Assume the snippet below. How can I make this compiling/working? I do not want to move print to the String/Float class, because in my real world situation this function is combining a lot of data.
So basically I want a pointer/member to "any type (in this case string/float)" then use it, and call dynamically something else (in this case print)?
I assume that this does not work (among others) because it cannot determine at compile time which type T of ptr will have at compile time.
What is the general pattern to solve such kind of problems?
#include <iostream>
template<typename T>
class AbstractClass {
virtual T getValue()=0;
};
class StringClass : public AbstractClass<std::string> {
std::string getValue() override {
return "A";
}
};
class FloatClass : public AbstractClass<float> {
float getValue() override {
return 1;
}
};
class Processor {
public:
AbstractClass<T>* ptr;
void doIt() {
ptr=new StringClass();
print(ptr->getValue());
delete ptr;
ptr=new FloatClass();
print(ptr->getValue());
delete ptr;
}
void print(std::string i) {
std::cout << "String "<<i<<std::endl;
}
void print(float i) {
std::cout << "Float "<<i<<std::endl;
}
}
int main() {
Processor a;
a.doIt();
}
If you want an object that's 'one of' a given set of types, you can use std::variant<Ts...>. Mathematically, it represents discriminated/tagged union. This way, you don't need a pointer, neither a base class. Example:
#include <iostream>
#include <variant>
class StringClass {
std::string getValue() override {
return "A";
}
};
class FloatClass {
float getValue() override {
return 1;
}
};
using ClassWithGetValue = std::variant<StringClass, FloatClass>;
class Processor {
public:
ClassWithGetValue v;
void doIt() {
v = StringClass();
std::visit([&](auto&& v1) {
print(v1.getValue());
});
v = FloatClass();
std::visit([&](auto&& v1) {
print(v1.getValue());
});
}
void print(std::string i) {
std::cout << "String "<<i<<std::endl;
}
void print(float i) {
std::cout << "Float "<<i<<std::endl;
}
}
int main() {
Processor a;
a.doIt();
}
Related
My goal is to separate data from various implementations. I don't want my things to know what actual subclass it is they are working with, either way around. To make things perform only a single task with minimal information.
I'll throw some code in your eyes first.
// Example program
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <memory>
#include <vector>
#include <functional>
class Model
{
public:
virtual bool set(int p_attrId, int p_value) {return false;};
virtual bool get(int p_attrId, int & p_value) const {return false;};
};
class Derived: public Model
{
static constexpr int c_classId = 1;
int value = 1;
public:
enum EAttrs
{
eAttr1 = c_classId * 1000
};
virtual bool set(int p_attrId, int p_value) override
{
switch(p_attrId)
{
case eAttr1:
value = p_value;
return true;
default:
return Model::set(p_attrId, p_value);
}
}
virtual bool get(int p_attrId, int & p_value) const override
{
switch(p_attrId)
{
case eAttr1:
p_value = value;
return true;
default:
return Model::get(p_attrId, p_value);
}
}
};
// GuiTextBoxComponent.h
// no includes to any class derived from model
class GuiTextBoxComponent
{
std::weak_ptr<Model> m_model;
int m_attrId;
public:
void draw()
{
auto locked = m_model.lock();
if(locked)
{
int value;
bool result = locked->get(m_attrId, value);
if(!result)
{
std::cout << "Failed to get attribute " << m_attrId << "\n";
return;
}
std::cout << "AttrID: " << m_attrId << " Value: " << value << "\n";
}
else
{
std::cout << "Model is dead\n";
}
}
void setSource(std::weak_ptr<Model> p_model, int p_attrId)
{
m_model = p_model;
m_attrId = p_attrId;
}
};
int main()
{
std::shared_ptr<Model> model (new Derived);
GuiTextBoxComponent textbox;
textbox.setSource(model, Derived::eAttr1);
textbox.draw();
}
The motivation behind this is acquisition of all data from a single interface.
I need to be able to add functionality like the GuiTextBoxComponent, without #include "Derived1.h" in its header.
The challenge with this design is that the Model interface needs to implement all types required from anywhere in the program.
How would you extend the types provided?
Is there some other design that could be used to achieve similar results?
Generally, I think this is an XY problem but here is how you can beautify your code a bit. First, I implemented two interfaces: Getter and Setter like:
enum class EAttrs {
eAttr1
};
template <typename GetterImpl>
struct Getter {
bool get(EAttrs const attrId, int& value) {
switch (attrId) {
case EAttrs::eAttr1:
return static_cast<GetterImpl*>(this)->get(value);
default:
return false;
}
}
};
template <typename SetterImpl>
struct Setter {
bool set(EAttrs const attrId, int value) {
switch (attrId) {
case EAttrs::eAttr1:
return static_cast<SetterImpl*>(this)->set(value);
default:
return false;
}
}
};
Here I used CRTP, i.e. static polymorphism. Then implementation of your derived classes is a bit simpler:
class Derived1 : public Getter<Derived1>, Setter<Derived1> {
int value = 1;
public:
bool set(int p_value) {
value = p_value;
return true;
}
bool get(int & p_value) {
p_value = value;
return true;
}
};
class Derived2 : public Getter<Derived1>, Setter<Derived1> {
int value = 2;
public:
bool set(int p_value) {
value = p_value;
return true;
}
bool get(int & p_value) {
p_value = value;
return true;
}
};
Finally, since we were using CRTP, there is no need for creating std::unique_ptr. Code that's using above classes could look like:
template <typename T>
void printInt(Getter<T>& model, EAttrs p_attrId) {
int value;
bool result = model.get(p_attrId, value);
if (!result)
{
std::cout << "Failed to get attribute " << static_cast<int>(p_attrId) << "\n";
return;
}
std::cout << "AttrID: " << static_cast<int>(p_attrId) << " Value: " << value << "\n";
}
int main()
{
Derived1 derived1;
Derived2 derived2;
printInt(derived1, EAttrs::eAttr1);
printInt(derived2, EAttrs::eAttr1);
}
Check out the DEMO.
P.S. Note the usage of enum class instead of plain enum.
Take a look at this CppCon's talk about Solid principles. Your code might be a good example to apply those principles to.
I am currently working on a small private project using C++ i came up with the following structure:
#include <iostream>
class A
{
std::vector<int> vec;
protected:
virtual bool onAdd(int toAdd) {
// should the 'adding' be suppressed?
// do some A specific checks
std::cout << "A::onAdd()" << std::endl;
return false;
}
public:
void add(int i) {
if(!onAdd(i)) {
// actual logic
vec.push_back(i);
}
}
};
class B : public A
{
protected:
bool onAdd(int toAdd) override {
// do some B specific checks
std::cout << "B::onAdd()" << std::endl;
return false;
}
};
In this example onAdd is basically meant to be a callback for add, but in a more polymorphic way.
The actual problem arises when a class C inherits from B and wants to override onAdd too. In this case the implementation in B will get discarded (i.e. not called) when calling C::add. So basically what I would like to achieve is a constructor-like behaviour where I am able to override the same method in different positions in the class hierarchy and all of those getting called.
My question now is: Is there a possibility/design to achieve this? I am sure that it wouldn't be as easy as cascading constructors, though.
Note: Don't focus too much on the add example. The question is about the callback like structure and not if it makes sense with an add.
I would just call my parents onAdd()
bool C::onAdd(int toAdd) {return my_answer && B::onAdd(toAdd);}
This can be a little confusing if you're expecting other developers to inherit from your base class. But for small private hierarchies it works perfectly.
I sometimes include a using statement to make this more explicit
class C : public B
{
using parent=B;
bool onAdd(int toAdd) override {return my_answer && parent::onAdd(toAdd);}
};
struct RunAndDiscard {
template<class Sig, class...Args>
void operator()(Sig*const* start, Sig*const* finish, Args&&...args)const{
if (start==finish) return;
for (auto* i = start; i != (finish-1); ++i) {
(*i)(args...);
}
(*(finish-1))(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
}
};
template<class Sig, class Combine=RunAndDiscard>
struct invokers {
std::vector<Sig*> targets;
template<class...Args>
decltype(auto) operator()(Args&&...args)const {
return Combine{}( targets.data(), targets.data()+targets.size(), std::forward<Args>(args)... );
}
};
struct AndTogetherResultWithShortCircuit {
template<class Sig, class...Args>
bool operator()(Sig*const* start, Sig*const* finish, Args&&...args)const{
if (start==finish) return true;
for (auto* i = start; i != (finish-1); ++i) {
if (!(*i)(args...)) return false;
}
return (*(finish-1))(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
}
};
This creates a per-instance table of things to do onAdd.
Creating a per-class table is harder; you need to chain your table with your parent type's table, which requires per-class boilerplate.
There is no way to get the C++ compiler to write either the per-instance version, or the per-class version, without doing it yourself.
There are C++20 proposals involving reflection and reification, plus the metaclass proposal, which may involve automating writing code like this (on both a per-instance and per-class basis).
Here is a live example of this technique being tested:
struct AndTogetherResultWithShortCircuit {
template<class Sig, class...Args>
bool operator()(Sig*const* start, Sig*const* finish, Args&&...args)const{
if (start==finish) return true;
for (auto* i = start; i != (finish-1); ++i) {
if (!(*i)(args...)) return false;
}
return (*(finish-1))(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
}
};
class A {
std::vector<int> vec;
protected:
invokers<bool(A*, int), AndTogetherResultWithShortCircuit> onAdd;
public:
void add(int i) {
if (!onAdd(this, i)) {
vec.push_back(i);
}
}
};
class B : public A
{
public:
B() {
onAdd.targets.push_back([](A* self, int x)->bool{
// do some B specific checks
std::cout << "B::onAdd(" << x << ")" << std::endl;
return x%2;
});
}
};
class C : public B
{
public:
C() {
onAdd.targets.push_back([](A* self, int x)->bool{
// do some B specific checks
std::cout << "C::onAdd(" << x << ")" << std::endl;
return false;
});
}
};
When you want to write your own OO-system, you can in C++, but C++ doesn't write it for you.
If you want a generic solution perhaps you could use CRTP with variadic templates instead of runtime polymophism.
Taking inspiration from this answer and this answer:
template<class... OnAdders> class A : private OnAdders... {
std::vector<int> vec;
template<class OnAdder>
bool onAdd(int toAdd){
return static_cast<OnAdder*>(this)->onAdd(toAdd);
}
template<typename FirstOnAdder, typename SecondOnAdder, class... RestOnAdders>
bool onAdd(int toAdd){
if (onAdd<FirstOnAdder>(toAdd))
return true;
return onAdd<SecondOnAdder, RestOnAdders...>(toAdd);
}
public:
void add(int i) {
if (onAdd<OnAdders...>(i))
return;
// actual logic
vec.push_back(i);
}
};
class B {
public:
bool onAdd(int toAdd) {
// do some B specific checks
std::cout << "B::onAdd()" << std::endl;
return false;
}
};
Which you could use like:
A<B,C> a;
a.add(42);
Live demo.
The following solution uses std::function to add each callback during each constructor:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <functional>
class A
{
std::vector<int> vec;
protected:
bool onAdd(int toAdd)
{
// do some A specific checks
std::cout << "A::onAdd()" << std::endl;
return true;
}
// vector of callback functions. Initialized with A::onAdd() callback as the first entry
std::vector<std::function<bool(int)>> callbacks{{[this](int toAdd){return onAdd(toAdd); }}};
public:
void add(int i)
{
for(auto& callback : callbacks) {
if(!callback(i))
return;
}
// actual logic
vec.push_back(i);
}
};
class B : public A
{
public:
B()
{
callbacks.emplace_back([this](int toAdd){return onAdd(toAdd); });
}
protected:
bool onAdd(int toAdd)
{
// do some B specific checks
std::cout << "B::onAdd()" << std::endl;
return true;
}
};
class C : public B
{
public:
C()
{
callbacks.emplace_back([this](int toAdd){return onAdd(toAdd); });
}
protected:
bool onAdd(int toAdd)
{
// do some C specific checks
std::cout << "C::onAdd()" << std::endl;
// must also call B::onAdd()
return true;
}
};
int main()
{
C c;
c.add(5);
}
Prints:
A::onAdd()
B::onAdd()
C::onAdd()
I have the following class architecture:
class Animal
{
// ...
}
class Cat : public Animal
{
// ...
}
class Dog : public Animal
{
// ...
}
// + Several other derived classes
In another section of my code, I have a function that goes through a list of Animals and needs to perform specialized actions in the case of several of the derived classes and a default action otherwise. How can I handle this situation elegantly, given the following constraints:
I'd like to keep the new code outside of Animal and its derived
classes because of separation of concerns.
I'd like to avoid using a switch statement on types or enums as it feels very smelly.
Here's one way - use the concept-model idiom (my name):
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
struct AnimalConcept {
virtual ~AnimalConcept() = default;
virtual void make_noise() const = 0;
};
// default case
void make_noise_for(const AnimalConcept&)
{
std::cout << "no noise" << std::endl;
}
template<class Model>
struct AnimalModel : AnimalConcept
{
void make_noise() const override {
make_noise_for(static_cast<const Model&>(*this));
}
};
// some models
struct Cat : AnimalModel<Cat>
{
};
struct Dog : AnimalModel<Dog>
{
};
struct Giraffe : AnimalModel<Giraffe>
{
};
// separation of concerns - specific overrides
void make_noise_for(const Cat&) {
std::cout << "meow\n";
}
void make_noise_for(const Dog&) {
std::cout << "woof\n";
}
// test
using namespace std;
int main(){
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<const AnimalConcept>> animals;
animals.emplace_back(new Cat);
animals.emplace_back(new Dog);
animals.emplace_back(new Giraffe);
for (const auto& p : animals) {
p->make_noise();
}
return 0;
}
expected output:
meow
woof
no noise
And here's another way to implement it (this one is nicer since it allows all animals to have unrelated interfaces):
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
struct AnimalConcept {
virtual ~AnimalConcept() = default;
virtual void make_noise() const = 0;
};
// default case
template<class T>
void make_noise_for(const T&)
{
std::cout << "this animal makes no noise" << std::endl;
}
template<class Model>
struct AnimalModel : AnimalConcept
{
template<class...Args>
AnimalModel(Args&&...args)
: _model { std::forward<Args>(args)... }
{}
private:
void make_noise() const override {
make_noise_for(_model);
}
Model _model;
};
// some models
struct Cat
{
Cat(std::string name)
: _name { std::move(name) }
{}
const std::string& name() const {
return _name;
}
private:
std::string _name;
};
struct Dog
{
Dog(std::string name, int age)
: _name { std::move(name) }
, _age { age }
{}
const std::string& name() const {
return _name;
}
int age() const {
return _age;
}
private:
std::string _name;
int _age;
};
struct Giraffe
{
};
// separation of concerns - specific overrides
void make_noise_for(const Cat& c) {
std::cout << c.name() << " says meow\n";
}
void make_noise_for(const Dog& d) {
std::cout << "the dog called " << d.name() << " who is " << d.age() << " years old says woof\n";
}
// test
using namespace std;
int main(){
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<const AnimalConcept>> animals;
animals.emplace_back(new AnimalModel<Cat> { "felix" });
animals.emplace_back(new AnimalModel<Dog> { "fido", 2 });
animals.emplace_back(new AnimalModel<Giraffe>);
for (const auto& p : animals) {
p->make_noise();
}
return 0;
}
expected output:
felix says meow
the dog called fido who is 2 years old says woof
this animal makes no noise
You can use a combination of the following to get type based dispatch.
Provide for every class to return a type ID associated with it.
Provide a virtual function in the base class to get the type ID associated with an object.
Provide a way for registration of functions based on type ID.
When the time comes for execution of the top level function, search for a registered function given an animal's type ID. If a function is registered, call it. Otherwise, use the default function.
// Implement this function in a .cpp file.
int getNextTypeID()
{
static int typeID = 0;
return ++typeID;
}
class Animal
{
virtual int getTypeID();
};
class Cat : public Animal
{
static int getID()
{
static int typeID = getNextTypeID();
}
virtual int getTypeID()
{
return getID();
}
};
class Dog : public Animal
{
static int getID()
{
static int typeID = getNextTypeID();
}
virtual int getTypeID()
{
return getID();
}
};
foo.h:
typedef void (*AnimalFunction)(Animal& a);
int registerAnimalFunctor(int typeID, AnimalFunction f);
void foo(Animal& a);
foo.cpp:
typedef std::map<int, AnimalFunction> AnimalFunctionMap;
AnimalFunctionMap& getAnimalFunctionMap()
{
static AnimalFunctionMap theMap;
return theMap;
}
int registerAnimalFunctor(int typeID, AnimalFunction f)
{
getAnimalFunctionMap()[typeID] = f;
return 0;
}
void defaultAnimalFunction(a)
{
// Default action
}
void foo(Animal& a)
{
AnimalFunctionMap& theMap = getAnimalFunctionMap();
AnimalFunctionMap::iterator iter = theMap.find(a.getTypeID());
if ( iter != theMap.end() )
{
iter->second(a);
}
else
{
defaultAnimalFunction(a);
}
}
cat_foo.cpp:
void CatFunction(Animal& a)
{
// Cat action.
}
int dummy = registerAnimalFunctor(Cat::getID(), CatFunction);
dog_foo.cpp:
void DogFunction(Animal& a)
{
// Dog action.
}
int dummy = registerAnimalFunctor(Dog::getID(), DogFunction);
I realize that I'll most likely get a lot of "you shouldn't do that because..." answers and they are most welcome and I'll probably totally agree with your reasoning, but I'm curious as to whether this is possible (as I envision it).
Is it possible to define a type of dynamic/generic object in C++ where I can dynamically create properties that are stored and retrieved in a key/value type of system? Example:
MyType myObject;
std::string myStr("string1");
myObject.somethingIJustMadeUp = myStr;
Note that obviously, somethingIJustMadeUp is not actually a defined member of MyType but it would be defined dynamically. Then later I could do something like:
if(myObject.somethingIJustMadeUp != NULL);
or
if(myObject["somethingIJustMadeUp"]);
Believe me, I realize just how terrible this is, but I'm still curious as to whether it's possible and if it can be done in a way that minimizes it's terrible-ness.
C++Script is what you want!
Example:
#include <cppscript>
var script_main(var args)
{
var x = object();
x["abc"] = 10;
writeln(x["abc"]);
return 0;
}
and it's a valid C++.
You can do something very similar with std::map:
std::map<std::string, std::string> myObject;
myObject["somethingIJustMadeUp"] = myStr;
Now if you want generic value types, then you can use boost::any as:
std::map<std::string, boost::any> myObject;
myObject["somethingIJustMadeUp"] = myStr;
And you can also check if a value exists or not:
if(myObject.find ("somethingIJustMadeUp") != myObject.end())
std::cout << "Exists" << std::endl;
If you use boost::any, then you can know the actual type of value it holds, by calling .type() as:
if (myObject.find("Xyz") != myObject.end())
{
if(myObject["Xyz"].type() == typeid(std::string))
{
std::string value = boost::any_cast<std::string>(myObject["Xyz"]);
std::cout <<"Stored value is string = " << value << std::endl;
}
}
This also shows how you can use boost::any_cast to get the value stored in object of boost::any type.
This can be a solution, using RTTI polymorphism
#include <map>
#include <memory>
#include <iostream>
#include <stdexcept>
namespace dynamic
{
template<class T, class E>
T& enforce(T& z, const E& e)
{ if(!z) throw e; return z; }
template<class T, class E>
const T& enforce(const T& z, const E& e)
{ if(!z) throw e; return z; }
template<class Derived>
class interface;
class aggregate;
//polymorphic uncopyable unmovable
class property
{
public:
property() :pagg() {}
property(const property&) =delete;
property& operator=(const property&) =delete;
virtual ~property() {} //just make it polymorphic
template<class Interface>
operator Interface*() const
{
if(!pagg) return 0;
return *pagg; //let the aggregate do the magic!
}
aggregate* get_aggregate() const { return pagg; }
private:
template<class Derived>
friend class interface;
friend class aggregate;
static unsigned gen_id()
{
static unsigned x=0;
return enforce(++x,std::overflow_error("too many ids"));
}
template<class T>
static unsigned id_of()
{ static unsigned z = gen_id(); return z; }
aggregate* pagg;
};
template<class Derived>
class interface: public property
{
public:
interface() {}
virtual ~interface() {}
unsigned id() const { return property::id_of<Derived>(); }
};
//sealed movable
class aggregate
{
public:
aggregate() {}
aggregate(const aggregate&) = delete;
aggregate& operator=(const aggregate&) = delete;
aggregate(aggregate&& s) :m(std::move(s.m)) {}
aggregate& operator=(aggregate&& s)
{ if(this!=&s) { m.clear(); std::swap(m, s.m); } return *this; }
template<class Interface>
aggregate& add_interface(interface<Interface>* pi)
{
m[pi->id()] = std::unique_ptr<property>(pi);
static_cast<property*>(pi)->pagg = this;
return *this;
}
template<class Inteface>
aggregate& remove_interface()
{ m.erase[property::id_of<Inteface>()]; return *this; }
void clear() { m.clear(); }
bool empty() const { return m.empty(); }
explicit operator bool() const { return empty(); }
template<class Interface>
operator Interface*() const
{
auto i = m.find(property::id_of<Interface>());
if(i==m.end()) return nullptr;
return dynamic_cast<Interface*>(i->second.get());
}
template<class Interface>
friend aggregate& operator<<(aggregate& s, interface<Interface>* pi)
{ return s.add_interface(pi); }
private:
typedef std::map<unsigned, std::unique_ptr<property> > map_t;
map_t m;
};
}
/// this is a sample on how it can workout
class interface_A: public dynamic::interface<interface_A>
{
public:
virtual void methodA1() =0;
virtual void methodA2() =0;
};
class impl_A1: public interface_A
{
public:
impl_A1() { std::cout<<"creating impl_A1["<<this<<"]"<<std::endl; }
virtual ~impl_A1() { std::cout<<"deleting impl_A1["<<this<<"]"<<std::endl; }
virtual void methodA1() { std::cout<<"interface_A["<<this<<"]::methodA1 on impl_A1 in aggregate "<<get_aggregate()<<std::endl; }
virtual void methodA2() { std::cout<<"interface_A["<<this<<"]::methodA2 on impl_A1 in aggregate "<<get_aggregate()<<std::endl; }
};
class impl_A2: public interface_A
{
public:
impl_A2() { std::cout<<"creating impl_A2["<<this<<"]"<<std::endl; }
virtual ~impl_A2() { std::cout<<"deleting impl_A2["<<this<<"]"<<std::endl; }
virtual void methodA1() { std::cout<<"interface_A["<<this<<"]::methodA1 on impl_A2 in aggregate "<<get_aggregate()<<std::endl; }
virtual void methodA2() { std::cout<<"interface_A["<<this<<"]::methodA2 on impl_A2 in aggregate "<<get_aggregate()<<std::endl; }
};
class interface_B: public dynamic::interface<interface_B>
{
public:
virtual void methodB1() =0;
virtual void methodB2() =0;
};
class impl_B1: public interface_B
{
public:
impl_B1() { std::cout<<"creating impl_B1["<<this<<"]"<<std::endl; }
virtual ~impl_B1() { std::cout<<"deleting impl_B1["<<this<<"]"<<std::endl; }
virtual void methodB1() { std::cout<<"interface_B["<<this<<"]::methodB1 on impl_B1 in aggregate "<<get_aggregate()<<std::endl; }
virtual void methodB2() { std::cout<<"interface_B["<<this<<"]::methodB2 on impl_B1 in aggregate "<<get_aggregate()<<std::endl; }
};
class impl_B2: public interface_B
{
public:
impl_B2() { std::cout<<"creating impl_B2["<<this<<"]"<<std::endl; }
virtual ~impl_B2() { std::cout<<"deleting impl_B2["<<this<<"]"<<std::endl; }
virtual void methodB1() { std::cout<<"interface_B["<<this<<"]::methodB1 on impl_B2 in aggregate "<<get_aggregate()<<std::endl; }
virtual void methodB2() { std::cout<<"interface_B["<<this<<"]::methodB2 on impl_B2 in aggregate "<<get_aggregate()<<std::endl; }
};
int main()
{
dynamic::aggregate agg1;
agg1 << new impl_A1 << new impl_B1;
dynamic::aggregate agg2;
agg2 << new impl_A2 << new impl_B2;
interface_A* pa = 0;
interface_B* pb = 0;
pa = agg1; if(pa) { pa->methodA1(); pa->methodA2(); }
pb = *pa; if(pb) { pb->methodB1(); pb->methodB2(); }
pa = agg2; if(pa) { pa->methodA1(); pa->methodA2(); }
pb = *pa; if(pb) { pb->methodB1(); pb->methodB2(); }
agg2 = std::move(agg1);
pa = agg2; if(pa) { pa->methodA1(); pa->methodA2(); }
pb = *pa; if(pb) { pb->methodB1(); pb->methodB2(); }
return 0;
}
tested with MINGW4.6 on WinXPsp3
Yes it is terrible. :D
It had been done numerous times to different extents and success levels.
QT has Qobject from which everything related to them decends.
MFC has CObject from which eveything decends as does C++.net
I don't know if there is a way to make it less bad, I guess if you avoid multiple inheritance like the plague (which is otherwise a useful language feature) and reimplement the stdlib it would be better. But really if that is what you are after you are probably using the wrong language for the task.
Java and C# are much better suited to this style of programming.
#note if I have read your question wrong just delete this answer.
Check out Dynamic C++
My use is pretty complicated. I have a bunch of objs and they are all passed around by ptr (not reference or value unless its an enum which is byval). At a specific point in time i like to call CheckMembers() which will check if each member has been set or is null. By default i cant make it all null because i wouldnt know if i set it to null or if it is still null bc i havent touch it since the ctor.
To assign a variable i still need the syntax to be the normal var = p; var->member = new Type;. I generate all the classes/members. So my question is how can i implement a property like feature where i can detect if the value has been set or left as the default?
I am thinking maybe i can use C++ with CLR/.NET http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z974bes2.aspx but i never used it before and have no idea how well it will work and what might break in my C++ prj (it uses rtti, templates, etc).
Reality (edit): this proved to be tricky, but the following code should handle your requirements. It uses a simple counter in the base class. The counter is incremented once for every property you wish to track, and then decremented once for every property that is set. The checkMembers() function only has to verify that the counter is equal to zero. As a bonus, you could potentially report how many members were not initialized.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class PropertyBase
{
public:
int * counter;
bool is_set;
};
template <typename T>
class Property : public PropertyBase
{
public:
T* ptr;
T* operator=(T* src)
{
ptr = src;
if (!is_set) { (*counter)--; is_set = true; }
return ptr;
}
T* operator->() { return ptr; }
~Property() { delete ptr; }
};
class Base
{
private:
int counter;
protected:
void TrackProperty(PropertyBase& p)
{
p.counter = &counter;
counter++;
}
public:
bool checkMembers() { return (counter == 0); }
};
class OtherObject : public Base { }; // just as an example
class MyObject : public Base
{
public:
Property<OtherObject> x;
Property<OtherObject> y;
MyObject();
};
MyObject::MyObject()
{
TrackProperty(x);
TrackProperty(y);
}
int main(int argc, char * argv[])
{
MyObject * object1 = new MyObject();
MyObject * object2 = new MyObject();
object1->x = new OtherObject();
object1->y = new OtherObject();
cout << object1->checkMembers() << endl; // true
cout << object2->checkMembers() << endl; // false
delete object1;
delete object2;
return 0;
}
There are a number of ways to do this, with varying tradeoffs in terms of space overhead. For example, here's one option:
#include <iostream>
template<typename T, typename OuterClass>
class Property
{
public:
typedef void (OuterClass::*setter)(const T &value);
typedef T &value_type;
typedef const T &const_type;
private:
setter set_;
T &ref_;
OuterClass *parent_;
public:
operator value_type() { return ref_; }
operator const_type() const { return ref_; }
Property<T, OuterClass> &operator=(const T &value)
{
(parent_->*set_)(value);
return *this;
}
Property(T &ref, OuterClass *parent, setter setfunc)
: set_(setfunc), ref_(ref), parent_(parent)
{ }
};
struct demo {
private:
int val_p;
void set_val(const int &newval) {
std::cout << "New value: " << newval << std::endl;
val_p = newval;
}
public:
Property<int, demo> val;
demo()
: val(val_p, this, &demo::set_val)
{ }
};
int main() {
demo d;
d.val = 42;
std::cout << "Value is: " << d.val << std::endl;
return 0;
}
It's possible to get less overhead (this has up to 4 * sizeof(void*) bytes overhead) using template accessors - here's another example:
#include <iostream>
template<typename T, typename ParentType, typename AccessTraits>
class Property
{
private:
ParentType *get_parent()
{
return (ParentType *)((char *)this - AccessTraits::get_offset());
}
public:
operator T &() { return AccessTraits::get(get_parent()); }
operator T() { return AccessTraits::get(get_parent()); }
operator const T &() { return AccessTraits::get(get_parent()); }
Property &operator =(const T &value) {
AccessTraits::set(get_parent(), value);
return *this;
}
};
#define DECL_PROPERTY(ClassName, ValueType, MemberName, TraitsName) \
struct MemberName##__Detail : public TraitsName { \
static ptrdiff_t get_offset() { return offsetof(ClassName, MemberName); }; \
}; \
Property<ValueType, ClassName, MemberName##__Detail> MemberName;
struct demo {
private:
int val_;
struct AccessTraits {
static int get(demo *parent) {
return parent->val_;
}
static void set(demo *parent, int newval) {
std::cout << "New value: " << newval << std::endl;
parent->val_ = newval;
}
};
public:
DECL_PROPERTY(demo, int, val, AccessTraits)
demo()
{ val_ = 0; }
};
int main() {
demo d;
d.val = 42;
std::cout << "Value is: " << (int)d.val << std::endl;
return 0;
}
This only consumes one byte for the property struct itself; however, it relies on unportable offsetof() behavior (you're not technically allowed to use it on non-POD structures). For a more portable approach, you could stash just the this pointer of the parent class in a member variable.
Note that both classes are just barely enough to demonstrate the technique - you'll want to overload operator* and operator->, etc, as well.
Here's my temporary alternative. One that doesn't ask for constructor parameters.
#include <iostream>
#include <cassert>
using namespace std;
template <class T>
class Property
{
bool isSet;
T v;
Property(Property&p) { }
public:
Property() { isSet=0; }
T operator=(T src) { v = src; isSet = 1; return v; }
operator T() const { assert(isSet); return v; }
bool is_set() { return isSet; }
};
class SomeType {};
enum SomeType2 { none, a, b};
class MyObject
{
public:
Property<SomeType*> x;
Property<SomeType2> y;
//This should be generated. //Consider generating ((T)x)->checkMembers() when type is a pointer
bool checkMembers() { return x.is_set() && y.is_set(); }
};
int main(int argc, char * argv[])
{
MyObject* p = new MyObject();
p->x = new SomeType;
cout << p->checkMembers() << endl; // false
p->y = a;
cout << p->checkMembers() << endl; // true
delete p->x;
delete p;
}