How to write a standard-like function that has high overload priority












12















In a generic function I use the following idiom,



template<class It1, class It2>
void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
... other stuff here...
using std::copy;
copy(first, second, d_first);
}


do_something is a generic function that shouldn't know anything specific about any other libraries (except perhaps std::).



Now suppose I have several iterator in my namespace N.



namespace N{

struct itA{using trait = void;};
struct itB{using trait = void;};
struct itC{using trait = void;};

}


An I want to overload copy for these iterators in this namespace.
Naturally I would do:



namespace N{
template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
SomeN2 copy(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first){
std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
}
}


However when I call do_something with N::A, N::B or N::C argument I get "ambiguous call to copy" even though these are in the same namespace as N::copy.



Is there a way to win over std::copy in the context of the original function above?



I though that if I put constrains over the template arguments then N::copy would be preferred.



namespace N{
template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2, typename = typename SomeN1::trait>
SomeN2 copy(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first){
std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
}
}


but it doesn't help.



What other workarounds can I try for the generic call to copy to prefer to a copy in the namespace of arguments rather than std::copy.



Complete code:



#include<iostream>
#include<algorithm>
namespace N{
struct A{};
struct B{};
struct C{};
}

namespace N{
template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
SomeN2 copy(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first){
std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
}
}

template<class It1, class It2>
void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
using std::copy;
copy(first, second, d_first); // ambiguous call when It is from namespace N (both `std::copy` and `N::copy` could work.
}

int main(){
N::A a1, a2, a3;
do_something(a1, a2, a3);
}


A typical error message is



error: call of overloaded ‘copy(N::A&, N::A&, N::A&)’ is ambiguous





Am I right to think that C++ Concepts will help here by preferring function calls with more contraints than less constraints?










share|improve this question




















  • 1





    Not a dupe, but related.

    – lubgr
    yesterday






  • 1





    Obviously the error comes from always doing using std::copy;.

    – Matthieu Brucher
    yesterday






  • 3





    @alfC Your N::copy is also a function template that has no arguments associated with namespace N. Hence, it is not better than std::copy for the purpose of overload resolution.

    – Maxim Egorushkin
    yesterday








  • 2





    @MatthieuBrucher, if I use std::copy then there is no chance the special version of copy is called. The only way would be to overload std::copy (in the namespace std) which I don't know if it is allowed.

    – alfC
    yesterday






  • 1





    @geza, the problem is that do_something is a template function that doesn't know about the namespace N or the library N.

    – alfC
    yesterday
















12















In a generic function I use the following idiom,



template<class It1, class It2>
void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
... other stuff here...
using std::copy;
copy(first, second, d_first);
}


do_something is a generic function that shouldn't know anything specific about any other libraries (except perhaps std::).



Now suppose I have several iterator in my namespace N.



namespace N{

struct itA{using trait = void;};
struct itB{using trait = void;};
struct itC{using trait = void;};

}


An I want to overload copy for these iterators in this namespace.
Naturally I would do:



namespace N{
template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
SomeN2 copy(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first){
std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
}
}


However when I call do_something with N::A, N::B or N::C argument I get "ambiguous call to copy" even though these are in the same namespace as N::copy.



Is there a way to win over std::copy in the context of the original function above?



I though that if I put constrains over the template arguments then N::copy would be preferred.



namespace N{
template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2, typename = typename SomeN1::trait>
SomeN2 copy(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first){
std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
}
}


but it doesn't help.



What other workarounds can I try for the generic call to copy to prefer to a copy in the namespace of arguments rather than std::copy.



Complete code:



#include<iostream>
#include<algorithm>
namespace N{
struct A{};
struct B{};
struct C{};
}

namespace N{
template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
SomeN2 copy(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first){
std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
}
}

template<class It1, class It2>
void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
using std::copy;
copy(first, second, d_first); // ambiguous call when It is from namespace N (both `std::copy` and `N::copy` could work.
}

int main(){
N::A a1, a2, a3;
do_something(a1, a2, a3);
}


A typical error message is



error: call of overloaded ‘copy(N::A&, N::A&, N::A&)’ is ambiguous





Am I right to think that C++ Concepts will help here by preferring function calls with more contraints than less constraints?










share|improve this question




















  • 1





    Not a dupe, but related.

    – lubgr
    yesterday






  • 1





    Obviously the error comes from always doing using std::copy;.

    – Matthieu Brucher
    yesterday






  • 3





    @alfC Your N::copy is also a function template that has no arguments associated with namespace N. Hence, it is not better than std::copy for the purpose of overload resolution.

    – Maxim Egorushkin
    yesterday








  • 2





    @MatthieuBrucher, if I use std::copy then there is no chance the special version of copy is called. The only way would be to overload std::copy (in the namespace std) which I don't know if it is allowed.

    – alfC
    yesterday






  • 1





    @geza, the problem is that do_something is a template function that doesn't know about the namespace N or the library N.

    – alfC
    yesterday














12












12








12


2






In a generic function I use the following idiom,



template<class It1, class It2>
void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
... other stuff here...
using std::copy;
copy(first, second, d_first);
}


do_something is a generic function that shouldn't know anything specific about any other libraries (except perhaps std::).



Now suppose I have several iterator in my namespace N.



namespace N{

struct itA{using trait = void;};
struct itB{using trait = void;};
struct itC{using trait = void;};

}


An I want to overload copy for these iterators in this namespace.
Naturally I would do:



namespace N{
template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
SomeN2 copy(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first){
std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
}
}


However when I call do_something with N::A, N::B or N::C argument I get "ambiguous call to copy" even though these are in the same namespace as N::copy.



Is there a way to win over std::copy in the context of the original function above?



I though that if I put constrains over the template arguments then N::copy would be preferred.



namespace N{
template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2, typename = typename SomeN1::trait>
SomeN2 copy(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first){
std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
}
}


but it doesn't help.



What other workarounds can I try for the generic call to copy to prefer to a copy in the namespace of arguments rather than std::copy.



Complete code:



#include<iostream>
#include<algorithm>
namespace N{
struct A{};
struct B{};
struct C{};
}

namespace N{
template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
SomeN2 copy(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first){
std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
}
}

template<class It1, class It2>
void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
using std::copy;
copy(first, second, d_first); // ambiguous call when It is from namespace N (both `std::copy` and `N::copy` could work.
}

int main(){
N::A a1, a2, a3;
do_something(a1, a2, a3);
}


A typical error message is



error: call of overloaded ‘copy(N::A&, N::A&, N::A&)’ is ambiguous





Am I right to think that C++ Concepts will help here by preferring function calls with more contraints than less constraints?










share|improve this question
















In a generic function I use the following idiom,



template<class It1, class It2>
void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
... other stuff here...
using std::copy;
copy(first, second, d_first);
}


do_something is a generic function that shouldn't know anything specific about any other libraries (except perhaps std::).



Now suppose I have several iterator in my namespace N.



namespace N{

struct itA{using trait = void;};
struct itB{using trait = void;};
struct itC{using trait = void;};

}


An I want to overload copy for these iterators in this namespace.
Naturally I would do:



namespace N{
template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
SomeN2 copy(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first){
std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
}
}


However when I call do_something with N::A, N::B or N::C argument I get "ambiguous call to copy" even though these are in the same namespace as N::copy.



Is there a way to win over std::copy in the context of the original function above?



I though that if I put constrains over the template arguments then N::copy would be preferred.



namespace N{
template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2, typename = typename SomeN1::trait>
SomeN2 copy(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first){
std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
}
}


but it doesn't help.



What other workarounds can I try for the generic call to copy to prefer to a copy in the namespace of arguments rather than std::copy.



Complete code:



#include<iostream>
#include<algorithm>
namespace N{
struct A{};
struct B{};
struct C{};
}

namespace N{
template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
SomeN2 copy(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first){
std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
}
}

template<class It1, class It2>
void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
using std::copy;
copy(first, second, d_first); // ambiguous call when It is from namespace N (both `std::copy` and `N::copy` could work.
}

int main(){
N::A a1, a2, a3;
do_something(a1, a2, a3);
}


A typical error message is



error: call of overloaded ‘copy(N::A&, N::A&, N::A&)’ is ambiguous





Am I right to think that C++ Concepts will help here by preferring function calls with more contraints than less constraints?







c++ c++11 ambiguous argument-dependent-lookup






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday







alfC

















asked yesterday









alfCalfC

5,08322959




5,08322959








  • 1





    Not a dupe, but related.

    – lubgr
    yesterday






  • 1





    Obviously the error comes from always doing using std::copy;.

    – Matthieu Brucher
    yesterday






  • 3





    @alfC Your N::copy is also a function template that has no arguments associated with namespace N. Hence, it is not better than std::copy for the purpose of overload resolution.

    – Maxim Egorushkin
    yesterday








  • 2





    @MatthieuBrucher, if I use std::copy then there is no chance the special version of copy is called. The only way would be to overload std::copy (in the namespace std) which I don't know if it is allowed.

    – alfC
    yesterday






  • 1





    @geza, the problem is that do_something is a template function that doesn't know about the namespace N or the library N.

    – alfC
    yesterday














  • 1





    Not a dupe, but related.

    – lubgr
    yesterday






  • 1





    Obviously the error comes from always doing using std::copy;.

    – Matthieu Brucher
    yesterday






  • 3





    @alfC Your N::copy is also a function template that has no arguments associated with namespace N. Hence, it is not better than std::copy for the purpose of overload resolution.

    – Maxim Egorushkin
    yesterday








  • 2





    @MatthieuBrucher, if I use std::copy then there is no chance the special version of copy is called. The only way would be to overload std::copy (in the namespace std) which I don't know if it is allowed.

    – alfC
    yesterday






  • 1





    @geza, the problem is that do_something is a template function that doesn't know about the namespace N or the library N.

    – alfC
    yesterday








1




1





Not a dupe, but related.

– lubgr
yesterday





Not a dupe, but related.

– lubgr
yesterday




1




1





Obviously the error comes from always doing using std::copy;.

– Matthieu Brucher
yesterday





Obviously the error comes from always doing using std::copy;.

– Matthieu Brucher
yesterday




3




3





@alfC Your N::copy is also a function template that has no arguments associated with namespace N. Hence, it is not better than std::copy for the purpose of overload resolution.

– Maxim Egorushkin
yesterday







@alfC Your N::copy is also a function template that has no arguments associated with namespace N. Hence, it is not better than std::copy for the purpose of overload resolution.

– Maxim Egorushkin
yesterday






2




2





@MatthieuBrucher, if I use std::copy then there is no chance the special version of copy is called. The only way would be to overload std::copy (in the namespace std) which I don't know if it is allowed.

– alfC
yesterday





@MatthieuBrucher, if I use std::copy then there is no chance the special version of copy is called. The only way would be to overload std::copy (in the namespace std) which I don't know if it is allowed.

– alfC
yesterday




1




1





@geza, the problem is that do_something is a template function that doesn't know about the namespace N or the library N.

– alfC
yesterday





@geza, the problem is that do_something is a template function that doesn't know about the namespace N or the library N.

– alfC
yesterday












7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes


















3














One possible solution is to use another function template name and type discriminators to allow argument-dependent name lookup to find the associated function in the namespace of the arguments:



template<class T> struct Tag {};
template<class T> Tag<void> tag(T const&);

template<class It1, class It2>
void mycopy(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first, Tag<void>) {
std::cout << "std::copyn";
}

template<class It1, class It2>
void mycopy(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first) {
mycopy(first, second, d_first, decltype(tag(first)){}); // Discriminate by the type of It1.
}

namespace N{

struct itA{using trait = void;};
Tag<itA> tag(itA);

template<class It1, class It2>
void mycopy(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first, Tag<itA>) {
std::cout << "N::mycopyn";
}
}

int main() {
char* p = 0;
mycopy(p, p, p); // calls std::copy

N::itA q;
mycopy(q, q, q); // calls N::mycopy
}





share|improve this answer

































    3














    You can declare copy() as a public friend function in your iterator classes.
    This works kind of as a replacement for partial specialization (which is impossible for functions), so that they will be preferred by overload resolution as they are more specialized:



    #include <iostream>
    #include <algorithm>
    #include <vector>

    namespace N
    {
    template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
    SomeN2 copy(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first)
    {
    std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
    return d_first;
    }

    template <class T>
    struct ItBase
    {
    template <class SomeN2>
    friend SomeN2 copy(T first, T last, SomeN2 d_first)
    {
    return N::copy(first, last, d_first);
    }
    };

    struct A : ItBase<A>{};
    struct B : ItBase<B>{};
    struct C : ItBase<C>{};
    }

    template<class It1, class It2>
    void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
    using std::copy;
    copy(first, second, d_first);
    }

    int main(){
    N::A a1, a2, a3;
    std::cout << "do something in N:" << std::endl;
    do_something(a1, a2, a3);

    std::vector<int> v = {1,2,3};
    std::vector<int> v2(3);
    std::cout << "do something in std:" << std::endl;
    do_something(std::begin(v), std::end(v), std::begin(v2));
    for (int i : v2)
    std::cout << i;
    std::cout << std::endl;
    }


    See this demo to verify that it works.



    I introduced a common base class that declares the necessary friends for all of your iterators. So, instead of declaring a tag, as you tried, you just have to inherit from ItBase.



    Note: If N::copy() is supposed to work with only these iterators in N, it might not be needed anymore as these friend functions will be publicly visible in N anyway (as if they were free functions).






    share|improve this answer
























    • This is an interesting solution and the friend in the base class allows have the coupling between the iterators and the algorithm declared only once. The problem with this is that the N::iterators will have to know of all possible algorithms that can implemented copy, fill, accumulate, etc.

      – alfC
      14 hours ago











    • @alfC So you are saying that copy was just an example and actually you want to do this with several std algorithms? In that case you have to implement them anyway, so just put them into ItBase directly. Or am I misunderstanding you?

      – sebrockm
      14 hours ago











    • Yes, the point is that these iterators will need to know about any special function in advance. Besides that point, this a good alternative design.

      – alfC
      13 hours ago











    • BTW, I think public or private doesn't make a difference here for a friend function. friend functions seem to be always accesible (public).

      – alfC
      13 hours ago











    • your answer inspired me for this yet-another-alternative, stackoverflow.com/a/54425412/225186

      – alfC
      13 hours ago



















    2














    This seems to fulfill your requirements:



    namespace SpecCopy {

    template <typename A, typename B, typename C>
    void copy(A &&a, B &&b, C &&c) {
    std::copy(std::forward<A>(a), std::forward<B>(b), std::forward<C>(c));
    }

    }

    template<class It1, class It2>
    void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
    using namespace SpecCopy;
    copy(first, second, d_first);
    }


    Basically, it depends on ADL. If no function found by ADL, then it will use SpecCopy::copy, which is a wrapper to std::copy.





    So, if you do:



    N::A a1, a2, a3;
    do_something(a1, a2, a3);


    Then do_something will call N::copy.





    If you do:



    std::vector<int> a1, a2;
    do_something(a1.begin(), a1.end(), a2.begin());


    Then do_something will call SpecCopy::copy, which will call std::copy.





    If you do:



    int *a1, *a2, *a3;
    do_something(a1, a2, a3);


    Then same thing happens as before: do_something will call SpecCopy::copy, which will call std::copy.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 1





      I don't think this solves the issue ... it ties the general do_something to the special code for the iterators ...

      – Daniel Jour
      yesterday











    • @DanielJour: Can you give an example or more explanation? I don't understand what you mean.

      – geza
      yesterday











    • @DanielJour , geza, as DanielJour says, do_something will need to know about the SpecCopy library/namespace. and if you include SpecCopy with do_something then there is no customization, N::copy is never called in this way.

      – alfC
      yesterday











    • @alfC: Hmm, I thought that you want an ADL based solution. If iterator is in namespace N, and you have a copy function in namespace N, then with this solution, N::copy will be called.

      – geza
      yesterday













    • @alfC: I've edited my answer so you can see what I mean.

      – geza
      yesterday



















    2














    In c++ 11 you could use tag dispatch. If you can make a little change to your custom iterators things will be a bit simpler to implement.



    #include <iostream>
    #include <algorithm>
    #include <vector>
    #include <type_traits>

    // indicates that the type doesn't have a tag type (like pointers and standard iterators)
    struct no_tag{};

    namespace detail
    {
    template <typename T>
    auto tag_helper(int) -> typename T::tag;

    template <typename>
    auto tag_helper(long) -> no_tag;
    }

    // get T::tag or no_tag if T::tag isn't defined.
    template <typename T>
    using tag_t = decltype(detail::tag_helper<T>(0));

    namespace N
    {
    struct my_iterator_tag {};
    struct A{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
    struct B{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
    struct C{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
    }

    namespace N
    {
    template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
    SomeN2 copy_helper(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first, no_tag)
    {
    std::cout << "calling std::copyn";
    return std::copy(std::forward<SomeN1>(first), std::forward<SomeN1>(last), std::forward<SomeN2>(d_first));
    }

    template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
    SomeN2 copy_helper(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first, my_iterator_tag)
    {
    // your custom copy
    std::cout << "custom copy functionn";
    return {};
    }

    template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
    SomeN2 copy(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first)
    {
    return copy_helper(std::forward<SomeN1>(first), std::forward<SomeN1>(last), std::forward<SomeN2>(d_first), tag_t<SomeN1>{});
    }
    }

    template<class It1, class It2>
    void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first)
    {
    N::copy(first, second, d_first);
    }

    int main()
    {
    N::A a1, a2, a3;
    std::cout << "using custom iterator: ";
    do_something(a1, a2, a3);

    std::cout << "using vector iterator: ";
    std::vector<int> v;
    do_something(std::begin(v), std::end(v), std::begin(v));

    std::cout << "using pointer: ";
    int* ptr = new int[10];
    do_something(ptr, ptr + 5, ptr);

    return 0;
    }


    First we change our custom iterators to have a tag type (maybe change the name to avoid confusion with iterator_category). tag can be any type you want, it just has to match the type you use as tag in copy_helper.



    Next, we define a type that allows us to access this tag type, or to fall back to a default type if tag doesn't exist. This will help us distinguish between our custom iterators and standard iterators and pointers. The default type I use is no_tag. The tag_t provides us with this functionality by using SFINAE and overload resolution. We call the function tag_helper(0) which has two declarations. The first one returns T::tag while the second one returns no_tag. Calling tag_helper(0) will always try to use the first version because int is a better match for 0 than long. This means we will always try to access T::tag first. However if this isn't possible (T::tag is not defined) SFINAE kicks in and skipps tag_helper(int) selecting tag_helper(long).



    Finally, we just have to implement a copy function for each tag (I called it copy_helper) and another copy function as a wrap around for convinience (I used N::copy). The wrapper function then creates the proper tag type and calls the correct helper function.



    Here is a live example.



    Edit



    If you move the code around a bit you can disconnect namespace N and rely on ADL:



    #include <iostream>
    #include <algorithm>
    #include <vector>
    #include <type_traits>

    // indicates that the type doesn't have a tag type (like pointers and standard iterators)
    struct no_tag{};

    namespace detail
    {
    template <typename T>
    auto tag_helper(int) -> typename T::tag;

    template <typename>
    auto tag_helper(long) -> no_tag;
    }

    // get T::tag or no_tag if T::tag isn't defined.
    template <typename T>
    using tag_t = decltype(detail::tag_helper<T>(0));

    namespace N
    {
    struct my_iterator_tag {};
    struct A{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
    struct B{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
    struct C{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };

    template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
    SomeN2 copy_helper(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first, my_iterator_tag)
    {
    // your custom copy
    std::cout << "custom copy functionn";
    return {};
    }
    }

    template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
    SomeN2 copy_helper(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first, no_tag)
    {
    std::cout << "calling std::copyn";
    return std::copy(std::forward<SomeN1>(first), std::forward<SomeN1>(last), std::forward<SomeN2>(d_first));
    }

    template<class It1, class It2>
    void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first)
    {
    copy_helper(std::forward<It1>(first), std::forward<It1>(second), std::forward<It2>(d_first), tag_t<It1>{});
    }

    int main()
    {
    N::A a1, a2, a3;
    std::cout << "using custom iterator: ";
    do_something(a1, a2, a3);

    std::cout << "using vector iterator: ";
    std::vector<int> v;
    do_something(std::begin(v), std::end(v), std::begin(v));

    std::cout << "using pointer: ";
    int* ptr = new int[10];
    do_something(ptr, ptr + 5, ptr);

    return 0;
    }





    share|improve this answer


























    • Thank you, but do_something will need to know about the N namespace, which might be in a disconnected library.

      – alfC
      yesterday











    • @alfC Well you could also move the code from copy directly to do_something and include the copy_helper with the no_tag tag in the same library. Then you can rely on ADL again. Your disconnected library has to implement the copy_helper with its according tag.

      – Timo
      yesterday











    • @alfC I edited my answer to rely on ADL.

      – Timo
      yesterday











    • The Edit is the closest to an answer to the question so far. Note aside, I think the forward<It1> is useless unless you pass arguments as It1&& first.

      – alfC
      yesterday



















    1














    OK, building on @paler123, but without checking for an existing type, but checking if It1 is a pointer instead:



    namespace N{
    struct A{};
    struct B{};
    struct C{};
    }

    namespace N{
    template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
    SomeN2 copy(SomeN1, SomeN1, SomeN2 c){
    std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
    return c;
    }
    }
    template<class It1, class It2>
    void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
    if constexpr (std::is_pointer_v<It1>) {
    std::copy(first, second, d_first);
    }
    else
    {
    copy(first, second, d_first);
    }
    }


    int main(){
    N::A a1, a2, a3;
    do_something(a1, a2, a3);

    int* b1, *b2, *b3;

    do_something(b1, b2, b3);
    }


    Still C++17, but in the case of pointers, we go through the explicit std::copy otherwise, we rely on ADL.



    In general, your issue is a design problem. You want to use std::copy for all cases, except for objects from N, and in that case, you hope that ADL will work. But as you forced std::copy, you remove the option for proper ADL. You can't have everything and you have to redesign your code.






    share|improve this answer


























    • Thanks for the option. Pointer types are just an example, other (non-std iterators) will not work now. In other words this forces all iterators and pointer-like iterators to implement copy for them, even if std::copy would be fine for them.

      – alfC
      yesterday











    • Yes, that's the problem, I agree. The problem you have, once again, is a design problem. You want to try to rely on ADL in some cases, but not in others. Not going to work.

      – Matthieu Brucher
      yesterday



















    0














    For discussion I will write an answer to my own question with an alternative option.



    It is not very nice because it needs to wrap all the N:: classes in another template class (called wrap here). The good thing is that do_something nor the N classes need to know about the special N::copy. The price is that the main caller has to explicitly wrap the N:: classes which is ugly but which is fine from the point of view of coupling because this is the only code that should know about the whole system.



    #include <iostream>
    #include <algorithm>
    #include <vector>

    namespace N{
    struct A{};
    struct B{};
    struct C{};
    }

    namespace N{

    template<class S> struct wrap : S{};

    template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
    SomeN2 copy(wrap<SomeN1> first, wrap<SomeN1> last, wrap<SomeN2> d_first)
    {
    std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
    return d_first;
    }
    }

    template<class It1, class It2>
    void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
    using std::copy;
    copy(first, second, d_first);
    }

    int main(){
    N::wrap<N::A> a1, a2, a3;
    std::cout << "do something in N:" << std::endl;
    do_something(a1, a2, a3);

    std::vector<int> v = {1,2,3};
    std::vector<int> v2(3);
    std::cout << "do something in std:" << std::endl;
    do_something(std::begin(v), std::end(v), std::begin(v2));
    for (int i : v2)
    std::cout << i;
    std::cout << std::endl;
    }





    share|improve this answer































      -2














      Suggest you have a look at the very powerful new Boost.HOF library.



      This function does exactly what you want:



      #include <boost/hof.hpp>

      template<class It1, class It2>
      void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
      namespace hof = boost::hof;

      auto my_copy = hof::first_of(
      (auto first, auto second, auto d_first) -> decltype(N::copy(first, second, d_first))
      {
      return N::copy(first, second, d_first);
      },
      (auto first, auto second, auto d_first) -> decltype(std::copy(first, second, d_first))
      {
      return std::copy(first, second, d_first);
      });
      my_copy(first, second, d_first);
      }


      hof::first_of will select the first lambda whose return type is deduced to be the result type of a legal expression.






      share|improve this answer





















      • 1





        This looks like an interesting library. However the problem is that do_something still needs to know about the library/namespace N.

        – alfC
        yesterday











      • @alfC I see. It wasn't clear to me that you're after a general solution for calling copy.

        – Richard Hodges
        yesterday











      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
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54400763%2fhow-to-write-a-standard-like-function-that-has-high-overload-priority%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      7 Answers
      7






      active

      oldest

      votes








      7 Answers
      7






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      3














      One possible solution is to use another function template name and type discriminators to allow argument-dependent name lookup to find the associated function in the namespace of the arguments:



      template<class T> struct Tag {};
      template<class T> Tag<void> tag(T const&);

      template<class It1, class It2>
      void mycopy(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first, Tag<void>) {
      std::cout << "std::copyn";
      }

      template<class It1, class It2>
      void mycopy(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first) {
      mycopy(first, second, d_first, decltype(tag(first)){}); // Discriminate by the type of It1.
      }

      namespace N{

      struct itA{using trait = void;};
      Tag<itA> tag(itA);

      template<class It1, class It2>
      void mycopy(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first, Tag<itA>) {
      std::cout << "N::mycopyn";
      }
      }

      int main() {
      char* p = 0;
      mycopy(p, p, p); // calls std::copy

      N::itA q;
      mycopy(q, q, q); // calls N::mycopy
      }





      share|improve this answer






























        3














        One possible solution is to use another function template name and type discriminators to allow argument-dependent name lookup to find the associated function in the namespace of the arguments:



        template<class T> struct Tag {};
        template<class T> Tag<void> tag(T const&);

        template<class It1, class It2>
        void mycopy(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first, Tag<void>) {
        std::cout << "std::copyn";
        }

        template<class It1, class It2>
        void mycopy(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first) {
        mycopy(first, second, d_first, decltype(tag(first)){}); // Discriminate by the type of It1.
        }

        namespace N{

        struct itA{using trait = void;};
        Tag<itA> tag(itA);

        template<class It1, class It2>
        void mycopy(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first, Tag<itA>) {
        std::cout << "N::mycopyn";
        }
        }

        int main() {
        char* p = 0;
        mycopy(p, p, p); // calls std::copy

        N::itA q;
        mycopy(q, q, q); // calls N::mycopy
        }





        share|improve this answer




























          3












          3








          3







          One possible solution is to use another function template name and type discriminators to allow argument-dependent name lookup to find the associated function in the namespace of the arguments:



          template<class T> struct Tag {};
          template<class T> Tag<void> tag(T const&);

          template<class It1, class It2>
          void mycopy(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first, Tag<void>) {
          std::cout << "std::copyn";
          }

          template<class It1, class It2>
          void mycopy(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first) {
          mycopy(first, second, d_first, decltype(tag(first)){}); // Discriminate by the type of It1.
          }

          namespace N{

          struct itA{using trait = void;};
          Tag<itA> tag(itA);

          template<class It1, class It2>
          void mycopy(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first, Tag<itA>) {
          std::cout << "N::mycopyn";
          }
          }

          int main() {
          char* p = 0;
          mycopy(p, p, p); // calls std::copy

          N::itA q;
          mycopy(q, q, q); // calls N::mycopy
          }





          share|improve this answer















          One possible solution is to use another function template name and type discriminators to allow argument-dependent name lookup to find the associated function in the namespace of the arguments:



          template<class T> struct Tag {};
          template<class T> Tag<void> tag(T const&);

          template<class It1, class It2>
          void mycopy(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first, Tag<void>) {
          std::cout << "std::copyn";
          }

          template<class It1, class It2>
          void mycopy(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first) {
          mycopy(first, second, d_first, decltype(tag(first)){}); // Discriminate by the type of It1.
          }

          namespace N{

          struct itA{using trait = void;};
          Tag<itA> tag(itA);

          template<class It1, class It2>
          void mycopy(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first, Tag<itA>) {
          std::cout << "N::mycopyn";
          }
          }

          int main() {
          char* p = 0;
          mycopy(p, p, p); // calls std::copy

          N::itA q;
          mycopy(q, q, q); // calls N::mycopy
          }






          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited yesterday

























          answered yesterday









          Maxim EgorushkinMaxim Egorushkin

          86.9k11101184




          86.9k11101184

























              3














              You can declare copy() as a public friend function in your iterator classes.
              This works kind of as a replacement for partial specialization (which is impossible for functions), so that they will be preferred by overload resolution as they are more specialized:



              #include <iostream>
              #include <algorithm>
              #include <vector>

              namespace N
              {
              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first)
              {
              std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
              return d_first;
              }

              template <class T>
              struct ItBase
              {
              template <class SomeN2>
              friend SomeN2 copy(T first, T last, SomeN2 d_first)
              {
              return N::copy(first, last, d_first);
              }
              };

              struct A : ItBase<A>{};
              struct B : ItBase<B>{};
              struct C : ItBase<C>{};
              }

              template<class It1, class It2>
              void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
              using std::copy;
              copy(first, second, d_first);
              }

              int main(){
              N::A a1, a2, a3;
              std::cout << "do something in N:" << std::endl;
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);

              std::vector<int> v = {1,2,3};
              std::vector<int> v2(3);
              std::cout << "do something in std:" << std::endl;
              do_something(std::begin(v), std::end(v), std::begin(v2));
              for (int i : v2)
              std::cout << i;
              std::cout << std::endl;
              }


              See this demo to verify that it works.



              I introduced a common base class that declares the necessary friends for all of your iterators. So, instead of declaring a tag, as you tried, you just have to inherit from ItBase.



              Note: If N::copy() is supposed to work with only these iterators in N, it might not be needed anymore as these friend functions will be publicly visible in N anyway (as if they were free functions).






              share|improve this answer
























              • This is an interesting solution and the friend in the base class allows have the coupling between the iterators and the algorithm declared only once. The problem with this is that the N::iterators will have to know of all possible algorithms that can implemented copy, fill, accumulate, etc.

                – alfC
                14 hours ago











              • @alfC So you are saying that copy was just an example and actually you want to do this with several std algorithms? In that case you have to implement them anyway, so just put them into ItBase directly. Or am I misunderstanding you?

                – sebrockm
                14 hours ago











              • Yes, the point is that these iterators will need to know about any special function in advance. Besides that point, this a good alternative design.

                – alfC
                13 hours ago











              • BTW, I think public or private doesn't make a difference here for a friend function. friend functions seem to be always accesible (public).

                – alfC
                13 hours ago











              • your answer inspired me for this yet-another-alternative, stackoverflow.com/a/54425412/225186

                – alfC
                13 hours ago
















              3














              You can declare copy() as a public friend function in your iterator classes.
              This works kind of as a replacement for partial specialization (which is impossible for functions), so that they will be preferred by overload resolution as they are more specialized:



              #include <iostream>
              #include <algorithm>
              #include <vector>

              namespace N
              {
              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first)
              {
              std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
              return d_first;
              }

              template <class T>
              struct ItBase
              {
              template <class SomeN2>
              friend SomeN2 copy(T first, T last, SomeN2 d_first)
              {
              return N::copy(first, last, d_first);
              }
              };

              struct A : ItBase<A>{};
              struct B : ItBase<B>{};
              struct C : ItBase<C>{};
              }

              template<class It1, class It2>
              void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
              using std::copy;
              copy(first, second, d_first);
              }

              int main(){
              N::A a1, a2, a3;
              std::cout << "do something in N:" << std::endl;
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);

              std::vector<int> v = {1,2,3};
              std::vector<int> v2(3);
              std::cout << "do something in std:" << std::endl;
              do_something(std::begin(v), std::end(v), std::begin(v2));
              for (int i : v2)
              std::cout << i;
              std::cout << std::endl;
              }


              See this demo to verify that it works.



              I introduced a common base class that declares the necessary friends for all of your iterators. So, instead of declaring a tag, as you tried, you just have to inherit from ItBase.



              Note: If N::copy() is supposed to work with only these iterators in N, it might not be needed anymore as these friend functions will be publicly visible in N anyway (as if they were free functions).






              share|improve this answer
























              • This is an interesting solution and the friend in the base class allows have the coupling between the iterators and the algorithm declared only once. The problem with this is that the N::iterators will have to know of all possible algorithms that can implemented copy, fill, accumulate, etc.

                – alfC
                14 hours ago











              • @alfC So you are saying that copy was just an example and actually you want to do this with several std algorithms? In that case you have to implement them anyway, so just put them into ItBase directly. Or am I misunderstanding you?

                – sebrockm
                14 hours ago











              • Yes, the point is that these iterators will need to know about any special function in advance. Besides that point, this a good alternative design.

                – alfC
                13 hours ago











              • BTW, I think public or private doesn't make a difference here for a friend function. friend functions seem to be always accesible (public).

                – alfC
                13 hours ago











              • your answer inspired me for this yet-another-alternative, stackoverflow.com/a/54425412/225186

                – alfC
                13 hours ago














              3












              3








              3







              You can declare copy() as a public friend function in your iterator classes.
              This works kind of as a replacement for partial specialization (which is impossible for functions), so that they will be preferred by overload resolution as they are more specialized:



              #include <iostream>
              #include <algorithm>
              #include <vector>

              namespace N
              {
              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first)
              {
              std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
              return d_first;
              }

              template <class T>
              struct ItBase
              {
              template <class SomeN2>
              friend SomeN2 copy(T first, T last, SomeN2 d_first)
              {
              return N::copy(first, last, d_first);
              }
              };

              struct A : ItBase<A>{};
              struct B : ItBase<B>{};
              struct C : ItBase<C>{};
              }

              template<class It1, class It2>
              void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
              using std::copy;
              copy(first, second, d_first);
              }

              int main(){
              N::A a1, a2, a3;
              std::cout << "do something in N:" << std::endl;
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);

              std::vector<int> v = {1,2,3};
              std::vector<int> v2(3);
              std::cout << "do something in std:" << std::endl;
              do_something(std::begin(v), std::end(v), std::begin(v2));
              for (int i : v2)
              std::cout << i;
              std::cout << std::endl;
              }


              See this demo to verify that it works.



              I introduced a common base class that declares the necessary friends for all of your iterators. So, instead of declaring a tag, as you tried, you just have to inherit from ItBase.



              Note: If N::copy() is supposed to work with only these iterators in N, it might not be needed anymore as these friend functions will be publicly visible in N anyway (as if they were free functions).






              share|improve this answer













              You can declare copy() as a public friend function in your iterator classes.
              This works kind of as a replacement for partial specialization (which is impossible for functions), so that they will be preferred by overload resolution as they are more specialized:



              #include <iostream>
              #include <algorithm>
              #include <vector>

              namespace N
              {
              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first)
              {
              std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
              return d_first;
              }

              template <class T>
              struct ItBase
              {
              template <class SomeN2>
              friend SomeN2 copy(T first, T last, SomeN2 d_first)
              {
              return N::copy(first, last, d_first);
              }
              };

              struct A : ItBase<A>{};
              struct B : ItBase<B>{};
              struct C : ItBase<C>{};
              }

              template<class It1, class It2>
              void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
              using std::copy;
              copy(first, second, d_first);
              }

              int main(){
              N::A a1, a2, a3;
              std::cout << "do something in N:" << std::endl;
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);

              std::vector<int> v = {1,2,3};
              std::vector<int> v2(3);
              std::cout << "do something in std:" << std::endl;
              do_something(std::begin(v), std::end(v), std::begin(v2));
              for (int i : v2)
              std::cout << i;
              std::cout << std::endl;
              }


              See this demo to verify that it works.



              I introduced a common base class that declares the necessary friends for all of your iterators. So, instead of declaring a tag, as you tried, you just have to inherit from ItBase.



              Note: If N::copy() is supposed to work with only these iterators in N, it might not be needed anymore as these friend functions will be publicly visible in N anyway (as if they were free functions).







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered 17 hours ago









              sebrockmsebrockm

              1,220218




              1,220218













              • This is an interesting solution and the friend in the base class allows have the coupling between the iterators and the algorithm declared only once. The problem with this is that the N::iterators will have to know of all possible algorithms that can implemented copy, fill, accumulate, etc.

                – alfC
                14 hours ago











              • @alfC So you are saying that copy was just an example and actually you want to do this with several std algorithms? In that case you have to implement them anyway, so just put them into ItBase directly. Or am I misunderstanding you?

                – sebrockm
                14 hours ago











              • Yes, the point is that these iterators will need to know about any special function in advance. Besides that point, this a good alternative design.

                – alfC
                13 hours ago











              • BTW, I think public or private doesn't make a difference here for a friend function. friend functions seem to be always accesible (public).

                – alfC
                13 hours ago











              • your answer inspired me for this yet-another-alternative, stackoverflow.com/a/54425412/225186

                – alfC
                13 hours ago



















              • This is an interesting solution and the friend in the base class allows have the coupling between the iterators and the algorithm declared only once. The problem with this is that the N::iterators will have to know of all possible algorithms that can implemented copy, fill, accumulate, etc.

                – alfC
                14 hours ago











              • @alfC So you are saying that copy was just an example and actually you want to do this with several std algorithms? In that case you have to implement them anyway, so just put them into ItBase directly. Or am I misunderstanding you?

                – sebrockm
                14 hours ago











              • Yes, the point is that these iterators will need to know about any special function in advance. Besides that point, this a good alternative design.

                – alfC
                13 hours ago











              • BTW, I think public or private doesn't make a difference here for a friend function. friend functions seem to be always accesible (public).

                – alfC
                13 hours ago











              • your answer inspired me for this yet-another-alternative, stackoverflow.com/a/54425412/225186

                – alfC
                13 hours ago

















              This is an interesting solution and the friend in the base class allows have the coupling between the iterators and the algorithm declared only once. The problem with this is that the N::iterators will have to know of all possible algorithms that can implemented copy, fill, accumulate, etc.

              – alfC
              14 hours ago





              This is an interesting solution and the friend in the base class allows have the coupling between the iterators and the algorithm declared only once. The problem with this is that the N::iterators will have to know of all possible algorithms that can implemented copy, fill, accumulate, etc.

              – alfC
              14 hours ago













              @alfC So you are saying that copy was just an example and actually you want to do this with several std algorithms? In that case you have to implement them anyway, so just put them into ItBase directly. Or am I misunderstanding you?

              – sebrockm
              14 hours ago





              @alfC So you are saying that copy was just an example and actually you want to do this with several std algorithms? In that case you have to implement them anyway, so just put them into ItBase directly. Or am I misunderstanding you?

              – sebrockm
              14 hours ago













              Yes, the point is that these iterators will need to know about any special function in advance. Besides that point, this a good alternative design.

              – alfC
              13 hours ago





              Yes, the point is that these iterators will need to know about any special function in advance. Besides that point, this a good alternative design.

              – alfC
              13 hours ago













              BTW, I think public or private doesn't make a difference here for a friend function. friend functions seem to be always accesible (public).

              – alfC
              13 hours ago





              BTW, I think public or private doesn't make a difference here for a friend function. friend functions seem to be always accesible (public).

              – alfC
              13 hours ago













              your answer inspired me for this yet-another-alternative, stackoverflow.com/a/54425412/225186

              – alfC
              13 hours ago





              your answer inspired me for this yet-another-alternative, stackoverflow.com/a/54425412/225186

              – alfC
              13 hours ago











              2














              This seems to fulfill your requirements:



              namespace SpecCopy {

              template <typename A, typename B, typename C>
              void copy(A &&a, B &&b, C &&c) {
              std::copy(std::forward<A>(a), std::forward<B>(b), std::forward<C>(c));
              }

              }

              template<class It1, class It2>
              void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
              using namespace SpecCopy;
              copy(first, second, d_first);
              }


              Basically, it depends on ADL. If no function found by ADL, then it will use SpecCopy::copy, which is a wrapper to std::copy.





              So, if you do:



              N::A a1, a2, a3;
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);


              Then do_something will call N::copy.





              If you do:



              std::vector<int> a1, a2;
              do_something(a1.begin(), a1.end(), a2.begin());


              Then do_something will call SpecCopy::copy, which will call std::copy.





              If you do:



              int *a1, *a2, *a3;
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);


              Then same thing happens as before: do_something will call SpecCopy::copy, which will call std::copy.






              share|improve this answer





















              • 1





                I don't think this solves the issue ... it ties the general do_something to the special code for the iterators ...

                – Daniel Jour
                yesterday











              • @DanielJour: Can you give an example or more explanation? I don't understand what you mean.

                – geza
                yesterday











              • @DanielJour , geza, as DanielJour says, do_something will need to know about the SpecCopy library/namespace. and if you include SpecCopy with do_something then there is no customization, N::copy is never called in this way.

                – alfC
                yesterday











              • @alfC: Hmm, I thought that you want an ADL based solution. If iterator is in namespace N, and you have a copy function in namespace N, then with this solution, N::copy will be called.

                – geza
                yesterday













              • @alfC: I've edited my answer so you can see what I mean.

                – geza
                yesterday
















              2














              This seems to fulfill your requirements:



              namespace SpecCopy {

              template <typename A, typename B, typename C>
              void copy(A &&a, B &&b, C &&c) {
              std::copy(std::forward<A>(a), std::forward<B>(b), std::forward<C>(c));
              }

              }

              template<class It1, class It2>
              void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
              using namespace SpecCopy;
              copy(first, second, d_first);
              }


              Basically, it depends on ADL. If no function found by ADL, then it will use SpecCopy::copy, which is a wrapper to std::copy.





              So, if you do:



              N::A a1, a2, a3;
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);


              Then do_something will call N::copy.





              If you do:



              std::vector<int> a1, a2;
              do_something(a1.begin(), a1.end(), a2.begin());


              Then do_something will call SpecCopy::copy, which will call std::copy.





              If you do:



              int *a1, *a2, *a3;
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);


              Then same thing happens as before: do_something will call SpecCopy::copy, which will call std::copy.






              share|improve this answer





















              • 1





                I don't think this solves the issue ... it ties the general do_something to the special code for the iterators ...

                – Daniel Jour
                yesterday











              • @DanielJour: Can you give an example or more explanation? I don't understand what you mean.

                – geza
                yesterday











              • @DanielJour , geza, as DanielJour says, do_something will need to know about the SpecCopy library/namespace. and if you include SpecCopy with do_something then there is no customization, N::copy is never called in this way.

                – alfC
                yesterday











              • @alfC: Hmm, I thought that you want an ADL based solution. If iterator is in namespace N, and you have a copy function in namespace N, then with this solution, N::copy will be called.

                – geza
                yesterday













              • @alfC: I've edited my answer so you can see what I mean.

                – geza
                yesterday














              2












              2








              2







              This seems to fulfill your requirements:



              namespace SpecCopy {

              template <typename A, typename B, typename C>
              void copy(A &&a, B &&b, C &&c) {
              std::copy(std::forward<A>(a), std::forward<B>(b), std::forward<C>(c));
              }

              }

              template<class It1, class It2>
              void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
              using namespace SpecCopy;
              copy(first, second, d_first);
              }


              Basically, it depends on ADL. If no function found by ADL, then it will use SpecCopy::copy, which is a wrapper to std::copy.





              So, if you do:



              N::A a1, a2, a3;
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);


              Then do_something will call N::copy.





              If you do:



              std::vector<int> a1, a2;
              do_something(a1.begin(), a1.end(), a2.begin());


              Then do_something will call SpecCopy::copy, which will call std::copy.





              If you do:



              int *a1, *a2, *a3;
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);


              Then same thing happens as before: do_something will call SpecCopy::copy, which will call std::copy.






              share|improve this answer















              This seems to fulfill your requirements:



              namespace SpecCopy {

              template <typename A, typename B, typename C>
              void copy(A &&a, B &&b, C &&c) {
              std::copy(std::forward<A>(a), std::forward<B>(b), std::forward<C>(c));
              }

              }

              template<class It1, class It2>
              void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
              using namespace SpecCopy;
              copy(first, second, d_first);
              }


              Basically, it depends on ADL. If no function found by ADL, then it will use SpecCopy::copy, which is a wrapper to std::copy.





              So, if you do:



              N::A a1, a2, a3;
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);


              Then do_something will call N::copy.





              If you do:



              std::vector<int> a1, a2;
              do_something(a1.begin(), a1.end(), a2.begin());


              Then do_something will call SpecCopy::copy, which will call std::copy.





              If you do:



              int *a1, *a2, *a3;
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);


              Then same thing happens as before: do_something will call SpecCopy::copy, which will call std::copy.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited yesterday

























              answered yesterday









              gezageza

              12.9k32776




              12.9k32776








              • 1





                I don't think this solves the issue ... it ties the general do_something to the special code for the iterators ...

                – Daniel Jour
                yesterday











              • @DanielJour: Can you give an example or more explanation? I don't understand what you mean.

                – geza
                yesterday











              • @DanielJour , geza, as DanielJour says, do_something will need to know about the SpecCopy library/namespace. and if you include SpecCopy with do_something then there is no customization, N::copy is never called in this way.

                – alfC
                yesterday











              • @alfC: Hmm, I thought that you want an ADL based solution. If iterator is in namespace N, and you have a copy function in namespace N, then with this solution, N::copy will be called.

                – geza
                yesterday













              • @alfC: I've edited my answer so you can see what I mean.

                – geza
                yesterday














              • 1





                I don't think this solves the issue ... it ties the general do_something to the special code for the iterators ...

                – Daniel Jour
                yesterday











              • @DanielJour: Can you give an example or more explanation? I don't understand what you mean.

                – geza
                yesterday











              • @DanielJour , geza, as DanielJour says, do_something will need to know about the SpecCopy library/namespace. and if you include SpecCopy with do_something then there is no customization, N::copy is never called in this way.

                – alfC
                yesterday











              • @alfC: Hmm, I thought that you want an ADL based solution. If iterator is in namespace N, and you have a copy function in namespace N, then with this solution, N::copy will be called.

                – geza
                yesterday













              • @alfC: I've edited my answer so you can see what I mean.

                – geza
                yesterday








              1




              1





              I don't think this solves the issue ... it ties the general do_something to the special code for the iterators ...

              – Daniel Jour
              yesterday





              I don't think this solves the issue ... it ties the general do_something to the special code for the iterators ...

              – Daniel Jour
              yesterday













              @DanielJour: Can you give an example or more explanation? I don't understand what you mean.

              – geza
              yesterday





              @DanielJour: Can you give an example or more explanation? I don't understand what you mean.

              – geza
              yesterday













              @DanielJour , geza, as DanielJour says, do_something will need to know about the SpecCopy library/namespace. and if you include SpecCopy with do_something then there is no customization, N::copy is never called in this way.

              – alfC
              yesterday





              @DanielJour , geza, as DanielJour says, do_something will need to know about the SpecCopy library/namespace. and if you include SpecCopy with do_something then there is no customization, N::copy is never called in this way.

              – alfC
              yesterday













              @alfC: Hmm, I thought that you want an ADL based solution. If iterator is in namespace N, and you have a copy function in namespace N, then with this solution, N::copy will be called.

              – geza
              yesterday







              @alfC: Hmm, I thought that you want an ADL based solution. If iterator is in namespace N, and you have a copy function in namespace N, then with this solution, N::copy will be called.

              – geza
              yesterday















              @alfC: I've edited my answer so you can see what I mean.

              – geza
              yesterday





              @alfC: I've edited my answer so you can see what I mean.

              – geza
              yesterday











              2














              In c++ 11 you could use tag dispatch. If you can make a little change to your custom iterators things will be a bit simpler to implement.



              #include <iostream>
              #include <algorithm>
              #include <vector>
              #include <type_traits>

              // indicates that the type doesn't have a tag type (like pointers and standard iterators)
              struct no_tag{};

              namespace detail
              {
              template <typename T>
              auto tag_helper(int) -> typename T::tag;

              template <typename>
              auto tag_helper(long) -> no_tag;
              }

              // get T::tag or no_tag if T::tag isn't defined.
              template <typename T>
              using tag_t = decltype(detail::tag_helper<T>(0));

              namespace N
              {
              struct my_iterator_tag {};
              struct A{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
              struct B{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
              struct C{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
              }

              namespace N
              {
              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy_helper(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first, no_tag)
              {
              std::cout << "calling std::copyn";
              return std::copy(std::forward<SomeN1>(first), std::forward<SomeN1>(last), std::forward<SomeN2>(d_first));
              }

              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy_helper(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first, my_iterator_tag)
              {
              // your custom copy
              std::cout << "custom copy functionn";
              return {};
              }

              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first)
              {
              return copy_helper(std::forward<SomeN1>(first), std::forward<SomeN1>(last), std::forward<SomeN2>(d_first), tag_t<SomeN1>{});
              }
              }

              template<class It1, class It2>
              void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first)
              {
              N::copy(first, second, d_first);
              }

              int main()
              {
              N::A a1, a2, a3;
              std::cout << "using custom iterator: ";
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);

              std::cout << "using vector iterator: ";
              std::vector<int> v;
              do_something(std::begin(v), std::end(v), std::begin(v));

              std::cout << "using pointer: ";
              int* ptr = new int[10];
              do_something(ptr, ptr + 5, ptr);

              return 0;
              }


              First we change our custom iterators to have a tag type (maybe change the name to avoid confusion with iterator_category). tag can be any type you want, it just has to match the type you use as tag in copy_helper.



              Next, we define a type that allows us to access this tag type, or to fall back to a default type if tag doesn't exist. This will help us distinguish between our custom iterators and standard iterators and pointers. The default type I use is no_tag. The tag_t provides us with this functionality by using SFINAE and overload resolution. We call the function tag_helper(0) which has two declarations. The first one returns T::tag while the second one returns no_tag. Calling tag_helper(0) will always try to use the first version because int is a better match for 0 than long. This means we will always try to access T::tag first. However if this isn't possible (T::tag is not defined) SFINAE kicks in and skipps tag_helper(int) selecting tag_helper(long).



              Finally, we just have to implement a copy function for each tag (I called it copy_helper) and another copy function as a wrap around for convinience (I used N::copy). The wrapper function then creates the proper tag type and calls the correct helper function.



              Here is a live example.



              Edit



              If you move the code around a bit you can disconnect namespace N and rely on ADL:



              #include <iostream>
              #include <algorithm>
              #include <vector>
              #include <type_traits>

              // indicates that the type doesn't have a tag type (like pointers and standard iterators)
              struct no_tag{};

              namespace detail
              {
              template <typename T>
              auto tag_helper(int) -> typename T::tag;

              template <typename>
              auto tag_helper(long) -> no_tag;
              }

              // get T::tag or no_tag if T::tag isn't defined.
              template <typename T>
              using tag_t = decltype(detail::tag_helper<T>(0));

              namespace N
              {
              struct my_iterator_tag {};
              struct A{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
              struct B{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
              struct C{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };

              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy_helper(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first, my_iterator_tag)
              {
              // your custom copy
              std::cout << "custom copy functionn";
              return {};
              }
              }

              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy_helper(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first, no_tag)
              {
              std::cout << "calling std::copyn";
              return std::copy(std::forward<SomeN1>(first), std::forward<SomeN1>(last), std::forward<SomeN2>(d_first));
              }

              template<class It1, class It2>
              void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first)
              {
              copy_helper(std::forward<It1>(first), std::forward<It1>(second), std::forward<It2>(d_first), tag_t<It1>{});
              }

              int main()
              {
              N::A a1, a2, a3;
              std::cout << "using custom iterator: ";
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);

              std::cout << "using vector iterator: ";
              std::vector<int> v;
              do_something(std::begin(v), std::end(v), std::begin(v));

              std::cout << "using pointer: ";
              int* ptr = new int[10];
              do_something(ptr, ptr + 5, ptr);

              return 0;
              }





              share|improve this answer


























              • Thank you, but do_something will need to know about the N namespace, which might be in a disconnected library.

                – alfC
                yesterday











              • @alfC Well you could also move the code from copy directly to do_something and include the copy_helper with the no_tag tag in the same library. Then you can rely on ADL again. Your disconnected library has to implement the copy_helper with its according tag.

                – Timo
                yesterday











              • @alfC I edited my answer to rely on ADL.

                – Timo
                yesterday











              • The Edit is the closest to an answer to the question so far. Note aside, I think the forward<It1> is useless unless you pass arguments as It1&& first.

                – alfC
                yesterday
















              2














              In c++ 11 you could use tag dispatch. If you can make a little change to your custom iterators things will be a bit simpler to implement.



              #include <iostream>
              #include <algorithm>
              #include <vector>
              #include <type_traits>

              // indicates that the type doesn't have a tag type (like pointers and standard iterators)
              struct no_tag{};

              namespace detail
              {
              template <typename T>
              auto tag_helper(int) -> typename T::tag;

              template <typename>
              auto tag_helper(long) -> no_tag;
              }

              // get T::tag or no_tag if T::tag isn't defined.
              template <typename T>
              using tag_t = decltype(detail::tag_helper<T>(0));

              namespace N
              {
              struct my_iterator_tag {};
              struct A{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
              struct B{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
              struct C{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
              }

              namespace N
              {
              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy_helper(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first, no_tag)
              {
              std::cout << "calling std::copyn";
              return std::copy(std::forward<SomeN1>(first), std::forward<SomeN1>(last), std::forward<SomeN2>(d_first));
              }

              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy_helper(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first, my_iterator_tag)
              {
              // your custom copy
              std::cout << "custom copy functionn";
              return {};
              }

              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first)
              {
              return copy_helper(std::forward<SomeN1>(first), std::forward<SomeN1>(last), std::forward<SomeN2>(d_first), tag_t<SomeN1>{});
              }
              }

              template<class It1, class It2>
              void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first)
              {
              N::copy(first, second, d_first);
              }

              int main()
              {
              N::A a1, a2, a3;
              std::cout << "using custom iterator: ";
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);

              std::cout << "using vector iterator: ";
              std::vector<int> v;
              do_something(std::begin(v), std::end(v), std::begin(v));

              std::cout << "using pointer: ";
              int* ptr = new int[10];
              do_something(ptr, ptr + 5, ptr);

              return 0;
              }


              First we change our custom iterators to have a tag type (maybe change the name to avoid confusion with iterator_category). tag can be any type you want, it just has to match the type you use as tag in copy_helper.



              Next, we define a type that allows us to access this tag type, or to fall back to a default type if tag doesn't exist. This will help us distinguish between our custom iterators and standard iterators and pointers. The default type I use is no_tag. The tag_t provides us with this functionality by using SFINAE and overload resolution. We call the function tag_helper(0) which has two declarations. The first one returns T::tag while the second one returns no_tag. Calling tag_helper(0) will always try to use the first version because int is a better match for 0 than long. This means we will always try to access T::tag first. However if this isn't possible (T::tag is not defined) SFINAE kicks in and skipps tag_helper(int) selecting tag_helper(long).



              Finally, we just have to implement a copy function for each tag (I called it copy_helper) and another copy function as a wrap around for convinience (I used N::copy). The wrapper function then creates the proper tag type and calls the correct helper function.



              Here is a live example.



              Edit



              If you move the code around a bit you can disconnect namespace N and rely on ADL:



              #include <iostream>
              #include <algorithm>
              #include <vector>
              #include <type_traits>

              // indicates that the type doesn't have a tag type (like pointers and standard iterators)
              struct no_tag{};

              namespace detail
              {
              template <typename T>
              auto tag_helper(int) -> typename T::tag;

              template <typename>
              auto tag_helper(long) -> no_tag;
              }

              // get T::tag or no_tag if T::tag isn't defined.
              template <typename T>
              using tag_t = decltype(detail::tag_helper<T>(0));

              namespace N
              {
              struct my_iterator_tag {};
              struct A{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
              struct B{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
              struct C{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };

              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy_helper(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first, my_iterator_tag)
              {
              // your custom copy
              std::cout << "custom copy functionn";
              return {};
              }
              }

              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy_helper(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first, no_tag)
              {
              std::cout << "calling std::copyn";
              return std::copy(std::forward<SomeN1>(first), std::forward<SomeN1>(last), std::forward<SomeN2>(d_first));
              }

              template<class It1, class It2>
              void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first)
              {
              copy_helper(std::forward<It1>(first), std::forward<It1>(second), std::forward<It2>(d_first), tag_t<It1>{});
              }

              int main()
              {
              N::A a1, a2, a3;
              std::cout << "using custom iterator: ";
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);

              std::cout << "using vector iterator: ";
              std::vector<int> v;
              do_something(std::begin(v), std::end(v), std::begin(v));

              std::cout << "using pointer: ";
              int* ptr = new int[10];
              do_something(ptr, ptr + 5, ptr);

              return 0;
              }





              share|improve this answer


























              • Thank you, but do_something will need to know about the N namespace, which might be in a disconnected library.

                – alfC
                yesterday











              • @alfC Well you could also move the code from copy directly to do_something and include the copy_helper with the no_tag tag in the same library. Then you can rely on ADL again. Your disconnected library has to implement the copy_helper with its according tag.

                – Timo
                yesterday











              • @alfC I edited my answer to rely on ADL.

                – Timo
                yesterday











              • The Edit is the closest to an answer to the question so far. Note aside, I think the forward<It1> is useless unless you pass arguments as It1&& first.

                – alfC
                yesterday














              2












              2








              2







              In c++ 11 you could use tag dispatch. If you can make a little change to your custom iterators things will be a bit simpler to implement.



              #include <iostream>
              #include <algorithm>
              #include <vector>
              #include <type_traits>

              // indicates that the type doesn't have a tag type (like pointers and standard iterators)
              struct no_tag{};

              namespace detail
              {
              template <typename T>
              auto tag_helper(int) -> typename T::tag;

              template <typename>
              auto tag_helper(long) -> no_tag;
              }

              // get T::tag or no_tag if T::tag isn't defined.
              template <typename T>
              using tag_t = decltype(detail::tag_helper<T>(0));

              namespace N
              {
              struct my_iterator_tag {};
              struct A{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
              struct B{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
              struct C{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
              }

              namespace N
              {
              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy_helper(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first, no_tag)
              {
              std::cout << "calling std::copyn";
              return std::copy(std::forward<SomeN1>(first), std::forward<SomeN1>(last), std::forward<SomeN2>(d_first));
              }

              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy_helper(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first, my_iterator_tag)
              {
              // your custom copy
              std::cout << "custom copy functionn";
              return {};
              }

              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first)
              {
              return copy_helper(std::forward<SomeN1>(first), std::forward<SomeN1>(last), std::forward<SomeN2>(d_first), tag_t<SomeN1>{});
              }
              }

              template<class It1, class It2>
              void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first)
              {
              N::copy(first, second, d_first);
              }

              int main()
              {
              N::A a1, a2, a3;
              std::cout << "using custom iterator: ";
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);

              std::cout << "using vector iterator: ";
              std::vector<int> v;
              do_something(std::begin(v), std::end(v), std::begin(v));

              std::cout << "using pointer: ";
              int* ptr = new int[10];
              do_something(ptr, ptr + 5, ptr);

              return 0;
              }


              First we change our custom iterators to have a tag type (maybe change the name to avoid confusion with iterator_category). tag can be any type you want, it just has to match the type you use as tag in copy_helper.



              Next, we define a type that allows us to access this tag type, or to fall back to a default type if tag doesn't exist. This will help us distinguish between our custom iterators and standard iterators and pointers. The default type I use is no_tag. The tag_t provides us with this functionality by using SFINAE and overload resolution. We call the function tag_helper(0) which has two declarations. The first one returns T::tag while the second one returns no_tag. Calling tag_helper(0) will always try to use the first version because int is a better match for 0 than long. This means we will always try to access T::tag first. However if this isn't possible (T::tag is not defined) SFINAE kicks in and skipps tag_helper(int) selecting tag_helper(long).



              Finally, we just have to implement a copy function for each tag (I called it copy_helper) and another copy function as a wrap around for convinience (I used N::copy). The wrapper function then creates the proper tag type and calls the correct helper function.



              Here is a live example.



              Edit



              If you move the code around a bit you can disconnect namespace N and rely on ADL:



              #include <iostream>
              #include <algorithm>
              #include <vector>
              #include <type_traits>

              // indicates that the type doesn't have a tag type (like pointers and standard iterators)
              struct no_tag{};

              namespace detail
              {
              template <typename T>
              auto tag_helper(int) -> typename T::tag;

              template <typename>
              auto tag_helper(long) -> no_tag;
              }

              // get T::tag or no_tag if T::tag isn't defined.
              template <typename T>
              using tag_t = decltype(detail::tag_helper<T>(0));

              namespace N
              {
              struct my_iterator_tag {};
              struct A{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
              struct B{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
              struct C{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };

              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy_helper(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first, my_iterator_tag)
              {
              // your custom copy
              std::cout << "custom copy functionn";
              return {};
              }
              }

              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy_helper(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first, no_tag)
              {
              std::cout << "calling std::copyn";
              return std::copy(std::forward<SomeN1>(first), std::forward<SomeN1>(last), std::forward<SomeN2>(d_first));
              }

              template<class It1, class It2>
              void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first)
              {
              copy_helper(std::forward<It1>(first), std::forward<It1>(second), std::forward<It2>(d_first), tag_t<It1>{});
              }

              int main()
              {
              N::A a1, a2, a3;
              std::cout << "using custom iterator: ";
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);

              std::cout << "using vector iterator: ";
              std::vector<int> v;
              do_something(std::begin(v), std::end(v), std::begin(v));

              std::cout << "using pointer: ";
              int* ptr = new int[10];
              do_something(ptr, ptr + 5, ptr);

              return 0;
              }





              share|improve this answer















              In c++ 11 you could use tag dispatch. If you can make a little change to your custom iterators things will be a bit simpler to implement.



              #include <iostream>
              #include <algorithm>
              #include <vector>
              #include <type_traits>

              // indicates that the type doesn't have a tag type (like pointers and standard iterators)
              struct no_tag{};

              namespace detail
              {
              template <typename T>
              auto tag_helper(int) -> typename T::tag;

              template <typename>
              auto tag_helper(long) -> no_tag;
              }

              // get T::tag or no_tag if T::tag isn't defined.
              template <typename T>
              using tag_t = decltype(detail::tag_helper<T>(0));

              namespace N
              {
              struct my_iterator_tag {};
              struct A{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
              struct B{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
              struct C{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
              }

              namespace N
              {
              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy_helper(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first, no_tag)
              {
              std::cout << "calling std::copyn";
              return std::copy(std::forward<SomeN1>(first), std::forward<SomeN1>(last), std::forward<SomeN2>(d_first));
              }

              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy_helper(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first, my_iterator_tag)
              {
              // your custom copy
              std::cout << "custom copy functionn";
              return {};
              }

              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first)
              {
              return copy_helper(std::forward<SomeN1>(first), std::forward<SomeN1>(last), std::forward<SomeN2>(d_first), tag_t<SomeN1>{});
              }
              }

              template<class It1, class It2>
              void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first)
              {
              N::copy(first, second, d_first);
              }

              int main()
              {
              N::A a1, a2, a3;
              std::cout << "using custom iterator: ";
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);

              std::cout << "using vector iterator: ";
              std::vector<int> v;
              do_something(std::begin(v), std::end(v), std::begin(v));

              std::cout << "using pointer: ";
              int* ptr = new int[10];
              do_something(ptr, ptr + 5, ptr);

              return 0;
              }


              First we change our custom iterators to have a tag type (maybe change the name to avoid confusion with iterator_category). tag can be any type you want, it just has to match the type you use as tag in copy_helper.



              Next, we define a type that allows us to access this tag type, or to fall back to a default type if tag doesn't exist. This will help us distinguish between our custom iterators and standard iterators and pointers. The default type I use is no_tag. The tag_t provides us with this functionality by using SFINAE and overload resolution. We call the function tag_helper(0) which has two declarations. The first one returns T::tag while the second one returns no_tag. Calling tag_helper(0) will always try to use the first version because int is a better match for 0 than long. This means we will always try to access T::tag first. However if this isn't possible (T::tag is not defined) SFINAE kicks in and skipps tag_helper(int) selecting tag_helper(long).



              Finally, we just have to implement a copy function for each tag (I called it copy_helper) and another copy function as a wrap around for convinience (I used N::copy). The wrapper function then creates the proper tag type and calls the correct helper function.



              Here is a live example.



              Edit



              If you move the code around a bit you can disconnect namespace N and rely on ADL:



              #include <iostream>
              #include <algorithm>
              #include <vector>
              #include <type_traits>

              // indicates that the type doesn't have a tag type (like pointers and standard iterators)
              struct no_tag{};

              namespace detail
              {
              template <typename T>
              auto tag_helper(int) -> typename T::tag;

              template <typename>
              auto tag_helper(long) -> no_tag;
              }

              // get T::tag or no_tag if T::tag isn't defined.
              template <typename T>
              using tag_t = decltype(detail::tag_helper<T>(0));

              namespace N
              {
              struct my_iterator_tag {};
              struct A{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
              struct B{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };
              struct C{ using tag = my_iterator_tag; };

              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy_helper(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first, my_iterator_tag)
              {
              // your custom copy
              std::cout << "custom copy functionn";
              return {};
              }
              }

              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy_helper(SomeN1 first, SomeN1 last, SomeN2 d_first, no_tag)
              {
              std::cout << "calling std::copyn";
              return std::copy(std::forward<SomeN1>(first), std::forward<SomeN1>(last), std::forward<SomeN2>(d_first));
              }

              template<class It1, class It2>
              void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first)
              {
              copy_helper(std::forward<It1>(first), std::forward<It1>(second), std::forward<It2>(d_first), tag_t<It1>{});
              }

              int main()
              {
              N::A a1, a2, a3;
              std::cout << "using custom iterator: ";
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);

              std::cout << "using vector iterator: ";
              std::vector<int> v;
              do_something(std::begin(v), std::end(v), std::begin(v));

              std::cout << "using pointer: ";
              int* ptr = new int[10];
              do_something(ptr, ptr + 5, ptr);

              return 0;
              }






              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited yesterday

























              answered yesterday









              TimoTimo

              1,5251626




              1,5251626













              • Thank you, but do_something will need to know about the N namespace, which might be in a disconnected library.

                – alfC
                yesterday











              • @alfC Well you could also move the code from copy directly to do_something and include the copy_helper with the no_tag tag in the same library. Then you can rely on ADL again. Your disconnected library has to implement the copy_helper with its according tag.

                – Timo
                yesterday











              • @alfC I edited my answer to rely on ADL.

                – Timo
                yesterday











              • The Edit is the closest to an answer to the question so far. Note aside, I think the forward<It1> is useless unless you pass arguments as It1&& first.

                – alfC
                yesterday



















              • Thank you, but do_something will need to know about the N namespace, which might be in a disconnected library.

                – alfC
                yesterday











              • @alfC Well you could also move the code from copy directly to do_something and include the copy_helper with the no_tag tag in the same library. Then you can rely on ADL again. Your disconnected library has to implement the copy_helper with its according tag.

                – Timo
                yesterday











              • @alfC I edited my answer to rely on ADL.

                – Timo
                yesterday











              • The Edit is the closest to an answer to the question so far. Note aside, I think the forward<It1> is useless unless you pass arguments as It1&& first.

                – alfC
                yesterday

















              Thank you, but do_something will need to know about the N namespace, which might be in a disconnected library.

              – alfC
              yesterday





              Thank you, but do_something will need to know about the N namespace, which might be in a disconnected library.

              – alfC
              yesterday













              @alfC Well you could also move the code from copy directly to do_something and include the copy_helper with the no_tag tag in the same library. Then you can rely on ADL again. Your disconnected library has to implement the copy_helper with its according tag.

              – Timo
              yesterday





              @alfC Well you could also move the code from copy directly to do_something and include the copy_helper with the no_tag tag in the same library. Then you can rely on ADL again. Your disconnected library has to implement the copy_helper with its according tag.

              – Timo
              yesterday













              @alfC I edited my answer to rely on ADL.

              – Timo
              yesterday





              @alfC I edited my answer to rely on ADL.

              – Timo
              yesterday













              The Edit is the closest to an answer to the question so far. Note aside, I think the forward<It1> is useless unless you pass arguments as It1&& first.

              – alfC
              yesterday





              The Edit is the closest to an answer to the question so far. Note aside, I think the forward<It1> is useless unless you pass arguments as It1&& first.

              – alfC
              yesterday











              1














              OK, building on @paler123, but without checking for an existing type, but checking if It1 is a pointer instead:



              namespace N{
              struct A{};
              struct B{};
              struct C{};
              }

              namespace N{
              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy(SomeN1, SomeN1, SomeN2 c){
              std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
              return c;
              }
              }
              template<class It1, class It2>
              void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
              if constexpr (std::is_pointer_v<It1>) {
              std::copy(first, second, d_first);
              }
              else
              {
              copy(first, second, d_first);
              }
              }


              int main(){
              N::A a1, a2, a3;
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);

              int* b1, *b2, *b3;

              do_something(b1, b2, b3);
              }


              Still C++17, but in the case of pointers, we go through the explicit std::copy otherwise, we rely on ADL.



              In general, your issue is a design problem. You want to use std::copy for all cases, except for objects from N, and in that case, you hope that ADL will work. But as you forced std::copy, you remove the option for proper ADL. You can't have everything and you have to redesign your code.






              share|improve this answer


























              • Thanks for the option. Pointer types are just an example, other (non-std iterators) will not work now. In other words this forces all iterators and pointer-like iterators to implement copy for them, even if std::copy would be fine for them.

                – alfC
                yesterday











              • Yes, that's the problem, I agree. The problem you have, once again, is a design problem. You want to try to rely on ADL in some cases, but not in others. Not going to work.

                – Matthieu Brucher
                yesterday
















              1














              OK, building on @paler123, but without checking for an existing type, but checking if It1 is a pointer instead:



              namespace N{
              struct A{};
              struct B{};
              struct C{};
              }

              namespace N{
              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy(SomeN1, SomeN1, SomeN2 c){
              std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
              return c;
              }
              }
              template<class It1, class It2>
              void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
              if constexpr (std::is_pointer_v<It1>) {
              std::copy(first, second, d_first);
              }
              else
              {
              copy(first, second, d_first);
              }
              }


              int main(){
              N::A a1, a2, a3;
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);

              int* b1, *b2, *b3;

              do_something(b1, b2, b3);
              }


              Still C++17, but in the case of pointers, we go through the explicit std::copy otherwise, we rely on ADL.



              In general, your issue is a design problem. You want to use std::copy for all cases, except for objects from N, and in that case, you hope that ADL will work. But as you forced std::copy, you remove the option for proper ADL. You can't have everything and you have to redesign your code.






              share|improve this answer


























              • Thanks for the option. Pointer types are just an example, other (non-std iterators) will not work now. In other words this forces all iterators and pointer-like iterators to implement copy for them, even if std::copy would be fine for them.

                – alfC
                yesterday











              • Yes, that's the problem, I agree. The problem you have, once again, is a design problem. You want to try to rely on ADL in some cases, but not in others. Not going to work.

                – Matthieu Brucher
                yesterday














              1












              1








              1







              OK, building on @paler123, but without checking for an existing type, but checking if It1 is a pointer instead:



              namespace N{
              struct A{};
              struct B{};
              struct C{};
              }

              namespace N{
              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy(SomeN1, SomeN1, SomeN2 c){
              std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
              return c;
              }
              }
              template<class It1, class It2>
              void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
              if constexpr (std::is_pointer_v<It1>) {
              std::copy(first, second, d_first);
              }
              else
              {
              copy(first, second, d_first);
              }
              }


              int main(){
              N::A a1, a2, a3;
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);

              int* b1, *b2, *b3;

              do_something(b1, b2, b3);
              }


              Still C++17, but in the case of pointers, we go through the explicit std::copy otherwise, we rely on ADL.



              In general, your issue is a design problem. You want to use std::copy for all cases, except for objects from N, and in that case, you hope that ADL will work. But as you forced std::copy, you remove the option for proper ADL. You can't have everything and you have to redesign your code.






              share|improve this answer















              OK, building on @paler123, but without checking for an existing type, but checking if It1 is a pointer instead:



              namespace N{
              struct A{};
              struct B{};
              struct C{};
              }

              namespace N{
              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy(SomeN1, SomeN1, SomeN2 c){
              std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
              return c;
              }
              }
              template<class It1, class It2>
              void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
              if constexpr (std::is_pointer_v<It1>) {
              std::copy(first, second, d_first);
              }
              else
              {
              copy(first, second, d_first);
              }
              }


              int main(){
              N::A a1, a2, a3;
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);

              int* b1, *b2, *b3;

              do_something(b1, b2, b3);
              }


              Still C++17, but in the case of pointers, we go through the explicit std::copy otherwise, we rely on ADL.



              In general, your issue is a design problem. You want to use std::copy for all cases, except for objects from N, and in that case, you hope that ADL will work. But as you forced std::copy, you remove the option for proper ADL. You can't have everything and you have to redesign your code.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited yesterday

























              answered yesterday









              Matthieu BrucherMatthieu Brucher

              15k32140




              15k32140













              • Thanks for the option. Pointer types are just an example, other (non-std iterators) will not work now. In other words this forces all iterators and pointer-like iterators to implement copy for them, even if std::copy would be fine for them.

                – alfC
                yesterday











              • Yes, that's the problem, I agree. The problem you have, once again, is a design problem. You want to try to rely on ADL in some cases, but not in others. Not going to work.

                – Matthieu Brucher
                yesterday



















              • Thanks for the option. Pointer types are just an example, other (non-std iterators) will not work now. In other words this forces all iterators and pointer-like iterators to implement copy for them, even if std::copy would be fine for them.

                – alfC
                yesterday











              • Yes, that's the problem, I agree. The problem you have, once again, is a design problem. You want to try to rely on ADL in some cases, but not in others. Not going to work.

                – Matthieu Brucher
                yesterday

















              Thanks for the option. Pointer types are just an example, other (non-std iterators) will not work now. In other words this forces all iterators and pointer-like iterators to implement copy for them, even if std::copy would be fine for them.

              – alfC
              yesterday





              Thanks for the option. Pointer types are just an example, other (non-std iterators) will not work now. In other words this forces all iterators and pointer-like iterators to implement copy for them, even if std::copy would be fine for them.

              – alfC
              yesterday













              Yes, that's the problem, I agree. The problem you have, once again, is a design problem. You want to try to rely on ADL in some cases, but not in others. Not going to work.

              – Matthieu Brucher
              yesterday





              Yes, that's the problem, I agree. The problem you have, once again, is a design problem. You want to try to rely on ADL in some cases, but not in others. Not going to work.

              – Matthieu Brucher
              yesterday











              0














              For discussion I will write an answer to my own question with an alternative option.



              It is not very nice because it needs to wrap all the N:: classes in another template class (called wrap here). The good thing is that do_something nor the N classes need to know about the special N::copy. The price is that the main caller has to explicitly wrap the N:: classes which is ugly but which is fine from the point of view of coupling because this is the only code that should know about the whole system.



              #include <iostream>
              #include <algorithm>
              #include <vector>

              namespace N{
              struct A{};
              struct B{};
              struct C{};
              }

              namespace N{

              template<class S> struct wrap : S{};

              template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
              SomeN2 copy(wrap<SomeN1> first, wrap<SomeN1> last, wrap<SomeN2> d_first)
              {
              std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
              return d_first;
              }
              }

              template<class It1, class It2>
              void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
              using std::copy;
              copy(first, second, d_first);
              }

              int main(){
              N::wrap<N::A> a1, a2, a3;
              std::cout << "do something in N:" << std::endl;
              do_something(a1, a2, a3);

              std::vector<int> v = {1,2,3};
              std::vector<int> v2(3);
              std::cout << "do something in std:" << std::endl;
              do_something(std::begin(v), std::end(v), std::begin(v2));
              for (int i : v2)
              std::cout << i;
              std::cout << std::endl;
              }





              share|improve this answer




























                0














                For discussion I will write an answer to my own question with an alternative option.



                It is not very nice because it needs to wrap all the N:: classes in another template class (called wrap here). The good thing is that do_something nor the N classes need to know about the special N::copy. The price is that the main caller has to explicitly wrap the N:: classes which is ugly but which is fine from the point of view of coupling because this is the only code that should know about the whole system.



                #include <iostream>
                #include <algorithm>
                #include <vector>

                namespace N{
                struct A{};
                struct B{};
                struct C{};
                }

                namespace N{

                template<class S> struct wrap : S{};

                template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
                SomeN2 copy(wrap<SomeN1> first, wrap<SomeN1> last, wrap<SomeN2> d_first)
                {
                std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
                return d_first;
                }
                }

                template<class It1, class It2>
                void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
                using std::copy;
                copy(first, second, d_first);
                }

                int main(){
                N::wrap<N::A> a1, a2, a3;
                std::cout << "do something in N:" << std::endl;
                do_something(a1, a2, a3);

                std::vector<int> v = {1,2,3};
                std::vector<int> v2(3);
                std::cout << "do something in std:" << std::endl;
                do_something(std::begin(v), std::end(v), std::begin(v2));
                for (int i : v2)
                std::cout << i;
                std::cout << std::endl;
                }





                share|improve this answer


























                  0












                  0








                  0







                  For discussion I will write an answer to my own question with an alternative option.



                  It is not very nice because it needs to wrap all the N:: classes in another template class (called wrap here). The good thing is that do_something nor the N classes need to know about the special N::copy. The price is that the main caller has to explicitly wrap the N:: classes which is ugly but which is fine from the point of view of coupling because this is the only code that should know about the whole system.



                  #include <iostream>
                  #include <algorithm>
                  #include <vector>

                  namespace N{
                  struct A{};
                  struct B{};
                  struct C{};
                  }

                  namespace N{

                  template<class S> struct wrap : S{};

                  template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
                  SomeN2 copy(wrap<SomeN1> first, wrap<SomeN1> last, wrap<SomeN2> d_first)
                  {
                  std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
                  return d_first;
                  }
                  }

                  template<class It1, class It2>
                  void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
                  using std::copy;
                  copy(first, second, d_first);
                  }

                  int main(){
                  N::wrap<N::A> a1, a2, a3;
                  std::cout << "do something in N:" << std::endl;
                  do_something(a1, a2, a3);

                  std::vector<int> v = {1,2,3};
                  std::vector<int> v2(3);
                  std::cout << "do something in std:" << std::endl;
                  do_something(std::begin(v), std::end(v), std::begin(v2));
                  for (int i : v2)
                  std::cout << i;
                  std::cout << std::endl;
                  }





                  share|improve this answer













                  For discussion I will write an answer to my own question with an alternative option.



                  It is not very nice because it needs to wrap all the N:: classes in another template class (called wrap here). The good thing is that do_something nor the N classes need to know about the special N::copy. The price is that the main caller has to explicitly wrap the N:: classes which is ugly but which is fine from the point of view of coupling because this is the only code that should know about the whole system.



                  #include <iostream>
                  #include <algorithm>
                  #include <vector>

                  namespace N{
                  struct A{};
                  struct B{};
                  struct C{};
                  }

                  namespace N{

                  template<class S> struct wrap : S{};

                  template<class SomeN1, class SomeN2>
                  SomeN2 copy(wrap<SomeN1> first, wrap<SomeN1> last, wrap<SomeN2> d_first)
                  {
                  std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
                  return d_first;
                  }
                  }

                  template<class It1, class It2>
                  void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
                  using std::copy;
                  copy(first, second, d_first);
                  }

                  int main(){
                  N::wrap<N::A> a1, a2, a3;
                  std::cout << "do something in N:" << std::endl;
                  do_something(a1, a2, a3);

                  std::vector<int> v = {1,2,3};
                  std::vector<int> v2(3);
                  std::cout << "do something in std:" << std::endl;
                  do_something(std::begin(v), std::end(v), std::begin(v2));
                  for (int i : v2)
                  std::cout << i;
                  std::cout << std::endl;
                  }






                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 13 hours ago









                  alfCalfC

                  5,08322959




                  5,08322959























                      -2














                      Suggest you have a look at the very powerful new Boost.HOF library.



                      This function does exactly what you want:



                      #include <boost/hof.hpp>

                      template<class It1, class It2>
                      void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
                      namespace hof = boost::hof;

                      auto my_copy = hof::first_of(
                      (auto first, auto second, auto d_first) -> decltype(N::copy(first, second, d_first))
                      {
                      return N::copy(first, second, d_first);
                      },
                      (auto first, auto second, auto d_first) -> decltype(std::copy(first, second, d_first))
                      {
                      return std::copy(first, second, d_first);
                      });
                      my_copy(first, second, d_first);
                      }


                      hof::first_of will select the first lambda whose return type is deduced to be the result type of a legal expression.






                      share|improve this answer





















                      • 1





                        This looks like an interesting library. However the problem is that do_something still needs to know about the library/namespace N.

                        – alfC
                        yesterday











                      • @alfC I see. It wasn't clear to me that you're after a general solution for calling copy.

                        – Richard Hodges
                        yesterday
















                      -2














                      Suggest you have a look at the very powerful new Boost.HOF library.



                      This function does exactly what you want:



                      #include <boost/hof.hpp>

                      template<class It1, class It2>
                      void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
                      namespace hof = boost::hof;

                      auto my_copy = hof::first_of(
                      (auto first, auto second, auto d_first) -> decltype(N::copy(first, second, d_first))
                      {
                      return N::copy(first, second, d_first);
                      },
                      (auto first, auto second, auto d_first) -> decltype(std::copy(first, second, d_first))
                      {
                      return std::copy(first, second, d_first);
                      });
                      my_copy(first, second, d_first);
                      }


                      hof::first_of will select the first lambda whose return type is deduced to be the result type of a legal expression.






                      share|improve this answer





















                      • 1





                        This looks like an interesting library. However the problem is that do_something still needs to know about the library/namespace N.

                        – alfC
                        yesterday











                      • @alfC I see. It wasn't clear to me that you're after a general solution for calling copy.

                        – Richard Hodges
                        yesterday














                      -2












                      -2








                      -2







                      Suggest you have a look at the very powerful new Boost.HOF library.



                      This function does exactly what you want:



                      #include <boost/hof.hpp>

                      template<class It1, class It2>
                      void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
                      namespace hof = boost::hof;

                      auto my_copy = hof::first_of(
                      (auto first, auto second, auto d_first) -> decltype(N::copy(first, second, d_first))
                      {
                      return N::copy(first, second, d_first);
                      },
                      (auto first, auto second, auto d_first) -> decltype(std::copy(first, second, d_first))
                      {
                      return std::copy(first, second, d_first);
                      });
                      my_copy(first, second, d_first);
                      }


                      hof::first_of will select the first lambda whose return type is deduced to be the result type of a legal expression.






                      share|improve this answer















                      Suggest you have a look at the very powerful new Boost.HOF library.



                      This function does exactly what you want:



                      #include <boost/hof.hpp>

                      template<class It1, class It2>
                      void do_something(It1 first, It1 second, It2 d_first){
                      namespace hof = boost::hof;

                      auto my_copy = hof::first_of(
                      (auto first, auto second, auto d_first) -> decltype(N::copy(first, second, d_first))
                      {
                      return N::copy(first, second, d_first);
                      },
                      (auto first, auto second, auto d_first) -> decltype(std::copy(first, second, d_first))
                      {
                      return std::copy(first, second, d_first);
                      });
                      my_copy(first, second, d_first);
                      }


                      hof::first_of will select the first lambda whose return type is deduced to be the result type of a legal expression.







                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited yesterday









                      alfC

                      5,08322959




                      5,08322959










                      answered yesterday









                      Richard HodgesRichard Hodges

                      55.6k658100




                      55.6k658100








                      • 1





                        This looks like an interesting library. However the problem is that do_something still needs to know about the library/namespace N.

                        – alfC
                        yesterday











                      • @alfC I see. It wasn't clear to me that you're after a general solution for calling copy.

                        – Richard Hodges
                        yesterday














                      • 1





                        This looks like an interesting library. However the problem is that do_something still needs to know about the library/namespace N.

                        – alfC
                        yesterday











                      • @alfC I see. It wasn't clear to me that you're after a general solution for calling copy.

                        – Richard Hodges
                        yesterday








                      1




                      1





                      This looks like an interesting library. However the problem is that do_something still needs to know about the library/namespace N.

                      – alfC
                      yesterday





                      This looks like an interesting library. However the problem is that do_something still needs to know about the library/namespace N.

                      – alfC
                      yesterday













                      @alfC I see. It wasn't clear to me that you're after a general solution for calling copy.

                      – Richard Hodges
                      yesterday





                      @alfC I see. It wasn't clear to me that you're after a general solution for calling copy.

                      – Richard Hodges
                      yesterday


















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54400763%2fhow-to-write-a-standard-like-function-that-has-high-overload-priority%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

                      Alcedinidae

                      Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]