Yes I know it sounds weird, but I'm looking for a way to overwrite the indirection operator to return another class object. Let me explain better:
In main.cpp I got
MyInt *V = new MyInt[10];
(*V)[3]=10;
but I would like to have it like:
MyInt *V = new MyInt[10];
V[3]=10;
In MyInt.h I've used a wrapper to catch and remove the square brackets of MyInt class and then overload the "=" operator. That's because I need a class that could store the vector and also a counter of its usage inside it. More details here.
MyInt.h
wrapper operator[] ( std::size_t i ) { return wrapper( *this, i ) ; }
The work flow is "MyInt::wrapper::operator=".
Now it works but I would like to get rid of (*V). Would be possible to remove it by overloading the indirection operator to return a wrapper object that could be passed to "wrapper::operator=" then?
I was thinking something like:
MyInt& operator*(){
return wrapper(*this)
}
but it doesn't work, I get "error: invalid initialization of non-const reference of type ‘MyInt&’ from an rvalue of type ‘test::wrapper’". I know that the indirection operator should return the same class, but I really need it that way. Any suggestion? Thanks in advance.
Note: This answer was written when OPs question was:
I would like to have it like:
MyInt V = new MyInt[10];
V[3]=10;
I'll leave this answer up in case anyone is interested in a solution for that.
#include <cstddef>
class MyInt {
public:
MyInt() = default;
MyInt(MyInt* d) : data(d) {} // constructor taking a `MyInt*`
// ... rule of 5 implementation needed here ...
MyInt& operator[](size_t idx) { return data[idx]; }
MyInt& operator=(int) { return *this; }
private:
MyInt* data = nullptr;
};
int main() {
MyInt V = new MyInt[10];
V[3]=10;
}
Note that there's no way for V to know how many elements data is pointing at.
Following the link to your earlier question, and the requirements you've added there, V[3] is undefined behaviour.
You have changed the meaning of new [] to return a pointer to a single object.
You need to completely rethink your design, such that there are 10 MyInt objects for V to point to.
struct MyCounts
{
int num_read = 0;
int num_write = 0;
};
class MyInt
{
int value;
MyCounts * counts;
static void* operator new[](size_t n){
void * ptr = malloc(sizeof(MyCounts) + n * sizeof(MyInt));
MyCounts * counts = new (ptr) MyCounts;
ptr = static_cast<void *>(counts + 1);
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; ++i, ptr += sizeof(MyInt)) {
new (ptr) MyInt{ counts };
}
return static_cast<void *>(counts + 1);
}
static void* operator delete[](void* ptr, size_t n){
for (MyInt * last = reinterpret_cast<MyInt *>(ptr) + n; --last != ptr; ) {
last->~MyInt();
}
ptr -= sizeof(MyCounts);
reinterpret_cast<MyCounts *>(ptr)->~MyCounts();
free(ptr);
}
public:
MyInt& operator=(int i) { value = i; ++counts->num_write; return *this; }
operator int() const { ++counts->num_read; return value; }
};
I would like to have it like:
MyInt* V = new MyInt[10];
V[3]=10;
You need MyInt to implement an operator= taking an int to "write" to it, and a conversion oeprator to "read" from it:
#include <iostream>
struct MyInt
{
int value;
MyInt& operator=(int v) { value = v; return *this; }
operator int() const { return value; };
};
int main()
{
MyInt *V = new MyInt[10];
V[3]=10;
std::cout << V[3] << '\n';
}
Related
What operator overload would allow me to do this? Is there a "no operator" operator? I understand that to get the value I must do some kind of call(), but I'd like to know if it's possible to clean it up.
template<typename T>
class Stuff{
private:
T stuff{};
public:
T& operator () (){
return stuff;
}
T& operator = (const T& val){
stuff = val;
return stuff;
}
};
int main()
{
int myInt = 0;
Stuff<int> stuff;
stuff = myInt;
myInt = stuff(); // <- works
myInt = stuff; // <- doesn't, is there a way to do it ?
}
Yes there is a way: build a user-defined conversion function in Stuff:
operator T() const
{
std::cout << "I'm here";
return 0;
}
Because myInt is a T type, this function will be called in the assignment myInt = stuff.
#include<iostream>
#include<set>
template <typename T>
/* Simple smart pointer class */
class SmartPtr
{
T *ptr;
public:
explicit SmartPtr(T *p = NULL) { ptr = p; }
~SmartPtr() { delete(ptr); }
T & operator * () { return *ptr; }
T * operator -> () { return ptr; }
};
class simple {
private:
int x;
public:
simple(int y = 0) :x(y) {}
int getX() { return x; }
};
typedef SmartPtr<simple> simplePtr;
int main() {
std::set<simplePtr> st;
simplePtr p1 = simplePtr(new simple(5));
simplePtr p2 = simplePtr(new simple(5));
simplePtr p3 = simplePtr(new simple(5));
simplePtr p4 = simplePtr(new simple(5));
std::cout << p1->getX(); <-- working fine
st.insert(p1);
st.insert(p2);
st.insert(p3);
st.insert(p4);
for (std::set<simplePtr>::iterator it = st.begin(); it != st.end(); ++it)
{
std::cout << it->getX(); // Not working??
}
}
Compilation is failed with error in Visual Studio 2013:
Error C2039 getX: is not a member of SmartPtr<simple>
On linux:
error: ‘const class SmartPtr<simple>’ has no member named ‘getX’
Is this a problem with iterator??
You can think of it->getX() as a syntactic sugar for (*it).getX(). [In principle, a class can overload the -> and * (dereferencing) operators inconsistently, but std::set<T>::iterator, unsurprisingly, doesn't break that convention]. So, in your case, *it is dereferenced to an lvalue of type const SmartPtr<simple>&, and the .getX() applied to it fails, because SmartPtr doesn't have a getX() method. Since, instead you mean to access the object that the obtained SmartPtr points to, you must add one more level of dereferencing:
Correction 1
Replace it->getX() with (**it).getX() or (*it)->getX().
There is still another problem, though - *it results in a const SmartPtr (yes, std::set's non-constant iterator doesn't provide write access to the container's elements, otherwise you could break correct ordering of elements in the container). But both -> and * (dereferencing) operators in SmartPtr are defined in such a way that they can be invoked only on non-const objects. To fix that, you must make those two functions const:
Correction 2 (in SmartPtr<T>)
// vvvvv
T & operator * () const { return *ptr; }
T * operator -> () const { return ptr; }
// ^^^^^
After you make this second correction, you can replace your old-style for-loop with a range-for loop:
for (const simplePtr& p : st)
{
std::cout << p->getX();
}
Still, your program will not compile - SmartPtr<T> objects cannot be put in an std::set since they are not comparable. Fix that by defining operator<():
Correction 3
Add to SmartPtr<T>:
bool operator<(const SmartPtr& other) const { return ptr < other.ptr; }
At this point your code will compile but chances are high that it will not work correctly. The reason is that the copy-semantics of SmartPtr<T> is left to compiler's discretion which fails to meet your intent. This is easy to guess by spotting the violation of the Rule of Three, Four and Five - your class defines the destructor but fails to define the copy and/or move constructor and the assignment operator. As a result your code performs double deletion and therefore cannot be guaranteed any well defined behavior.
Correction 4
Fix the copy semantics of SmartPtr<T>.
I "fixed" your code by assigning move semantics to SmartPtr (this required adding std::move() when insert()-ing it into std::set):
#include<iostream>
#include<set>
template <typename T>
class SmartPtr
{
T *ptr;
public:
explicit SmartPtr(T *p = NULL) { ptr = p; }
~SmartPtr() { delete(ptr); }
SmartPtr(const SmartPtr& other) = delete;
SmartPtr(SmartPtr&& other) : ptr(other.ptr) { other.ptr = NULL; }
SmartPtr& operator=(SmartPtr other)
{
std::swap(ptr, other.ptr);
return *this;
}
T & operator * () const { return *ptr; }
T * operator -> () const { return ptr; }
bool operator<(const SmartPtr& other) const { return ptr < other.ptr; }
};
class simple {
int x;
public:
simple(int y = 0) : x(y) {}
int getX() { return x; }
};
typedef SmartPtr<simple> simplePtr;
int main() {
std::set<simplePtr> st;
simplePtr p1 = simplePtr(new simple(5));
simplePtr p2 = simplePtr(new simple(5));
st.insert(std::move(p1));
st.insert(std::move(p2));
for (const simplePtr& p : st)
{
std::cout << p->getX();
}
return 0;
}
Your iterator needs to be dereferenced, at which point you get a pointer. Which then needs to be dereferenced. So:
std::cout << (*it)->getX();
For starters you have to define operator < for the class SmartPtr before using it in the set.
Secondly you have to declare the member function getX like
int getX() const { return x; }
And you have to write at least like
std::cout << ( *it )->getX();
I would like to further exhaust this topic.
Assume that I have something like:
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass(int N)
{
data_ptr = new float[N];
};
float* dat_ptr;
// ... clever operator definition here ...
};
So I would like to be able to simply write:
MyClass a(4);
MyClass b(4);
MyClass c(4);
// modify b.data_ptr and c.data_ptr ....
// Use "clever operator"
a = b + c;
Where the operator would do a.data_ptr[i] = b.data_ptr[i] + c.data_ptr[i] for i=0:(N-1) ...
Hence no extra copies of the data are created and we are neatly using the preallocated buffers.
Is this possible? If so, please provide me with som insights as to how it would be done.
Thanks!
You can, if you use move semantics from C++11.
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass(int N)
{
data_ptr = new float[N];
n = N;
}
MyClass(MyClass && rhs)
{
data_ptr = rhs.data_ptr;
n = rhs.n;
rhs.data_ptr = nullptr;
}
// dtor, copy-ctor etc.
int n;
float * dat_ptr;
};
MyClass operator + (const MyClass & left, const MyClass & right)
{
MyClass result(left.n);
// Implement addition
}
// Note: no error-checking
This way a temporary object will be created, but the internal data will not be unnecessarily copied.
Read more about the move semantics.
It is not possible; Before a is assigned to, a temporary object will be created as a result of calling operator + (b, c); This operator should return the created instance, that should then be assigned to a; the created instance is always created by b + c.
What is possible though is to define += as a member operator and say:
b += c;
This would modify the value of b without creating extra copies.
Edit: I have reconsidered :)
You definitely can do it, by abstracting operations as lazy evaluation objects.
Here is an example:
class MyClass; // fwd. declaration of your class
struct LazySum
{
LazySum(const MyClass& a, const MyClass& b)
: x(a), y(b) {}
float operator[](int i) { return x[i] + y[i]; }
const MyClass& x;
const MyClass& y;
};
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass(int N)
{
data_ptr = new float[n = N];
};
int n; // this shouldn't be public
float* dat_ptr; // nor this, but I went with your code
// ... clever operator definition here ...
MyClass& operator=(const LazySum& terms)
{
// ignore case when n != x.n or n != y.n
// because not the point of the example
// (and I'm lazy)
// sum evaluation occurs here
// with no new allocations
for(int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
data_ptr[i] = terms[i];
return *this;
}
};
LazySum operator=(const MyClass& x, const MyClass& y)
{
return LazySum(x, y); // LazySum is a couple of references in size
}
void client_code_using_clever_op()
{
MyClass a(4);
MyClass b(4);
MyClass c(4);
// modify b.data_ptr and c.data_ptr ....
// Use "clever operator"
a = b + c; // actual sum performed when operator = is executed
}
The idea is to store the terms, and perform late evaluation on the terms.
Points of improvement:
inject a functor in the construction of LazySum to make it become LazyOp (the functor would decide what the op is); Implement other binary operators on MyClass in terms of it.
use RAII in MyClass.
when you need to implement lazy evaluation operators on another type (e.g. some MyOtherClass) consider implementing LazyOp as a template on the terms and functor type.
this does not support more complex expressions without some extra work:
MyClass a(4), b(4), c(4), d(4);
d = (a + b) + c; // error
This example will not work because it would require an operator+(const LazySum&, const MyClass&);;
As Spook explained, yes it is possible. Just for fun I wrote a full example that you can compile and run. If a copy was to be created, you would get a message in the output. I tried this example in Visual Studio 2012 and runs fine.
class MyClass
{
private:
float *data_ptr;
std::size_t size;
public:
MyClass(std::size_t N = 0) :
size(N),
data_ptr(N ? new float[N]() : nullptr)
{}
MyClass(const MyClass& other) :
size(other.size),
data_ptr(other.size ? new float[other.size]() : nullptr)
{
std::copy(other.data_ptr, other.data_ptr + size, data_ptr);
std::cout << "Copy!" << std::endl;
}
MyClass(MyClass&& other)
{
size = 0;
data_ptr = nullptr;
swap(*this, other);
}
~MyClass()
{
delete[] data_ptr;
}
MyClass& operator=(MyClass other)
{
swap(*this, other);
return *this;
}
friend MyClass operator+(MyClass& first, MyClass& second)
{
MyClass result(std::min(first.size, second.size));
for (std::size_t i=0; i < result.size; i++) {
result.data_ptr[i] = first.data_ptr[i] + second.data_ptr[i];
}
return result;
}
friend void swap(MyClass& first, MyClass& second)
{
std::swap(first.size, second.size);
std::swap(first.data_ptr, second.data_ptr);
}
};
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
MyClass a(5);
MyClass b(5);
MyClass c(5);
a = b + c; //this should not produce an extra copy
return 0;
}
There is something that is troubling my brain since a moment: I am trying to overload the [] operator based on the return type. Here is what I need to do:
class A {
private:
double* data_;
int N_;
public:
A (N=0):N_(N){
data_ = new double[N];
}
~A {delete[] data_;}
double operator[] (const int i) {
return data_[i];
}
double* operator[] (const int i) {
return &data[i]; // for example; in fact here i need to return some block of data_
}
};
This code won't compile; and that is my problem. Can someone help me to solve this problem?
PS: I know how to overload normal functions on the return type for example:
int foo ();
string foo ();
I used some tricks that I read in this forum. In this way:
struct func {
operator string() { return "1";}
operator int() { return 2; }
};
int main( ) {
int x = func(); // calls int version
string y = func(); // calls string version
double d = func(); // calls int version
cout << func() << endl; // calls int version
func(); // calls neither
}
Thank you.
Two method overloads must have different signatures. The return type is not part of the signature of a method.
You can use the same "trick" that you use for functions, that is use a proxy object with conversion operators:
class A
{
private:
double* data_;
int N_;
public:
A (int N = 0)
: N_(N), data_(new double[N])
{}
~A() { delete[] data_; }
struct proxy
{
int i;
double * data;
operator double() const
{
return data[i];
}
operator double*()
{
return &data[i];
}
operator double const *() const
{
return &data[i];
}
};
proxy operator[] (int const i) {
proxy p { i, data_ };
return p;
}
proxy const operator[] (int const i) const {
proxy p { i, data_ };
return p;
}
};
int main()
{
{
A a(12);
double d = a[0];
double * pd = a[0];
}
{
A const ca(12);
double d = ca[0];
//double * pd = ca[0]; // does not compile thanks to overloads on const
double const * pcd = ca[0];
}
}
However, I would argue that this is a terrible idea. Having your operator[] return either a value or a pointer to this value is guaranteed to confuse the users of your class, in addition to making it impractical to use in expressions where both types are possible. For instance, std::cout << a[0]; would not compile (ambiguous overloads).
Probably you need something like that:
class A {
private:
double* data_;
int N_;
... // other stuff
public:
double operator[] (const int i) const { // note const here
return data_[i];
}
double& operator[] (const int i) { // note reference here
return data_[i];
}
};
also operator should be public to have a sense.
It's possible to define a pointer to a member and using this later on:
struct foo
{
int a;
int b[2];
};
int main()
{
foo bar;
int foo::* aptr=&foo::a;
bar.a=1;
std::cout << bar.*aptr << std::endl;
}
Now I need to have a pointer to a specific element of an array, so normally I'd write
int foo::* bptr=&(foo::b[0]);
However, the compiler just complains about an "invalid use of non-static data member 'foo::b'"
Is it possible to do this at all (or at least without unions)?
Edit: I need a pointer to a specific element of an array, so int foo::* ptr points to the second element of the array (foo::b[1]).
Yet another edit: I need to access the element in the array by bar.*ptr=2, as the pointer gets used somewhere else, so it can't be called with bar.*ptr[1]=2 or *ptr=2.
However, the compiler just complains about an "invalid use of non-static data member 'foo::b'"
This is because foo::a and foo::b have different types. More specifically, foo::b is an array of size 2 of ints. Your pointer declaration has to be compatible i.e:
int (foo::*aptr)[2]=&foo::b;
Is it possible to do this at all (or at least without unions)?
Yes, see below:
struct foo
{
int a;
int b[2];
};
int main()
{
foo bar;
int (foo::*aptr)[2]=&foo::b;
/* this is a plain int pointer */
int *bptr=&((bar.*aptr)[1]);
bar.a=1;
bar.b[0] = 2;
bar.b[1] = 11;
std::cout << (bar.*aptr)[1] << std::endl;
std::cout << *bptr << std::endl;
}
Updated post with OP's requirements.
The problem is that, accessing an item in an array is another level of indirection from accessing a plain int. If that array was a pointer instead you wouldn't expect to be able to access the int through a member pointer.
struct foo
{
int a;
int *b;
};
int main()
{
foo bar;
int foo::* aptr=&(*foo::b); // You can't do this either!
bar.a=1;
std::cout << bar.*aptr << std::endl;
}
What you can do is define member functions that return the int you want:
struct foo
{
int a;
int *b;
int c[2];
int &GetA() { return a; } // changed to return references so you can modify the values
int &Getb() { return *b; }
template <int index>
int &GetC() { return c[index]; }
};
typedef long &(Test::*IntAccessor)();
void SetValue(foo &f, IntAccessor ptr, int newValue)
{
cout << "Value before: " << f.*ptr();
f.*ptr() = newValue;
cout << "Value after: " << f.*ptr();
}
int main()
{
IntAccessor aptr=&foo::GetA;
IntAccessor bptr=&foo::GetB;
IntAccessor cptr=&foo::GetC<1>;
int local;
foo bar;
bar.a=1;
bar.b = &local;
bar.c[1] = 2;
SetValue(bar, aptr, 2);
SetValue(bar, bptr, 3);
SetValue(bar, cptr, 4);
SetValue(bar, &foo::GetC<0>, 5);
}
Then you at least have a consistent interface to allow you to change different values for foo.
2020 update, with actual solution:
The Standard does currently not specify any way to actually work with the member pointers in a way that would allow arithmetics or anything to get the pointer to the "inner" array element
OTOH, the standard library now has all the necessities to patch the appropriate member pointer class yourself, even with the array element access.
First, the member pointers are usually implemented as "just offsets", although quite scary. Let's see an example (on g++9, arch amd64):
struct S { int a; float b[10]; };
float(S::*mptr)[10] = &S::b;
*reinterpret_cast<uintptr_t *>(&mptr) //this is 4
int S::*iptr = &S::a;
*reinterpret_cast<uintptr_t *>(&iptr) //this is 0
iptr = nullptr;
*reinterpret_cast<uintptr_t *>(&iptr) //this seems to be 18446744073709551615 on my box
Instead you can make a bit of a wrapper (it's quite long but I didn't want to remove the convenience operators):
#include <type_traits>
template<class M, typename T>
class member_ptr
{
size_t off_;
public:
member_ptr() : off_(0) {}
member_ptr(size_t offset) : off_(offset) {}
/* member access */
friend const T& operator->*(const M* a, const member_ptr<M, T>& p)
{ return (*a)->*p; }
friend T& operator->*(M* a, const member_ptr<M, T>& p)
{ return (*a)->*p; }
/* operator.* cannot be overloaded, so just take the arrow again */
friend const T& operator->*(const M& a, const member_ptr<M, T>& p)
{ return *reinterpret_cast<const T*>(reinterpret_cast<const char*>(&a) + p.off_); }
friend T& operator->*(M& a, const member_ptr<M, T>& p)
{ return *reinterpret_cast<T*>(reinterpret_cast<char*>(&a) + p.off_); }
/* convert array access to array element access */
member_ptr<M, typename std::remove_extent<T>::type> operator*() const
{ return member_ptr<M, typename std::remove_extent<T>::type>(off_); }
/* the same with offset right away */
member_ptr<M, typename std::remove_extent<T>::type> operator[](size_t offset) const
{ return member_ptr<M, typename std::remove_extent<T>::type>(off_)+offset; }
/* some operators */
member_ptr& operator++()
{ off_ += sizeof(T); return *this; };
member_ptr& operator--()
{ off_ -= sizeof(T); return *this; };
member_ptr operator++(int)
{ member_ptr copy; off_ += sizeof(T); return copy; };
member_ptr operator--(int)
{ member_ptr copy; off_ -= sizeof(T); return copy; };
member_ptr& operator+=(size_t offset)
{ off_ += offset * sizeof(T); return *this; }
member_ptr& operator-=(size_t offset)
{ off_ -= offset * sizeof(T); return *this; }
member_ptr operator+(size_t offset) const
{ auto copy = *this; copy += offset; return copy; }
member_ptr operator-(size_t offset) const
{ auto copy = *this; copy -= offset; return copy; }
size_t offset() const { return off_; }
};
template<class M, typename T>
member_ptr<M, T> make_member_ptr(T M::*a)
{ return member_ptr<M, T>(reinterpret_cast<uintptr_t>(&(((M*)nullptr)->*a)));}
Now we can make the pointer to the array element directly:
auto mp = make_member_ptr(&S::b)[2];
S s;
s->*mp = 123.4;
// s.b[2] is now expectably 123.4
Finally, if you really, really like materialized references, you may get a bit haskell-lensish and make them compose:
// in class member_ptr, note transitivity of types M -> T -> TT:
template<class TT>
member_ptr<M,TT> operator+(const member_ptr<T,TT>&t)
{ return member_ptr<M,TT>(off_ + t.offset()); }
// test:
struct A { int a; };
struct B { A arr[10]; };
B x;
auto p = make_member_ptr(&B::arr)[5] + make_member_ptr(&A::a)
x->*p = 432.1;
// x.arr[5].a is now expectably 432.1
typedef int (foo::*b_member_ptr)[2];
b_member_ptr c= &foo::b;
all works.
small trick for member and function pointers usage.
try to write
char c = &foo::b; // or any other function or member pointer
and in compiller error you will see expected type, for your case int (foo::*)[2].
EDIT
I'm not sure that what you want is legal without this pointer. For add 1 offset to your pointer you should get pointer on array from your pointer on member array. But you can dereference member pointer without this.
You can't do that out of the language itself. But you can with boost. Bind a functor to some element of that array and assign it to a boost::function:
#include <boost/lambda/lambda.hpp>
#include <boost/lambda/bind.hpp>
#include <boost/function.hpp>
#include <iostream>
struct test {
int array[3];
};
int main() {
namespace lmb = boost::lambda;
// create functor that returns test::array[1]
boost::function<int&(test&)> f;
f = lmb::bind(&test::array, lmb::_1)[1];
test t = {{ 11, 22, 33 }};
std::cout << f(t) << std::endl; // 22
f(t) = 44;
std::cout << t.array[1] << std::endl; // 44
}
I'm not sure if this will work for you or not, but I wanted to do a similar thing and got around it by approaching the problem from another direction. In my class I had several objects that I wanted to be accessible via a named identifier or iterated over in a loop. Instead of creating member pointers to the objects somewhere in the array, I simply declared all of the objects individually and created a static array of member pointers to the objects.
Like so:
struct obj
{
int somestuff;
double someotherstuff;
};
class foo
{
public:
obj apples;
obj bananas;
obj oranges;
static obj foo::* fruit[3];
void bar();
};
obj foo::* foo::fruit[3] = { &foo::apples, &foo::bananas, &foo::oranges };
void foo::bar()
{
apples.somestuff = 0;
(this->*(fruit[0])).somestuff = 5;
if( apples.somestuff != 5 )
{
// fail!
}
else
{
// success!
}
}
int main()
{
foo blee;
blee.bar();
return 0;
}
It seems to work for me. I hope that helps.