Question

Background

Consider the following:

template <unsigned N>
struct Fibonacci
{
    enum
    {
        value = Fibonacci<N-1>::value + Fibonacci<N-2>::value
    };
};

template <>
struct Fibonacci<1>
{
    enum
    {
        value = 1
    };
};

template <>
struct Fibonacci<0>
{
    enum
    {
        value = 0
    };
};

This is a common example and we can get the value of a Fibonacci number as a compile-time constant:

int main(void)
{
    std::cout << "Fibonacci(15) = ";
    std::cout << Fibonacci<15>::value;
    std::cout << std::endl;
}

But you obviously cannot get the value at runtime:

int main(void)
{
    std::srand(static_cast<unsigned>(std::time(0)));

    // ensure the table exists up to a certain size
    // (even though the rest of the code won't work)
    static const unsigned fibbMax = 20;
    Fibonacci<fibbMax>::value;

    // get index into sequence
    unsigned fibb = std::rand() % fibbMax;

    std::cout << "Fibonacci(" << fibb << ") = ";
    std::cout << Fibonacci<fibb>::value;
    std::cout << std::endl;
}

Because fibb is not a compile-time constant.

Question

So my question is:

What is the best way to peek into this table at run-time? The most obvious solution (and "solution" should be taken lightly), is to have a large switch statement:

unsigned fibonacci(unsigned index)
{
    switch (index)
    {
    case 0:
        return Fibonacci<0>::value;
    case 1:
        return Fibonacci<1>::value;
    case 2:
        return Fibonacci<2>::value;
    .
    .
    .
    case 20:
        return Fibonacci<20>::value;
    default:
        return fibonacci(index - 1) + fibonacci(index - 2);
    }
}

int main(void)
{
    std::srand(static_cast<unsigned>(std::time(0)));

    static const unsigned fibbMax = 20;    

    // get index into sequence
    unsigned fibb = std::rand() % fibbMax;

    std::cout << "Fibonacci(" << fibb << ") = ";
    std::cout << fibonacci(fibb);
    std::cout << std::endl;
}

But now the size of the table is very hard coded and it wouldn’t be easy to expand it to say, 40.

The only one I came up with that has a similiar method of query is this:

template <int TableSize = 40>
class FibonacciTable
{
public:
    enum
    {
        max = TableSize
    };

    static unsigned get(unsigned index)
    {
        if (index == TableSize)
        {
            return Fibonacci<TableSize>::value;
        }
        else
        {
            // too far, pass downwards
            return FibonacciTable<TableSize - 1>::get(index);
        }
    }
};

template <>
class FibonacciTable<0>
{
public:
    enum
    {
        max = 0
    };

    static unsigned get(unsigned)
    {
        // doesn't matter, no where else to go.
        // must be 0, or the original value was
        // not in table
        return 0;
    }
};

int main(void)
{
    std::srand(static_cast<unsigned>(std::time(0)));

    // get index into sequence
    unsigned fibb = std::rand() % FibonacciTable<>::max;

    std::cout << "Fibonacci(" << fibb << ") = ";
    std::cout << FibonacciTable<>::get(fibb);
    std::cout << std::endl;
}

Which seems to work great. The only two problems I see are:

• Potentially large call stack, since calculating Fibonacci<2> requires we go through TableMax all the way to 2, and:

• If the value is outside of the table, it returns zero as opposed to calculating it.

So is there something I am missing? It seems there should be a better way to pick out these values at runtime.

A template metaprogramming version of a switch statement perhaps, that generates a switch statement up to a certain number?

Thanks in advance.

Answer 1

template <unsigned long N>
struct Fibonacci
{
    enum
    {
        value = Fibonacci<N-1>::value + Fibonacci<N-2>::value
    };
    static void add_values(vector<unsigned long>& v)
    {
        Fibonacci<N-1>::add_values(v);
        v.push_back(value);
    }
};

template <>
struct Fibonacci<0>
{
    enum
    {
        value = 0
    };
    static void add_values(vector<unsigned long>& v)
    {
        v.push_back(value);
    }

};

template <>
struct Fibonacci<1>
{
    enum
    {
        value = 1
    };
    static void add_values(vector<unsigned long>& v)
    {
        Fibonacci<0>::add_values(v);
        v.push_back(value);
    }
};



int main()
{
    vector<unsigned long> fibonacci_seq;
    Fibonacci<45>::add_values(fibonacci_seq);
    for (int i = 0; i <= 45; ++i)
        cout << "F" << i << " is " << fibonacci_seq[i] << '\n';
}

After much thought into the problem, I came up with this solution. Of course, you still have to add the values to a container at run-time, but (importantly) they are not computed at run-time.

As a side note, it’s important not to define Fibonacci<1> above Fibonacci<0>, or your compiler will get very confused when it resolves the call to Fibonacci<0>::add_values, since Fibonacci<0>‘s template specialization has not been specified.

Of course, TMP has its limitations: You need a precomputed maximum, and getting the values at run-time requires recursion (since templates are defined recursively).