Generic/template programming best practices: To limit types, or not to limit types

That is my question. I'm just curious what the consensus is on limiting the types that can be passed in to a generic function or class. I thought I had read at some point, that if you're doing generic programming, it was generally better to leave things open instead of trying to close them down (don't recall the source).

I'm writing a library that has some internal generic functions, and I feel that they should only allow types within the library to be used with them, simply because that's how I mean for them to be used. On the other hand, I'm not really sure my effort to lock things down is worth it.

Anybody maybe have some sources for statistics or authoritative commentary on this topic? I'm also interested in sound opinions. Hopefully that doesn't invalidate this question 开发者_如何学Goaltogether :\

Also, are there any tags here on SO that equate to "best-practice"? I didn't see that one specifically, but it seems like it'd be helpful to be able to bring up all best-practice info for a given SO topic... maybe not, just a thought.

Edit: One answer so far mentioned that the type of library I'm doing would be significant. It's a database library that ends up working with STL containers, variadics (tuple), Boost Fusion, things of that nature. I can see how that would be relevant, but I'd also be interested in rules of thumb for determining which way to go.

Always leave it as open as possible - but make sure to

• document the required interface and behaviour for valid types to use with your generic code.
• use a type's interface characteristics (traits) to determine whether to allow/disallow it. Don't base your decision on the type name.
• produce reasonable diagnosis if someone uses a wrong type. C++ templates are great at raising tons of deeply-nested errors if they get instanced with the wrong types - using type traits, static assertions and related techniques, one can easily produce more succinct error messages.

In my database framework, I decided to forgo templates and use a single base class. Generic programming meant that any or all objects can be used. The specific type classes outweighed the few generic operations. For example, strings and numbers can be compared for equality; BLOBs (Binary Large OBjects) may want to use a different method (such as comparing MD5 checksums stored in a different record).

Also, there was an inheritance branch between strings and numeric types.

By using an inheritance hierarchy, I can refer to any field by using the Field class or to a specialized class such as Field_Int.

It's one of the strongest selling points of the STL that it's so open, and that its algorithms work with my data structures as well as with the one it provides itself, and that my algorithms work with its data structures as well as with mine.

Whether it makes sense to leave your algorithms open to all types or limit them to yours depends largely on the library you're writing, which we know nothing about.

(Initially I meant to answer that being widly open is what Generic Programming is all about, but now I see that there's always limits to genericity, and that you have to draw the line somewhere. It might just as well be limited to your types, if that makes sense.)

At least IMO, the right thing to do is roughly what concepts attempted: rather than attempting to verify that you're receiving the specified type (or one of the set of specified types), do your best to specify the requirements on the type, and verify that the type you've received has the right characteristics, and can meet the requirements of your template.

Much like with concepts, much of the motivation for that is to simply provide good, useful error messages when those requirements aren't met. Ultimately, the compiler will produce an error message if somebody attempts to instantiate your template over a type that doesn't meet its requirements. The problem is that, as likely as not, the error message won't by very helpful unless you take steps to ensure that it is.

The Problem

If you clients can see your internal functions in public headers, and if the names of these internal generic functions are "common", then you may be putting your clients at risk of accidentally calling your internal generic functions.

For example:

namespace Database
{

// internal API, not documented
template <class DatabaseItem>
void
store(DatabaseItem);
{
    // ...
}

struct SomeDataBaseType {};

}  // Database

namespace ClientCode
{

template <class T, class U>
struct base
{
};

// external API, documented
template <class T, class U>
void
store(base<T, U>)
{
    // ...
}

template <class T, class U>
struct derived
    : public base<T, U>
{
};

}  // ClientCode

int main()
{
    ClientCode::derived<int, Database::SomeDataBaseType> d;
    store(d);  // intended ClientCode::store
}

In this example the author of main doesn't even know Database::store exists. He intends on calling ClientCode::store, and gets lazy, letting ADL choose the function instead of specifying ClientCode::store. After all, his argument to store comes from the same namespace as store so it should just work.

It doesn't work. This example calls Database::store. Depending on the innards of Database::store this call may result in a compile-time error, or worse yet, a run time error.

How To Fix

The more generically you name your functions, the more likely this is to happen. Give your internal functions (the ones that must appear in your headers) really non-generic names. Or put them in a sub-namespace like details. In the latter case you have to make sure your clients won't ever have details as an associated namespace for the purpose of ADL. That's usually accomplished by not creating types that the client will use, either directly or indirectly, in namespace details.

If you want to get more paranoid, start locking things down with enable_if.

If perhaps you think your internal functions might be useful to your clients, then they are no longer internal.

The above example code is not far-fetched. It has happened to me. It has happened to functions in namespace std. I call store in this example overly generic. std::advance and std::distance are classic examples of overly generic code. It is something to guard against. And it is a problem concepts attempted to fix.