); // With anonymous functions: alias select!(0, ()=> "Zero.", 1, ()=> "One.", ()=> "Something else.") counter2; writeln(counter2(0)); writeln(counter2(1)); writeln(counter2(10_000)); } A slightly more generic version takes predicates as first arguments, as Lisp's cond form: template cond(cases...) if (cases.length % 2 == 1) { auto cond(Input)(Input input) { static if (cases.length == 1) // Default case return cases[0](); else // standard case { if (cases[0](input)) // The only difference with select return cases[1](); else return .cond!(cases[2..$])(input); } } } void main() { alias cond!((a) => a < 0, ()=> "Negative.", (a) => a > 0, ()=> "Positive.", ()=> "Zero.") counter3; writeln(counter3(-10)); writeln(counter3(1)); writeln(counter3(0)); } Philippe
Oct 23 2012
Thanks Philippe! Great solution!
I have two remarks.
Remark 1: I understand that your mixin will be expanded into
cascaded if...else statements. It would probably be more
efficient to expand into switch...case, don't you think?
Remark 2: I infer from your code that the "delegate" keyword is
not mandatory, so my solution could also be called like this:
mixin Select!(value,
if0, { then0(); },
if1, { then1(); },
if2, { foo(); bar(); },
{ thenDefault(); }
);
instead of:
mixin Select!(value,
if0, delegate { then0(); },
if1, delegate { then1(); },
if2, delegate { foo(); bar(); },
delegate { thenDefault(); }
);
Is that correct?
Oct 24 2012
Remark 1: I understand that your mixin will be expanded into cascaded if...else statements. It would probably be more efficient to expand into switch...case, don't you think?
Oh! I've just figured out that it is not a mixin, but a function template.
Oct 24 2012
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Jerome <jerome.spamable yahoo.com> wrote:Thanks Philippe! Great solution! I have two remarks. Remark 1: I understand that your mixin will be expanded into cascaded if...else statements. It would probably be more efficient to expand into switch...case, don't you think?
Probably, but my solution can be generalized further, to provide a sort of pattern-matching: template match(cases...) { auto match(Input...)(Input input) { static if (cases.length == 0) static assert(false, "No match for args of type "~ Input.stringof); else static if (__traits(compiles, cases[0](input))) // Can we call cases[0] on input? return cases[0](input); // If yes, do it else // else, recurse farther down return .match1!(cases[1..$])(input); } } string more(T...)(T t){ return "More than two args. Isn't life wonderful?";} void main() { alias match!( () => "No args", (a) => "One arg, of type " ~ typeof(a).stringof ~ " with value: " ~ to!string(a), (a, string b)=> "Two args (" ~ to!string(a) ~ ", " ~ to!string(b) ~ "). I know the second one is a string.", (a, b) => "Two args", more ) matcher; writeln(matcher()); writeln(matcher(3.1416)); writeln(matcher(1, "abc")); writeln(matcher(1, 1)); writeln(matcher(1, "abc", 3.1416)); writeln(matcher(1,1,1,1,1)); } As you can see, different branches are selected based on the number and type of arguments. This is quite powerful: auto-detection based on the number of args, using the short syntax for function templates (args ) => result Only for `more` did I need to define an external function. Of course, standard (non-templated) functions can be used too. The only limitation is that all branches must return the same type, as for a stand switch... case statement. But even this can be circumvented. The code is longer, I paste is there: http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/c315a160 usage: void main() { alias match!( () => 3.14159, (a) => "One arg, of type " ~ typeof(a).stringof ~ " with value: " ~ to!string(a), (a, string b)=> "Two args (" ~ to!string(a) ~ ", " ~ to!string(b) ~ "). I know the second one is a string.", (a, b) => 0, more ) matcher; writeln(matcher()); writeln(matcher(3.1416)); writeln(matcher(1, "abc")); writeln(matcher(1, 1)); writeln(matcher(1, "abc", 3.1416)); writeln(matcher(1,1,1,1,1)); } Different argument lists, different result types!Remark 2: I infer from your code that the "delegate" keyword is not mandatory, so my solution could also be called like this: mixin Select!(value, if0, { then0(); }, if1, { then1(); }, if2, { foo(); bar(); }, { thenDefault(); } ); instead of: mixin Select!(value, if0, delegate { then0(); }, if1, delegate { then1(); }, if2, delegate { foo(); bar(); }, delegate { thenDefault(); } ); Is that correct?
Yes, it is. code blocks are void delegate()'s in D, or T delegate() with a return statement: { writeln("Hello World!"); return 0;} is an int delegate(). You can also use the short delegate syntax: mixin Select!(value, if0, () => then0(), if1, () => then1(), if2, () => (foo(), bar()), () => thenDefault() ); Notice that, in your previous example 'value' is a compile-time value.My examples were made so as to permit runtime arguments.
Oct 24 2012
Damn, I typed this a bit too fast. I forgot the imports:Probably, but my solution can be generalized further, to provide a sort of pattern-matching:
Add: import std.conv; import std.stdio;template match(cases...) { auto match(Input...)(Input input) { static if (cases.length == 0) static assert(false, "No match for args of type "~ Input.stringof); else static if (__traits(compiles, cases[0](input))) // Can we call cases[0] on input? return cases[0](input); // If yes, do it else // else, recurse farther down return .match1!(cases[1..$])(input); } } string more(T...)(T t){ return "More than two args. Isn't life wonderful?";} void main() { alias match!( () => "No args", (a) => "One arg, of type " ~ typeof(a).stringof ~ " with value: " ~ to!string(a), (a, string b)=> "Two args (" ~ to!string(a) ~ ", " ~ to!string(b) ~ "). I know the second one is a string.", (a, b) => "Two args", more ) matcher; writeln(matcher()); writeln(matcher(3.1416)); writeln(matcher(1, "abc")); writeln(matcher(1, 1)); writeln(matcher(1, "abc", 3.1416)); writeln(matcher(1,1,1,1,1)); }
Oct 24 2012
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Jerome <jerome.spamable yahoo.com> wrote:Remark 1: I understand that your mixin will be expanded into cascaded if...else statements. It would probably be more efficient to expand into switch...case, don't you think?
Oh! I've just figured out that it is not a mixin, but a function template.
That was to allow runtime arguments to be used. In your example, value is a compile-time argument. In this case, all tests can be done at CT and your code should result *only* in the right branch: no need to develop an entire switch statement.
Oct 24 2012