I would like to ask about my approach to using pointers raw pointers without allocating any memory using pointers. I am working on an application, that is simulating classical cashdesk. So I have a class CashDesk, which is containing vectors of Items and vector of Orders, which are classes to represent items and orders. Furthermore, I want the Order class to contain a vector, which would be a vector of pointers to Item – I don't want to store the object multiple times in different orders, because it makes no sense to me. Through the pointers in Order, I only want to be able to access properties of the class Item, there is no allocating of memory using the pointers.
Simplified code:
class CashDesk {
vector<Item> items;
vector<Order> orders;
}
class Order {
vector<Item*> ItemsInOrder;
}
Class Item containing only structured data – information about the Item.
I create all objects at the level of the CashDesk class – create instance of Item when needed and push it to items vector.
I have been told that I should avoid using raw pointers unless there is no another option. The important thing is that I don't use any memory allocation using pointers – really using the pointer in terms of pointing at the object and accessing it's properties. Should I rather use something like unique_ptr, or completely different approach?
Thanks for any response.
I have been told that I should avoid using raw pointers unless there is no another option.
You have been told something subtly wrong. You should avoid owning raw pointers, but non-owning raw pointers are perfectly fine.
You will have to ensure that the elements of Order::itemsInOrder aren't invalidated by operations on CashDesk::items, but that co-ordination should be within the private parts of CashDesk.
You could be more explicit about the lack of ownership semantic, by using std::vector<Item>::iterator in place of Item *, but that doesn't change any behaviour (a conforming implementation may implement std::vector<Item>::iterator as an alias of Item *)
Related
Simply written I would like to ask "what is a good reason to use smart pointers?"
for ex std::unique_ptr
However, I am not asking for reasons to use smart pointers over regular (dumb) pointers. I think every body knows that or a quick search can find the reason.
What I am asking is a comparison of these two cases:
Given a class (or a struct) named MyObject use
std:queue<std::unique_ptr<MyObject>>queue;
rather than
std:queue<MyObject> queue;
(it can be any container, not necessarily a queue)
Why should someone use option 1 rather than 2?
That is actually a good question.
There are a few reasons I can think of:
Polymorphism works only with references and pointers, not with value types. So if you want to hold derived objects in a container you can't have std::queue<MyObject>. One options is unique_ptr, another is reference_wrapper
the contained objects are referenced (*) from outside of the container. Depending on the container, the elements it holds can move, invalidating previous references to it. For instance std::vector::insert or the move of the container itself. In this case std::unique_ptr<MyObject> assures that the reference is valid, regardless of what the container does with it (ofc, as long as the unique_ptr is alive).
In the following example in Objects you can add a bunch of objects in a queue. However two of those objects can be special and you can access those two at any time.
struct MyObject { MyObject(int); };
struct Objects
{
std::queue<std::unique_ptr<MyObject>> all_objects_;
MyObject* special_object_ = nullptr;
MyObject* secondary_special_object_ = nullptr;
void AddObject(int i)
{
all_objects_.emplace(std::make_unique<MyObject>(i));
}
void AddSpecialObject(int i)
{
auto& emplaced = all_objects_.emplace(std::make_unique<MyObject>(i));
special_object_ = emplaced.get();
}
void AddSecondarySpecialObject(int i)
{
auto& emplaced = all_objects_.emplace(std::make_unique<MyObject>(i));
secondary_special_object_ = emplaced.get();
}
};
(*) I use "reference" here with its english meaning, not the C++ type. Any way to refer to an object (e.g. via a raw pointer)
Usecase: You want to store something in a std::vector with constant indices, while at the same time being able to remove objects from that vector.
If you use pointers, you can delete a pointed to object and set vector[i] = nullptr, (and also check for it later) which is something you cannot do when storing objects themselves. If you'd store Objects you would have to keep the instance in the vector and use a flag bool valid or something, because if you'd delete an object from a vector all indices after that object's index change by -1.
Note: As mentioned in a comment to this answer, the same can be archieved using std::optional, if you have access to C++17 or later.
The first declaration generates a container with pointer elements and the second one generates pure objects.
Here are some benefits of using pointers over objects:
They allow you to create dynamically sized data structures.
They allow you to manipulate memory directly (such as when packing or
unpacking data from hardware devices.)
They allow object references(function or data objects)
They allow you to manipulate an object(through an API) without needing to know the details of the object(other than the API.)
(raw) pointers are usually well matched to CPU registers, which makes dereferencing a value via a pointer efficient. (C++ “smart” pointers are more complicated data objects.)
Also, polymorphism is considered as one of the important features of Object-Oriented Programming.
In C++ polymorphism is mainly divided into two types:
Compile-time Polymorphism
This type of polymorphism is achieved by function overloading or operator overloading.
Runtime Polymorphism
This type of polymorphism is achieved by Function Overriding which if we want to use the base class to use these functions, it is necessary to use pointers instead of objects.
I have a vector of journeys and a vector of locations. A journey is between two places.
struct Data {
std::vector<Journey> m_journeys;
std::vector<Locations> m_locations;
};
struct Journey {
?? m_startLocation;
?? m_endLocation;
};
How can I create the relationship between each journey and two locations?
I thought I could just store references/pointers to the start and end locations, however if more locations are added to the vector, then it will reallocate storage and move all the locations elsewhere in memory, and then the pointers to the locations will point to junk.
I could store the place names and then search the list in Data, but that would require keeping a reference to Data (breaking encapsulation/SRP), and then a not so efficient search.
I think if all the objects were created on the heap, then shared_ptr could be used, (so Data would contain std::vector<std::shared_ptr<Journey>>), then this would work? (it would require massive rewrite so avoiding this would be preferable)
Is there some C++/STL feature that is like a pointer but abstracts away/is independent of memory location (or order in the vector)?
No, there isn't any "C++/STL feature that is like a pointer but abstracts away/is independent of memory location".
That answers that.
This is simply not the right set of containers for such a relationship between classes. You have to pick the appropriate container for your objects first, instead of selecting some arbitrary container first, and then trying to figure out how to make it work with your relationship.
Using a vector of std::shared_ptrs would be one option, just need to watch out for circular references. Another option would be to use std::list instead of std::vector, since std::list does not reallocate when it grows.
If each Locations instance has a unique identifier of some kind, using a std::map, and then using that location identifier to refer to a location, and then looking it up in the map. Although a std::map also doesn't reallocate upon growth, the layer of indirection offers some value as well.
I'd say make a vector<shared_ptr<Location>>for your index of locations, and Journey would contain two weak_ptr<Location>.
struct Data {
std::vector<Journey> m_journeys;
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<Location>> m_locations;
};
struct Journey {
std::weak_ptr<Location> m_startLocation;
std::weak_ptr<Location> m_endLocation;
};
std::weak_ptr can dangle and that's exactly what you want. :)
The concern is that one could access a Journey containing a deleted Location. A weak pointer provides an expired() method that can tell you if the data of the parent shared pointer (that would be in your m_locations vector) still exists.
Accessing data from a weak pointer is safe, and will require the use of the lock() method.
Here is a great example of how one usually uses a weak pointer:
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/weak_ptr/lock
See this example.
an University class has a Director and many student So my class will be like this
a)
class University {
Director d;
Student list[1000];
};
or
b)
class University {
Director* d;
Student* list[1000];
};
My problem is how to decide whether class attributes should be pointer or value.
Most all other answers focus on the detail of heap vs. direct containment (or provide no information at all, like use pointers when you want pointers... Rather than focusing on the details, consider the overall design of the application.
The first question would be about ownership. In your program, are those students and director owned by the class? Or do they exist outside of the class scope. In most simple applications, the objects might only exist inside the class, but in other more complex designs, the students might belong to the school, and only be referenced in the class (or the director might also teach some courses to other classes). If the class owns the objects, the composition will be the best approach: hold the director directly as a member, and the students inside a container that is directly held by the class (I would recommend a vector, which is the safe choice for most cases).
If the objects don't belong to the class, then you will rather use aggregation. Whoever owns the object will have to manage the lifetimes and decide how to store the real objects and the class would only hold references (in the general sense) to those objects. Things get more complicated as there are more choices. If ownership can be transferred, then you would dynamically allocate the objects and hold pointers, where you should read smart pointers so that memory will be managed for you.
If ownership does not change and the lifetime of the students/director are guaranteed to extend beyond the lifetime of the class, you could use references. In particular for the director. In the case of the students, it will be more complex as you cannot have containers of plain references, so the solution might still be pointers there, a vector of pointers. Another issue with references is that they cannot be reseated, which means that if you hold a reference to the director, the director of the class will be fixed for the whole lifetime of the class and you won't be able to replace her.
Design is somehow complicated and you will learn with experience, but hopefully this will provide a quick start onto your problem.
The issue here is: Where is the storage for these member variables? Sometimes it makes sense that a piece of data was allocated somewhere else and used other places. In that case a pointer may make sense (rather than using a copy constructor). However, usually that isn't the case (especially with encapsulation). Then you want to store the member data in the class. In such a case, and your example looks like it is, you don't want to use a pointer.
how to decide whether class attributes should be pointer or value
I would mostly go for value (i.e. object). In some special cases, I will choose a pointer (may be a smart one!). For your case, below would suffice:
class University {
Director d;
std::vector<Student> list;
public:
University () { list.reserve(1000); }
};
The advantage of having an object is that you don't have to do your own garbage collection as the resource management will be automatic.
Pointers can be used, when you want to change the ownership of the resource (similar to shallow copy), at the same time avoiding expensive copies created during copy c-tor or assignment. In all other cases, use objects (i.e. value) for composition.
Well it depends. Pointers should be used when you want to add stuff to the heap, while this means you have a bit more freedom in when/how you allocate memory, you have to add more code to avoid memory leaks: ie destructors and deleting stuff. It also allows you to easily modify the values from other functions/classes without having to pass a reference, just pass it in its pointer form.
One obvious situation when pointers are totally needed is in a binary tree node object, since it must contain objects of the same type as itself, it must use pointers to those objects. IE:
struct Node{
Node* left;
Node* right;
//Other stuff
};
In many situations however, its up to your own discretion. Just be responsible for your pointers if you use them.
Actually there are three options
1. Object
2. Reference
3. Pointer
It's part of the design/architect .. on what to use for what object.
Mostly .. the deciding criteria will be, lifecycles of the objects and the containers.
In both cases the class attributes are being stored by value, it just happens that in the second case those values are pointers.
Use pointers when you want pointers, use non-pointers when you don't want pointers. This entirely depends on the desired semantics of the class that you are writing.
This is what i would go for:
class University {
Director d;
Student **list;
};
Even though its much of a personal matter. i think using pointer to pointer is better in this case if you know what you are playing with!
I dont think a pointer array is a good choice. If you dont want pointers then use Value
Is it possible to store a bunch of objects by their base class in say an std::list without pointers. I would really like the objects to be held in the container, then retrieve a pointer to the object in the container and dynamic_cast it to correct derived class.
I have it working fine using pointers. Like (super simple version):
class IComponent
{
virtual ~Icomponent(){}
}
class PositionComponent: public IComponent
{
//...
float x, y;
}
std::list<IComponent*> CList;
//...
// fill the list
// put reference to object in pComponent
//...
PositionComponent* position = dynamic_cast<PositionComponent*>( pComponent)
position->x = 346452.235612;
But the memory management is a huge pain. My actual structure is a
map<enumValue, map<int, IComponent*> >
I get the feeling I can't use the objects themselves because when I add any derived component into the list the extra data will be cut off and leave me with the base class only. This didn't figure this until I tried static_cast instead and it crashed.
Can answer my original question and/or confirm my feelings on the matter. Thanks!
to minimize pain of manual memory management use smart pointers: std::unique_ptr if your compiler already supports it or boost::shared_ptr, but not std::auto_ptr that is not supposed to be used in containers
As you guessed, when you stored an object in a container by value, it gets sliced and the data is chopped off.
If you only need to store one data type (you only show one in your code), then you can make the container hold that type.
If not, you really are stuck using pointers. You can make the memory management much easier by using a smart pointer, or if appropriate, a boost ptr_container of some sort.
Further you might want to think if you need to spend one more iteration considering your design to provide an interface that doesn't require doing a dynamic_cast to get the original type back out again.
Is it possible to store a bunch of objects by their base class in say
an std::list without pointers.
This sentence seems to be contrdicted in C++ point of view IMO. Because STL container can only hold same type of object, if you put derived object into a base type container, it got sliced.
So the apparent normal solution is to use container to hold base type pointers like you did(u could use boost/std smart pointer for memory management)
If you really want to store different objects in one STL container, you may want to consider use boost::any.
I have two lines of code I want explained a bit please. As much as you can tell me. Mainly the benefits of each and what is happening behind the scenes with memory and such.
Here are two structs as an example:
struct Employee
{
std::string firstname, lastname;
char middleInitial;
Date hiringDate; // another struct, not important for example
short department;
};
struct Manager
{
Employee emp; // manager employee record
list<Employee*>group; // people managed
};
Which is better to use out of these two in the above struct and why?
list<Employee*>group;
list<Employee>group;
First of all, std::list is a doubly-linked list. So both those statements are creating a linked list of employees.
list<Employee*> group;
This creates a list of pointers to Employee objects. In this case there needs to be some other code to allocate each employee before you can add it to the list. Similarly, each employee must be deleted separately, std::list will not do this for you. If the list of employees is to be shared with some other entity this would make sense. It'd probably be better to place the employee in a smart pointer class to prevent memory leaks. Something like
typedef std::list<std::shared_ptr<Employee>> EmployeeList;
EmployeeList group;
This line
list<Employee>group;
creates a list of Employee objects by value. Here you can construct Employee objects on the stack, add them to the list and not have to worry about memory allocation. This makes sense if the employee list is not shared with anything else.
One is a list of pointers and the other is a list of objects. If you've already allocated the objects, the first makes sense.
You probably want to use the second one, if you store the "people managed" to be persisted also in another location. To elaborate: if you also have a global list of companyEmployees you probably want to have pointers, as you want to share the object representing an employee between the locations (so that, for example, if you update the name the change is "seen" from both locations).
If instead you only want to know "why a list of structs instead of a list of pointers" the answer is: better memory locality, no need to de-allocate the single Employee objects, but careful that every assignement to/from a list node (for example, through an iterator and its * operator) copies the whole struct and not just a pointer.
The first one stores the objects by pointer. In this case you need to carefully document who owns the allocated memory and who's responsible for cleaning it up when done. The second one stores the objects by value and has full control of their lifespan.
Which one to use depends on context you haven't given in your question although I favor the second slightly as a default because it doesn't leave open the possibility of mismanaging your memory.
But after all that, carefully consider if list is actually the right container choice for you. Typically it's a low-priority container that satisfies very specific needs. I almost always favor vector and deque first for random access containers, or set and map for ordered containers.
If you do need to store pointers in the container, boost provides ptr-container classes that manage the memory for you, or I suggest storing some sort of smart pointer so that the memory is cleaned up automatically when the object isn't needed anymore.
A lot depends on what you are doing. For starters, do you really want
Manager to contain an Employee, rather than to be one: the classical
example of a manager (one of the classic OO examples) would be:
struct Manager : public Employee
{
list<Employee*> group;
};
Otherwise, you have the problem that you cannot put managers into the
group of another manager; you're limited to one level in the management
hierarchy.
The second point is that in order to make an intelligent decision, you
have to understand the role of Employee in the program. If Employee
is just a value: some hard data, typically immutable (except by
assignment of a complete Employee), then list<Employee> group is
definitely to be preferred: don't use pointers unless you have to. If
Employee is a "entity", which models some external entity (say an
employee of the firm), you would generally make it uncopyable and
unassignable, and use list<Employee*> (with some sort of mechanism to
inform the Manager when the employee is fired, and the pointed to
object is deleted). If managers are employees, and you don't want to
loose this fact when they are added to a group, then you have to use the
pointer version: polymorphism requires pointers or references to work
(and you can't have a container of references).
The two lists are good, but they will require a completely different handling.
list<Employee*>group;
is a list of pointers to objects of type Employee and you will store there pointers to objects allocated dynamically, and you will need to be particularly clear as to who will delete those objects.
list<Employee>group;
is a list of objects of type Employee; you get the benefit (and associated cost in terms of performance) of dealing with concrete instances that you do not need to memory manage yourself.
Specifically, one of the advantages of using std::list compared to a plain array, is that you can have a list of objects and avoid the cost and risks of dealing with dynamic memory allocation and pointers.
With a list of objects, you can do, e. g.
Employee a; // object allocated in the stack
list.push_back(a); // the list does a copy for you
Employee* b = new Employee....
list.push_back(*b); // the object pointed is copied
delete b;
With a list of pointers you are forced at using always dynamic allocation, in practice, or refer to object whose lifetime is longer than the list's (if you can guarantee it).
By using a std::list of pointers, you are more or less in the same situation as when using a plain array of pointers as far as memory management is concerned. The only advantage you get is that the list can grow dynamically without effort on your part.
I personally don't see much sense in using a list of pointers; basically, because I think that pointers should be used (always, when possible) through smart pointers. So, if you really need pointers, you will be better off, IMO, using a list of smart pointers provided by boost.
Use the first one if you're allocating or accessing the structures separately.
Use the second one if you'll only be allocating/accessing them through the list.
First one defines a list of pointers to objects, the second a list of objects.
The first version (with pointers) is preferred by most of the programmers.
The main reason is that STL is copying elements by value making sorting and internal reallocation more efficient.
You probably want to use unique_ptr<> or auto_ptr<> or shared_ptr<> rather then plain old * pointers. This goes some if not the whole way of having both the expected use without much of the memory issues with using non-heap objects...