I have a class that contains a private std::vector and a flag. Every time an Object inside the vector is modified I want to set that flag.
This is what I came up with..
struct Object
{
float f;
int i;
}
class SomeClass
{
private:
std::vector<Object> Data;
bool Updated;
public:
inline const std::vector<Object>& ReadData const
{
return Data;
}
inline std::vector<Object>& WriteData
{
Updated = false;
return Data;
}
}
This design is the safest I could come up with. The only issue with this is the fact I can bypass this safety mechanism when I'm using Data inside SomeClass.
So, even though I don't have lots of methods in SomeClass that operate on Data, could you suggest me a better design to achieve this? (Tracking every change to Data by setting Updated accordingly)
Your solution fails to achieve what you want.
SomeClass has an Update method that does some stuff and sets Updated to true. Data is used inside a couple of big functions, and first thing they do is to check Updated and call Update when it's false. Again this is just the best I could come up with and I always feel naked when showing my ideas to the experts here
I guess what you had in mind was something like this:
SomeClass sc;
auto& data = sc.WriteData();
sc.Update(); // checks if Updated is set to false
// if necessary Updates the data and
// resets Updated to true
sc.do_some_thing_with_data(); // this can use Data as is because Updated is true
But your "encapsulation" does not prevent a user to do this:
SomeClass sc;
auto& data = sc.WriteData(); // Updated = false
sc.Update(); // Updated = true
data[0] = 42; // modify Data
sc.do_some_thing_with_data(); // assumes data has not been modified
I suppose you actually want to call Update inside do_some_thing_with_data, however that does not change the problem:
auto& data = sc.WriteData(); // Updated = false
sc.do_some_thing_with_data(); // checks Updated, updates the data
// and resets Updated = true
// assumes data is updated -> OK
data[0] = 42;
sc.do_some_thing_with_data(); // checks Updated,
// does not update data because Updated is still true
// assumes data is updated -> WRONG
Once you returned a non-const reference you are no longer in control of modifiying the member. Your flag does not provide the "security" you expect. Returning a non-const reference is not encapsulation!
You can either not return a non-const reference, or don't pretend to encapsulate data when you don't encapusalte data (ie make the member public). If you want to be in control of modifications to data then do something along the line of:
class SomeClass
{
private:
std::vector<Object> Data;
bool Updated;
public:
const std::vector<Object>& ReadData const
{
return Data;
}
void WriteData(const Object& obj,size_t index)
{
Data[index] = obj;
Updated = false;
}
void WriteF(float f,size_t index){
Data[index].f = f;
Updated = false;
}
void WriteI(int i,size_t index){
Data[index].i = i;
Updated = false;
}
}
And if you are worried about SomeClass being able to modify Data by bypassing the setters then thats because you want SomeClass do too much. Do other stuff in a different class:
struct SomeOtherClass {
SomeClass sc;
};
Now SomeOtherClass can only modify Data in a controlled way.
PS: You seem to got confused by encapsulation vs no encapsulation. To reiterate: Returning a non-const reference is not encapsulation. If you want to encapsulate Data then make it private and do not provide direct access to it. The class that is in charge of encapsulating data has direct access to it. Other classes don't.
The only issue with this is the fact I can bypass this safety mechanism when I'm using Data inside SomeClass.
Sooooo encapsulate what you want to encapsulate, not something else. You could put your whole program in the class, and argue it would have access then to all private members. So don't, encapsulate it.
class Data {
std::vector<Object> data;
bool updated;
public:
std::vector<Object>& read() const {
return data;
}
std::vector<Object>& write() {
updated = false;
return Data;
}
};
class SomeClass {
Data data;
public:
const std::vector<Object>& readData() const {
return data.read();
}
std::vector<Object>& writeData() {
return data.write();
}
};
Related
Guys I have a function like this (this is given and should not be modified).
void readData(int &ID, void*&data, bool &mybool) {
if(mybool)
{
std::string a = "bla";
std::string* ptrToString = &a;
data = ptrToString;
}
else
{
int b = 9;
int* ptrToint = &b;
data = ptrToint;
}
}
So I want to use this function in a loop and save the returned function parameters in a vector (for each iteration).
To do so, I wrote the following struct:
template<typename T>
struct dataStruct {
int id;
T** data; //I first has void** data, but would not be better to
// have the type? instead of converting myData back
// to void* ?
bool mybool;
};
my main.cpp then look like this:
int main()
{
void* myData = nullptr;
std::vector<dataStruct> vec; // this line also doesn't compile. it need the typename
bool bb = false;
for(int id = 1 ; id < 5; id++) {
if (id%2) { bb = true; }
readData(id, myData, bb); //after this line myData point to a string
vec.push_back(id, &myData<?>); //how can I set the template param to be the type myData point to?
}
}
Or is there a better way to do that without template? I used c++11 (I can't use c++14)
The function that you say cannot be modified, i.e. readData() is the one that should alert you!
It causes Undefined Behavior, since the pointers are set to local variables, which means that when the function terminates, then these pointers will be dangling pointers.
Let us leave aside the shenanigans of the readData function for now under the assumption that it was just for the sake of the example (and does not produce UB in your real use case).
You cannot directly store values with different (static) types in a std::vector. Notably, dataStruct<int> and dataStruct<std::string> are completely unrelated types, you cannot store them in the same vector as-is.
Your problem boils down to "I have data that is given to me in a type-unsafe manner and want to eventually get type-safe access to it". The solution to this is to create a data structure that your type-unsafe data is parsed into. For example, it seems that you inteded for your example data to have structure in the sense that there are pairs of int and std::string (note that your id%2 is not doing that because the else is missing and the bool is never set to false again, but I guess you wanted it to alternate).
So let's turn that bunch of void* into structured data:
std::pair<int, std::string> readPair(int pairIndex)
{
void* ptr;
std::pair<int, std::string> ret;
// Copying data here.
readData(2 * pairIndex + 1, ptr, false);
ret.first = *reinterpret_cast<int*>(ptr);
readData(2 * pairIndex + 2, ptr, true);
ret.second = *reinterpret_cast<std::string*>(ptr);
}
void main()
{
std::vector<std::pair<int, std::string>> parsedData;
parsedData.push_back(readPair(0));
parsedData.push_back(readPair(1));
}
Demo
(I removed the references from the readData() signature for brevity - you get the same effect by storing the temporary expressions in variables.)
Generally speaking: Whatever relation between id and the expected data type is should just be turned into the data structure - otherwise you can only reason about the type of your data entries when you know both the current ID and this relation, which is exactly something you should encapsulate in a data structure.
Your readData isn't a useful function. Any attempt at using what it produces gives undefined behavior.
Yes, it's possible to do roughly what you're asking for without a template. To do it meaningfully, you have a couple of choices. The "old school" way would be to store the data in a tagged union:
struct tagged_data {
enum { T_INT, T_STR } tag;
union {
int x;
char *y;
} data;
};
This lets you store either a string or an int, and you set the tag to tell you which one a particular tagged_data item contains. Then (crucially) when you store a string into it, you dynamically allocate the data it points at, so it will remain valid until you explicitly free the data.
Unfortunately, (at least if memory serves) C++11 doesn't support storing non-POD types in a union, so if you went this route, you'd have to use a char * as above, not an actual std::string.
One way to remove (most of) those limitations is to use an inheritance-based model:
class Data {
public:
virtual ~Data() { }
};
class StringData : public Data {
std::string content;
public:
StringData(std::string const &init) : content(init) {}
};
class IntData : public Data {
int content;
public:
IntData(std::string const &init) : content(init) {}
};
This is somewhat incomplete, but I think probably enough to give the general idea--you'd have an array (or vector) of pointers to the base class. To insert data, you'd create a StringData or IntData object (allocating it dynamically) and then store its address into the collection of Data *. When you need to get one back, you use dynamic_cast (among other things) to figure out which one it started as, and get back to that type safely. All somewhat ugly, but it does work.
Even with C++11, you can use a template-based solution. For example, Boost::variant, can do this job quite nicely. This will provide an overloaded constructor and value semantics, so you could do something like:
boost::variant<int, std::string> some_object("input string");
In other words, it's pretty what you'd get if you spent the time and effort necessary to finish the inheritance-based code outlined above--except that it's dramatically cleaner, since it gets rid of the requirement to store a pointer to the base class, use dynamic_cast to retrieve an object of the correct type, and so on. In short, it's the right solution to the problem (until/unless you can upgrade to a newer compiler, and use std::variant instead).
Apart from the problem in given code described in comments/replies.
I am trying to answer your question
vec.push_back(id, &myData<?>); //how can I set the template param to be the type myData point to?
Before that you need to modify vec definition as following
vector<dataStruct<void>> vec;
Now you can simple push element in vector
vec.push_back({id, &mydata, bb});
i have tried to modify your code so that it can work
#include<iostream>
#include<vector>
using namespace std;
template<typename T>
struct dataStruct
{
int id;
T** data;
bool mybool;
};
void readData(int &ID, void*& data, bool& mybool)
{
if (mybool)
{
data = new string("bla");
}
else
{
int b = 0;
data = &b;
}
}
int main ()
{
void* mydata = nullptr;
vector<dataStruct<void>> vec;
bool bb = false;
for (int id = 0; id < 5; id++)
{
if (id%2) bb = true;
readData(id, mydata, bb);
vec.push_back({id, &mydata, bb});
}
}
I am working with a large code base, and there are a number of publicly defined variables. Unfortunately, the functions of accessing these variables has changed, and this new functionality would be best encapsulated by public accessors and a private instance variable.
So, I am trying to make this change. To do so, I planned to make each public property private and then create accessors. But, I don't want to change any of the code which accesses the old public properties. For example:
After changing the public property to private, I have the following class:
class Test {
private:
int item = 5;
public:
int GetItem() {
return item;
};
void SetItem(int new_item) {
item = new_item;
};
};
In the past, "item" used to be a public property of the class, and it was accessed through:
Test* t = new Test();
int item = t->item;
Now though, I need to add new functionality to the way in which "item" is retrieved. For example:
int GetItem() {
// Some complicated code which changes "item"
return item;
};
How can I keep the same syntax:
int item = t->item;
But have this actually perform:
int item = t->GetItem();
Any help is greatly appreciated!
You can make int item = t.item; work, by defining item as a member variable whose type is a helper class with a custom conversion operator int() defined. Also, operator=(int new_value) to intercept the set operation.
What you can't make work is
int& item = t.item;
or
int* pitem = &t.item;
because both of these enable direct memory access, without going through any getter or setter. When creating the reference or pointer, you can't even determine how many accesses there will be or whether they will be reads or writes.
C++ is a compiled non-reflective language, i.e. you can't just "look names up as you access an element", because in the binary, there are no names anymore.
So, no, what you want is impossible. (at least not without restrictions – see Ben Voigt's excellent answer; having a "transparent" property which is in fact a getter call surely isn't worth the pitfalls you're building with that-)
Also, please don't let your C++ become Java just for the sake of having getters and setters – if they don't actually add security, I don't really see the point of using them
In case that your question is based in the fact that you don't want to call 2 different functions for setting and getting, you can make a function that returns a reference of the member:
int& Item()
{
// Some complicated code which changes *items
return item;
}
as you can see, the return type is int& instead of int. so you can use this function this way
t.Item() = someValue;
To expand on Ben Voight's answer, you can define a proxy template that allows this without the boiler plate:
template <typename Return, typename Containing, Return (Containing::* func)()>
struct proxy
{
Containing& c;
proxy(Containing& c) : c(c) {}
operator Return() { return (c.*func)(); }
Return& operator=(const Return& r) { return (c.*set)() = r; }
};
Then to define a "property"
class c {
int y_;
int get_y() { std::cout << "Getting y" << std::endl; return y_; }
public:
proxy<int, x, &x::get_y> y;
c() : y(*this) {}
};
And in client code
int main() {
c val;
val.y = 5;
std::cout << val.y << std::endl;
}
I have a very similiar question asked already 2012.
Critical Sections and return values in C++
I'd like to access a container thread safe aswell but instead return a cached version by reference.
struct Container {
const Data& getSomeData() const {
EnterCriticalSection(& myCritSec);
if (update) {
cache.calulatefromcontainer();
}
// fill retobj with data from structure
LeaveCriticalSection(& myCritSec);
return cache;
}
private:
mutable Data cache;
};
The problem is, that "return cache" line isn't protected anymore. Is it possible to return "cache" thread safe by reference?
You have to think what your critical section is actually protecting.
In your code, it looks like myCritSec is protecting the container. But notably, it is not protecting the cache member variable. That is not because the return cache; line but because you are returning a reference to it, so it could be used unrestricted by client code while other thread calls getSomeData() again and modifies it.
One solution would be to return a copy of the data.
Another solution would be that every public function usable to get information from Data will somehow use the myCritSec of the parent container. The problem with this approach is that it would be very easy to fall into races. For example:
class Data
{
public:
int getA() const
{
int res;
EnterCriticalSection(parentCS);
res = getAunlocked();
LeaveCriticalSection(parentCS);
return res;
}
int getB() const
{
int res;
EnterCriticalSection(parentCS);
res = getBunlocked();
LeaveCriticalSection(parentCS);
return res;
}
};
And then in the user code:
const Data &data = container.getSomeData();
if (data.getA() == data.getB()) // <--- RACE!!!
{
}
Since the call to getA() and getB() are each locking and unlocking the CS, another thread might modify the data just in between and create a race condition.
im working in a text-based RPG game, but when I'm setting the values to X variable, when I access that propertie again, it is in its default value, am I doing something wrong?
class Game
{
private:
bool podeAndar;
bool estaBatalhando;
Jogador _jogador;
Mapa _mapa;
public:
Game() { }
Game(Jogador _j){
_jogador = Jogador(_j.getNome());
_mapa.LoadMapa();
podeAndar = true;
estaBatalhando = false;
}
~Game(void)
{
}
Jogador getJogador() {
return _jogador;
}
void setJogador(Jogador v) {
_jogador = v;
}
}
My "Player" class
#pragma once
#include "Criatura.h"
#include <string>
class Jogador :
public Criatura
{
private:
int _cap;
public:
Jogador(std::string nome)
{
setNome(nome);
setCap(150);
}
Jogador() { }
~Jogador(void)
{
}
int getCap(){
return _cap;
}
void setCap(int v){
_cap = v;
}
}
Them my "Main" - when I set the value, when I'm following it in the debugger, it sets the value correctly, but when I access the game.getJogador().getCap() again, it has the default value 150.
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
Jogador _player = Jogador("Kyore");
Game game = Game(_player);
while(true){
std::cout << game.getJogador().getCap(); //print 150
game.getJogador().setCap(100); //set cap to 100
std::cout << game.getJogador().getCap(); //print 150 again
break;
}
}
In Game class, change this
Jogador getJogador() {
return _jogador;
}
to
Jogador& getJogador() {
return _jogador;
}
And add one more method only to read:
const Jogador& getJogador()const {
return _jogador;
}
Update for the questions asked in the comment
To fix your specific issue of value remaining as 150 inspite of setting a new value, converting the return type to reference is enough.
Why returning reference works?
Because, whenever your original version of getJogador() is called, a copy of the object is
created. Even though you are changing its value, you are actually
changing the value of the temporary object created, not the original
one.
So as your intention is to modify the original object, we need
to access the original one, not its temporary copy. Reference is
the better mechanism in such cases (pointer being the other mechanism, but less safer than reference)
Now about why I suggested the new over load of a const member
function, returning a const reference: this is to highlight to you that it is possible to still get the object without changing its internal state unintentionally. Your sample code does not differentiate between the two getJogador() functions.
So to understand, add these two functions to your Game class:
void DontManipulate()const { std::cout<<getJogador().getCap(); }
void Manipulate() { std::cout<<getJogador().getCap(); }
See the compiler error(s) that you get: - it should throw light on the differences.
Additionally, if you std::cout some message in both the getJogador() functions, you should be able to figure out the differences.
The problem is in your getJogador() method.
In C++, objects can be passed "by value" - which is where the program (usually) copies the object's raw data into a new location, whereas in C# and Java objects are always passed by reference (not counting C#'s structs which are passed by-value similar to C++). C++ will use the "copy constructor" to perform this copy. C++ will create the copy constructor if it isn't explicitly defined in your code, the signature has the form ClassName(ClassName& other);, the default (non-explicit) copy-constructor performs a shallow, member-wise copy operation.
In your case, your getJogador method is returning a copy of your Jogador instance field's data.
Change the method to return a reference or a pointer, like so:
Jogador& getJogador() const {
return _jogador;
}
or
Jogador* getJogador() const {
return &_jogador;
}
The const modifier informs the compiler that this method is not intended to modify the state of your Game class, so the compiler might perform certain optimizations as well as prevent successful compilation if the method does attempt to modify state.
I have been beating my head around this issue of static versus non-static, callback functions, function pointers, etc... My goal is to access data of a struct outside the scope of my callback interface. I am trying to do this within my class called TextDetect. I thought I was on track when I asked this question: Avoiding a static member function in c++ when using a callback interface from C
However, I still can't access the data without losing scope over the data that I am most interested. At runtime, I get "Access violation reading location ..." I'll point it out below where it fails.
I implemented the answer to my previous question as the following class, shown entirely (Note: vtrInitialize is part of a 3rd party api code int vtrInitialize(const char *inifile, vtrCallback cb, void *calldata);):
class TextDetect {
const char * inifile;
vtrImage *vtrimage;
int framecount;
public:
TextDetect();
~TextDetect();
void vtrCB(vtrTextTrack *track);
static void vtrCB_thunk(vtrTextTrack *track, void *calldata);
int vtrTest(cv::Mat);
bool DrawBox(cv::Mat&);
vtrTextTrack *texttrack;
};
TextDetect::TextDetect() : inifile("vtr.ini")
{
if (vtrInitialize(inifile, vtrCB_thunk, static_cast<void *>(this) ) == -1)
std::cout << "Error: Failure to initialize" << std::endl;
vtrimage = new vtrImage;
}
int TextDetect::vtrTest(cv::Mat imagetest)
{
/*store image data in an image structure*/
}
void TextDetect::vtrCB(vtrTextTrack *track)
{
/*send data to command line from callback */
I've tried copying the data I need a variety of ways and nothing works (this code is a continuation from above):
//texttrack = track;
//texttrack = new vtrTextTrack (*track);
memcpy(texttrack,track,sizeof(*track));
//vtrTextTrackFree(track);
}
void TextDetect::vtrCB_thunk(vtrTextTrack *track, void *calldata)
{
static_cast<TextDetect *>(calldata)->vtrCB(track);
}
This is the member function were I want the data to be used. Texttrack is public member so I might need it outside my class as well (this code is a continuation from above):
bool TextDetect::DrawBox(cv::Mat& tobeboxed)
{
And I get the access violation error at runtime here at this line of code (this code is a continuation from above):
if (texttrack->best->ocrconf > 90)
{
/*do some more stuff*/
}
}
Hopefully I'm understanding this correctly.
It seems to me that the problem is trying to copy those vtrTextTrack structs improperly.
This:
//texttrack = track;
just copies the pointer. If the owner of the struct (probably the caller of the callback function) destroys/deletes the vtrTextTrack, then you're holding on to an invalid pointer.
This one:
memcpy(texttrack,track,sizeof(*track));
will copy all the members of the vtrTextTrack, but will not copy what's being pointed to by it's member pointers (e.g. texttrack->best). Again, if the owner destroys/deletes the track, then you're holding on to invalid pointers.
And since
//texttrack = new vtrTextTrack (*track);
didn't work, I'm guessing that vtrTextTrack doesn't provide a copy constructor.
As for a workaround, first check if your third party library provides a function to copy these structs. If that's not the case (could this be by design?), then you may have to implement one yourself. This might be hard because there might be all kinds of internals that you don't know about. If you don't need the whole vtrTextTrack, I'd say define another struct and store only the information you need. Something along the lines of
SomeType* bestCopier(SomeType* src)
{
SomeType* temp;
/* copy over struct */
return temp;
}
Foo* fooCopier(Foo* src)
{
/*...*/
}
struct myTextTrack
{
public:
myTextTrack(vtrTextTrack* src)
{
//copy over stuff
m_best = bestCopier(src->best);
m_foo = fooCopier(src->foo);
}
private:
/* the members you care about*/
SomeType* m_best;
Foo * m_foo;
}