Use integer template argument to create compiletime double
Is it possible to create a double which holds the value of 1*10^x where x is based on a integer template parameter. So something like:
template < int exp >
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = ????;
}
double d = DoubleValue<20>::value; // = 1e20
double d = DoubleValue<-20>::value; // = 1e-20
As it can be created with litterals, it seems that something like this should be possible.
I would like the value to be evaluated at compile time (so std::pow will not work as far as I know).
Also, if possible, I would like to be able to avoid actual iterative computations ((maybe unfounded) fear for precision problems). I would also like to be able to use larger values as exponent, like for example 200, which makes it impossible to store the value in a standerd integer type.
c++
New contributor
|
show 3 more comments
Is it possible to create a double which holds the value of 1*10^x where x is based on a integer template parameter. So something like:
template < int exp >
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = ????;
}
double d = DoubleValue<20>::value; // = 1e20
double d = DoubleValue<-20>::value; // = 1e-20
As it can be created with litterals, it seems that something like this should be possible.
I would like the value to be evaluated at compile time (so std::pow will not work as far as I know).
Also, if possible, I would like to be able to avoid actual iterative computations ((maybe unfounded) fear for precision problems). I would also like to be able to use larger values as exponent, like for example 200, which makes it impossible to store the value in a standerd integer type.
c++
New contributor
3
maybestd::pow(10, exp)
?
– iBug
5 hours ago
1
@iBug he needs something with compile time, sostd::pow
will not work since it is notconstexpr
.
– Marek R
5 hours ago
3
Possible duplicate of c++ power of integer, template meta programming
– Ken Y-N
5 hours ago
"I would like the value to be evaluated at compile time" — What would be the use for this? To speed-up your runtime?
– Holt
5 hours ago
I added static constexpr, I was indeed sloppy :)
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
Is it possible to create a double which holds the value of 1*10^x where x is based on a integer template parameter. So something like:
template < int exp >
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = ????;
}
double d = DoubleValue<20>::value; // = 1e20
double d = DoubleValue<-20>::value; // = 1e-20
As it can be created with litterals, it seems that something like this should be possible.
I would like the value to be evaluated at compile time (so std::pow will not work as far as I know).
Also, if possible, I would like to be able to avoid actual iterative computations ((maybe unfounded) fear for precision problems). I would also like to be able to use larger values as exponent, like for example 200, which makes it impossible to store the value in a standerd integer type.
c++
New contributor
Is it possible to create a double which holds the value of 1*10^x where x is based on a integer template parameter. So something like:
template < int exp >
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = ????;
}
double d = DoubleValue<20>::value; // = 1e20
double d = DoubleValue<-20>::value; // = 1e-20
As it can be created with litterals, it seems that something like this should be possible.
I would like the value to be evaluated at compile time (so std::pow will not work as far as I know).
Also, if possible, I would like to be able to avoid actual iterative computations ((maybe unfounded) fear for precision problems). I would also like to be able to use larger values as exponent, like for example 200, which makes it impossible to store the value in a standerd integer type.
c++
c++
New contributor
New contributor
edited 5 hours ago
Rubix Cube
New contributor
asked 5 hours ago
Rubix CubeRubix Cube
334
334
New contributor
New contributor
3
maybestd::pow(10, exp)
?
– iBug
5 hours ago
1
@iBug he needs something with compile time, sostd::pow
will not work since it is notconstexpr
.
– Marek R
5 hours ago
3
Possible duplicate of c++ power of integer, template meta programming
– Ken Y-N
5 hours ago
"I would like the value to be evaluated at compile time" — What would be the use for this? To speed-up your runtime?
– Holt
5 hours ago
I added static constexpr, I was indeed sloppy :)
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
3
maybestd::pow(10, exp)
?
– iBug
5 hours ago
1
@iBug he needs something with compile time, sostd::pow
will not work since it is notconstexpr
.
– Marek R
5 hours ago
3
Possible duplicate of c++ power of integer, template meta programming
– Ken Y-N
5 hours ago
"I would like the value to be evaluated at compile time" — What would be the use for this? To speed-up your runtime?
– Holt
5 hours ago
I added static constexpr, I was indeed sloppy :)
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
3
3
maybe
std::pow(10, exp)
?– iBug
5 hours ago
maybe
std::pow(10, exp)
?– iBug
5 hours ago
1
1
@iBug he needs something with compile time, so
std::pow
will not work since it is not constexpr
.– Marek R
5 hours ago
@iBug he needs something with compile time, so
std::pow
will not work since it is not constexpr
.– Marek R
5 hours ago
3
3
Possible duplicate of c++ power of integer, template meta programming
– Ken Y-N
5 hours ago
Possible duplicate of c++ power of integer, template meta programming
– Ken Y-N
5 hours ago
"I would like the value to be evaluated at compile time" — What would be the use for this? To speed-up your runtime?
– Holt
5 hours ago
"I would like the value to be evaluated at compile time" — What would be the use for this? To speed-up your runtime?
– Holt
5 hours ago
I added static constexpr, I was indeed sloppy :)
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
I added static constexpr, I was indeed sloppy :)
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019) this is very simple using a constexpr
function:
constexpr double myPow(double x, int exp)
{
double pow = 1.0;
for (int i = 0; i < exp; ++i)
pow *= x;
for (int i = 0; i > exp; --i)
pow /= x;
return pow;
}
template < int exp >
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = myPow(10.0, exp);
};
See here to verify that it works and that even without optimization the value is generated at compile time.
Depending on your use case you might not even need the DoubleValue
struct but can directly use myPow()
.
Off topic: "Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019)"; When writing new projects, sure. But, in the project, that I am working on, we still have pieces of code being compiled with VS2003.. Legacy projects FTW!
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
1
Luckily, the project I wanted to use this in was just updated :). I chose this anwer as it is clearer in its intent compared to recursive template solutions.
– Rubix Cube
3 hours ago
add a comment |
This one works for me:
// File: 54195854.cpp
// Author: iBug
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
template <int e>
struct DoubleValue {
static double value;
};
template <int e>
double DoubleValue<e>::value = std::pow(10.0, e);
int main(void) {
std::cout << DoubleValue<10>::value << std::endl;
std::cout << DoubleValue<-10>::value << std::endl;
}
I don't know if it's correct, but at least the above code compiles with G++ 7.3.0:
g++ -std=c++14 -pedantic 54195854.cpp
And the compiled program a.out
generates this output:
1e+10
1e-10
Sorry, this will not worlk for me, I would really like to have the values at compile time. I altered the question to be more precise
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
@RubixCube I think this well meets your needs. It does evaluate at compile-time, rather than runtime.
– iBug
5 hours ago
As far as I understand pow is not constexpr, so it evaluates when the program loads.
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
Maybe, this solution is the best we can get. However, it seems like a pitty te me as I’m able to write 1e24 and have that compile time in the code but when “24” is known at compile time as tempalte argument, I can’t find a way :)
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
1
@RubixCube - Discussing optimizations about code that wasn't compiled with optimizations is pointless. See this instead godbolt.org/z/vZAjvI - It's only-O1
.
– StoryTeller
4 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
Since you need the value to available in compile time, pretty much the only way to solve it, that came to my mind is recursive templates. However, the fact, that you need for said template to do different things, based on the signedness of the passed value, complicates things. First thing that would come to mind, would be to write such a recursive template:
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = (exp < 0
? DoubleValue<exp+1>::value / 10
: 10 * DoubleValue<exp-1>::value);
};
// Default case
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0>
{
static constexpr double value = 1;
};
However, such solution wouldn't work, due to the fact, that both branches of the ternary expression, would need to be resolved, and that would, always, lead to the infinite recursion, since one of the branches wouldn't tend to 0. Then, SFINAE came to mind:
// Base case.
template <int exp, class Enable = void>
struct DoubleValue
{
};
// Case when exp is positive
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue<exp, typename std::enable_if<(exp > 0)>::type>
{
static constexpr double value = 10 * DoubleValue<exp-1>::value;
};
// Case when exp is negative
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue<exp, typename std::enable_if<(exp < 0)>::type>
{
static constexpr double value = DoubleValue<exp+1>::value / 10;
};
// Default case.
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0>
{
static constexpr double value = 1;
};
Live Demo.
This is definitely not the only was - see answer by @sebrockm.
– lisyarus
4 hours ago
@lisyarus Sure, what I meant was "the only way that came to my mind". Edited to clarify that.
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
add a comment |
If you want it at compile time without std::pow
, this should do it:
#include <iostream>
template <int e>
struct DoubleValue {
static constexpr double value = 10.0 * DoubleValue<e - 1>::value;
};
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0> {
static constexpr double value = 1.0;
};
int main() {
std::cout << DoubleValue<20>::value << 'n'; //1e+20
}
C++ Fiddle
What about the case ofstd::cout << DoubleValue<-10>::value << std::endl;
?
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
@AlgirdasPreidžius It is not hard to upgrade the code to work with negative powers, the idea stays the same.
– lisyarus
4 hours ago
1
@lisyarus Idea, yes, but one can't just throwif
, or ternary expression, in there, since the both branches would need to be resolved, which would lead to infinite recursion. One would need to do more, than what is shown here, to force the same template to work with both positive, and negative numbers.
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
@AlgirdasPreidžius You are absolutely right, this needs some template machinery to work, albeit pretty standard one, but potentially not familiar to the OP.
– lisyarus
4 hours ago
add a comment |
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Rubix Cube is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54195854%2fuse-integer-template-argument-to-create-compiletime-double%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019) this is very simple using a constexpr
function:
constexpr double myPow(double x, int exp)
{
double pow = 1.0;
for (int i = 0; i < exp; ++i)
pow *= x;
for (int i = 0; i > exp; --i)
pow /= x;
return pow;
}
template < int exp >
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = myPow(10.0, exp);
};
See here to verify that it works and that even without optimization the value is generated at compile time.
Depending on your use case you might not even need the DoubleValue
struct but can directly use myPow()
.
Off topic: "Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019)"; When writing new projects, sure. But, in the project, that I am working on, we still have pieces of code being compiled with VS2003.. Legacy projects FTW!
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
1
Luckily, the project I wanted to use this in was just updated :). I chose this anwer as it is clearer in its intent compared to recursive template solutions.
– Rubix Cube
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019) this is very simple using a constexpr
function:
constexpr double myPow(double x, int exp)
{
double pow = 1.0;
for (int i = 0; i < exp; ++i)
pow *= x;
for (int i = 0; i > exp; --i)
pow /= x;
return pow;
}
template < int exp >
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = myPow(10.0, exp);
};
See here to verify that it works and that even without optimization the value is generated at compile time.
Depending on your use case you might not even need the DoubleValue
struct but can directly use myPow()
.
Off topic: "Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019)"; When writing new projects, sure. But, in the project, that I am working on, we still have pieces of code being compiled with VS2003.. Legacy projects FTW!
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
1
Luckily, the project I wanted to use this in was just updated :). I chose this anwer as it is clearer in its intent compared to recursive template solutions.
– Rubix Cube
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019) this is very simple using a constexpr
function:
constexpr double myPow(double x, int exp)
{
double pow = 1.0;
for (int i = 0; i < exp; ++i)
pow *= x;
for (int i = 0; i > exp; --i)
pow /= x;
return pow;
}
template < int exp >
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = myPow(10.0, exp);
};
See here to verify that it works and that even without optimization the value is generated at compile time.
Depending on your use case you might not even need the DoubleValue
struct but can directly use myPow()
.
Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019) this is very simple using a constexpr
function:
constexpr double myPow(double x, int exp)
{
double pow = 1.0;
for (int i = 0; i < exp; ++i)
pow *= x;
for (int i = 0; i > exp; --i)
pow /= x;
return pow;
}
template < int exp >
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = myPow(10.0, exp);
};
See here to verify that it works and that even without optimization the value is generated at compile time.
Depending on your use case you might not even need the DoubleValue
struct but can directly use myPow()
.
edited 4 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
sebrockmsebrockm
1,003217
1,003217
Off topic: "Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019)"; When writing new projects, sure. But, in the project, that I am working on, we still have pieces of code being compiled with VS2003.. Legacy projects FTW!
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
1
Luckily, the project I wanted to use this in was just updated :). I chose this anwer as it is clearer in its intent compared to recursive template solutions.
– Rubix Cube
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Off topic: "Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019)"; When writing new projects, sure. But, in the project, that I am working on, we still have pieces of code being compiled with VS2003.. Legacy projects FTW!
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
1
Luckily, the project I wanted to use this in was just updated :). I chose this anwer as it is clearer in its intent compared to recursive template solutions.
– Rubix Cube
3 hours ago
Off topic: "Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019)"; When writing new projects, sure. But, in the project, that I am working on, we still have pieces of code being compiled with VS2003.. Legacy projects FTW!
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
Off topic: "Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019)"; When writing new projects, sure. But, in the project, that I am working on, we still have pieces of code being compiled with VS2003.. Legacy projects FTW!
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
1
1
Luckily, the project I wanted to use this in was just updated :). I chose this anwer as it is clearer in its intent compared to recursive template solutions.
– Rubix Cube
3 hours ago
Luckily, the project I wanted to use this in was just updated :). I chose this anwer as it is clearer in its intent compared to recursive template solutions.
– Rubix Cube
3 hours ago
add a comment |
This one works for me:
// File: 54195854.cpp
// Author: iBug
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
template <int e>
struct DoubleValue {
static double value;
};
template <int e>
double DoubleValue<e>::value = std::pow(10.0, e);
int main(void) {
std::cout << DoubleValue<10>::value << std::endl;
std::cout << DoubleValue<-10>::value << std::endl;
}
I don't know if it's correct, but at least the above code compiles with G++ 7.3.0:
g++ -std=c++14 -pedantic 54195854.cpp
And the compiled program a.out
generates this output:
1e+10
1e-10
Sorry, this will not worlk for me, I would really like to have the values at compile time. I altered the question to be more precise
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
@RubixCube I think this well meets your needs. It does evaluate at compile-time, rather than runtime.
– iBug
5 hours ago
As far as I understand pow is not constexpr, so it evaluates when the program loads.
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
Maybe, this solution is the best we can get. However, it seems like a pitty te me as I’m able to write 1e24 and have that compile time in the code but when “24” is known at compile time as tempalte argument, I can’t find a way :)
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
1
@RubixCube - Discussing optimizations about code that wasn't compiled with optimizations is pointless. See this instead godbolt.org/z/vZAjvI - It's only-O1
.
– StoryTeller
4 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
This one works for me:
// File: 54195854.cpp
// Author: iBug
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
template <int e>
struct DoubleValue {
static double value;
};
template <int e>
double DoubleValue<e>::value = std::pow(10.0, e);
int main(void) {
std::cout << DoubleValue<10>::value << std::endl;
std::cout << DoubleValue<-10>::value << std::endl;
}
I don't know if it's correct, but at least the above code compiles with G++ 7.3.0:
g++ -std=c++14 -pedantic 54195854.cpp
And the compiled program a.out
generates this output:
1e+10
1e-10
Sorry, this will not worlk for me, I would really like to have the values at compile time. I altered the question to be more precise
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
@RubixCube I think this well meets your needs. It does evaluate at compile-time, rather than runtime.
– iBug
5 hours ago
As far as I understand pow is not constexpr, so it evaluates when the program loads.
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
Maybe, this solution is the best we can get. However, it seems like a pitty te me as I’m able to write 1e24 and have that compile time in the code but when “24” is known at compile time as tempalte argument, I can’t find a way :)
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
1
@RubixCube - Discussing optimizations about code that wasn't compiled with optimizations is pointless. See this instead godbolt.org/z/vZAjvI - It's only-O1
.
– StoryTeller
4 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
This one works for me:
// File: 54195854.cpp
// Author: iBug
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
template <int e>
struct DoubleValue {
static double value;
};
template <int e>
double DoubleValue<e>::value = std::pow(10.0, e);
int main(void) {
std::cout << DoubleValue<10>::value << std::endl;
std::cout << DoubleValue<-10>::value << std::endl;
}
I don't know if it's correct, but at least the above code compiles with G++ 7.3.0:
g++ -std=c++14 -pedantic 54195854.cpp
And the compiled program a.out
generates this output:
1e+10
1e-10
This one works for me:
// File: 54195854.cpp
// Author: iBug
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
template <int e>
struct DoubleValue {
static double value;
};
template <int e>
double DoubleValue<e>::value = std::pow(10.0, e);
int main(void) {
std::cout << DoubleValue<10>::value << std::endl;
std::cout << DoubleValue<-10>::value << std::endl;
}
I don't know if it's correct, but at least the above code compiles with G++ 7.3.0:
g++ -std=c++14 -pedantic 54195854.cpp
And the compiled program a.out
generates this output:
1e+10
1e-10
answered 5 hours ago
iBugiBug
19.4k53363
19.4k53363
Sorry, this will not worlk for me, I would really like to have the values at compile time. I altered the question to be more precise
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
@RubixCube I think this well meets your needs. It does evaluate at compile-time, rather than runtime.
– iBug
5 hours ago
As far as I understand pow is not constexpr, so it evaluates when the program loads.
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
Maybe, this solution is the best we can get. However, it seems like a pitty te me as I’m able to write 1e24 and have that compile time in the code but when “24” is known at compile time as tempalte argument, I can’t find a way :)
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
1
@RubixCube - Discussing optimizations about code that wasn't compiled with optimizations is pointless. See this instead godbolt.org/z/vZAjvI - It's only-O1
.
– StoryTeller
4 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
Sorry, this will not worlk for me, I would really like to have the values at compile time. I altered the question to be more precise
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
@RubixCube I think this well meets your needs. It does evaluate at compile-time, rather than runtime.
– iBug
5 hours ago
As far as I understand pow is not constexpr, so it evaluates when the program loads.
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
Maybe, this solution is the best we can get. However, it seems like a pitty te me as I’m able to write 1e24 and have that compile time in the code but when “24” is known at compile time as tempalte argument, I can’t find a way :)
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
1
@RubixCube - Discussing optimizations about code that wasn't compiled with optimizations is pointless. See this instead godbolt.org/z/vZAjvI - It's only-O1
.
– StoryTeller
4 hours ago
Sorry, this will not worlk for me, I would really like to have the values at compile time. I altered the question to be more precise
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
Sorry, this will not worlk for me, I would really like to have the values at compile time. I altered the question to be more precise
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
@RubixCube I think this well meets your needs. It does evaluate at compile-time, rather than runtime.
– iBug
5 hours ago
@RubixCube I think this well meets your needs. It does evaluate at compile-time, rather than runtime.
– iBug
5 hours ago
As far as I understand pow is not constexpr, so it evaluates when the program loads.
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
As far as I understand pow is not constexpr, so it evaluates when the program loads.
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
Maybe, this solution is the best we can get. However, it seems like a pitty te me as I’m able to write 1e24 and have that compile time in the code but when “24” is known at compile time as tempalte argument, I can’t find a way :)
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
Maybe, this solution is the best we can get. However, it seems like a pitty te me as I’m able to write 1e24 and have that compile time in the code but when “24” is known at compile time as tempalte argument, I can’t find a way :)
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago
1
1
@RubixCube - Discussing optimizations about code that wasn't compiled with optimizations is pointless. See this instead godbolt.org/z/vZAjvI - It's only
-O1
.– StoryTeller
4 hours ago
@RubixCube - Discussing optimizations about code that wasn't compiled with optimizations is pointless. See this instead godbolt.org/z/vZAjvI - It's only
-O1
.– StoryTeller
4 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
Since you need the value to available in compile time, pretty much the only way to solve it, that came to my mind is recursive templates. However, the fact, that you need for said template to do different things, based on the signedness of the passed value, complicates things. First thing that would come to mind, would be to write such a recursive template:
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = (exp < 0
? DoubleValue<exp+1>::value / 10
: 10 * DoubleValue<exp-1>::value);
};
// Default case
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0>
{
static constexpr double value = 1;
};
However, such solution wouldn't work, due to the fact, that both branches of the ternary expression, would need to be resolved, and that would, always, lead to the infinite recursion, since one of the branches wouldn't tend to 0. Then, SFINAE came to mind:
// Base case.
template <int exp, class Enable = void>
struct DoubleValue
{
};
// Case when exp is positive
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue<exp, typename std::enable_if<(exp > 0)>::type>
{
static constexpr double value = 10 * DoubleValue<exp-1>::value;
};
// Case when exp is negative
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue<exp, typename std::enable_if<(exp < 0)>::type>
{
static constexpr double value = DoubleValue<exp+1>::value / 10;
};
// Default case.
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0>
{
static constexpr double value = 1;
};
Live Demo.
This is definitely not the only was - see answer by @sebrockm.
– lisyarus
4 hours ago
@lisyarus Sure, what I meant was "the only way that came to my mind". Edited to clarify that.
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Since you need the value to available in compile time, pretty much the only way to solve it, that came to my mind is recursive templates. However, the fact, that you need for said template to do different things, based on the signedness of the passed value, complicates things. First thing that would come to mind, would be to write such a recursive template:
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = (exp < 0
? DoubleValue<exp+1>::value / 10
: 10 * DoubleValue<exp-1>::value);
};
// Default case
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0>
{
static constexpr double value = 1;
};
However, such solution wouldn't work, due to the fact, that both branches of the ternary expression, would need to be resolved, and that would, always, lead to the infinite recursion, since one of the branches wouldn't tend to 0. Then, SFINAE came to mind:
// Base case.
template <int exp, class Enable = void>
struct DoubleValue
{
};
// Case when exp is positive
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue<exp, typename std::enable_if<(exp > 0)>::type>
{
static constexpr double value = 10 * DoubleValue<exp-1>::value;
};
// Case when exp is negative
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue<exp, typename std::enable_if<(exp < 0)>::type>
{
static constexpr double value = DoubleValue<exp+1>::value / 10;
};
// Default case.
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0>
{
static constexpr double value = 1;
};
Live Demo.
This is definitely not the only was - see answer by @sebrockm.
– lisyarus
4 hours ago
@lisyarus Sure, what I meant was "the only way that came to my mind". Edited to clarify that.
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Since you need the value to available in compile time, pretty much the only way to solve it, that came to my mind is recursive templates. However, the fact, that you need for said template to do different things, based on the signedness of the passed value, complicates things. First thing that would come to mind, would be to write such a recursive template:
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = (exp < 0
? DoubleValue<exp+1>::value / 10
: 10 * DoubleValue<exp-1>::value);
};
// Default case
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0>
{
static constexpr double value = 1;
};
However, such solution wouldn't work, due to the fact, that both branches of the ternary expression, would need to be resolved, and that would, always, lead to the infinite recursion, since one of the branches wouldn't tend to 0. Then, SFINAE came to mind:
// Base case.
template <int exp, class Enable = void>
struct DoubleValue
{
};
// Case when exp is positive
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue<exp, typename std::enable_if<(exp > 0)>::type>
{
static constexpr double value = 10 * DoubleValue<exp-1>::value;
};
// Case when exp is negative
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue<exp, typename std::enable_if<(exp < 0)>::type>
{
static constexpr double value = DoubleValue<exp+1>::value / 10;
};
// Default case.
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0>
{
static constexpr double value = 1;
};
Live Demo.
Since you need the value to available in compile time, pretty much the only way to solve it, that came to my mind is recursive templates. However, the fact, that you need for said template to do different things, based on the signedness of the passed value, complicates things. First thing that would come to mind, would be to write such a recursive template:
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = (exp < 0
? DoubleValue<exp+1>::value / 10
: 10 * DoubleValue<exp-1>::value);
};
// Default case
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0>
{
static constexpr double value = 1;
};
However, such solution wouldn't work, due to the fact, that both branches of the ternary expression, would need to be resolved, and that would, always, lead to the infinite recursion, since one of the branches wouldn't tend to 0. Then, SFINAE came to mind:
// Base case.
template <int exp, class Enable = void>
struct DoubleValue
{
};
// Case when exp is positive
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue<exp, typename std::enable_if<(exp > 0)>::type>
{
static constexpr double value = 10 * DoubleValue<exp-1>::value;
};
// Case when exp is negative
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue<exp, typename std::enable_if<(exp < 0)>::type>
{
static constexpr double value = DoubleValue<exp+1>::value / 10;
};
// Default case.
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0>
{
static constexpr double value = 1;
};
Live Demo.
edited 4 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
Algirdas PreidžiusAlgirdas Preidžius
1,52231015
1,52231015
This is definitely not the only was - see answer by @sebrockm.
– lisyarus
4 hours ago
@lisyarus Sure, what I meant was "the only way that came to my mind". Edited to clarify that.
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
add a comment |
This is definitely not the only was - see answer by @sebrockm.
– lisyarus
4 hours ago
@lisyarus Sure, what I meant was "the only way that came to my mind". Edited to clarify that.
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
This is definitely not the only was - see answer by @sebrockm.
– lisyarus
4 hours ago
This is definitely not the only was - see answer by @sebrockm.
– lisyarus
4 hours ago
@lisyarus Sure, what I meant was "the only way that came to my mind". Edited to clarify that.
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
@lisyarus Sure, what I meant was "the only way that came to my mind". Edited to clarify that.
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
add a comment |
If you want it at compile time without std::pow
, this should do it:
#include <iostream>
template <int e>
struct DoubleValue {
static constexpr double value = 10.0 * DoubleValue<e - 1>::value;
};
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0> {
static constexpr double value = 1.0;
};
int main() {
std::cout << DoubleValue<20>::value << 'n'; //1e+20
}
C++ Fiddle
What about the case ofstd::cout << DoubleValue<-10>::value << std::endl;
?
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
@AlgirdasPreidžius It is not hard to upgrade the code to work with negative powers, the idea stays the same.
– lisyarus
4 hours ago
1
@lisyarus Idea, yes, but one can't just throwif
, or ternary expression, in there, since the both branches would need to be resolved, which would lead to infinite recursion. One would need to do more, than what is shown here, to force the same template to work with both positive, and negative numbers.
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
@AlgirdasPreidžius You are absolutely right, this needs some template machinery to work, albeit pretty standard one, but potentially not familiar to the OP.
– lisyarus
4 hours ago
add a comment |
If you want it at compile time without std::pow
, this should do it:
#include <iostream>
template <int e>
struct DoubleValue {
static constexpr double value = 10.0 * DoubleValue<e - 1>::value;
};
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0> {
static constexpr double value = 1.0;
};
int main() {
std::cout << DoubleValue<20>::value << 'n'; //1e+20
}
C++ Fiddle
What about the case ofstd::cout << DoubleValue<-10>::value << std::endl;
?
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
@AlgirdasPreidžius It is not hard to upgrade the code to work with negative powers, the idea stays the same.
– lisyarus
4 hours ago
1
@lisyarus Idea, yes, but one can't just throwif
, or ternary expression, in there, since the both branches would need to be resolved, which would lead to infinite recursion. One would need to do more, than what is shown here, to force the same template to work with both positive, and negative numbers.
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
@AlgirdasPreidžius You are absolutely right, this needs some template machinery to work, albeit pretty standard one, but potentially not familiar to the OP.
– lisyarus
4 hours ago
add a comment |
If you want it at compile time without std::pow
, this should do it:
#include <iostream>
template <int e>
struct DoubleValue {
static constexpr double value = 10.0 * DoubleValue<e - 1>::value;
};
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0> {
static constexpr double value = 1.0;
};
int main() {
std::cout << DoubleValue<20>::value << 'n'; //1e+20
}
C++ Fiddle
If you want it at compile time without std::pow
, this should do it:
#include <iostream>
template <int e>
struct DoubleValue {
static constexpr double value = 10.0 * DoubleValue<e - 1>::value;
};
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0> {
static constexpr double value = 1.0;
};
int main() {
std::cout << DoubleValue<20>::value << 'n'; //1e+20
}
C++ Fiddle
edited 4 hours ago
MrMaavin
283211
283211
answered 5 hours ago
Stack DannyStack Danny
1,115319
1,115319
What about the case ofstd::cout << DoubleValue<-10>::value << std::endl;
?
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
@AlgirdasPreidžius It is not hard to upgrade the code to work with negative powers, the idea stays the same.
– lisyarus
4 hours ago
1
@lisyarus Idea, yes, but one can't just throwif
, or ternary expression, in there, since the both branches would need to be resolved, which would lead to infinite recursion. One would need to do more, than what is shown here, to force the same template to work with both positive, and negative numbers.
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
@AlgirdasPreidžius You are absolutely right, this needs some template machinery to work, albeit pretty standard one, but potentially not familiar to the OP.
– lisyarus
4 hours ago
add a comment |
What about the case ofstd::cout << DoubleValue<-10>::value << std::endl;
?
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
@AlgirdasPreidžius It is not hard to upgrade the code to work with negative powers, the idea stays the same.
– lisyarus
4 hours ago
1
@lisyarus Idea, yes, but one can't just throwif
, or ternary expression, in there, since the both branches would need to be resolved, which would lead to infinite recursion. One would need to do more, than what is shown here, to force the same template to work with both positive, and negative numbers.
– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
@AlgirdasPreidžius You are absolutely right, this needs some template machinery to work, albeit pretty standard one, but potentially not familiar to the OP.
– lisyarus
4 hours ago
What about the case of
std::cout << DoubleValue<-10>::value << std::endl;
?– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
What about the case of
std::cout << DoubleValue<-10>::value << std::endl;
?– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
@AlgirdasPreidžius It is not hard to upgrade the code to work with negative powers, the idea stays the same.
– lisyarus
4 hours ago
@AlgirdasPreidžius It is not hard to upgrade the code to work with negative powers, the idea stays the same.
– lisyarus
4 hours ago
1
1
@lisyarus Idea, yes, but one can't just throw
if
, or ternary expression, in there, since the both branches would need to be resolved, which would lead to infinite recursion. One would need to do more, than what is shown here, to force the same template to work with both positive, and negative numbers.– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
@lisyarus Idea, yes, but one can't just throw
if
, or ternary expression, in there, since the both branches would need to be resolved, which would lead to infinite recursion. One would need to do more, than what is shown here, to force the same template to work with both positive, and negative numbers.– Algirdas Preidžius
4 hours ago
@AlgirdasPreidžius You are absolutely right, this needs some template machinery to work, albeit pretty standard one, but potentially not familiar to the OP.
– lisyarus
4 hours ago
@AlgirdasPreidžius You are absolutely right, this needs some template machinery to work, albeit pretty standard one, but potentially not familiar to the OP.
– lisyarus
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Rubix Cube is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Rubix Cube is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Rubix Cube is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Rubix Cube is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54195854%2fuse-integer-template-argument-to-create-compiletime-double%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
maybe
std::pow(10, exp)
?– iBug
5 hours ago
1
@iBug he needs something with compile time, so
std::pow
will not work since it is notconstexpr
.– Marek R
5 hours ago
3
Possible duplicate of c++ power of integer, template meta programming
– Ken Y-N
5 hours ago
"I would like the value to be evaluated at compile time" — What would be the use for this? To speed-up your runtime?
– Holt
5 hours ago
I added static constexpr, I was indeed sloppy :)
– Rubix Cube
5 hours ago