How to know the number of chain custom-defined operator << calls?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
6
down vote

favorite












I have my own class where I define and use << operator like so:



vw& vw::operator<<(const int &a) 

 // add a to an internal buffer
 // do some work when it's the last number

 return *this;


...

vw inst;

inst << a << b << c << d;

...

inst << a << b;

...


The number of chain << calls is different every time. These numbers together represent a code and I need to do something when the code is complete.



Do I have any other options to know when it's complete rather than adding a special terminating value to each chain, like below?



inst << a << b << c << d << term;

...

inst << a << b << term;





c++ visual-c++







share|improve this question



















  • 1




    You'll need a terminator if you go the streaming route. You could make a variadic function and handle doing that in the function.
    – NathanOliver
    4 hours ago















up vote
6
down vote

favorite












I have my own class where I define and use << operator like so:



vw& vw::operator<<(const int &a) 

 // add a to an internal buffer
 // do some work when it's the last number

 return *this;


...

vw inst;

inst << a << b << c << d;

...

inst << a << b;

...


The number of chain << calls is different every time. These numbers together represent a code and I need to do something when the code is complete.



Do I have any other options to know when it's complete rather than adding a special terminating value to each chain, like below?



inst << a << b << c << d << term;

...

inst << a << b << term;





c++ visual-c++







share|improve this question



















  • 1




    You'll need a terminator if you go the streaming route. You could make a variadic function and handle doing that in the function.
    – NathanOliver
    4 hours ago













up vote
6
down vote

favorite









up vote
6
down vote

favorite











I have my own class where I define and use << operator like so:



vw& vw::operator<<(const int &a) 

 // add a to an internal buffer
 // do some work when it's the last number

 return *this;


...

vw inst;

inst << a << b << c << d;

...

inst << a << b;

...


The number of chain << calls is different every time. These numbers together represent a code and I need to do something when the code is complete.



Do I have any other options to know when it's complete rather than adding a special terminating value to each chain, like below?



inst << a << b << c << d << term;

...

inst << a << b << term;





c++ visual-c++







share|improve this question















I have my own class where I define and use << operator like so:



vw& vw::operator<<(const int &a) 

 // add a to an internal buffer
 // do some work when it's the last number

 return *this;


...

vw inst;

inst << a << b << c << d;

...

inst << a << b;

...


The number of chain << calls is different every time. These numbers together represent a code and I need to do something when the code is complete.



Do I have any other options to know when it's complete rather than adding a special terminating value to each chain, like below?



inst << a << b << c << d << term;

...

inst << a << b << term;





c++ visual-c++




c++ visual-c++






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 4 hours ago









Mike Kinghan

27.9k761105




27.9k761105










asked 4 hours ago









user1481126

515




515







  • 1




    You'll need a terminator if you go the streaming route. You could make a variadic function and handle doing that in the function.
    – NathanOliver
    4 hours ago













  • 1




    You'll need a terminator if you go the streaming route. You could make a variadic function and handle doing that in the function.
    – NathanOliver
    4 hours ago








1




1




You'll need a terminator if you go the streaming route. You could make a variadic function and handle doing that in the function.
– NathanOliver
4 hours ago





You'll need a terminator if you go the streaming route. You could make a variadic function and handle doing that in the function.
– NathanOliver
4 hours ago













2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote













You can:



  • Use a special final type to signal termination (a la std::endl).


  • Avoid using operator<<, and defining a variadic template function instead. A variadic template function supports any number of arbitrary arguments, and knows that number at compile-time.



  • Put the logic into vw's destructor, and allow operator<< only on rvalues. E.g.



    vw << a << b << c;
    // `vw::~vw()` contains termination logic






share|improve this answer




















  • This makes LogicStuff's approach a little clearer during usage. Although I'm not sure I've actually seen anyone do it this way as it "looks" a bit weird
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    3 hours ago

















up vote
4
down vote













It is possible without changing the current syntax.



You will have to make inst << a (i.e. the current operator<<) return a temporary instance of a "special" class, holding a reference to inst, implementing operator<< by calling inst.operator<<, returning reference
to *this, and then doing the extra work in its destructor, which will be called at the end of the statement.



And yes, you can keep track of the call count with it.



I propose these nonmember operator<< overloads (vw_chain is the new proxy class):



// Left-most operator<< call matches this
vw_chain operator<<(vw &inst, const int &a) 
 vw_chain chain(inst);
 chain.insert(a);
 return chain;


// All subsequent calls within the << chain match this
vw_chain operator<<(vw_chain chain, const int &a) 
 chain.insert(a);
 return chain;



The class itself:



struct vw_chain

 explicit vw_chain(vw &inst) : inst(inst) 

 ~wv_chain() 
 // do something
 

 void insert(const int &a) 
 // This, the original operator<<, should be made accessible only to this
 // function (private, friend class declaration?), not to cause ambiguity.
 // Or, perhaps, put the implementation of the original operator<< here
 // and remove it altogether.
 inst << a;
 ++insertion_count;
 

 vw &inst;
 size_t insertion_count = 0;
;


We have to pass the instance around by value, but the copying should be optimized out.






share|improve this answer


















  • 3




    However this does sort of modify the "meaning" of << which is expected to do the same thing each time regardless of whether it chains or not. That might be a concern.
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    3 hours ago










Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f52706371%2fhow-to-know-the-number-of-chain-custom-defined-operator-calls%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

















2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
5
down vote













You can:



  • Use a special final type to signal termination (a la std::endl).


  • Avoid using operator<<, and defining a variadic template function instead. A variadic template function supports any number of arbitrary arguments, and knows that number at compile-time.



  • Put the logic into vw's destructor, and allow operator<< only on rvalues. E.g.



    vw << a << b << c;
    // `vw::~vw()` contains termination logic






share|improve this answer




















  • This makes LogicStuff's approach a little clearer during usage. Although I'm not sure I've actually seen anyone do it this way as it "looks" a bit weird
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    3 hours ago














up vote
5
down vote













You can:



  • Use a special final type to signal termination (a la std::endl).


  • Avoid using operator<<, and defining a variadic template function instead. A variadic template function supports any number of arbitrary arguments, and knows that number at compile-time.



  • Put the logic into vw's destructor, and allow operator<< only on rvalues. E.g.



    vw << a << b << c;
    // `vw::~vw()` contains termination logic






share|improve this answer




















  • This makes LogicStuff's approach a little clearer during usage. Although I'm not sure I've actually seen anyone do it this way as it "looks" a bit weird
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    3 hours ago












up vote
5
down vote










up vote
5
down vote









You can:



  • Use a special final type to signal termination (a la std::endl).


  • Avoid using operator<<, and defining a variadic template function instead. A variadic template function supports any number of arbitrary arguments, and knows that number at compile-time.



  • Put the logic into vw's destructor, and allow operator<< only on rvalues. E.g.



    vw << a << b << c;
    // `vw::~vw()` contains termination logic






share|improve this answer












You can:



  • Use a special final type to signal termination (a la std::endl).


  • Avoid using operator<<, and defining a variadic template function instead. A variadic template function supports any number of arbitrary arguments, and knows that number at compile-time.



  • Put the logic into vw's destructor, and allow operator<< only on rvalues. E.g.



    vw << a << b << c;
    // `vw::~vw()` contains termination logic







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 4 hours ago









Vittorio Romeo

53.3k16139277




53.3k16139277











  • This makes LogicStuff's approach a little clearer during usage. Although I'm not sure I've actually seen anyone do it this way as it "looks" a bit weird
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    3 hours ago
















  • This makes LogicStuff's approach a little clearer during usage. Although I'm not sure I've actually seen anyone do it this way as it "looks" a bit weird
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    3 hours ago















This makes LogicStuff's approach a little clearer during usage. Although I'm not sure I've actually seen anyone do it this way as it "looks" a bit weird
– Lightness Races in Orbit
3 hours ago




This makes LogicStuff's approach a little clearer during usage. Although I'm not sure I've actually seen anyone do it this way as it "looks" a bit weird
– Lightness Races in Orbit
3 hours ago












up vote
4
down vote













It is possible without changing the current syntax.



You will have to make inst << a (i.e. the current operator<<) return a temporary instance of a "special" class, holding a reference to inst, implementing operator<< by calling inst.operator<<, returning reference
to *this, and then doing the extra work in its destructor, which will be called at the end of the statement.



And yes, you can keep track of the call count with it.



I propose these nonmember operator<< overloads (vw_chain is the new proxy class):



// Left-most operator<< call matches this
vw_chain operator<<(vw &inst, const int &a) 
 vw_chain chain(inst);
 chain.insert(a);
 return chain;


// All subsequent calls within the << chain match this
vw_chain operator<<(vw_chain chain, const int &a) 
 chain.insert(a);
 return chain;



The class itself:



struct vw_chain

 explicit vw_chain(vw &inst) : inst(inst) 

 ~wv_chain() 
 // do something
 

 void insert(const int &a) 
 // This, the original operator<<, should be made accessible only to this
 // function (private, friend class declaration?), not to cause ambiguity.
 // Or, perhaps, put the implementation of the original operator<< here
 // and remove it altogether.
 inst << a;
 ++insertion_count;
 

 vw &inst;
 size_t insertion_count = 0;
;


We have to pass the instance around by value, but the copying should be optimized out.






share|improve this answer


















  • 3




    However this does sort of modify the "meaning" of << which is expected to do the same thing each time regardless of whether it chains or not. That might be a concern.
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    3 hours ago














up vote
4
down vote













It is possible without changing the current syntax.



You will have to make inst << a (i.e. the current operator<<) return a temporary instance of a "special" class, holding a reference to inst, implementing operator<< by calling inst.operator<<, returning reference
to *this, and then doing the extra work in its destructor, which will be called at the end of the statement.



And yes, you can keep track of the call count with it.



I propose these nonmember operator<< overloads (vw_chain is the new proxy class):



// Left-most operator<< call matches this
vw_chain operator<<(vw &inst, const int &a) 
 vw_chain chain(inst);
 chain.insert(a);
 return chain;


// All subsequent calls within the << chain match this
vw_chain operator<<(vw_chain chain, const int &a) 
 chain.insert(a);
 return chain;



The class itself:



struct vw_chain

 explicit vw_chain(vw &inst) : inst(inst) 

 ~wv_chain() 
 // do something
 

 void insert(const int &a) 
 // This, the original operator<<, should be made accessible only to this
 // function (private, friend class declaration?), not to cause ambiguity.
 // Or, perhaps, put the implementation of the original operator<< here
 // and remove it altogether.
 inst << a;
 ++insertion_count;
 

 vw &inst;
 size_t insertion_count = 0;
;


We have to pass the instance around by value, but the copying should be optimized out.






share|improve this answer


















  • 3




    However this does sort of modify the "meaning" of << which is expected to do the same thing each time regardless of whether it chains or not. That might be a concern.
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    3 hours ago












up vote
4
down vote










up vote
4
down vote









It is possible without changing the current syntax.



You will have to make inst << a (i.e. the current operator<<) return a temporary instance of a "special" class, holding a reference to inst, implementing operator<< by calling inst.operator<<, returning reference
to *this, and then doing the extra work in its destructor, which will be called at the end of the statement.



And yes, you can keep track of the call count with it.



I propose these nonmember operator<< overloads (vw_chain is the new proxy class):



// Left-most operator<< call matches this
vw_chain operator<<(vw &inst, const int &a) 
 vw_chain chain(inst);
 chain.insert(a);
 return chain;


// All subsequent calls within the << chain match this
vw_chain operator<<(vw_chain chain, const int &a) 
 chain.insert(a);
 return chain;



The class itself:



struct vw_chain

 explicit vw_chain(vw &inst) : inst(inst) 

 ~wv_chain() 
 // do something
 

 void insert(const int &a) 
 // This, the original operator<<, should be made accessible only to this
 // function (private, friend class declaration?), not to cause ambiguity.
 // Or, perhaps, put the implementation of the original operator<< here
 // and remove it altogether.
 inst << a;
 ++insertion_count;
 

 vw &inst;
 size_t insertion_count = 0;
;


We have to pass the instance around by value, but the copying should be optimized out.






share|improve this answer














It is possible without changing the current syntax.



You will have to make inst << a (i.e. the current operator<<) return a temporary instance of a "special" class, holding a reference to inst, implementing operator<< by calling inst.operator<<, returning reference
to *this, and then doing the extra work in its destructor, which will be called at the end of the statement.



And yes, you can keep track of the call count with it.



I propose these nonmember operator<< overloads (vw_chain is the new proxy class):



// Left-most operator<< call matches this
vw_chain operator<<(vw &inst, const int &a) 
 vw_chain chain(inst);
 chain.insert(a);
 return chain;


// All subsequent calls within the << chain match this
vw_chain operator<<(vw_chain chain, const int &a) 
 chain.insert(a);
 return chain;



The class itself:



struct vw_chain

 explicit vw_chain(vw &inst) : inst(inst) 

 ~wv_chain() 
 // do something
 

 void insert(const int &a) 
 // This, the original operator<<, should be made accessible only to this
 // function (private, friend class declaration?), not to cause ambiguity.
 // Or, perhaps, put the implementation of the original operator<< here
 // and remove it altogether.
 inst << a;
 ++insertion_count;
 

 vw &inst;
 size_t insertion_count = 0;
;


We have to pass the instance around by value, but the copying should be optimized out.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 3 hours ago

























answered 4 hours ago









LogicStuff

15.5k63657




15.5k63657







  • 3




    However this does sort of modify the "meaning" of << which is expected to do the same thing each time regardless of whether it chains or not. That might be a concern.
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    3 hours ago












  • 3




    However this does sort of modify the "meaning" of << which is expected to do the same thing each time regardless of whether it chains or not. That might be a concern.
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    3 hours ago







3




3




However this does sort of modify the "meaning" of << which is expected to do the same thing each time regardless of whether it chains or not. That might be a concern.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
3 hours ago




However this does sort of modify the "meaning" of << which is expected to do the same thing each time regardless of whether it chains or not. That might be a concern.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
3 hours ago

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f52706371%2fhow-to-know-the-number-of-chain-custom-defined-operator-calls%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest
































































Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being “babysat” by supervisor

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote 31 down vote favorite 4 I hold a PhD in mechanical engineering with a 7 year background in self-guided, self-paced research including 2 years as a graduate level course instructor and a subject matter expert for various engineering projects in a university setting in the United States. For the last 10-11 months, I am working in a research industry in France where my task is to debug C++ spaghetti code written over a period of several years by my current supervisor. It is a team of 2: just I and my supervisor. Diurnally, I am posed with a "bug of the day" to get out of this C++ code. My supervisor generally gives me about 15-30 minutes to solve it and then accosts me about whether or not the task is completed and then rinses and repeats this until the end of the day. Off-late, my supervisor has been holding 6-7 hour long "meetin
Read more

Is the Concept of Multiple Fantasy Races Scientifically Flawed? [closed]

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite Many fantasy worlds have multiple humanoid species (elves, orcs, humans, etc) living in the same world, in addition to that, they often have the ability to interbreed. And I can't help but question their believability... fantasy-races reproduction interspecies-relations share | improve this question edited Aug 9 at 14:46 Michael Kjörling ♦ 21.1k 10 85 161 asked Aug 9 at 13:13 Chlodio 118 6 closed as unclear what you're asking by MichaelK, Gryphon, John, Vincent, Frostfyre Aug 9 at 15:25 Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question. 3 Stack Exchange exist to
Read more

Confectionery

Image
Prepared foods made with a lot of sugar or other cabohydrates "Sweetmeat" redirects here. For the racehorse, see Sweetmeat (horse). Not to be confused with Sweetbread. This Kransekake is a traditional Scandinavian baker's confection. Confectionery is the art of making confections , which are food items that are rich in sugar and carbohydrates. Exact definitions are difficult. [1] In general, though, confectionery is divided into two broad and somewhat overlapping categories, bakers' confections and sugar confections. [2] Bakers' confectionery, also called flour confections , includes principally sweet pastries, cakes, and similar baked goods. Sugar confectionery includes candies ( sweets in British English), candied nuts, chocolates, chewing gum, bubble gum, pastillage, and other confections that are made primarily of sugar. In some cases, chocolate confections (confections made of chocolate) are treated as a separate category, as are sugar-free versions of
Read more