Question

I was trying to translate the following Haskell code to C++:

data List t = Nil | Cons t (List t)

The straightforward translation of the algebraic data type to the stateless Visitor pattern yields the following Java code

interface List<T> {
  <R> R accept(ListVisitor<T,R> v);
}

interface ListVisitor<T,R> {
  R visitNil();
  R visitCons(T head, List<T> tail);
}

class Nil<T> implements List<T> {
  @Override
  public <R> R accept(ListVisitor<T,R> v) {
    return v.visitNil();
  }
}

class Cons<T> implements List<T> {
  public final T head;
  public final List<T> tail;
  public Cons(T head, List<T> tail) {
    this.head = head;
    this.tail = tail;
  }
  @Override
  public <R> R accept(ListVisitor<T,R> v) {
    return v.visitCons(head, tail);
  }
}

The following is the C++ code I have so far:

template<class T> class List;

template<class T, class R> class ListVisitor {
  virtual R visitNil() = 0;
  virtual R visitCons(T head, List<T> tail) = 0;
};

template<class T> class List {
  template<class R> virtual R accept(ListVisitor<T,R> v) = 0;
};

Note that the Java version uses a virtual generic function accept. When I translate it to C++, I end up with a virtual template function, which is not allowed by C++.

Is there a solution to it other than making accept return void and require visitors to be stateful?

Update:
As requested, here are some examples of how the interfaces could be used (modulo smart pointers and possible compile errors):

template<class T> struct LengthVisitor : ListVisitor<T, int> {
  bool visitNil() { return 0; }
  bool visitCons(const T&, const List<T> &tail) { return 1 + tail.accept(*this); }
};

template<class T> struct ConcatVisitor : ListVisitor<T, const List<T> *> {
  const List<T> *right;
  ConcatVisitor(const List<T> *right) : right(right) {} 
  List<T> * visitNil() { return right; }
  List<T> * visitCons(const T &head, const List<T> & tail) {
    return new Cons(head, tail.accept(*this));
  }
};

Another example, a higher-level function fold, in Java, can be found here: http://hpaste.org/54650

Answer 1

This can certainly be improved (use smart pointers for tail ownership, for example), but the basic idea:

template <typename T>
struct cons_list {
     T head;
     cons_list<T>* tail;

     explicit cons_list(T head, cons_list *tail = nullptr)
         : head(head), tail(tail) {}

     template <template<typename> class Visitor>
     typename Visitor<T>::return_type accept(const Visitor<T>& visitor) {
          return visitor.visit(head, tail);
     }
};

template <typename T>
struct some_visitor {
     typedef void return_type;

     return_type visit(T head, cons_list<T>* tail) const {
          std::cout << head << '\n';
          if (tail != nullptr) tail->accept(*this);
     }
};

Demo. No need for virtual dispatch and class hierarchies. nullptr is C++11, but it should work just fine on 03.

It might be a better idea to implement accept as free function, and not use null pointers as nil node, but as I said, that’s the basic thing.

Note: this is more-or-less the idea behind boost::static_visitor.

A full C++11 Boost.Variant version (needs template aliases). Not tested, because I don’t have g++ 4.7 nearby.

struct nil_node {};
template <typename T> cons_node;

template <typename T>
using cons_list = boost::make_recursive_variant<
     nil_node, cons_node<T>
>::type;

template <typename T>
struct cons_node {
     T head;
     cons_list<T> tail;

     explicit cons_node(T head, const cons_list<T>& tail)
         : head(head), tail(tail)
     {}
};

template <typename T>
struct some_visitor : boost::static_visitor<T> {
     void operator()(nil_node&) {}
     void operator()(cons_node<T>& node) {
         std::cout << node.head << '\n';
         boost::apply_visitor(node.tail, *this);
     }
};

int main() {
    cons_node<int> x(1, cons_node<int>(2, cons_node<int>(3, nil_node())));
    boost::apply_visitor(some_visitor<int>(), x);
};