问题
I'm trying to implement my own boolean class, but cannot replicate native semantics for &&. The following contrived code demonstrates the issue:
#include <iostream>>
class MyBool {
public:
bool theValue;
MyBool() {}
MyBool(bool aBool) {theValue = aBool;}
MyBool operator&& (MyBool aBool) {return theValue && aBool.theValue;}
};
bool f1() {std::cout << " First\n"; return false;}
bool f2() {std::cout << " Second\n"; return false;}
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
std::cout << "Native &&\n";
f1() && f2();
std::cout << "Overloaded &&\n";
MyBool(f1()) && MyBool(f2());
return 0;
}
When compiled and run, the result is:
Native && First Overloaded && Second First
In other words, && on bools is lazy (as any C++ programmer would expect) but the overloaded && isn't (as this C++ programmer at least didn't expect).
Is there a way to make overloaded && lazy? I can find various full-on lazy evaluation schemes to provide Haskell-like functionality, but they seem like complete overkill for my use case.
回答1:
You should not overload bool operator&&
, since you lose short circuit evaluation, as you have discovered.
The correct approach would be to give your class a bool conversion operator
class MyBool {
public:
bool theValue;
MyBool() {}
MyBool(bool aBool) : theValue(aBool) {}
explicit operator bool() { return theValue; }
};
Note that explicit conversion operators require C++11 compliance. If you do not have this, have a look at the safe bool idiom.
回答2:
Is there a way to make overloaded && lazy?
No.
回答3:
You can make almost anything evaluate lazily with the expression template idiom, including but not limited to the operators whose built-in versions short-circuit. But that's more work than you need for this one case, since then your MyBool
class would require a lot more code.
回答4:
If you really want short-circuiting and are willing to sacrifice the operator syntax, you can rename your operator&&
method to _and
, define an AND()
macro, and write AND(x,y)
instead of x&&y
.
#define AND(x,y) (x._and(x.theValue ? y : MyBool(false)))
With some macro hacks you can have AND()
accept a variable number of parameters.
The _and()
method here is not intended to be used "publicly" here but must be declared public since you can't friend
a macro.
For something as simple as your MyBool
class, this is probably unnecessary. But if you need your operator&&
to have special side-effects like updating some state on this
, then this gets the job done.
来源:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16031812/lazy-overloaded-c-operator