Reputation: 1261
If I have e.g.:
template <class T>
class MyOptional { /*...*/ };
I know that I can define a specialization e.g. for T = bool
which will have a different (separate) implementation:
template <> class MyOptional<bool> { /*...*/ };
But is it possible to say that this T=bool
specialization equals to another type (e.g. MyOptBool
)?
Something like this:
class MyOptBool { /*...*/ };
using Optional<bool> = MyOptBool; /* impossible but looking for similar functionality */
The only think I have found is using inheritance:
class MyOptBool { /*...*/ };
template <> class MyOptional<bool> : public MyOptBool {
using MyOptBool::MyOptBool;
};
1st question: Is there any more elegant solution? (just for curiosity + I have some conversion issues, etc.).
2nd question: Is the "workaround" using inheritance for declaring two classes equal commonly used (in some important libraries, etc.)?
Upvotes: 4
Views: 719
Reputation: 118340
One possible approach that allows Optional<T>
to resolve in this fashion, even though it's not actually ending up specializing MyOptional
, per se:
template<class T>
class MyOptional {};
class MyOptBool {};
template<class T>
struct OptionAlias {
typedef MyOptional<T> type;
};
template<>
struct OptionAlias<bool> {
typedef MyOptBool type;
};
template<typename T>
using Optional = typename OptionAlias<T>::type;
void foo()
{
Optional<int> x;
Optional<bool> y;
MyOptBool z=y;
}
Upvotes: 7