![]() |
Home | Libraries | People | FAQ | More |
Most compilers have front ends and back ends. The front end parses the text of an input program into some intermediate form like an abstract syntax tree, and the back end takes the intermediate form and generates an executable from it.
A library built with Proto is essentially a compiler for an embedded domain-specific language (EDSL). It also has a front end, an intermediate form, and a back end. The front end is comprised of the symbols (a.k.a., terminals), members, operators and functions that make up the user-visible aspects of the EDSL. The back end is made of evaluation contexts and transforms that give meaning and behavior to the expression templates generated by the front end. In between is the intermediate form: the expression template itself, which is an abstract syntax tree in a very real sense.
To build a library with Proto, you will first decide what your interface will be; that is, you'll design a programming language for your domain and build the front end with tools provided by Proto. Then you'll design the back end by writing evaluation contexts and/or transforms that accept expression templates and do interesting things with them.
This users' guide is organized as follows. After a Getting Started guide, we'll cover the tools Proto provides for defining and manipulating the three major parts of a compiler:
How to define the aspects of your EDSL with which your users will interact directly.
What Proto expression templates look like, how to discover their structure and access their constituents.
How to define evaluation contexts and transforms that make expression templates do interesting things.
After that, you may be interested in seeing some Examples to get a better idea of how the pieces all fit together.
You can get Proto by downloading Boost (Proto is in version 1.37 and later), or by accessing Boost's SVN repository on SourceForge.net. Just go to http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/BoostSubversion and follow the instructions there for anonymous SVN access.
Proto is a header-only template library, which means you don't need to
alter your build scripts or link to any separate lib file to use it. All
you need to do is #include
<boost/proto/proto.hpp>. Or, you might decide to just include
the core of Proto (#include
<boost/proto/core.hpp>) and whichever contexts and transforms
you happen to use.
Proto depends on Boost. You must use either Boost version 1.34.1 or higher, or the version in SVN trunk.
Currently, Boost.Proto is known to work on the following compilers:
![]() |
Note |
|---|---|
Please send any questions, comments and bug reports to eric <at> boostpro <dot> com. |
Proto is a large library and probably quite unlike any library you've used before. Proto uses some consistent naming conventions to make it easier to navigate, and they're described below.
All of Proto's functions are defined in the boost::proto
namespace. For example, there is a function called value() defined in boost::proto
that accepts a terminal expression and returns the terminal's value.
Proto defines metafunctions that correspond to each
of Proto's free functions. The metafunctions are used to compute the functions'
return types. All of Proto's metafunctions live in the boost::proto::result_of
namespace and have the same name as the functions to which they correspond.
For instance, there is a class template boost::proto::result_of::value<> that you can use to compute the
return type of the boost::proto::value() function.
Proto defines function object equivalents of all of
its free functions. (A function object is an instance of a class type that
defines an operator()
member function.) All of Proto's function object types are defined in the
boost::proto::functional namespace and have the same
name as their corresponding free functions. For example, boost::proto::functional::value is a class that defines a function
object that does the same thing as the boost::proto::value() free function.
Proto also defines primitive transforms -- class types
that can be used to compose larger transforms for manipulating expression
trees. Many of Proto's free functions have corresponding primitive transforms.
These live in the boost::proto
namespace and their names have a leading underscore. For instance, the
transform corresponding to the value() function is called boost::proto::_value.
The following table summarizes the discussion above:
Table 31.1. Proto Naming Conventions
|
Entity |
Example |
|---|---|
|
Free Function |
|
|
Metafunction |
|
|
Function Object |
|
|
Transform |
|
Below is a very simple program that uses Proto to build an expression template and then execute it.
#include <iostream> #include <boost/proto/proto.hpp> #include <boost/typeof/std/ostream.hpp> using namespace boost; proto::terminal< std::ostream & >::type cout_ = { std::cout }; template< typename Expr > void evaluate( Expr const & expr ) { proto::default_context ctx; proto::eval(expr, ctx); } int main() { evaluate( cout_ << "hello" << ',' << " world" ); return 0; }
This program outputs the following:
hello, world
This program builds an object representing the output operation and passes
it to an evaluate()
function, which then executes it.
The basic idea of expression templates is to overload all the operators so that, rather than evaluating the expression immediately, they build a tree-like representation of the expression so that it can be evaluated later. For each operator in an expression, at least one operand must be Protofied in order for Proto's operator overloads to be found. In the expression ...
cout_ << "hello" << ',' << " world"
... the Protofied sub-expression is cout_,
which is the Proto-ification of std::cout.
The presence of cout_ "infects"
the expression, and brings Proto's tree-building operator overloads into
consideration. Any literals in the expression are then Protofied by wrapping
them in a Proto terminal before they are combined into larger Proto expressions.
Once Proto's operator overloads have built the expression tree, the expression
can be lazily evaluated later by walking the tree. That is what proto::eval()
does. It is a general tree-walking expression evaluator, whose behavior
is customizable via a context parameter. The use of
proto::default_context
assigns the standard meanings to the operators in the expression. (By using
a different context, you could give the operators in your expressions different
semantics. By default, Proto makes no assumptions about what operators
actually mean.)
Before we continue, let's use the above example to illustrate an important design principle of Proto's. The expression template created in the hello world example is totally general and abstract. It is not tied in any way to any particular domain or application, nor does it have any particular meaning or behavior on its own, until it is evaluated in a context. Expression templates are really just heterogeneous trees, which might mean something in one domain, and something else entirely in a different one.
As we'll see later, there is a way to create Proto expression trees that are not purely abstract, and that have meaning and behaviors independent of any context. There is also a way to control which operators are overloaded for your particular domain. But that is not the default behavior. We'll see later why the default is often a good thing.
"Hello, world" is nice, but it doesn't get you very far. Let's
use Proto to build a EDSL (embedded domain-specific language) for a lazily-evaluated
calculator. We'll see how to define the terminals in your mini-language,
how to compose them into larger expressions, and how to define an evaluation
context so that your expressions can do useful work. When we're done, we'll
have a mini-language that will allow us to declare a lazily-evaluated arithmetic
expression, such as (_2
- _1) / _2
* 100,
where _1 and _2 are placeholders for values to be
passed in when the expression is evaluated.
The first order of business is to define the placeholders _1 and _2.
For that, we'll use the proto::terminal<>
metafunction.
// Define a placeholder type template<int I> struct placeholder {}; // Define the Protofied placeholder terminals proto::terminal<placeholder<0> >::type const _1 = {{}}; proto::terminal<placeholder<1> >::type const _2 = {{}};
The initialization may look a little odd at first, but there is a good
reason for doing things this way. The objects _1
and _2 above do not require
run-time construction -- they are statically initialized,
which means they are essentially initialized at compile time. See the
Static
Initialization section in the Rationale
appendix for more information.
Now that we have terminals, we can use Proto's operator overloads to combine these terminals into larger expressions. So, for instance, we can immediately say things like:
// This builds an expression template (_2 - _1) / _2 * 100;
This creates an expression tree with a node for each operator. The type of the resulting object is large and complex, but we are not terribly interested in it right now.
So far, the object is just a tree representing the expression. It has no behavior. In particular, it is not yet a calculator. Below we'll see how to make it a calculator by defining an evaluation context.
No doubt you want your expression templates to actually do something. One approach is to define an evaluation context. The context is like a function object that associates behaviors with the node types in your expression tree. The following example should make it clear. It is explained below.
struct calculator_context : proto::callable_context< calculator_context const > { // Values to replace the placeholders std::vector<double> args; // Define the result type of the calculator. // (This makes the calculator_context "callable".) typedef double result_type; // Handle the placeholders: template<int I> double operator()(proto::tag::terminal, placeholder<I>) const { return this->args[I]; } };
In calculator_context,
we specify how Proto should evaluate the placeholder terminals by defining
the appropriate overloads of the function call operator. For any other
nodes in the expression tree (e.g., arithmetic operations or non-placeholder
terminals), Proto will evaluate the expression in the "default"
way. For example, a binary plus node is evaluated by first evaluating the
left and right operands and adding the results. Proto's default evaluator
uses the Boost.Typeof
library to compute return types.
Now that we have an evaluation context for our calculator, we can use it to evaluate our arithmetic expressions, as below:
calculator_context ctx; ctx.args.push_back(45); // the value of _1 is 45 ctx.args.push_back(50); // the value of _2 is 50 // Create an arithmetic expression and immediately evaluate it double d = proto::eval( (_2 - _1) / _2 * 100, ctx ); // This prints "10" std::cout << d << std::endl;
Later, we'll see how to define more interesting evaluation contexts and expression transforms that give you total control over how your expressions are evaluated.
Our calculator EDSL is already pretty useful, and for many EDSL scenarios,
no more would be needed. But let's keep going. Imagine how much nicer it
would be if all calculator expressions overloaded operator() so that they could be used as function
objects. We can do that by creating a calculator domain
and telling Proto that all expressions in the calculator domain have extra
members. Here is how to define a calculator domain:
// Forward-declare an expression wrapper template<typename Expr> struct calculator; // Define a calculator domain. Expression within // the calculator domain will be wrapped in the // calculator<> expression wrapper. struct calculator_domain : proto::domain< proto::generator<calculator> > {};
The calculator<>
type will be an expression wrapper. It will behave just like the expression
that it wraps, but it will have extra member functions that we will define.
The calculator_domain is
what informs Proto about our wrapper. It is used below in the definition
of calculator<>.
Read on for a description.
// Define a calculator expression wrapper. It behaves just like // the expression it wraps, but with an extra operator() member // function that evaluates the expression. template<typename Expr> struct calculator : proto::extends<Expr, calculator<Expr>, calculator_domain> { typedef proto::extends<Expr, calculator<Expr>, calculator_domain> base_type; calculator(Expr const &expr = Expr()) : base_type(expr) {} typedef double result_type; // Overload operator() to invoke proto::eval() with // our calculator_context. double operator()(double a1 = 0, double a2 = 0) const { calculator_context ctx; ctx.args.push_back(a1); ctx.args.push_back(a2); return proto::eval(*this, ctx); } };
The calculator<>
struct is an expression extension. It uses proto::extends<>
to effectively add additional members to an expression type. When composing
larger expressions from smaller ones, Proto notes what domain the smaller
expressions are in. The larger expression is in the same domain and is
automatically wrapped in the domain's extension wrapper.
All that remains to be done is to put our placeholders in the calculator
domain. We do that by wrapping them in our calculator<> wrapper, as below:
// Define the Protofied placeholder terminals, in the // calculator domain. calculator<proto::terminal<placeholder<0> >::type> const _1; calculator<proto::terminal<placeholder<1> >::type> const _2;
Any larger expression that contain these placeholders will automatically
be wrapped in the calculator<> wrapper and have our operator()
overload. That means we can use them as function objects as follows.
double result = ((_2 - _1) / _2 * 100)(45.0, 50.0); assert(result == (50.0 - 45.0) / 50.0 * 100));
Since calculator expressions are now valid function objects, we can use them with standard algorithms, as shown below:
double a1[4] = { 56, 84, 37, 69 }; double a2[4] = { 65, 120, 60, 70 }; double a3[4] = { 0 }; // Use std::transform() and a calculator expression // to calculate percentages given two input sequences: std::transform(a1, a1+4, a2, a3, (_2 - _1) / _2 * 100);
Now, let's use the calculator example to explore some other useful features of Proto.
You may have noticed that you didn't have to define an overloaded operator-()
or operator/()
-- Proto defined them for you. In fact, Proto overloads all
the operators for you, even though they may not mean anything in your domain-specific
language. That means it may be possible to create expressions that are
invalid in your domain. You can detect invalid expressions with Proto by
defining the grammar of your domain-specific language.
For simplicity, assume that our calculator EDSL should only allow addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Any expression involving any other operator is invalid. Using Proto, we can state this requirement by defining the grammar of the calculator EDSL. It looks as follows:
// Define the grammar of calculator expressions struct calculator_grammar : proto::or_< proto::plus< calculator_grammar, calculator_grammar > , proto::minus< calculator_grammar, calculator_grammar > , proto::multiplies< calculator_grammar, calculator_grammar > , proto::divides< calculator_grammar, calculator_grammar > , proto::terminal< proto::_ > > {};
You can read the above grammar as follows: an expression tree conforms
to the calculator grammar if it is a binary plus, minus, multiplies or
divides node, where both child nodes also conform to the calculator grammar;
or if it is a terminal. In a Proto grammar, proto::_ is a wildcard that matches
any type, so proto::terminal<
proto::_ >
matches any terminal, whether it is a placeholder or a literal.
![]() |
Note |
|---|---|
This grammar is actually a little looser than we would like. Only placeholders and literals that are convertible to doubles are valid terminals. Later on we'll see how to express things like that in Proto grammars. |
Once you have defined the grammar of your EDSL, you can use the proto::matches<> metafunction to check
whether a given expression type conforms to the grammar. For instance,
we might add the following to our calculator::operator() overload:
template<typename Expr> struct calculator : proto::extends< /* ... as before ... */ > { /* ... */ double operator()(double a1 = 0, double a2 = 0) const { // Check here that the expression we are about to // evaluate actually conforms to the calculator grammar. BOOST_MPL_ASSERT((proto::matches<Expr, calculator_grammar>)); /* ... */ } };
The addition of the BOOST_MPL_ASSERT() line enforces at compile time that we
only evaluate expressions that conform to the calculator EDSL's grammar.
With Proto grammars, proto::matches<> and BOOST_MPL_ASSERT() it is very easy to give the users of
your EDSL short and readable compile-time errors when they accidentally
misuse your EDSL.
![]() |
Note |
|---|---|
|
Grammars and proto::matches<>
make it possible to detect when a user has created an invalid expression
and issue a compile-time error. But what if you want to prevent users from
creating invalid expressions in the first place? By using grammars and
domains together, you can disable any of Proto's operator overloads that
would create an invalid expression. It is as simple as specifying the EDSL's
grammar when you define the domain, as shown below:
// Define a calculator domain. Expression within // the calculator domain will be wrapped in the // calculator<> expression wrapper. // NEW: Any operator overloads that would create an // expression that does not conform to the // calculator grammar is automatically disabled. struct calculator_domain : proto::domain< proto::generator<calculator>, calculator_grammar > {};
The only thing we changed is we added calculator_grammar
as the second template parameter to the proto::domain<> template when defining calculator_domain. With this simple addition,
we disable any of Proto's operator overloads that would create an invalid
calculator expression.
Hopefully, this gives you an idea of what sorts of things Proto can do for you. But this only scratches the surface. The rest of this users' guide will describe all these features and others in more detail.
Happy metaprogramming!
Here is the fun part: designing your own mini-programming language. In this section we'll talk about the nuts and bolts of designing an EDSL interface using Proto. We'll cover the definition of terminals and lazy functions that the users of your EDSL will get to program with. We'll also talk about Proto's expression template-building operator overloads, and about ways to add additional members to expressions within your domain.
As we saw with the Calculator example from the Introduction, the simplest way to get an EDSL up and running is simply to define some terminals, as follows.
// Define a literal integer Proto expression. proto::terminal<int>::type i = {0}; // This creates an expression template. i + 1;
With some terminals and Proto's operator overloads, you can immediately start creating expression templates.
Defining terminals -- with aggregate initialization -- can be a little
awkward at times. Proto provides an easier-to-use wrapper for literals
that can be used to construct Protofied terminal expressions. It's called
proto::literal<>.
// Define a literal integer Proto expression. proto::literal<int> i = 0; // Proto literals are really just Proto terminal expressions. // For example, this builds a Proto expression template: i + 1;
There is also a proto::lit() function for constructing
a proto::literal<> in-place. The above
expression can simply be written as:
// proto::lit(0) creates an integer terminal expression proto::lit(0) + 1;
Once we have some Proto terminals, expressions involving those terminals
build expression trees for us. Proto defines overloads for each of C++'s
overloadable operators in the boost::proto
namespace. As long as one operand is a Proto expression, the result of
the operation is a tree node representing that operation.
![]() |
Note |
|---|---|
Proto's operator overloads live in the |
As a result of Proto's operator overloads, we can say:
-_1; // OK, build a unary-negate tree node _1 + 42; // OK, build a binary-plus tree node
For the most part, this Just Works and you don't need to think about it, but a few operators are special and it can be helpful to know how Proto handles them.
Proto also overloads operator=, operator[], and operator(), but these operators are member functions
of the expression template rather than free functions in Proto's namespace.
The following are valid Proto expressions:
_1 = 5; // OK, builds a binary assign tree node _1[6]; // OK, builds a binary subscript tree node _1(); // OK, builds a unary function tree node _1(7); // OK, builds a binary function tree node _1(8,9); // OK, builds a ternary function tree node // ... etc.
For the first two lines, assignment and subscript, it should be fairly
unsurprising that the resulting expression node should be binary. After
all, there are two operands in each expression. It may be surprising at
first that what appears to be a function call with no arguments, _1(),
actually creates an expression node with one child. The child is _1 itself. Likewise, the expression
_1(7) has two
children: _1 and 7.
Because these operators can only be defined as member functions, the following expressions are invalid:
int i; i = _1; // ERROR: cannot assign _1 to an int int *p; p[_1]; // ERROR: cannot use _1 as an index std::sin(_1); // ERROR: cannot call std::sin() with _1
Also, C++ has special rules for overloads of operator-> that make it useless for building
expression templates, so Proto does not overload it.
Proto overloads the address-of operator for expression types, so that the following code creates a new unary address-of tree node:
&_1; // OK, creates a unary address-of tree node
It does not return the address of the _1 object. However, there is special
code in Proto such that a unary address-of node is implicitly convertible
to a pointer to its child. In other words, the following code works and
does what you might expect, but not in the obvious way:
typedef proto::terminal< placeholder<0> >::type _1_type; _1_type const _1 = {{}}; _1_type const * p = &_1; // OK, &_1 implicitly converted
If we limited ourselves to nothing but terminals and operator overloads,
our embedded domain-specific languages wouldn't be very expressive. Imagine
that we wanted to extend our calculator EDSL with a full suite of math
functions like sin()
and pow()
that we could invoke lazily as follows.
// A calculator expression that takes one argument // and takes the sine of it. sin(_1);
We would like the above to create an expression template representing a
function invocation. When that expression is evaluated, it should cause
the function to be invoked. (At least, that's the meaning of function invocation
we'd like the calculator EDSL to have.) You can define sin
quite simply as follows.
// "sin" is a Proto terminal containing a function pointer proto::terminal< double(*)(double) >::type const sin = {&std::sin};
In the above, we define sin
as a Proto terminal containing a pointer to the std::sin() function. Now we can use sin as a lazy function. The default_context that we saw in the Introduction
knows how to evaluate lazy functions. Consider the following:
double pi = 3.1415926535; proto::default_context ctx; // Create a lazy "sin" invocation and immediately evaluate it std::cout << proto::eval( sin(pi/2), ctx ) << std::endl;
The above code prints out:
1
I'm no expert at trigonometry, but that looks right to me.
We can write sin(pi/2) because the sin
object, which is a Proto terminal, has an overloaded operator()() that builds a node representing a function
call invocation. The actual type of sin(pi/2) is actually
something like this:
// The type of the expression sin(pi/2): proto::function< proto::terminal< double(*)(double) >::type const & proto::result_of::as_child< double const >::type >::type
This type further expands to an unsightly node type with a tag
type of proto::tag::function and two children: the first
representing the function to be invoked, and the second representing the
argument to the function. (Node tag types describe the operation that created
the node. The difference between a
+ b
and a -
b is that the former has tag
type proto::tag::plus and the latter has tag type proto::tag::minus. Tag types are pure compile-time
information.)
![]() |
Note |
|---|---|
In the type computation above, |
It is important to note that there is nothing special about terminals that contain function pointers. Any Proto expression has an overloaded function call operator. Consider:
// This compiles! proto::lit(1)(2)(3,4)(5,6,7,8);
That may look strange at first. It creates an integer terminal with proto::lit(), and then invokes it like
a function again and again. What does it mean? Who knows?! You get to decide
when you define an evaluation context or a transform. But more on that
later.
Now, what if we wanted to add a pow() function to our calculator EDSL that
users could invoke as follows?
// A calculator expression that takes one argument // and raises it to the 2nd power pow< 2 >(_1);
The simple technique described above of making pow
a terminal containing a function pointer doesn't work here. If pow is an object, then the expression
pow<
2 >(_1) is
not valid C++. (Well, technically it is; it means, pow
less than 2, greater than (_1),
which is nothing at all like what we want.) pow
should be a real function template. But it must be an unusual function:
one that returns an expression template.
With sin, we relied on
Proto to provide an overloaded operator()() to build an expression node with tag
type proto::tag::function for us. Now we'll need to do
so ourselves. As before, the node will have two children: the function
to invoke and the function's argument.
With sin, the function
to invoke was a raw function pointer wrapped in a Proto terminal. In the
case of pow, we want it
to be a terminal containing TR1-style function object. This will allow
us to parameterize the function on the exponent. Below is the implementation
of a simple TR1-style wrapper for the std::pow
function:
// Define a pow_fun function object template< int Exp > struct pow_fun { typedef double result_type; double operator()(double d) const { return std::pow(d, Exp); } };
Following the sin example,
we want pow<
1 >(
pi/2 ) to have
a type like this:
// The type of the expression pow<1>(pi/2): proto::function< proto::terminal< pow_fun<1> >::type proto::result_of::as_child< double const >::type >::type
We could write a pow()
function using code like this, but it's verbose and error prone; it's too
easy to introduce subtle bugs by forgetting to call proto::as_child()
where necessary, resulting in code that seems to work but sometimes doesn't.
Proto provides a better way to construct expression nodes: proto::make_expr().
make_expr()
Proto provides a helper for building expression templates called proto::make_expr(). We can concisely define
the pow()
function with it as below.
// Define a lazy pow() function for the calculator EDSL. // Can be used as: pow< 2 >(_1) template< int Exp, typename Arg > typename proto::result_of::make_expr< proto::tag::function // Tag type , pow_fun< Exp > // First child (by value) , Arg const & // Second child (by reference) >::type const pow(Arg const &arg) { return proto::make_expr<proto::tag::function>( pow_fun<Exp>() // First child (by value) , boost::ref(arg) // Second child (by reference) ); }
There are some things to notice about the above code. We use proto::result_of::make_expr<>
to calculate the return type. The first template parameter is the tag type
for the expression node we're building -- in this case, proto::tag::function.
Subsequent template parameters to proto::result_of::make_expr<> represent child nodes. If a child
type is not already a Proto expression, it is automatically made into a
terminal with proto::as_child().
A type such as pow_fun<Exp> results in terminal that is held by
value, whereas a type like Arg
const &
(note the reference) indicates that the result should be held by reference.
In the function body is the runtime invocation of proto::make_expr().
It closely mirrors the return type calculation. proto::make_expr()
requires you to specify the node's tag type as a template parameter. The
arguments to the function become the node's children. When a child should
be stored by value, nothing special needs to be done. When a child should
be stored by reference, you must use the boost::ref() function to wrap the argument.
And that's it! proto::make_expr()
is the lazy person's way to make a lazy funtion.
In this section, we'll learn all about domains. In particular, we'll learn:
In the Hello Calculator section, we looked into making calculator expressions directly usable as lambda expressions in calls to STL algorithms, as below:
double data[] = {1., 2., 3., 4.}; // Use the calculator EDSL to square each element ... HOW? std::transform( data, data + 4, data, _1 * _1 );
The difficulty, if you recall, was that by default Proto expressions
don't have interesting behaviors of their own. They're just trees. In
particular, the expression _1
* _1
won't have an operator()
that takes a double and returns a double like std::transform() expects -- unless we give it one. To
make this work, we needed to define an expression wrapper type that defined
the operator()
member function, and we needed to associate the wrapper with the calculator
domain.
In Proto, the term domain refers to a type that associates expressions in that domain to an expression generator. The generator is just a function object that accepts an expression and does something to it, like wrapping it in an expression wrapper.
You can also use a domain to associate expressions with a grammar. When you specify a domain's grammar, Proto ensures that all the expressions it generates in that domain conform to the domain's grammar. It does that by disabling any operator overloads that would create invalid expressions.
The first step to giving your calculator expressions extra behaviors is to define a calculator domain. All expressions within the calculator domain will be imbued with calculator-ness, as we'll see.
// A type to be used as a domain tag (to be defined below) struct calculator_domain;
We use this domain type when extending the proto::expr<>
type, which we do with the proto::extends<>
class template. Here is our expression wrapper, which imbues an expression
with calculator-ness. It is described below.
// The calculator<> expression wrapper makes expressions // function objects. template< typename Expr > struct calculator : proto::extends< Expr, calculator< Expr >, calculator_domain > { typedef proto::extends< Expr, calculator< Expr >, calculator_domain > base_type; calculator( Expr const &expr = Expr() ) : base_type( expr ) {} // This is usually needed because by default, the compiler- // generated assignment operator hides extends<>::operator= BOOST_PROTO_EXTENDS_USING_ASSIGN(calculator) typedef double result_type; // Hide base_type::operator() by defining our own which // evaluates the calculator expression with a calculator context. result_type operator()( double d1 = 0.0, double d2 = 0.0 ) const { // As defined in the Hello Calculator section. calculator_context ctx; // ctx.args is a vector<double> that holds the values // with which we replace the placeholders (e.g., _1 and _2) // in the expression. ctx.args.push_back( d1 ); // _1 gets the value of d1 ctx.args.push_back( d2 ); // _2 gets the value of d2 return proto::eval(*this, ctx ); // evaluate the expression } };
We want calculator expressions to be function objects, so we have to
define an operator()
that takes and returns doubles. The calculator<> wrapper above does that with
the help of the proto::extends<>
template. The first template to proto::extends<>
parameter is the expression type we are extending. The second is the
type of the wrapped expression. The third parameter is the domain that
this wrapper is associated with. A wrapper type like calculator<> that inherits from proto::extends<> behaves just like
the expression type it has extended, with any additional behaviors you
choose to give it.
![]() |
Note |
|---|---|
|
Why not just inherit from
You might be thinking that this expression extension business is unnecessarily
complicated. After all, isn't this why C++ supports inheritance? Why
can't |
Although not strictly necessary in this case, we bring extends<>::operator=
into scope with the BOOST_PROTO_EXTENDS_USING_ASSIGN() macro. This is really only necessary
if you want expressions like _1
= 3
to create a lazily evaluated assignment. proto::extends<>
defines the appropriate operator= for you, but the compiler-generated
calculator<>::operator=
will hide it unless you make it available with the macro.
Note that in the implementation of calculator<>::operator(), we evaluate the expression with the
calculator_context we
defined earlier. As we saw before, the context is what gives the operators
their meaning. In the case of the calculator, the context is also what
defines the meaning of the placeholder terminals.
Now that we have defined the calculator<> expression wrapper, we need to
wrap the placeholders to imbue them with calculator-ness:
calculator< proto::terminal< placeholder<0> >::type > const _1; calculator< proto::terminal< placeholder<1> >::type > const _2;
BOOST_PROTO_EXTENDS()
To use proto::extends<>, your extension type
must derive from proto::extends<>.
Unfortunately, that means that your extension type is no longer POD and
its instances cannot be statically initialized.
(See the Static
Initialization section in the Rationale
appendix for why this matters.) In particular, as defined above, the
global placeholder objects _1
and _2 will need to be
initialized at runtime, which could lead to subtle order of initialization
bugs.
There is another way to make an expression extension that doesn't sacrifice
POD-ness : the
macro. You can use it much like you use BOOST_PROTO_EXTENDS()proto::extends<>.
We can use
to keep BOOST_PROTO_EXTENDS()calculator<>
a POD and our placeholders statically initialized.
// The calculator<> expression wrapper makes expressions // function objects. template< typename Expr > struct calculator { // Use BOOST_PROTO_EXTENDS() instead of proto::extends<> to // make this type a Proto expression extension. BOOST_PROTO_EXTENDS(Expr, calculator<Expr>, calculator_domain) typedef double result_type; result_type operator()( double d1 = 0.0, double d2 = 0.0 ) const { /* ... as before ... */ } };
With the new calculator<> type, we can redefine our placeholders
to be statically initialized:
calculator< proto::terminal< placeholder<0> >::type > const _1 = {{{}}}; calculator< proto::terminal< placeholder<1> >::type > const _2 = {{{}}};
We need to make one additional small change to accommodate the POD-ness of our expression extension, which we'll describe below in the section on expression generators.
What does
do? It defines a data member of the expression type being extended; some
nested typedefs that Proto requires; BOOST_PROTO_EXTENDS()operator=, operator[] and operator() overloads for building expression templates;
and a nested result<>
template for calculating the return type of operator(). In this case, however, the operator()
overloads and the result<> template are not needed because
we are defining our own operator() in the calculator<> type. Proto provides additional
macros for finer control over which member functions are defined. We
could improve our calculator<> type as follows:
// The calculator<> expression wrapper makes expressions // function objects. template< typename Expr > struct calculator { // Use BOOST_PROTO_BASIC_EXTENDS() instead of proto::extends<> to // make this type a Proto expression extension: BOOST_PROTO_BASIC_EXTENDS(Expr, calculator<Expr>, calculator_domain) // Define operator[] to build expression templates: BOOST_PROTO_EXTENDS_SUBSCRIPT() // Define operator= to build expression templates: BOOST_PROTO_EXTENDS_ASSIGN() typedef double result_type; result_type operator()( double d1 = 0.0, double d2 = 0.0 ) const { /* ... as before ... */ } };
Notice that we are now using
instead of BOOST_PROTO_BASIC_EXTENDS().
This just adds the data member and the nested typedefs but not any of
the overloaded operators. Those are added separately with BOOST_PROTO_EXTENDS()
and BOOST_PROTO_EXTENDS_ASSIGN().
We are leaving out the function call operator and the nested BOOST_PROTO_EXTENDS_SUBSCRIPT()result<>
template that could have been defined with Proto's
macro.
BOOST_PROTO_EXTENDS_FUNCTION()
In summary, here are the macros you can use to define expression extensions, and a brief description of each.
Table 31.2. Expression Extension Macros
|
Macro |
Purpose |
|---|---|
|
|
Defines a data member of type |
|
Defines |
|
|
Defines |
|
|
Defines |
|
|
|
Equivalent to:
|
![]() |
Warning |
|---|---|
|
Argument-Dependent Lookup and
Proto's operator overloads are defined in the
template<class T> struct my_complex { BOOST_PROTO_EXTENDS( typename proto::terminal<std::complex<T> >::type , my_complex<T> , proto::default_domain ) }; int main() { my_complex<int> c0, c1; c0 + c1; // ERROR: operator+ not found }
The problem has to do with how argument-dependent lookup works. The
type
So what can we do? By adding an extra dummy template parameter that
defaults to a type in the
template<class T, class Dummy = proto::is_proto_expr> struct my_complex { BOOST_PROTO_EXTENDS( typename proto::terminal<std::complex<T> >::type , my_complex<T> , proto::default_domain ) }; int main() { my_complex<int> c0, c1; c0 + c1; // OK, operator+ found now! }
The type |
The last thing that remains to be done is to tell Proto that it needs
to wrap all of our calculator expressions in our calculator<> wrapper. We have already wrapped
the placeholders, but we want all expressions that
involve the calculator placeholders to be calculators. We can do that
by specifying an expression generator when we define our calculator_domain, as follows:
// Define the calculator_domain we forward-declared above. // Specify that all expression in this domain should be wrapped // in the calculator<> expression wrapper. struct calculator_domain : proto::domain< proto::generator< calculator > > {};
The first template parameter to proto::domain<> is the generator. "Generator"
is just a fancy name for a function object that accepts an expression
and does something to it. proto::generator<> is a very simple one --- it wraps
an expression in the wrapper you specify. proto::domain<> inherits from its generator parameter,
so all domains are themselves function objects.
If we used
to keep our expression extension type POD, then we need to use BOOST_PROTO_EXTENDS()proto::pod_generator<>
instead of proto::generator<>,
as follows:
// If calculator<> uses BOOST_PROTO_EXTENDS() instead of // use proto::extends<>, use proto::pod_generator<> instead // of proto::generator<>. struct calculator_domain : proto::domain< proto::pod_generator< calculator > > {};
After Proto has calculated a new expression type, it checks the domains
of the child expressions. They must match. Assuming they do, Proto creates
the new expression and passes it to for any additional processing. If we
don't specify a generator, the new expression gets passed through unchanged.
But since we've specified a generator above, Domain::operator()calculator_domain::operator() returns calculator<> objects.
Now we can use calculator expressions as function objects to STL algorithms, as follows:
double data[] = {1., 2., 3., 4.}; // Use the calculator EDSL to square each element ... WORKS! :-) std::transform( data, data + 4, data, _1 * _1 );
By default, Proto defines every possible operator overload for Protofied
expressions. This makes it simple to bang together an EDSL. In some cases,
however, the presence of Proto's promiscuous overloads can lead to confusion
or worse. When that happens, you'll have to disable some of Proto's overloaded
operators. That is done by defining the grammar for your domain and specifying
it as the second parameter of the proto::domain<>
template.
In the Hello Calculator section, we saw an example of a Proto grammar, which is repeated here:
// Define the grammar of calculator expressions struct calculator_grammar : proto::or_< proto::plus< calculator_grammar, calculator_grammar > , proto::minus< calculator_grammar, calculator_grammar > , proto::multiplies< calculator_grammar, calculator_grammar > , proto::divides< calculator_grammar, calculator_grammar > , proto::terminal< proto::_ > > {};
We'll have much more to say about grammars in subsequent sections, but
for now, we'll just say that the calculator_grammar
struct describes a subset of all expression types -- the subset that
comprise valid calculator expressions. We would like to prohibit Proto
from creating a calculator expression that does not conform to this grammar.
We do that by changing the definition of the calculator_domain
struct.
// Define the calculator_domain. Expressions in the calculator // domain are wrapped in the calculator<> wrapper, and they must // conform to the calculator_grammar: struct calculator_domain : proto::domain< proto::generator< calculator >, calculator_grammar > {};
The only new addition is calculator_grammar
as the second template parameter to the proto::domain<>
template. That has the effect of disabling any of Proto's operator overloads
that would create an invalid calculator expression.
Another common use for this feature would be to disable Proto's unary
operator&
overload. It may be surprising for users of your EDSL that they cannot
take the address of their expressions! You can very easily disable Proto's
unary operator&
overload for your domain with a very simple grammar, as below:
// For expressions in my_domain, disable Proto's // unary address-of operator. struct my_domain : proto::domain< proto::generator< my_wrapper > // A simple grammar that matches any expression that // is not a unary address-of expression. , proto::not_< proto::address_of< _ > > > {};
The type proto::not_<
proto::address_of<
_ >
> is a very simple grammar
that matches all expressions except unary address-of expressions. In
the section describing Proto's intermediate form, we'll have much more
to say about grammars.
![]() |
Note |
|---|---|
This is an advanced topic. Feel free to skip this if you're just getting started with Proto. |
Proto's operator overloads build expressions from sub-expressions. The sub-expressions become children of the new expression. By default, the children are stored in the parent by reference. This section describes how to change that default.
as_child vs. as_expr
Proto lets you independently customize the behavior of proto::as_child() and proto::as_expr().
Both accept an object x and return a Proto expression
by turning x it into a Proto terminal if necessary.
Although similar, the two functions are used in different situations
and have subtly different behavior by default. It's important to understand
the difference so that you know which to customize to achieve the behavior
you want.
To wit: proto::as_expr() is typically used by
you to turn an object into a Proto expression that
is to be held in a local variable, as so:
auto l = proto::as_expr(x); // Turn x into a Proto expression, hold the result in a local
The above works regardless of whether x
is already a Proto expression or not. The object l
is guaranteed to be a valid Proto expression. If x
is a non-Proto object, it is turned into a terminal expression that holds
x by value.[30] If x is a
Proto object already, proto::as_expr()
returns it by value unmodified.
In contrast, proto::as_child()
is used internally by Proto to pre-process objects before making them
children of another expression. Since it's internal to Proto, you don't
see it explicitly, but it's there behind the scenes in expressions like
this:
x + y; // Consider that y is a Proto expression, but x may or may not be.
In this case, Proto builds a plus node from the two children. Both are
pre-processed by passing them to proto::as_child()
before making them children of the new node. If x
is not a Proto expression, it becomes one by being wrapped in a Proto
terminal that holds it by reference. If x is already a Proto expression, proto::as_child() returns it by
reference unmodified. Contrast this with the above description
for proto::as_expr().
The table below summarizes the above description.
Table 31.3. proto::as_expr() vs. proto::as_child()
|
Function |
When |
When |
|---|---|---|
|
|
Return (by value) a new Proto terminal holding |
Return |
|
|
Return (by value) a new Proto terminal holding |
Return |
![]() |
Note |
|---|---|
There is one important place where Proto uses both |
Now that you know what proto::as_child()
and proto::as_expr() are, where they are
used, and what they do by default, you may decide that one or both of
these functions should have different behavior for your domain. For instance,
given the above description of proto::as_child(),
the following code is always wrong:
proto::literal<int> i(0); auto l = i + 42; // This is WRONG! Don't do this.
Why is this wrong? Because proto::as_child()
will turn the integer literal 42 into a Proto terminal that holds a reference
to a temporary integer initialized with 42. The lifetime of that temporary
ends at the semicolon, guaranteeing that the local l
is left holding a dangling reference to a deceased integer. What to do?
One answer is to use proto::deep_copy().
Another is to customize the behavior of proto::as_child()
for your domain. Read on for the details.
as_child
To control how Proto builds expressions out of sub-expressions in your
domain, define your domain as usual, and then define a nested as_child<>
class template within it, as follows:
class my_domain : proto::domain< my_generator, my_grammar > { // Here is where you define how Proto should handle // sub-expressions that are about to be glommed into // a larger expression. template< typename T > struct as_child { typedefunspecified-Proto-expr-typeresult_type; result_type operator()( T & t ) const { returnunspecified-Proto-expr-object; } }; };
There's one important thing to note: in the above code, the template
parameter T may or may not be a Proto expression type,
but the result must be a Proto expression type,
or a reference to one. That means that most user-defined as_child<>
templates will need to check whether T is an expression
or not (using proto::is_expr<>), and then turn non-expressions
into Proto terminals by wrapping them as proto::terminal< /* ... */
>::type
or equivalent.
as_expr
Although less common, Proto also lets you customize the behavior of
proto::as_expr() on a per-domain basis.
The technique is identical to that for as_child. See
below:
class my_domain : proto::domain< my_generator, my_grammar > { // Here is where you define how Proto should handle // objects that are to be turned into expressions // fit for storage in local variables. template< typename T > struct as_expr { typedefunspecified-Proto-expr-typeresult_type; result_type operator()( T & t ) const { returnunspecified-Proto-expr-object; } }; };
auto-safe
Let's look again at the problem described above involving the C++11
auto keyword and the default
behavior of proto::as_child().
proto::literal<int> i(0); auto l = i + 42; // This is WRONG! Don't do this.
Recall that the problem is the lifetime of the temporary integer created
to hold the value 42. The local l
will be left holding a dangling reference to it after its lifetime is
over. What if we want Proto to make expressions safe to store this way
in local variables? We can do so very easily by making proto::as_child() behave just like proto::as_expr(). The following code
achieves this:
template< typename E > struct my_expr; struct my_generator : proto::pod_generator< my_expr > {}; struct my_domain : proto::domain< my_generator > { // Make as_child() behave like as_expr() in my_domain. // (proto_base_domain is a typedef for proto::domain< my_generator > // that is defined in proto::domain<>.) template< typename T > struct as_child : proto_base_domain::as_expr< T > {}; }; template< typename E > struct my_expr { BOOST_PROTO_EXTENDS( E, my_expr< E >, my_domain ) }; /* ... */ proto::literal< int, my_domain > i(0); auto l = i + 42; // OK! Everything is stored by value here.
Notice that my_domain::as_child<> simply defers to the default
implementation of as_expr<> found in proto::domain<>.
By simply cross-wiring our domain's as_child<> to as_expr<>, we guarantee that all terminals
that can be held by value are, and that all child expressions are also
held by value. This increases copying and may incur a runtime performance
cost, but it eliminates any spector of lifetime management issues.
For another example, see the definition of lldomain
in libs/proto/example/lambda.hpp. That example is
a complete reimplementation of the Boost Lambda Library (BLL) on top
of Boost.Proto. The function objects the BLL generates are safe to be
stored in local variables. To emulate this with Proto, the lldomain cross-wires as_child<>
to as_expr<>
as above, but with one extra twist: objects with array type are also
stored by reference. Check it out.
![]() |
Note |
|---|---|
This is an advanced topic. Feel free to skip this if you're just getting started with Proto. |
The ability to compose different EDSLs is one of their most exciting features. Consider how you build a parser using yacc. You write your grammar rules in yacc's domain-specific language. Then you embed semantic actions written in C within your grammar. Boost's Spirit parser generator gives you the same ability. You write grammar rules using Spirit.Qi and embed semantic actions using the Phoenix library. Phoenix and Spirit are both Proto-based domain-specific languages with their own distinct syntax and semantics. But you can freely embed Phoenix expressions within Spirit expressions. This section describes Proto's sub-domain feature that lets you define families of interoperable domains.
When you try to create an expression from two sub-expressions in different domains, what is the domain of the resulting expression? This is the fundamental problem that is addressed by sub-domains. Consider the following code:
#include <boost/proto/proto.hpp> namespace proto = boost::proto; // Forward-declare two expression wrappers template<typename E> struct spirit_expr; template<typename E> struct phoenix_expr; // Define two domains struct spirit_domain : proto::domain<proto::generator<spirit_expr> > {}; struct phoenix_domain : proto::domain<proto::generator<phoenix_expr> > {}; // Implement the two expression wrappers template<typename E> struct spirit_expr : proto::extends<E, spirit_expr<E>, spirit_domain> { spirit_expr(E const &e = E()) : spirit_expr::proto_extends(e) {} }; template<typename E> struct phoenix_expr : proto::extends<E, phoenix_expr<E>, phoenix_domain> { phoenix_expr(E const &e = E()) : phoenix_expr::proto_extends(e) {} }; int main() { proto::literal<int, spirit_domain> sp(0); proto::literal<int, phoenix_domain> phx(0); // Whoops! What does it mean to add two expressions in different domains? sp + phx; // ERROR }
Above, we define two domains called spirit_domain
and phoenix_domain and
declare two int literals in each. Then we try to compose them into a
larger expression using Proto's binary plus operator, and it fails. Proto
can't figure out whether the resulting expression should be in the Spirit
domain or the Phoenix domain, and thus whether it should be an instance
of spirit_expr<>
or phoenix_expr<>.
We have to tell Proto how to resolve the conflict. We can do that by
declaring that Phoenix is a sub-domain of Spirit as in the following
definition of phoenix_domain:
// Declare that phoenix_domain is a sub-domain of spirit_domain struct phoenix_domain : proto::domain<proto::generator<phoenix_expr>, proto::_, spirit_domain> {};
The third template parameter to proto::domain<>
is the super-domain. By defining phoenix_domain
as above, we are saying that Phoenix expressions can be combined with
Spirit expressions, and that when that happens, the resulting expression
should be a Spirit expression.
![]() |
Note |
|---|---|
If you are wondering what the purpose of |
When there are multiple domains in play within a given expression, Proto
uses some rules to figure out which domain "wins". The rules
are loosely modeled on the rules for C++ inheritance. Phoenix_domain
is a sub-domain of spirit_domain.
You can liken that to a derived/base relationship that gives Phoenix
expressions a kind of implicit conversion to Spirit expressions. And
since Phoenix expressions can be "converted" to Spirit expressions,
they can be freely combined with Spirit expressions and the result is
a Spirit expression.
![]() |
Note |
|---|---|
Super- and sub-domains are not actually implemented using inheritance. This is only a helpful mental model. |
The analogy with inheritance holds even in the case of three domains
when two are sub-domains of the third. Imagine another domain called
foobar_domain that was
also a sub-domain of spirit_domain.
Expressions in the foobar_domain
could be combined with expressions in the phoenix_domain
and the resulting expression would be in the spirit_domain.
That's because expressions in the two sub-domains both have "conversions"
to the super-domain, so the operation is allowed and the super-domain
wins.
When you don't assign a Proto expression to a particular domain, Proto
considers it a member of the so-called default domain, proto::default_domain. Even non-Proto objects
are treated as terminals in the default domain. Consider:
int main() { proto::literal<int, spirit_domain> sp(0); // Add 1 to a spirit expression. Result is a spirit expression. sp + 1; }
Expressions in the default domain (or non-expressions like 1)
have a kind of implicit conversion to expressions every other domain
type. What's more, you can define your domain to be a sub-domain of the
default domain. In so doing, you give expressions in your domain conversions
to expressions in every other domain. This is like a “free love”
domain, because it will freely mix with all other domains.
Let's think again about the Phoenix EDSL. Since it provides generally
useful lambda functionality, it's reasonable to assume that lots of other
EDSLs besides Spirit might want the ability to embed Phoenix expressions.
In other words, phoenix_domain
should be a sub-domain of proto::default_domain,
not spirit_domain:
// Declare that phoenix_domain is a sub-domain of proto::default_domain struct phoenix_domain : proto::domain<proto::generator<phoenix_expr>, proto::_, proto::default_domain> {};
That's much better. Phoenix expressions can now be put anywhere.
Use Proto sub-domains to make it possible to mix expressions from multiple
domains. And when you want expressions in your domain to freely combine
with all expressions, make it a sub-domain of proto::default_domain.
The preceding discussions of defining Proto front ends have all made a
big assumption: that you have the luxury of defining everything from scratch.
What happens if you have existing types, say a matrix type and a vector
type, that you would like to treat as if they were Proto terminals? Proto
usually trades only in its own expression types, but with ,
it can accomodate your custom terminal types, too.
BOOST_PROTO_DEFINE_OPERATORS()
Let's say, for instance, that you have the following types and that you can't modify then to make them “native” Proto terminal types.
namespace math { // A matrix type ... struct matrix { /*...*/ }; // A vector type ... struct vector { /*...*/ }; }
You can non-intrusively make objects of these types Proto terminals by
defining the proper operator overloads using .
The basic procedure is as follows:
BOOST_PROTO_DEFINE_OPERATORS()
BOOST_PROTO_DEFINE_OPERATORS()
to define a set of operator overloads, passing the name of the trait
as the first macro parameter, and the name of a Proto domain (e.g.,
proto::default_domain)
as the second.
The following code demonstrates how it works.
namespace math { template<typename T> struct is_terminal : mpl::false_ {}; // OK, "matrix" is a custom terminal type template<> struct is_terminal<matrix> : mpl::true_ {}; // OK, "vector" is a custom terminal type template<> struct is_terminal<vector> : mpl::true_ {}; // Define all the operator overloads to construct Proto // expression templates, treating "matrix" and "vector" // objects as if they were Proto terminals. BOOST_PROTO_DEFINE_OPERATORS(is_terminal, proto::default_domain) }
The invocation of the
macro defines a complete set of operator overloads that treat BOOST_PROTO_DEFINE_OPERATORS()matrix and vector
objects as if they were Proto terminals. And since the operators are defined
in the same namespace as the matrix
and vector types, the operators
will be found by argument-dependent lookup. With the code above, we can
now construct expression templates with matrices and vectors, as shown
below.
math::matrix m1; math::vector v1; proto::literal<int> i(0); m1 * 1; // custom terminal and literals are OK m1 * i; // custom terminal and Proto expressions are OK m1 * v1; // two custom terminals are OK, too.
Sometimes as an EDSL designer, to make the lives of your users easy, you have to make your own life hard. Giving your users natural and flexible syntax often involves writing large numbers of repetitive function overloads. It can be enough to give you repetitive stress injury! Before you hurt yourself, check out the macros Proto provides for automating many repetitive code-generation chores.
Imagine that we are writing a lambda EDSL, and we would like to enable syntax for constructing temporary objects of any type using the following syntax:
// A lambda expression that takes two arguments and // uses them to construct a temporary std::complex<> construct< std::complex<int> >( _1, _2 )
For the sake of the discussion, imagine that we already have a function
object template construct_impl<> that accepts arguments and constructs
new objects from them. We would want the above lambda expression to be
equivalent to the following:
// The above lambda expression should be roughly equivalent // to the following: proto::make_expr<proto::tag::function>( construct_impl<std::complex<int> >() // The function to invoke lazily , boost::ref(_1) // The first argument to the function , boost::ref(_2) // The second argument to the function );
We can define our construct() function template as follows:
template<typename T, typename A0, typename A1> typename proto::result_of::make_expr< proto::tag::function , construct_impl<T> , A0 const & , A1 const & >::type const construct(A0 const &a0, A1 const &a1) { return proto::make_expr<proto::tag::function>( construct_impl<T>() , boost::ref(a0) , boost::ref(a1) ); }
This works for two arguments, but we would like it to work for any number
of arguments, up to (
- 1). (Why "- 1"? Because one child is taken up by the BOOST_PROTO_MAX_ARITYconstruct_impl<T>()
terminal leaving room for only (
- 1) other children.)
BOOST_PROTO_MAX_ARITY
For cases like this, Proto provides the
and BOOST_PROTO_REPEAT()
macros. To use it, we turn the function definition above into a macro as
follows:
BOOST_PROTO_REPEAT_FROM_TO()
#define M0(N, typename_A, A_const_ref, A_const_ref_a, ref_a) \ template<typename T, typename_A(N)> \ typename proto::result_of::make_expr< \ proto::tag::function \ , construct_impl<T> \ , A_const_ref(N) \ >::type const \ construct(A_const_ref_a(N)) \ { \ return proto::make_expr<proto::tag::function>( \ construct_impl<T>() \ , ref_a(N) \ ); \ }
Notice that we turned the function into a macro that takes 5 arguments.
The first is the current iteration number. The rest are the names of other
macros that generate different sequences. For instance, Proto passes as
the second parameter the name of a macro that will expand to typename A0, typename A1, ....
Now that we have turned our function into a macro, we can pass the macro
to .
Proto will invoke it iteratively, generating all the function overloads
for us.
BOOST_PROTO_REPEAT_FROM_TO()
// Generate overloads of construct() that accept from // 1 to BOOST_PROTO_MAX_ARITY-1 arguments: BOOST_PROTO_REPEAT_FROM_TO(1, BOOST_PROTO_MAX_ARITY, M0) #undef M0
As mentioned above, Proto passes as the last 4 arguments to your macro
the names of other macros that generate various sequences. The macros
and BOOST_PROTO_REPEAT()
select defaults for these parameters. If the defaults do not meet your
needs, you can use BOOST_PROTO_REPEAT_FROM_TO()
and BOOST_PROTO_REPEAT_EX()
and pass different macros that generate different sequences. Proto defines
a number of such macros for use as parameters to BOOST_PROTO_REPEAT_FROM_TO_EX()
and BOOST_PROTO_REPEAT_EX().
Check the reference section for BOOST_PROTO_REPEAT_FROM_TO_EX()boost/proto/repeat.hpp
for all the details.
Also, check out .
It works similarly to BOOST_PROTO_LOCAL_ITERATE()
and friends, but it can be easier to use when you want to change one macro
argument and accept defaults for the others.
BOOST_PROTO_REPEAT()
By now, you know a bit about how to build a front-end for your EDSL "compiler" -- you can define terminals and functions that generate expression templates. But we haven't said anything about the expression templates themselves. What do they look like? What can you do with them? In this section we'll see.
expr<> Type
All Proto expressions are an instantiation of a template called proto::expr<> (or a wrapper around
such an instantiation). When we define a terminal as below, we are really
initializing an instance of the proto::expr<>
template.
// Define a placeholder type template<int I> struct placeholder {}; // Define the Protofied placeholder terminal proto::terminal< placeholder<0> >::type const _1 = {{}};
The actual type of _1 looks
like this:
proto::expr< proto::tag::terminal, proto::term< placeholder<0> >, 0 >
The proto::expr<> template is the most
important type in Proto. Although you will rarely need to deal with it directly,
it's always there behind the scenes holding your expression trees together.
In fact, proto::expr<> is
the expression tree -- branches, leaves and all.
The proto::expr<> template makes up the
nodes in expression trees. The first template parameter is the node type;
in this case, proto::tag::terminal.
That means that _1 is a leaf-node
in the expression tree. The second template parameter is a list of child
types, or in the case of terminals, the terminal's value type. Terminals
will always have only one type in the type list. The last parameter is the
arity of the expression. Terminals have arity 0, unary expressions have arity
1, etc.
The proto::expr<> struct is defined as
follows:
template< typename Tag, typename Args, long Arity = Args::arity > struct expr; template< typename Tag, typename Args > struct expr< Tag, Args, 1 > { typedef typename Args::child0 proto_child0; proto_child0 child0; // ... };
The proto::expr<> struct does not define
a constructor, or anything else that would prevent static initialization.
All proto::expr<> objects are initialized
using aggregate initialization, with curly braces. In
our example, _1 is initialized
with the initializer {{}}. The
outer braces are the initializer for the proto::expr<>
struct, and the inner braces are for the member _1.child0
which is of type placeholder<0>.
Note that we use braces to initialize _1.child0
because placeholder<0> is also
an aggregate.
The _1 node is an instantiation
of proto::expr<>, and expressions containing
_1 are also instantiations
of proto::expr<>. To use Proto effectively,
you won't have to bother yourself with the actual types that Proto generates.
These are details, but you're likely to encounter these types in compiler
error messages, so it's helpful to be familiar with them. The types look
like this:
// The type of the expression -_1 typedef proto::expr< proto::tag::negate , proto::list1< proto::expr< proto::tag::terminal , proto::term< placeholder<0> > , 0 > const & > , 1 > negate_placeholder_type; negate_placeholder_type x = -_1; // The type of the expression _1 + 42 typedef proto::expr< proto::tag::plus , proto::list2< proto::expr< proto::tag::terminal , proto::term< placeholder<0> > , 0 > const & , proto::expr< proto::tag::terminal , proto::term< int const & > , 0 > > , 2 > placeholder_plus_int_type; placeholder_plus_int_type y = _1 + 42;
There are a few things to note about these types:
expr<> terminal objects. These new wrappers
are not themselves held by reference, but the object wrapped is.
Notice that the type of the Protofied 42
literal is int const
& -- held by reference.
The types make it clear: everything in a Proto expression tree is held by reference. That means that building an expression tree is exceptionally cheap. It involves no copying at all.
![]() |
Note |
|---|---|
An astute reader will notice that the object |
After assembling an expression into a tree, you'll naturally want to be able to do the reverse, and access a node's children. You may even want to be able to iterate over the children with algorithms from the Boost.Fusion library. This section shows how.
Every node in an expression tree has both a tag type
that describes the node, and an arity corresponding
to the number of child nodes it has. You can use the proto::tag_of<>
and proto::arity_of<> metafunctions to fetch
them. Consider the following:
template<typename Expr> void check_plus_node(Expr const &) { // Assert that the tag type is proto::tag::plus BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(( boost::is_same< typename proto::tag_of<Expr>::type , proto::tag::plus >::value )); // Assert that the arity is 2 BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT( proto::arity_of<Expr>::value == 2 ); } // Create a binary plus node and use check_plus_node() // to verify its tag type and arity: check_plus_node( proto::lit(1) + 2 );
For a given type Expr,
you could access the tag and arity directly as Expr::proto_tag
and Expr::proto_arity, where Expr::proto_arity
is an MPL Integral Constant.
There is no simpler expression than a terminal, and no more basic operation
than extracting its value. As we've already seen, that is what proto::value() is for.
proto::terminal< std::ostream & >::type cout_ = {std::cout}; // Get the value of the cout_ terminal: std::ostream & sout = proto::value( cout_ ); // Assert that we got back what we put in: assert( &sout == &std::cout );
To compute the return type of the proto::value()
function, you can use proto::result_of::value<>.
When the parameter to proto::result_of::value<>
is a non-reference type, the result type of the metafunction is the type
of the value as suitable for storage by value; that is, top-level reference
and qualifiers are stripped from it. But when instantiated with a reference
type, the result type has a reference added to it,
yielding a type suitable for storage by reference. If you want to know
the actual type of the terminal's value including whether it is stored
by value or reference, you can use fusion::result_of::value_at<Expr, 0>::type.
The following table summarizes the above paragraph.
Table 31.4. Accessing Value Types
|
Metafunction Invocation |
When the Value Type Is ... |
The Result Is ... |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
typename boost::remove_const< typename boost::remove_reference<T>::type >::type [a]
|
|
|
|
typename boost::add_reference<T>::type
|
|
|
|
typename boost::add_reference< typename boost::add_const<T>::type >::type
|
|
|
|
|
[a] If | ||
Each non-terminal node in an expression tree corresponds to an operator
in an expression, and the children correspond to the operands, or arguments
of the operator. To access them, you can use the proto::child_c()
function template, as demonstrated below:
proto::terminal<int>::type i = {42}; // Get the 0-th operand of an addition operation: proto::terminal<int>::type &ri = proto::child_c<0>( i + 2 ); // Assert that we got back what we put in: assert( &i == &ri );
You can use the proto::result_of::child_c<>
metafunction to get the type of the Nth child of an expression node. Usually
you don't care to know whether a child is stored by value or by reference,
so when you ask for the type of the Nth child of an expression Expr (where Expr
is not a reference type), you get the child's type after references and
cv-qualifiers have been stripped from it.
template<typename Expr> void test_result_of_child_c(Expr const &expr) { typedef typename proto::result_of::child_c<Expr, 0>::type type; // Since Expr is not a reference type, // result_of::child_c<Expr, 0>::type is a // non-cv qualified, non-reference type: BOOST_MPL_ASSERT(( boost::is_same< type, proto::terminal<int>::type > )); } // ... proto::terminal<int>::type i = {42}; test_result_of_child_c( i + 2 );
However, if you ask for the type of the Nth child of Expr
& or Expr
const &
(note the reference), the result type will be a reference, regardless of
whether the child is actually stored by reference or not. If you need to
know exactly how the child is stored in the node, whether by reference
or by value, you can use fusion::result_of::value_at<Expr, N>::type. The following table summarizes
the behavior of the proto::result_of::child_c<>
metafunction.
Table 31.5. Accessing Child Types
|
Metafunction Invocation |
When the Child Is ... |
The Result Is ... |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
typename boost::remove_const< typename boost::remove_reference<T>::type >::type
|
|
|
|
typename boost::add_reference<T>::type
|
|
|
|
typename boost::add_reference< typename boost::add_const<T>::type >::type
|
|
|
|
|
Most operators in C++ are unary or binary, so accessing the only operand,
or the left and right operands, are very common operations. For this reason,
Proto provides the proto::child(),
proto::left(), and proto::right()
functions. proto::child() and proto::left()
are synonymous with proto::child_c<0>(),
and proto::right() is synonymous with proto::child_c<1>().
There are also proto::result_of::child<>,
proto::result_of::left<>, and proto::result_of::right<>
metafunctions that merely forward to their proto::result_of::child_c<>
counterparts.
When you build an expression template with Proto, all the intermediate
child nodes are held by reference. The avoids needless
copies, which is crucial if you want your EDSL to perform well at runtime.
Naturally, there is a danger if the temporary objects go out of scope before
you try to evaluate your expression template. This is especially a problem
in C++0x with the new decltype
and auto keywords. Consider:
// OOPS: "ex" is left holding dangling references auto ex = proto::lit(1) + 2;
The problem can happen in today's C++ also if you use BOOST_TYPEOF() or BOOST_AUTO(), or if you try to pass an expression
template outside the scope of its constituents.
In these cases, you want to deep-copy your expression template so that
all intermediate nodes and the terminals are held by value.
That way, you can safely assign the expression template to a local variable
or return it from a function without worrying about dangling references.
You can do this with proto::deep_copy()
as fo llows:
// OK, "ex" has no dangling references auto ex = proto::deep_copy( proto::lit(1) + 2 );
If you are using Boost.Typeof, it would look like this:
// OK, use BOOST_AUTO() and proto::deep_copy() to // store an expression template in a local variable BOOST_AUTO( ex, proto::deep_copy( proto::lit(1) + 2 ) );
For the above code to work, you must include the boost/proto/proto_typeof.hpp
header, which also defines the
macro which automatically deep-copies its argument. With BOOST_PROTO_AUTO(), the above
code can be writen as:
BOOST_PROTO_AUTO()
// OK, BOOST_PROTO_AUTO() automatically deep-copies // its argument: BOOST_PROTO_AUTO( ex, proto::lit(1) + 2 );
When deep-copying an expression tree, all intermediate nodes and all terminals are stored by value. The only exception is terminals that are function references, which are left alone.
![]() |
Note |
|---|---|
|
Proto provides a utility for pretty-printing expression trees that comes
in very handy when you're trying to debug your EDSL. It's called proto::display_expr(), and you pass it the expression
to print and optionally, an std::ostream
to which to send the output. Consider:
// Use display_expr() to pretty-print an expression tree proto::display_expr( proto::lit("hello") + 42 );
The above code writes this to std::cout:
plus(
terminal(hello)
, terminal(42)
)
In order to call proto::display_expr(),
all the terminals in the expression must be Streamable (that is, they can
be written to a std::ostream). In addition, the tag types
must all be Streamable as well. Here is an example that includes a custom
terminal type and a custom tag:
// A custom tag type that is Streamable struct MyTag { friend std::ostream &operator<<(std::ostream &s, MyTag) { return s << "MyTag"; } }; // Some other Streamable type struct MyTerminal { friend std::ostream &operator<<(std::ostream &s, MyTerminal) { return s << "MyTerminal"; } }; int main() { // Display an expression tree that contains a custom // tag and a user-defined type in a terminal proto::display_expr( proto::make_expr<MyTag>(MyTerminal()) + 42 ); }
The above code prints the following:
plus(
MyTag(
terminal(MyTerminal)
)
, terminal(42)
)
The following table lists the overloadable C++ operators, the Proto tag types for each, and the name of the metafunctions for generating the corresponding Proto expression types. And as we'll see later, the metafunctions are also usable as grammars for matching such nodes, as well as pass-through transforms.
Table 31.6. Operators, Tags and Metafunctions
|
Operator |
Proto Tag |
Proto Metafunction |
|---|---|---|
|
unary |
|
|
|
unary |
|
|
|
unary |
|
|
|
unary |
|
|
|
unary |
|
|
|
unary |
|
|
|
unary prefix |
|
|
|
unary prefix |
|
|
|
unary postfix |
|
|
|
unary postfix |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary |
|
|
|
binary subscript |
|
|
|
ternary |
|
|
|
n-ary function call |
|
|
Boost.Fusion is a library of iterators, algorithms, containers and adaptors
for manipulating heterogeneous sequences. In essence, a Proto expression
is just a heterogeneous sequence of its child expressions, and so Proto
expressions are valid Fusion random-access sequences. That means you can
apply Fusion algorithms to them, transform them, apply Fusion filters and
views to them, and access their elements using fusion::at(). The things Fusion can do to heterogeneous
sequences are beyond the scope of this users' guide, but below is a simple
example. It takes a lazy function invocation like fun(1,2,3,4)
and uses Fusion to print the function arguments in order.
struct display { template<typename T> void operator()(T const &t) const { std::cout << t << std::endl; } }; struct fun_t {}; proto::terminal<fun_t>::type const fun = {{}}; // ... fusion::for_each( fusion::transform( // pop_front() removes the "fun" child fusion::pop_front(fun(1,2,3,4)) // Extract the ints from the terminal nodes , proto::functional::value() ) , display() );
Recall from the Introduction that types in the proto::functional
namespace define function objects that correspond to Proto's free functions.
So proto::functional::value()
creates a function object that is equivalent to the proto::value() function. The above invocation of fusion::for_each()
displays the following:
1 2 3 4
Terminals are also valid Fusion sequences. They contain exactly one element: their value.
Imagine a slight variation of the above example where, instead of iterating over the arguments of a lazy function invocation, we would like to iterate over the terminals in an addition expression:
proto::terminal<int>::type const _1 = {1}; // ERROR: this doesn't work! Why? fusion::for_each( fusion::transform( _1 + 2 + 3 + 4 , proto::functional::value() ) , display() );
The reason this doesn't work is because the expression _1
+ 2 + 3 +
4 does not describe a flat sequence
of terminals --- it describes a binary tree. We can treat it as a flat
sequence of terminals, however, using Proto's proto::flatten()
function. proto::flatten() returns a view which makes
a tree appear as a flat Fusion sequence. If the top-most node has a tag
type T, then the elements
of the flattened sequence are the child nodes that do not
have tag type T. This process
is evaluated recursively. So the above can correctly be written as:
proto::terminal<int>::type const _1 = {1}; // OK, iterate over a flattened view fusion::for_each( fusion::transform( proto::flatten(_1 + 2 + 3 + 4) , proto::functional::value() ) , display() );
The above invocation of fusion::for_each() displays the following:
1 2 3 4
Expression trees can have a very rich and complicated structure. Often, you need to know some things about an expression's structure before you can process it. This section describes the tools Proto provides for peering inside an expression tree and discovering its structure. And as you'll see in later sections, all the really interesting things you can do with Proto begin right here.
Imagine your EDSL is a miniature I/O facility, with iostream operations that execute lazily. You might want expressions representing input operations to be processed by one function, and output operations to be processed by a different function. How would you do that?
The answer is to write patterns (a.k.a, grammars)
that match the structure of input and output expressions. Proto provides
utilities for defining the grammars, and the proto::matches<>
template for checking whether a given expression type matches the grammar.
First, let's define some terminals we can use in our lazy I/O expressions:
proto::terminal< std::istream & >::type cin_ = { std::cin }; proto::terminal< std::ostream & >::type cout_ = { std::cout };
Now, we can use cout_
instead of std::cout, and get I/O expression trees
that we can execute later. To define grammars that match input and output
expressions of the form cin_
>> i
and cout_ <<
1 we do this:
struct Input : proto::shift_right< proto::terminal< std::istream & >, proto::_ > {}; struct Output : proto::shift_left< proto::terminal< std::ostream & >, proto::_ > {};
We've seen the template proto::terminal<> before, but here we're using
it without accessing the nested ::type. When used like this, it is a
very simple grammar, as are proto::shift_right<> and proto::shift_left<>. The newcomer here is _ in the proto
namespace. It is a wildcard that matches anything. The Input struct is a grammar that matches
any right-shift expression that has a std::istream
terminal as its left operand.
We can use these grammars together with the proto::matches<>
template to query at compile time whether a given I/O expression type
is an input or output operation. Consider the following:
template< typename Expr > void input_output( Expr const & expr ) { if( proto::matches< Expr, Input >::value ) { std::cout << "Input!\n"; } if( proto::matches< Expr, Output >::value ) { std::cout << "Output!\n"; } } int main() { int i = 0; input_output( cout_ << 1 ); input_output( cin_ >> i ); return 0; }
This program prints the following:
Output! Input!
If we wanted to break the input_output() function into two functions, one that
handles input expressions and one for output expressions, we can use
boost::enable_if<>,
as follows:
template< typename Expr > typename boost::enable_if< proto::matches< Expr, Input > >::type input_output( Expr const & expr ) { std::cout << "Input!\n"; } template< typename Expr > typename boost::enable_if< proto::matches< Expr, Output > >::type input_output( Expr const & expr ) { std::cout << "Output!\n"; }
This works as the previous version did. However, the following does not compile at all:
input_output( cout_ << 1 << 2 ); // oops!
What's wrong? The problem is that this expression does not match our
grammar. The expression groups as if it were written like (cout_ << 1) << 2. It will not match the Output grammar, which expects the left
operand to be a terminal, not another left-shift operation. We need to
fix the grammar.
We notice that in order to verify an expression as input or output, we'll
need to recurse down to the bottom-left-most leaf and check that it is
a std::istream or std::ostream.
When we get to the terminal, we must stop recursing. We can express this
in our grammar using proto::or_<>.
Here are the correct Input
and Output grammars:
struct Input : proto::or_< proto::shift_right< proto::terminal< std::istream & >, proto::_ > , proto::shift_right< Input, proto::_ > > {}; struct Output : proto::or_< proto::shift_left< proto::terminal< std::ostream & >, proto::_ > , proto::shift_left< Output, proto::_ > > {};
This may look a little odd at first. We seem to be defining the Input and Output
types in terms of themselves. This is perfectly OK, actually. At the
point in the grammar that the Input
and Output types are
being used, they are incomplete, but by the time
we actually evaluate the grammar with proto::matches<>,
the types will be complete. These are recursive grammars, and rightly
so because they must match a recursive data structure!
Matching an expression such as cout_
<< 1
<< 2
against the Output grammar
procedes as follows:
proto::or_<>
is tried first. It will fail, because the expression cout_ <<
1 <<
2 does not match the grammar
proto::shift_left<
proto::terminal<
std::ostream &
>, proto::_ >.
proto::shift_left<
Output,
proto::_ >.
The expression is a left-shift, so we next try to match the operands.
2 matches
proto::_ trivially.
cout_
<< 1
matches Output, we
must recursively evaluate the Output
grammar. This time we succeed, because cout_
<< 1
will match the first alternate of the proto::or_<>.
We're done -- the grammar matches successfully.
The terminals in an expression tree could be const or non-const references,
or they might not be references at all. When writing grammars, you usually
don't have to worry about it because proto::matches<>
gives you a little wiggle room when matching terminals. A grammar such
as proto::terminal<int>
will match a terminal of type int,
int &,
or int const
&.
You can explicitly specify that you want to match a reference type. If
you do, the type must match exactly. For instance, a grammar such as
proto::terminal<int &>
will only match an int &. It will not match an int or an int
const &.
The table below shows how Proto matches terminals. The simple rule is: if you want to match only reference types, you must specify the reference in your grammar. Otherwise, leave it off and Proto will ignore const and references.
Table 31.7. proto::matches<> and Reference / CV-Qualification of Terminals
|
Terminal |
Grammar |
Matches? |
|---|---|---|
|
T |
T |
yes |
|
T & |
T |
yes |
|
T const & |
T |
yes |
|
T |
T & |
no |
|
T & |
T & |
yes |
|
T const & |
T & |
no |
|
T |
T const & |
no |
|
T & |
T const & |
no |
|
T const & |
T const & |
yes |
This begs the question: What if you want to match an int,
but not an int &
or an int const
&? For forcing exact matches,
Proto provides the proto::exact<>
template. For instance, proto::terminal< proto::exact<int> >
would only match an int
held by value.
Proto gives you extra wiggle room when matching array types. Array types
match themselves or the pointer types they decay to. This is especially
useful with character arrays. The type returned by proto::as_expr("hello") is proto::terminal<char const[6]>::type. That's a terminal containing
a 6-element character array. Naturally, you can match this terminal with
the grammar proto::terminal<char const[6]>,
but the grammar proto::terminal<char const *>
will match it as well, as the following code fragment illustrates.
struct CharString : proto::terminal< char const * > {}; typedef proto::terminal< char const[6] >::type char_array; BOOST_MPL_ASSERT(( proto::matches< char_array, CharString > ));
What if we only wanted CharString
to match terminals of exactly the type char
const *?
You can use proto::exact<> here to turn off
the fuzzy matching of terminals, as follows:
struct CharString : proto::terminal< proto::exact< char const * > > {}; typedef proto::terminal<char const[6]>::type char_array; typedef proto::terminal<char const *>::type char_string; BOOST_MPL_ASSERT(( proto::matches< char_string, CharString > )); BOOST_MPL_ASSERT_NOT(( proto::matches< char_array, CharString > ));
Now, CharString does
not match array types, only character string pointers.
The inverse problem is a little trickier: what if you wanted to match
all character arrays, but not character pointers? As mentioned above,
the expression as_expr("hello") has the type proto::terminal< char const[ 6 ] >::type. If you wanted to match character
arrays of arbitrary size, you could use proto::N,
which is an array-size wildcard. The following grammar would match any
string literal: proto::terminal< char const[ proto::N ] >.
Sometimes you need even more wiggle room when matching terminals. For
example, maybe you're building a calculator EDSL and you want to allow
any terminals that are convertible to double.
For that, Proto provides the proto::convertible_to<>