I have a class that must return a constant view of some pointers to the upper layers of software.
Internally, the pointers must be non-const, because the class will need to manipulate the objects internally.
I don't see any option for providing this const view of the pointers to a higher level client, without making a copy of all the pointers. This seems wasteful. What if I was managing millions of objects?
Is there a better way?
Here is some example code:
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
class example {
public:
example() {
bytePtrs_.push_back(new char);
*bytePtrs_[0] = '$';
}
// I want to do this, but compiler will not allow
// error: could not convert ‘((example*)this)->example::bytePtrs_’ from ‘std::vector<char*>’ to ‘std::vector<const char*>’
std::vector<const char*> getPtrs() {
return bytePtrs_;
}
// Must make wasteful copy
std::vector<const char*> getPtrs() {
std::vector<const char*> ret;
for (auto &ptr : bytePtrs_)
ret.push_back(ptr);
return ret;
}
private:
std::vector<char*> bytePtrs_;
};
int main() {
example e;
std::vector<const char*> bytePtrs = e.getPtrs();
std::cout << bytePtrs[0] << std::endl;
}
You can do this using std::experimental::propagate_const.
That will forward the constness of the pointer onto the pointed-to object.
#include <experimental/propagate_const>
class example {
public:
// using vector = std::vector<char*>>;
using vector = std::vector<std::experimental::propagate_const<char*>>;
example() {
bytePtrs.push_back(new char);
*bytePtrs[0] = '$';
}
vector const& getPtrs() const {
return bytePtrs;
}
private:
vector bytePtrs;
};
int main()
{
example e;
example::vector const& bytePtrs = e.getPtrs();
// dereference this or add a null terminator
std::cout << *bytePtrs[0] << std::endl; // fine and dandy
*bytePtrs[0] = 'x'; // compile error
}
Consider returning a proxy object when you only want to permit const access, something like this (edited to fix the massive hole in the original code pointed out by #alagner!):
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
template <class T> class proxy_vector
{
public:
proxy_vector (const std::vector<T *> &v) : m_v (v) { }
size_t size () { return m_v.size (); }
const T * const &operator[] (size_t i) const { return m_v [i]; }
// ... more functions as needed
private:
const std::vector <T *> &m_v;
};
class example
{
public:
example() : m_pv (bytePtrs_)
{
bytePtrs_.push_back(new char);
*bytePtrs_[0] = '$';
}
const proxy_vector <char> &getPtrs() { return m_pv; }
private:
std::vector<char*> bytePtrs_;
proxy_vector <char> m_pv;
};
int main()
{
example e;
auto &bytePtrs = e.getPtrs ();
// *bytePtrs [0] = 'x'; // uncomment to show that this code now actually works as intended!
std::cout << bytePtrs[0] << "\n";
}
A decent compiler should optimise most, if not all, of this away. Add access methods to proxy vector as needed, I doubt you will need many.
Demo (seems to work fine in C++11).
What #alagner suggests should also work and might be simpler. I haven't thought that through.
As the OP has pointed out in one of the comments, this is the API the code needs to comply to:
https://github.com/Xilinx/Vitis-AI/blob/master/src/Vitis-AI-Runtime/VART/vart/runner/include/vart/runner.hpp#L157
So by design it returns by copy, which is unavoidable really, thus what really can be done is this:
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
class example {
public:
example() {
bytePtrs_.push_back(new char);
*bytePtrs_[0] = '$';
}
// Returning by value
// so shallow copy of objects is expected
// i.e. the pointers are copied
std::vector<const char*> getPtrs() {
return std::vector<const char*>(bytePtrs_.begin(), bytePtrs_.end());
}
private:
std::vector<char*> bytePtrs_;
};
int main() {
example e;
std::vector<const char*> bytePtrs = e.getPtrs();
std::cout << bytePtrs[0] << std::endl;
}
This is one of the very few cases where reinterpret_cast<> could be allowed into the code I think: since the std::vector<char *> and const std::vector<const char*>& are assumed to be compatible in memory anyways, you might cast. Thus, getPtrs() could actually return reinterpret_cast<const std::vector<const char*>&>(bytePtrs_);. To be clear: this is an optimization that relies on concrete ABI details (ItaniumABI et. al.), not generic standard C++, but I'm not yet aware of any architecture where it wouldn't work.
In c++20 and later, you might consider checking std::ranges::view.
Related
I have a class that stores a std::vector of stuff. In my program, I create a std::unordered_set of std::shared_ptr to objects of this class (see code below). I defined custom functions to compute hashes and equality so that the unordered_set "works" with the objects instead of the pointers. This means: Two different pointers to different objects that have the same content should be treated as equal, let's call it "equivalent".
So far everything worked as expected but now I stumbled across a strange behaviour: I add a pointer to an object to the unordered_set and create a different pointer to a different object with the same content. As said I would expect that my_set.find(different_object) would return a valid iterator to the equivalent pointer stored in the set. But it doesn't.
Here is a minimal working code example.
#include <boost/functional/hash.hpp>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <functional>
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
#include <unordered_set>
#include <vector>
class Foo {
public:
Foo() {}
bool operator==(Foo const & rhs) const {
return bar == rhs.bar;
}
std::vector<int> bar;
};
struct FooHash {
size_t operator()(std::shared_ptr<Foo> const & foo) const {
size_t seed = 0;
for (size_t i = 0; i < foo->bar.size(); ++i) {
boost::hash_combine(seed, foo->bar[i]);
}
return seed;
}
};
struct FooEq {
bool operator()(std::shared_ptr<Foo> const & rhs,
std::shared_ptr<Foo> const & lhs) const {
return *lhs == *rhs;
}
};
int main() {
std::unordered_set<std::shared_ptr<Foo>, FooHash, FooEq> fooSet;
auto empl = fooSet.emplace(std::make_shared<Foo>());
(*(empl.first))->bar.emplace_back(0);
auto baz = std::make_shared<Foo>();
baz->bar.emplace_back(0);
auto eqFun = fooSet.key_eq();
auto hashFun = fooSet.hash_function();
if (**fooSet.begin() == *baz) {
std::cout << "Objects equal" << std::endl;
}
if (eqFun(*fooSet.begin(), baz)) {
std::cout << "Keys equal" << std::endl;
}
if (hashFun(*fooSet.begin()) == hashFun(baz)) {
std::cout << "Hashes equal" << std::endl;
}
if (fooSet.find(baz) != fooSet.end()) {
std::cout << "Baz in fooSet" << std::endl;
} else {
std::cout << "Baz not in fooSet" << std::endl;
}
return 0;
}
Output
Objects equal
Keys equal
Hashes equal
And here is the problem:
Baz not in fooSet
What am I missing here? Why does the set not find the equivalent object?
Possibly of interest: I played around with this and found that if my class stores a plain int instead of a std::vector, it works. If I stick to the std::vector but change my constructor to
Foo(int i) : bar{i} {}
and initialize my objects with
std::make_shared<Foo>(0);
it also works. If I remove the whole pointer stuff, It breaks as std::unordered_set::find returns constant iterators and thus modification of objects in the set cannot be done (this way). However, none of these changes is applicable in my real program, anyway.
I compile with g++ version 7.3.0 using -std=c++17
You can't modify an element of a set (and expect the set to work). Because you have provided FooHash and FooEq which inspect the referent's value, that makes the referent part of the value from the point of view of the set!
If we change the initialisation of fooSet to set up the element before inserting it, we get the result you want/expect:
std::unordered_set<std::shared_ptr<Foo>, FooHash, FooEq> fooSet;
auto e = std::make_shared<Foo>();
e->bar.emplace_back(0); // modification is _before_
fooSet.insert(e); // insertion
Looking up the object in the set depends on the hash value not changing. If we really need to modify a member after it has been added, we need to remove it, make the changes, then add the modified object - see Yakk's answer.
To avoid running into issues like this, it may be safer to use std::shared_ptr<const Foo> as elements, which will prevent modification of the pointed-at Foo through the set (although you're still responsible for the use of any non-const pointers you may also have).
Any operation such that the hash or == result of an element in an unordered_set violates the rules of unordered_set is bad; the result is undefined behavior.
You changed the result of a hash of an element in an unordered_set, because your elements are shared pointers, but their hash and == is based off of the value pointed to. And your code changes the value pointed to.
Make all std::shared_ptr<Foo> in your code std::shared_ptr<Foo const>.
This includes the equals and hash code and unordered set code.
auto empl = fooSet.emplace(std::make_shared<Foo>());
(*(empl.first))->bar.emplace_back(0);
this code is right out, and it will (afterwards) fail to compile, as is safe.
If you want to mutate an element in a fooSet,
template<class C, class It, class F>
void mutate(C& c, It it, F&& f) {
auto e = *it->first;
f(e); // do this before erasing, more exception-safe
auto new_elem = std::make_shared<decltype(e)>(std::move(e));
c.erase(it);
c.insert( new_elem ); // could throw, but hard to avoid.
}
now the code reads:
auto empl = fooSet.emplace(std::make_shared<Foo>());
mutate(fooSet, empl.first, [&](auto&& elem) {
elem.emplace_back(0);
});
mutate copies an element out, removes the pointer from the set, calls the function on it, then reinserts it back into the fooSet.
Of course in this case it is dumb; we just put it in and now we take it out mutate it and put it back.
But in a more general case it will be less dumb.
Here you add an object and it's stored using its current hash value.
auto empl = fooSet.emplace(std::make_shared<Foo>());
Here you change the hash value:
(*(empl.first))->bar.emplace_back(0);
The set now has an object stored using the old/wrong hash value. If you need to change anything in an object that affects its hash value, you need to extract the object, change it and re-insert it. If all mutable members of the class are used to calculate the hash value, make it a set of <const Foo> instead.
To make future declarations of sets of shared_ptr<const Foo> easier, you may also extend the std namespace with your specializations.
class Foo {
public:
Foo() {}
size_t hash() const {
size_t seed = 0;
for (auto& b : bar) {
boost::hash_combine(seed, b);
}
return seed;
}
bool operator==(Foo const & rhs) const {
return bar == rhs.bar;
}
std::vector<int> bar;
};
namespace std {
template<>
struct hash<Foo> {
size_t operator()(const Foo& foo) const {
return foo.hash();
}
};
template<>
struct hash<std::shared_ptr<const Foo>> {
size_t operator()(const std::shared_ptr<const Foo>& foo) const {
/* A version using std::hash<Foo>:
std::hash<Foo> hasher;
return hasher(*foo);
*/
return foo->hash();
}
};
template<>
struct equal_to<std::shared_ptr<const Foo>> {
bool operator()(std::shared_ptr<const Foo> const & rhs,
std::shared_ptr<const Foo> const & lhs) const {
return *lhs == *rhs;
}
};
}
With that in place, you can simply declare your unordered_set like this:
std::unordered_set<std::shared_ptr<const Foo>> fooSet;
which now is the same as declaring it like this:
std::unordered_set<
std::shared_ptr<const Foo>,
std::hash<std::shared_ptr<const Foo>>,
std::equal_to<std::shared_ptr<const Foo>>
> fooSet;
I am trying to overload the subscript operator -i know it as the element access operator- to take a char * or a std::string.
I have a struct
struct foo
{
int Age;
const char *Name;
};
and a std::vector that will be holding multiple instances of this struct.
std::vector<foo>bar;
my goal is to be able to access each foo in bar by calling them by their name.
std::cout<<"Simon's age is: "<<bar["simon"];
I've just been searching google for a long while trying to find an example or something to go off, with no luck.
i thought that this would work
foo operator[](char *Name)
{
for(int i=0;i<bar.size();i++)
{
if(bar[i].Name == Name){return bar[i];}
}
}
however apparently i'm doing something wrong
I do know this could be done with an std::map but i'd rather use an std::vector, thanks.
I would greatly appreciate your help however you choose to offer it. Thank you .
To do what you want requires inheriting from std::vector. Otherwise you can't overload its methods.
Something like the following (untested).
struct fooVector : public std::vector<foo> {
typedef std::vector<foo> super;
using super::size;
...
foo& operator[](char const* Name) {
super& self=*this;
for(int i=0;i<size();i++)
{
if( ! strcmp( self[i].Name, Name) ){return self[i];}
}
// Need to do something reasonable if not found
}
};
bar[i].Name == Name
was probably meant to be
strcmp(bar[i].Name, Name) == 0
However, you'll be better off using std::strings than managing plain char pointers.
And instead of inheriting form a vector, create a class with a vector as a member and have your operator[] on that class.
First of all there are some problems with your test:
1) you're using const char* for string type, comparing with == would likely fail as you're comparing two pointers and not their content. you need to use strcmp or better use std::string (c++ way)
2) what if your index operator would not find the value you're looking for?
I don't think this is a proper way of doing this but in case you really want to use vector you can inherit your own class and define new operator which uses const char* as a index argument:
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
#include <string.h>
struct foo {
int age;
const char *name;
};
class MyVector : public std::vector<foo> {
public:
const foo* operator[](const char* name) const {
for (auto it=cbegin(); it != cend(); ++it) {
if (strcmp(it->name, name) == 0) {
return &(*it);
}
}
return nullptr;
}
};
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
foo foo1 = { 10, "abc" };
foo foo2 = { 20, "test" };
MyVector v;
v.push_back(foo1);
v.push_back(foo2);
std::cout << "test: " << v["test"]->age << std::endl;
}
Although it's not generally advised to inherit from stl containers (they don't have virtual destructors), if you don't add any data attributes to inherited class you should be fine.
But I would suggest you to consider using std::map as a container and std::string as index / name attribute type. Searching vector has linear complexity but std::map has logaritmic complexity. Or you can consider using hash tables.
I've been trying for the last three day to figure out how to implement a generic way of getting the value out of a boost::variant<...>, but it's been quite difficult.
Here is the solution I could come up with, which it not at all generic:
#include <iostream>
#include "boost\variant\variant.hpp"
using MyVariant = boost::variant<int, std::string>;
class VariantConverter : public boost::static_visitor<>
{
private:
mutable int _int;
mutable std::string _string;
static VariantConverter apply(MyVariant& v)
{
VariantConverter res;
v.apply_visitor(res);
return res; // copy will be elided, right?
}
public:
void operator()(int& i) const
{
_int = i;
}
void operator() (std::string& s) const
{
_string = s;
}
static int to_int(MyVariant v)
{
return apply(v).from_int();
}
static std::string to_string(MyVariant v)
{
return apply(v).from_string();
}
int from_int()
{
return _int;
};
std::string from_string()
{
return _string;
};
};
int main()
{
using namespace std;
MyVariant v = 23;
int i = VariantConverter::to_int(v);
cout << i << endl;
v = "Michael Jordan";
std::string s = VariantConverter::to_string(v);
cout << s.c_str() << endl;
cin.get();
return 0;
}
I'd appreciate it if someone could guide me towards a better solution.
Or perhaps someone could explain to me the rationale behind this:
if I declare a:
using MyVariant = boost::variant<int, std::string>;
and then a:
ConverterToInt : basic_visitor<int> {
public:
int operator() (int i) { return i; };
};
Why is it that when I try to apply the ConverterToInt to a MyVariant as such:
ConverterToInt cti;
MyVariant i = 10;
i.apply_visitor(cti);
I get a compiler error about trying to find a operator() that takes a std::string?
It seems to me that apply_visitor is trying to call an operator() for each of the types MyVariant can take. Is that so? If it is, why? How can i avoid this behavior?
Cheers!
You can avoid the error message by telling ConverterToInt what to do with a std::string. You might know that i can't be a std::string but it's unreasonable to expect the compiler to know that (and if it is true, why are you using a variant?).
apply_visitor will only call the correct operator() method, but it decides at run time, and the compiler needs to have all the possibilities covered to generate the code.
MyVariant iv = 10;
int i = boost::get<int>(iv);
boost::variant does not "call" each operator() of an interface when invoked, but it must be able to. That's the entire point. A variant can hold any of the template types, so if you want to define an operation on it, you must specify somewhere what that operation means for each type.
I need to implement an std::map with <std::string, fn_ptr> pairs. The function pointers are pointers to methods of the same class that owns the map. The idea is to have direct access to the methods instead of implementing a switch or an equivalent.
( I am using std::string as keys for the map )
I'm quite new to C++, so could anyone post some pseudo-code or link that talks about implementing a map with function pointers? ( pointers to methods owned by the same class that owns the map )
If you think there's a better approach to my problem, suggestions are also welcome.
This is about the simplest I can come up with. Note no error checking, and the map could probably usefully be made static.
#include <map>
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
struct A {
typedef int (A::*MFP)(int);
std::map <string, MFP> fmap;
int f( int x ) { return x + 1; }
int g( int x ) { return x + 2; }
A() {
fmap.insert( std::make_pair( "f", &A::f ));
fmap.insert( std::make_pair( "g", &A::g ));
}
int Call( const string & s, int x ) {
MFP fp = fmap[s];
return (this->*fp)(x);
}
};
int main() {
A a;
cout << a.Call( "f", 0 ) << endl;
cout << a.Call( "g", 0 ) << endl;
}
A template implementation could look like:
class Factory {
public:
enum which {
foo, bar, baz
};
template<which w>
A* newA(...);
...
};
template<Factory::which w>
A* Factory::newA(...) {
/* default implementation */
throw invalid_argument();
}
template<>
A* Factory::newA<Factory::foo>(...) {
/* specialization for a 'foo' style A */
...
}
....
This requires that the value used to determine which newA is called be known at compile time. You could potentially use a const char * as the template parameter, but it's not guaranteed to work on all compilers.
Yet another option is to create helper factories, one for each factory creation method, and store those in the map. This isn't a huge advantage over storing method pointers, but does let you define a default creation method and simplifies fetching things from the map (there's no need to check that the key exists, because you'll get a default factory). On the downside, an entry for each unknown key would be added to the map.
Also, if you use an enum rather than a string for the key type, you shouldn't need to worry about checking whether a key exists in the map. While it's possible for someone to pass an invalid enum key to newA, they'd have to explicitly cast the argument, which means they're not going to do it by accident. I'm having a hard time imagining a case where someone would purposefully cause a crash in newA; the potential scenarios involve security, but an application programmer could crash the app without using your class.
Since C++14, we can use a generic lambda to get rid easily of pointers to member methods.
It follows a minimal, working example of a forward function made up with a generic lambda function:
#include<utility>
#include<map>
#include<string>
#include<iostream>
struct SomeClass { };
struct SomeOtherClass { };
struct Test {
void test(SomeClass) { std::cout << "SomeClass" << std::endl; }
void test(SomeOtherClass) { std::cout << "SomeOtherClass" << std::endl; }
};
int main() {
Test test;
auto l = [&test](auto c){ test.test(c); };
std::map<std::string, decltype(l)> m;
m.emplace("foo", l);
m.emplace("bar", l);
m.at("foo")(SomeClass{});
m.at("bar")(SomeOtherClass{});
}
Another option is to use delegates as oppose to function pointers. This delegate implementation is pretty fast, supports polymorphisms, and plays well with stl containers.
You could have something like:
class MyClass {
public:
// defines
typedef fastdelegate::FastDelegate2<int, int, int> MyDelegate;
typedef std::map<std::string, MyDelegate> MyMap;
// populate your map of delegates
MyClass() {
_myMap["plus"] = fastdelegate::MakeDelegate(this, &Plus);
_myMap["minus"] = fastdelegate::MakeDelegate(this, &Minus);
}
bool Do(const std::string& operation, int a, int b, int& res){
MyMap::const_iterator it = _myMap.find(operation);
if (it != _myMap.end()){
res = it.second(a,b);
return true;
}
return false;
}
private:
int Plus (int a, int b) { return a+b; }
int Minus(int a, int b) { return a-b; }
MyMap _myMap;
};
I have the following class in C++:
class a {
const int b[2];
// other stuff follows
// and here's the constructor
a(void);
}
The question is, how do I initialize b in the initialization list, given that I can't initialize it inside the body of the function of the constructor, because b is const?
This doesn't work:
a::a(void) :
b([2,3])
{
// other initialization stuff
}
Edit: The case in point is when I can have different values for b for different instances, but the values are known to be constant for the lifetime of the instance.
With C++11 the answer to this question has now changed and you can in fact do:
struct a {
const int b[2];
// other bits follow
// and here's the constructor
a();
};
a::a() :
b{2,3}
{
// other constructor work
}
int main() {
a a;
}
Like the others said, ISO C++ doesn't support that. But you can workaround it. Just use std::vector instead.
int* a = new int[N];
// fill a
class C {
const std::vector<int> v;
public:
C():v(a, a+N) {}
};
It is not possible in the current standard. I believe you'll be able to do this in C++0x using initializer lists (see A Brief Look at C++0x, by Bjarne Stroustrup, for more information about initializer lists and other nice C++0x features).
std::vector uses the heap. Geez, what a waste that would be just for the sake of a const sanity-check. The point of std::vector is dynamic growth at run-time, not any old syntax checking that should be done at compile-time. If you're not going to grow then create a class to wrap a normal array.
#include <stdio.h>
template <class Type, size_t MaxLength>
class ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller {
private:
size_t length;
public:
ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller() : length(0) {
}
virtual ~ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller() {
}
virtual void Fill(Type *array) = 0;
protected:
void add_element(Type *array, const Type & element)
{
if(length >= MaxLength) {
// todo: throw more appropriate out-of-bounds exception
throw 0;
}
array[length] = element;
length++;
}
};
template <class Type, size_t Length>
class ConstFixedSizeArray {
private:
Type array[Length];
public:
explicit ConstFixedSizeArray(
ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller<Type, Length> & filler
) {
filler.Fill(array);
}
const Type *Array() const {
return array;
}
size_t ArrayLength() const {
return Length;
}
};
class a {
private:
class b_filler : public ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller<int, 2> {
public:
virtual ~b_filler() {
}
virtual void Fill(int *array) {
add_element(array, 87);
add_element(array, 96);
}
};
const ConstFixedSizeArray<int, 2> b;
public:
a(void) : b(b_filler()) {
}
void print_items() {
size_t i;
for(i = 0; i < b.ArrayLength(); i++)
{
printf("%d\n", b.Array()[i]);
}
}
};
int main()
{
a x;
x.print_items();
return 0;
}
ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller and ConstFixedSizeArray are reusable.
The first allows run-time bounds checking while initializing the array (same as a vector might), which can later become const after this initialization.
The second allows the array to be allocated inside another object, which could be on the heap or simply the stack if that's where the object is. There's no waste of time allocating from the heap. It also performs compile-time const checking on the array.
b_filler is a tiny private class to provide the initialization values. The size of the array is checked at compile-time with the template arguments, so there's no chance of going out of bounds.
I'm sure there are more exotic ways to modify this. This is an initial stab. I think you can pretty much make up for any of the compiler's shortcoming with classes.
ISO standard C++ doesn't let you do this. If it did, the syntax would probably be:
a::a(void) :
b({2,3})
{
// other initialization stuff
}
Or something along those lines. From your question it actually sounds like what you want is a constant class (aka static) member that is the array. C++ does let you do this. Like so:
#include <iostream>
class A
{
public:
A();
static const int a[2];
};
const int A::a[2] = {0, 1};
A::A()
{
}
int main (int argc, char * const argv[])
{
std::cout << "A::a => " << A::a[0] << ", " << A::a[1] << "\n";
return 0;
}
The output being:
A::a => 0, 1
Now of course since this is a static class member it is the same for every instance of class A. If that is not what you want, ie you want each instance of A to have different element values in the array a then you're making the mistake of trying to make the array const to begin with. You should just be doing this:
#include <iostream>
class A
{
public:
A();
int a[2];
};
A::A()
{
a[0] = 9; // or some calculation
a[1] = 10; // or some calculation
}
int main (int argc, char * const argv[])
{
A v;
std::cout << "v.a => " << v.a[0] << ", " << v.a[1] << "\n";
return 0;
}
Where I've a constant array, it's always been done as static. If you can accept that, this code should compile and run.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
class a {
static const int b[2];
public:
a(void) {
for(int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
printf("b[%d] = [%d]\n", i, b[i]);
}
}
};
const int a::b[2] = { 4, 2 };
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
a foo;
return 0;
}
You can't do that from the initialization list,
Have a look at this:
http://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/initialization-lists-c++.html
:)
A solution without using the heap with std::vector is to use boost::array, though you can't initialize array members directly in the constructor.
#include <boost/array.hpp>
const boost::array<int, 2> aa={ { 2, 3} };
class A {
const boost::array<int, 2> b;
A():b(aa){};
};
How about emulating a const array via an accessor function? It's non-static (as you requested), and it doesn't require stl or any other library:
class a {
int privateB[2];
public:
a(int b0,b1) { privateB[0]=b0; privateB[1]=b1; }
int b(const int idx) { return privateB[idx]; }
}
Because a::privateB is private, it is effectively constant outside a::, and you can access it similar to an array, e.g.
a aobj(2,3); // initialize "constant array" b[]
n = aobj.b(1); // read b[1] (write impossible from here)
If you are willing to use a pair of classes, you could additionally protect privateB from member functions. This could be done by inheriting a; but I think I prefer John Harrison's comp.lang.c++ post using a const class.
interestingly, in C# you have the keyword const that translates to C++'s static const, as opposed to readonly which can be only set at constructors and initializations, even by non-constants, ex:
readonly DateTime a = DateTime.Now;
I agree, if you have a const pre-defined array you might as well make it static.
At that point you can use this interesting syntax:
//in header file
class a{
static const int SIZE;
static const char array[][10];
};
//in cpp file:
const int a::SIZE = 5;
const char array[SIZE][10] = {"hello", "cruel","world","goodbye", "!"};
however, I did not find a way around the constant '10'. The reason is clear though, it needs it to know how to perform accessing to the array. A possible alternative is to use #define, but I dislike that method and I #undef at the end of the header, with a comment to edit there at CPP as well in case if a change.