Use integer template argument to create compiletime double












6















Is it possible to create a double which holds the value of 1*10^x where x is based on a integer template parameter. So something like:



template < int exp >
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = ????;
}

double d = DoubleValue<20>::value; // = 1e20
double d = DoubleValue<-20>::value; // = 1e-20


As it can be created with litterals, it seems that something like this should be possible.



I would like the value to be evaluated at compile time (so std::pow will not work as far as I know).
Also, if possible, I would like to be able to avoid actual iterative computations ((maybe unfounded) fear for precision problems). I would also like to be able to use larger values as exponent, like for example 200, which makes it impossible to store the value in a standerd integer type.










share|improve this question




















  • 3





    maybe std::pow(10, exp)?

    – iBug
    Jan 15 at 9:21






  • 1





    @iBug he needs something with compile time, so std::pow will not work since it is not constexpr.

    – Marek R
    Jan 15 at 9:24






  • 3





    Possible duplicate of c++ power of integer, template meta programming

    – Ken Y-N
    Jan 15 at 9:26











  • "I would like the value to be evaluated at compile time" &mdash; What would be the use for this? To speed-up your runtime?

    – Holt
    Jan 15 at 9:40






  • 1





    @RubixCube are user-defined literals what you are looking for? (C++11)

    – user268396
    Jan 15 at 10:43
















6















Is it possible to create a double which holds the value of 1*10^x where x is based on a integer template parameter. So something like:



template < int exp >
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = ????;
}

double d = DoubleValue<20>::value; // = 1e20
double d = DoubleValue<-20>::value; // = 1e-20


As it can be created with litterals, it seems that something like this should be possible.



I would like the value to be evaluated at compile time (so std::pow will not work as far as I know).
Also, if possible, I would like to be able to avoid actual iterative computations ((maybe unfounded) fear for precision problems). I would also like to be able to use larger values as exponent, like for example 200, which makes it impossible to store the value in a standerd integer type.










share|improve this question




















  • 3





    maybe std::pow(10, exp)?

    – iBug
    Jan 15 at 9:21






  • 1





    @iBug he needs something with compile time, so std::pow will not work since it is not constexpr.

    – Marek R
    Jan 15 at 9:24






  • 3





    Possible duplicate of c++ power of integer, template meta programming

    – Ken Y-N
    Jan 15 at 9:26











  • "I would like the value to be evaluated at compile time" &mdash; What would be the use for this? To speed-up your runtime?

    – Holt
    Jan 15 at 9:40






  • 1





    @RubixCube are user-defined literals what you are looking for? (C++11)

    – user268396
    Jan 15 at 10:43














6












6








6








Is it possible to create a double which holds the value of 1*10^x where x is based on a integer template parameter. So something like:



template < int exp >
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = ????;
}

double d = DoubleValue<20>::value; // = 1e20
double d = DoubleValue<-20>::value; // = 1e-20


As it can be created with litterals, it seems that something like this should be possible.



I would like the value to be evaluated at compile time (so std::pow will not work as far as I know).
Also, if possible, I would like to be able to avoid actual iterative computations ((maybe unfounded) fear for precision problems). I would also like to be able to use larger values as exponent, like for example 200, which makes it impossible to store the value in a standerd integer type.










share|improve this question
















Is it possible to create a double which holds the value of 1*10^x where x is based on a integer template parameter. So something like:



template < int exp >
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = ????;
}

double d = DoubleValue<20>::value; // = 1e20
double d = DoubleValue<-20>::value; // = 1e-20


As it can be created with litterals, it seems that something like this should be possible.



I would like the value to be evaluated at compile time (so std::pow will not work as far as I know).
Also, if possible, I would like to be able to avoid actual iterative computations ((maybe unfounded) fear for precision problems). I would also like to be able to use larger values as exponent, like for example 200, which makes it impossible to store the value in a standerd integer type.







c++






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Jan 15 at 9:42







Rubix Cube

















asked Jan 15 at 9:20









Rubix CubeRubix Cube

335




335








  • 3





    maybe std::pow(10, exp)?

    – iBug
    Jan 15 at 9:21






  • 1





    @iBug he needs something with compile time, so std::pow will not work since it is not constexpr.

    – Marek R
    Jan 15 at 9:24






  • 3





    Possible duplicate of c++ power of integer, template meta programming

    – Ken Y-N
    Jan 15 at 9:26











  • "I would like the value to be evaluated at compile time" &mdash; What would be the use for this? To speed-up your runtime?

    – Holt
    Jan 15 at 9:40






  • 1





    @RubixCube are user-defined literals what you are looking for? (C++11)

    – user268396
    Jan 15 at 10:43














  • 3





    maybe std::pow(10, exp)?

    – iBug
    Jan 15 at 9:21






  • 1





    @iBug he needs something with compile time, so std::pow will not work since it is not constexpr.

    – Marek R
    Jan 15 at 9:24






  • 3





    Possible duplicate of c++ power of integer, template meta programming

    – Ken Y-N
    Jan 15 at 9:26











  • "I would like the value to be evaluated at compile time" &mdash; What would be the use for this? To speed-up your runtime?

    – Holt
    Jan 15 at 9:40






  • 1





    @RubixCube are user-defined literals what you are looking for? (C++11)

    – user268396
    Jan 15 at 10:43








3




3





maybe std::pow(10, exp)?

– iBug
Jan 15 at 9:21





maybe std::pow(10, exp)?

– iBug
Jan 15 at 9:21




1




1





@iBug he needs something with compile time, so std::pow will not work since it is not constexpr.

– Marek R
Jan 15 at 9:24





@iBug he needs something with compile time, so std::pow will not work since it is not constexpr.

– Marek R
Jan 15 at 9:24




3




3





Possible duplicate of c++ power of integer, template meta programming

– Ken Y-N
Jan 15 at 9:26





Possible duplicate of c++ power of integer, template meta programming

– Ken Y-N
Jan 15 at 9:26













"I would like the value to be evaluated at compile time" &mdash; What would be the use for this? To speed-up your runtime?

– Holt
Jan 15 at 9:40





"I would like the value to be evaluated at compile time" &mdash; What would be the use for this? To speed-up your runtime?

– Holt
Jan 15 at 9:40




1




1





@RubixCube are user-defined literals what you are looking for? (C++11)

– user268396
Jan 15 at 10:43





@RubixCube are user-defined literals what you are looking for? (C++11)

– user268396
Jan 15 at 10:43












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















6














Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019) this is very simple using a constexpr function:



constexpr double myPow(double x, int exp)
{
double pow = 1.0;
for (int i = 0; i < exp; ++i)
pow *= x;
for (int i = 0; i > exp; --i)
pow /= x;
return pow;
}

template < int exp >
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = myPow(10.0, exp);
};


See here to verify that it works and that even without optimization the value is generated at compile time.



Depending on your use case you might not even need the DoubleValue struct but can directly use myPow().





Update



As pointed out by @Bob__ in the comments, there may be better algorithms regarding numerical precision than the one presented here. But since C++14 many basic language features can be used in the body of a constexpr function. So, as long as you don't need any external library for it, you are free to implement whatever algorithm fits your needs.






share|improve this answer


























  • Off topic: "Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019)"; When writing new projects, sure. But, in the project, that I am working on, we still have pieces of code being compiled with VS2003.. Legacy projects FTW!

    – Algirdas Preidžius
    Jan 15 at 11:01






  • 1





    Luckily, the project I wanted to use this in was just updated :). I chose this anwer as it is clearer in its intent compared to recursive template solutions.

    – Rubix Cube
    Jan 15 at 11:19






  • 1





    Please note that the algorithm used here is more prone to numeric errors than other alternatives: wandbox.org/permlink/tiupixvpbtwo9Zwd

    – Bob__
    Jan 15 at 15:14



















1














Since you need the value to available in compile time, pretty much the only way to solve it, that came to my mind is recursive templates. However, the fact, that you need for said template to do different things, based on the signedness of the passed value, complicates things. First thing that would come to mind, would be to write such a recursive template:



template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = (exp < 0
? DoubleValue<exp+1>::value / 10
: 10 * DoubleValue<exp-1>::value);
};

// Default case
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0>
{
static constexpr double value = 1;
};


However, such solution wouldn't work, due to the fact, that both branches of the ternary expression, would need to be resolved, and that would, always, lead to the infinite recursion, since one of the branches wouldn't tend to 0. Then, SFINAE came to mind:



// Base case.
template <int exp, class Enable = void>
struct DoubleValue
{
};

// Case when exp is positive
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue<exp, typename std::enable_if<(exp > 0)>::type>
{
static constexpr double value = 10 * DoubleValue<exp-1>::value;
};

// Case when exp is negative
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue<exp, typename std::enable_if<(exp < 0)>::type>
{
static constexpr double value = DoubleValue<exp+1>::value / 10;
};

// Default case.
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0>
{
static constexpr double value = 1;
};


Live Demo.






share|improve this answer


























  • This is definitely not the only was - see answer by @sebrockm.

    – lisyarus
    Jan 15 at 10:42











  • @lisyarus Sure, what I meant was "the only way that came to my mind". Edited to clarify that.

    – Algirdas Preidžius
    Jan 15 at 10:43



















1














If you want it at compile time without std::pow, this should do it:



#include <iostream>

template <int e>
struct DoubleValue {
static constexpr double value = 10.0 * DoubleValue<e - 1>::value;
};
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0> {
static constexpr double value = 1.0;
};
int main() {
std::cout << DoubleValue<20>::value << 'n'; //1e+20
}


C++ Fiddle






share|improve this answer


























  • What about the case of std::cout << DoubleValue<-10>::value << std::endl;?

    – Algirdas Preidžius
    Jan 15 at 10:25











  • @AlgirdasPreidžius It is not hard to upgrade the code to work with negative powers, the idea stays the same.

    – lisyarus
    Jan 15 at 10:26






  • 1





    @lisyarus Idea, yes, but one can't just throw if, or ternary expression, in there, since the both branches would need to be resolved, which would lead to infinite recursion. One would need to do more, than what is shown here, to force the same template to work with both positive, and negative numbers.

    – Algirdas Preidžius
    Jan 15 at 10:28











  • @AlgirdasPreidžius You are absolutely right, this needs some template machinery to work, albeit pretty standard one, but potentially not familiar to the OP.

    – lisyarus
    Jan 15 at 10:35













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%2f54195854%2fuse-integer-template-argument-to-create-compiletime-double%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









6














Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019) this is very simple using a constexpr function:



constexpr double myPow(double x, int exp)
{
double pow = 1.0;
for (int i = 0; i < exp; ++i)
pow *= x;
for (int i = 0; i > exp; --i)
pow /= x;
return pow;
}

template < int exp >
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = myPow(10.0, exp);
};


See here to verify that it works and that even without optimization the value is generated at compile time.



Depending on your use case you might not even need the DoubleValue struct but can directly use myPow().





Update



As pointed out by @Bob__ in the comments, there may be better algorithms regarding numerical precision than the one presented here. But since C++14 many basic language features can be used in the body of a constexpr function. So, as long as you don't need any external library for it, you are free to implement whatever algorithm fits your needs.






share|improve this answer


























  • Off topic: "Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019)"; When writing new projects, sure. But, in the project, that I am working on, we still have pieces of code being compiled with VS2003.. Legacy projects FTW!

    – Algirdas Preidžius
    Jan 15 at 11:01






  • 1





    Luckily, the project I wanted to use this in was just updated :). I chose this anwer as it is clearer in its intent compared to recursive template solutions.

    – Rubix Cube
    Jan 15 at 11:19






  • 1





    Please note that the algorithm used here is more prone to numeric errors than other alternatives: wandbox.org/permlink/tiupixvpbtwo9Zwd

    – Bob__
    Jan 15 at 15:14
















6














Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019) this is very simple using a constexpr function:



constexpr double myPow(double x, int exp)
{
double pow = 1.0;
for (int i = 0; i < exp; ++i)
pow *= x;
for (int i = 0; i > exp; --i)
pow /= x;
return pow;
}

template < int exp >
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = myPow(10.0, exp);
};


See here to verify that it works and that even without optimization the value is generated at compile time.



Depending on your use case you might not even need the DoubleValue struct but can directly use myPow().





Update



As pointed out by @Bob__ in the comments, there may be better algorithms regarding numerical precision than the one presented here. But since C++14 many basic language features can be used in the body of a constexpr function. So, as long as you don't need any external library for it, you are free to implement whatever algorithm fits your needs.






share|improve this answer


























  • Off topic: "Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019)"; When writing new projects, sure. But, in the project, that I am working on, we still have pieces of code being compiled with VS2003.. Legacy projects FTW!

    – Algirdas Preidžius
    Jan 15 at 11:01






  • 1





    Luckily, the project I wanted to use this in was just updated :). I chose this anwer as it is clearer in its intent compared to recursive template solutions.

    – Rubix Cube
    Jan 15 at 11:19






  • 1





    Please note that the algorithm used here is more prone to numeric errors than other alternatives: wandbox.org/permlink/tiupixvpbtwo9Zwd

    – Bob__
    Jan 15 at 15:14














6












6








6







Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019) this is very simple using a constexpr function:



constexpr double myPow(double x, int exp)
{
double pow = 1.0;
for (int i = 0; i < exp; ++i)
pow *= x;
for (int i = 0; i > exp; --i)
pow /= x;
return pow;
}

template < int exp >
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = myPow(10.0, exp);
};


See here to verify that it works and that even without optimization the value is generated at compile time.



Depending on your use case you might not even need the DoubleValue struct but can directly use myPow().





Update



As pointed out by @Bob__ in the comments, there may be better algorithms regarding numerical precision than the one presented here. But since C++14 many basic language features can be used in the body of a constexpr function. So, as long as you don't need any external library for it, you are free to implement whatever algorithm fits your needs.






share|improve this answer















Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019) this is very simple using a constexpr function:



constexpr double myPow(double x, int exp)
{
double pow = 1.0;
for (int i = 0; i < exp; ++i)
pow *= x;
for (int i = 0; i > exp; --i)
pow /= x;
return pow;
}

template < int exp >
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = myPow(10.0, exp);
};


See here to verify that it works and that even without optimization the value is generated at compile time.



Depending on your use case you might not even need the DoubleValue struct but can directly use myPow().





Update



As pointed out by @Bob__ in the comments, there may be better algorithms regarding numerical precision than the one presented here. But since C++14 many basic language features can be used in the body of a constexpr function. So, as long as you don't need any external library for it, you are free to implement whatever algorithm fits your needs.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Jan 15 at 15:53

























answered Jan 15 at 10:21









sebrockmsebrockm

1,377219




1,377219













  • Off topic: "Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019)"; When writing new projects, sure. But, in the project, that I am working on, we still have pieces of code being compiled with VS2003.. Legacy projects FTW!

    – Algirdas Preidžius
    Jan 15 at 11:01






  • 1





    Luckily, the project I wanted to use this in was just updated :). I chose this anwer as it is clearer in its intent compared to recursive template solutions.

    – Rubix Cube
    Jan 15 at 11:19






  • 1





    Please note that the algorithm used here is more prone to numeric errors than other alternatives: wandbox.org/permlink/tiupixvpbtwo9Zwd

    – Bob__
    Jan 15 at 15:14



















  • Off topic: "Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019)"; When writing new projects, sure. But, in the project, that I am working on, we still have pieces of code being compiled with VS2003.. Legacy projects FTW!

    – Algirdas Preidžius
    Jan 15 at 11:01






  • 1





    Luckily, the project I wanted to use this in was just updated :). I chose this anwer as it is clearer in its intent compared to recursive template solutions.

    – Rubix Cube
    Jan 15 at 11:19






  • 1





    Please note that the algorithm used here is more prone to numeric errors than other alternatives: wandbox.org/permlink/tiupixvpbtwo9Zwd

    – Bob__
    Jan 15 at 15:14

















Off topic: "Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019)"; When writing new projects, sure. But, in the project, that I am working on, we still have pieces of code being compiled with VS2003.. Legacy projects FTW!

– Algirdas Preidžius
Jan 15 at 11:01





Off topic: "Assuming that your compiler supports C++14 or higher (which should be a valid assumption in the year 2019)"; When writing new projects, sure. But, in the project, that I am working on, we still have pieces of code being compiled with VS2003.. Legacy projects FTW!

– Algirdas Preidžius
Jan 15 at 11:01




1




1





Luckily, the project I wanted to use this in was just updated :). I chose this anwer as it is clearer in its intent compared to recursive template solutions.

– Rubix Cube
Jan 15 at 11:19





Luckily, the project I wanted to use this in was just updated :). I chose this anwer as it is clearer in its intent compared to recursive template solutions.

– Rubix Cube
Jan 15 at 11:19




1




1





Please note that the algorithm used here is more prone to numeric errors than other alternatives: wandbox.org/permlink/tiupixvpbtwo9Zwd

– Bob__
Jan 15 at 15:14





Please note that the algorithm used here is more prone to numeric errors than other alternatives: wandbox.org/permlink/tiupixvpbtwo9Zwd

– Bob__
Jan 15 at 15:14













1














Since you need the value to available in compile time, pretty much the only way to solve it, that came to my mind is recursive templates. However, the fact, that you need for said template to do different things, based on the signedness of the passed value, complicates things. First thing that would come to mind, would be to write such a recursive template:



template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = (exp < 0
? DoubleValue<exp+1>::value / 10
: 10 * DoubleValue<exp-1>::value);
};

// Default case
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0>
{
static constexpr double value = 1;
};


However, such solution wouldn't work, due to the fact, that both branches of the ternary expression, would need to be resolved, and that would, always, lead to the infinite recursion, since one of the branches wouldn't tend to 0. Then, SFINAE came to mind:



// Base case.
template <int exp, class Enable = void>
struct DoubleValue
{
};

// Case when exp is positive
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue<exp, typename std::enable_if<(exp > 0)>::type>
{
static constexpr double value = 10 * DoubleValue<exp-1>::value;
};

// Case when exp is negative
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue<exp, typename std::enable_if<(exp < 0)>::type>
{
static constexpr double value = DoubleValue<exp+1>::value / 10;
};

// Default case.
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0>
{
static constexpr double value = 1;
};


Live Demo.






share|improve this answer


























  • This is definitely not the only was - see answer by @sebrockm.

    – lisyarus
    Jan 15 at 10:42











  • @lisyarus Sure, what I meant was "the only way that came to my mind". Edited to clarify that.

    – Algirdas Preidžius
    Jan 15 at 10:43
















1














Since you need the value to available in compile time, pretty much the only way to solve it, that came to my mind is recursive templates. However, the fact, that you need for said template to do different things, based on the signedness of the passed value, complicates things. First thing that would come to mind, would be to write such a recursive template:



template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = (exp < 0
? DoubleValue<exp+1>::value / 10
: 10 * DoubleValue<exp-1>::value);
};

// Default case
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0>
{
static constexpr double value = 1;
};


However, such solution wouldn't work, due to the fact, that both branches of the ternary expression, would need to be resolved, and that would, always, lead to the infinite recursion, since one of the branches wouldn't tend to 0. Then, SFINAE came to mind:



// Base case.
template <int exp, class Enable = void>
struct DoubleValue
{
};

// Case when exp is positive
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue<exp, typename std::enable_if<(exp > 0)>::type>
{
static constexpr double value = 10 * DoubleValue<exp-1>::value;
};

// Case when exp is negative
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue<exp, typename std::enable_if<(exp < 0)>::type>
{
static constexpr double value = DoubleValue<exp+1>::value / 10;
};

// Default case.
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0>
{
static constexpr double value = 1;
};


Live Demo.






share|improve this answer


























  • This is definitely not the only was - see answer by @sebrockm.

    – lisyarus
    Jan 15 at 10:42











  • @lisyarus Sure, what I meant was "the only way that came to my mind". Edited to clarify that.

    – Algirdas Preidžius
    Jan 15 at 10:43














1












1








1







Since you need the value to available in compile time, pretty much the only way to solve it, that came to my mind is recursive templates. However, the fact, that you need for said template to do different things, based on the signedness of the passed value, complicates things. First thing that would come to mind, would be to write such a recursive template:



template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = (exp < 0
? DoubleValue<exp+1>::value / 10
: 10 * DoubleValue<exp-1>::value);
};

// Default case
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0>
{
static constexpr double value = 1;
};


However, such solution wouldn't work, due to the fact, that both branches of the ternary expression, would need to be resolved, and that would, always, lead to the infinite recursion, since one of the branches wouldn't tend to 0. Then, SFINAE came to mind:



// Base case.
template <int exp, class Enable = void>
struct DoubleValue
{
};

// Case when exp is positive
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue<exp, typename std::enable_if<(exp > 0)>::type>
{
static constexpr double value = 10 * DoubleValue<exp-1>::value;
};

// Case when exp is negative
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue<exp, typename std::enable_if<(exp < 0)>::type>
{
static constexpr double value = DoubleValue<exp+1>::value / 10;
};

// Default case.
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0>
{
static constexpr double value = 1;
};


Live Demo.






share|improve this answer















Since you need the value to available in compile time, pretty much the only way to solve it, that came to my mind is recursive templates. However, the fact, that you need for said template to do different things, based on the signedness of the passed value, complicates things. First thing that would come to mind, would be to write such a recursive template:



template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue
{
static constexpr double value = (exp < 0
? DoubleValue<exp+1>::value / 10
: 10 * DoubleValue<exp-1>::value);
};

// Default case
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0>
{
static constexpr double value = 1;
};


However, such solution wouldn't work, due to the fact, that both branches of the ternary expression, would need to be resolved, and that would, always, lead to the infinite recursion, since one of the branches wouldn't tend to 0. Then, SFINAE came to mind:



// Base case.
template <int exp, class Enable = void>
struct DoubleValue
{
};

// Case when exp is positive
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue<exp, typename std::enable_if<(exp > 0)>::type>
{
static constexpr double value = 10 * DoubleValue<exp-1>::value;
};

// Case when exp is negative
template <int exp>
struct DoubleValue<exp, typename std::enable_if<(exp < 0)>::type>
{
static constexpr double value = DoubleValue<exp+1>::value / 10;
};

// Default case.
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0>
{
static constexpr double value = 1;
};


Live Demo.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Jan 15 at 10:43

























answered Jan 15 at 10:36









Algirdas PreidžiusAlgirdas Preidžius

1,62731117




1,62731117













  • This is definitely not the only was - see answer by @sebrockm.

    – lisyarus
    Jan 15 at 10:42











  • @lisyarus Sure, what I meant was "the only way that came to my mind". Edited to clarify that.

    – Algirdas Preidžius
    Jan 15 at 10:43



















  • This is definitely not the only was - see answer by @sebrockm.

    – lisyarus
    Jan 15 at 10:42











  • @lisyarus Sure, what I meant was "the only way that came to my mind". Edited to clarify that.

    – Algirdas Preidžius
    Jan 15 at 10:43

















This is definitely not the only was - see answer by @sebrockm.

– lisyarus
Jan 15 at 10:42





This is definitely not the only was - see answer by @sebrockm.

– lisyarus
Jan 15 at 10:42













@lisyarus Sure, what I meant was "the only way that came to my mind". Edited to clarify that.

– Algirdas Preidžius
Jan 15 at 10:43





@lisyarus Sure, what I meant was "the only way that came to my mind". Edited to clarify that.

– Algirdas Preidžius
Jan 15 at 10:43











1














If you want it at compile time without std::pow, this should do it:



#include <iostream>

template <int e>
struct DoubleValue {
static constexpr double value = 10.0 * DoubleValue<e - 1>::value;
};
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0> {
static constexpr double value = 1.0;
};
int main() {
std::cout << DoubleValue<20>::value << 'n'; //1e+20
}


C++ Fiddle






share|improve this answer


























  • What about the case of std::cout << DoubleValue<-10>::value << std::endl;?

    – Algirdas Preidžius
    Jan 15 at 10:25











  • @AlgirdasPreidžius It is not hard to upgrade the code to work with negative powers, the idea stays the same.

    – lisyarus
    Jan 15 at 10:26






  • 1





    @lisyarus Idea, yes, but one can't just throw if, or ternary expression, in there, since the both branches would need to be resolved, which would lead to infinite recursion. One would need to do more, than what is shown here, to force the same template to work with both positive, and negative numbers.

    – Algirdas Preidžius
    Jan 15 at 10:28











  • @AlgirdasPreidžius You are absolutely right, this needs some template machinery to work, albeit pretty standard one, but potentially not familiar to the OP.

    – lisyarus
    Jan 15 at 10:35


















1














If you want it at compile time without std::pow, this should do it:



#include <iostream>

template <int e>
struct DoubleValue {
static constexpr double value = 10.0 * DoubleValue<e - 1>::value;
};
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0> {
static constexpr double value = 1.0;
};
int main() {
std::cout << DoubleValue<20>::value << 'n'; //1e+20
}


C++ Fiddle






share|improve this answer


























  • What about the case of std::cout << DoubleValue<-10>::value << std::endl;?

    – Algirdas Preidžius
    Jan 15 at 10:25











  • @AlgirdasPreidžius It is not hard to upgrade the code to work with negative powers, the idea stays the same.

    – lisyarus
    Jan 15 at 10:26






  • 1





    @lisyarus Idea, yes, but one can't just throw if, or ternary expression, in there, since the both branches would need to be resolved, which would lead to infinite recursion. One would need to do more, than what is shown here, to force the same template to work with both positive, and negative numbers.

    – Algirdas Preidžius
    Jan 15 at 10:28











  • @AlgirdasPreidžius You are absolutely right, this needs some template machinery to work, albeit pretty standard one, but potentially not familiar to the OP.

    – lisyarus
    Jan 15 at 10:35
















1












1








1







If you want it at compile time without std::pow, this should do it:



#include <iostream>

template <int e>
struct DoubleValue {
static constexpr double value = 10.0 * DoubleValue<e - 1>::value;
};
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0> {
static constexpr double value = 1.0;
};
int main() {
std::cout << DoubleValue<20>::value << 'n'; //1e+20
}


C++ Fiddle






share|improve this answer















If you want it at compile time without std::pow, this should do it:



#include <iostream>

template <int e>
struct DoubleValue {
static constexpr double value = 10.0 * DoubleValue<e - 1>::value;
};
template <>
struct DoubleValue<0> {
static constexpr double value = 1.0;
};
int main() {
std::cout << DoubleValue<20>::value << 'n'; //1e+20
}


C++ Fiddle







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Jan 15 at 11:04









MrMaavin

558615




558615










answered Jan 15 at 10:08









Stack DannyStack Danny

1,738622




1,738622













  • What about the case of std::cout << DoubleValue<-10>::value << std::endl;?

    – Algirdas Preidžius
    Jan 15 at 10:25











  • @AlgirdasPreidžius It is not hard to upgrade the code to work with negative powers, the idea stays the same.

    – lisyarus
    Jan 15 at 10:26






  • 1





    @lisyarus Idea, yes, but one can't just throw if, or ternary expression, in there, since the both branches would need to be resolved, which would lead to infinite recursion. One would need to do more, than what is shown here, to force the same template to work with both positive, and negative numbers.

    – Algirdas Preidžius
    Jan 15 at 10:28











  • @AlgirdasPreidžius You are absolutely right, this needs some template machinery to work, albeit pretty standard one, but potentially not familiar to the OP.

    – lisyarus
    Jan 15 at 10:35





















  • What about the case of std::cout << DoubleValue<-10>::value << std::endl;?

    – Algirdas Preidžius
    Jan 15 at 10:25











  • @AlgirdasPreidžius It is not hard to upgrade the code to work with negative powers, the idea stays the same.

    – lisyarus
    Jan 15 at 10:26






  • 1





    @lisyarus Idea, yes, but one can't just throw if, or ternary expression, in there, since the both branches would need to be resolved, which would lead to infinite recursion. One would need to do more, than what is shown here, to force the same template to work with both positive, and negative numbers.

    – Algirdas Preidžius
    Jan 15 at 10:28











  • @AlgirdasPreidžius You are absolutely right, this needs some template machinery to work, albeit pretty standard one, but potentially not familiar to the OP.

    – lisyarus
    Jan 15 at 10:35



















What about the case of std::cout << DoubleValue<-10>::value << std::endl;?

– Algirdas Preidžius
Jan 15 at 10:25





What about the case of std::cout << DoubleValue<-10>::value << std::endl;?

– Algirdas Preidžius
Jan 15 at 10:25













@AlgirdasPreidžius It is not hard to upgrade the code to work with negative powers, the idea stays the same.

– lisyarus
Jan 15 at 10:26





@AlgirdasPreidžius It is not hard to upgrade the code to work with negative powers, the idea stays the same.

– lisyarus
Jan 15 at 10:26




1




1





@lisyarus Idea, yes, but one can't just throw if, or ternary expression, in there, since the both branches would need to be resolved, which would lead to infinite recursion. One would need to do more, than what is shown here, to force the same template to work with both positive, and negative numbers.

– Algirdas Preidžius
Jan 15 at 10:28





@lisyarus Idea, yes, but one can't just throw if, or ternary expression, in there, since the both branches would need to be resolved, which would lead to infinite recursion. One would need to do more, than what is shown here, to force the same template to work with both positive, and negative numbers.

– Algirdas Preidžius
Jan 15 at 10:28













@AlgirdasPreidžius You are absolutely right, this needs some template machinery to work, albeit pretty standard one, but potentially not familiar to the OP.

– lisyarus
Jan 15 at 10:35







@AlgirdasPreidžius You are absolutely right, this needs some template machinery to work, albeit pretty standard one, but potentially not familiar to the OP.

– lisyarus
Jan 15 at 10:35




















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%2f54195854%2fuse-integer-template-argument-to-create-compiletime-double%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

Plaza Victoria

Puebla de Zaragoza

Musa