Builder pattern with struct - c++

I'm trying to implement a builder patter in C++. That what i got by now:
struct Person {
std::string name;
uint32_t age;
std::vector<std::string> pet_names;
};
class PersonBuilder {
public:
PersonBuilder& SetName(std::string name) {
person_.name = std::move(name);
return *this;
}
PersonBuilder& SetAge(uint32_t age) {
person_.age = age;
return *this;
}
PersonBuilder& SetPetNames(std::vector<std::string> pet_names) {
person_.pet_names = std::move(pet_names);
return *this;
}
Person Build() {
return Person(std::move(person_));
}
private:
Person person_;
};
int main() {
auto person = PersonBuilder()
.SetName("John")
.SetAge(23)
.SetPetNames({"rax", "rbx", "rcx"})
.Build();
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
I'm a little worried about unitilized uint32, and std::move(person_) inside a Build method. Am i doing it right or there is a better way, with a struct constructor for example?

I'm a little worried about unitilized uint32
You initialise it before you use it, so there is no problem in the example. It is however easy for a user of the builder to forget calling one of the setters leaving it with indeterminate value resulting in undefined behaviour. You give it a default member initialiser to avoid that.
and std::move(person_) inside a Build method.
It's unnecessary to repeat the name of the class there. This would also work:
return std::move(person_);
It's also important for the caller to understand that Build may only be called once per initialisation. If the builder is intended to only be used as a temporary like in the example, you could add rvalue reference qualifier to the Build function to prevent some of the accidental misuse.
or there is a better way,
I don't see the benefit of the builder. Why not just use aggregate initialisation?:
Person person {
.name = "John",
.age = 23,
.pet_names = {"rax", "rbx", "rcx"},
};

You did it right.
You can also turn the set function into a template function, which can avoid the modification of PersonBuilder when adding new member variables for Person.
struct Person {
std::string name;
uint32_t age;
std::vector<std::string> pet_names;
};
class PersonBuilder {
public:
template<auto mem_ptr>
PersonBuilder& Set(std::remove_reference_t<std::invoke_result_t<decltype(mem_ptr), Person&>> value = {}) {
std::invoke(mem_ptr, person_) = std::move(value);
return *this;
}
Person Build() {
auto result = std::move(person_);
person_ = Person();
return result;
}
private:
Person person_;
};
int main() {
auto person = PersonBuilder()
.Set<&Person::name>("John")
.Set<&Person::age>(23)
.Set<&Person::pet_names>({"rax", "rbx", "rcx"})
.Build();
}
Demo.

Related

a function instead of copy-and-paste programming

I have an object, every member variable in this object has a name which I can acquire it by calling get_name() ,what I want to do is concatenate all the names of the member variables in alphabetical order, then do something. for example:
class CXMLWrapper<class T>
{
public:
CXMLWrapper(const char* p_name) : m_local_name(p_name)
{
}
//skip the get_name(), set_name() and others
private:
string m_local_name;
T m_type_var;
}
class object
{
public:
object() : m_team("team"), m_base("base")
{
}
public:
CXMLWrapper<string> m_team;
CXMLWrapper<string> m_base;
...
}
I have to hard-code like this:
object o;
string sign = o.m_base.get_name();
sign += o.m_team.get_name();
I need a function to do this instead of copying and pasting when the object varies. Anyone has an idea?
One way to do this in normal C++, provided all of the members belong to the same class or are derived from some base class will be to use variable number of arguments to a function. An example follows.
#include <stdarg.h>
string concatenateNames(int numMembers, ...)
{
string output;
va_list args;
va_start(args, numMembers);
for(int i = 0; i < numMembers; i++)
{
MemberClass *pMember = va_arg(args, MemberClass*);
output += pMember->get_name();
}
va_end(args);
return output;
}
class Object
{
public:
MemberClass x;
MemberClass y;
MemberClass z;
};
int main()
{
Object o;
string sign = concatenateNames(3, &o.x, &o.y, &o.z);
}
If the types of all the members are different, you can look into variadic templates of C++11x: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variadic_Templates, but I can't seem to find a way to do otherwise.
If variables which have name have a same type (or these types belongs one hierarchy) you can use map of these vars. Is not good way, but maybe it helps you
Example
class object
{
public:
object() //: m_team("team"), m_base("base")
{
this->vars["m_team"] = CXMLWrapper<string>("team");
//.....
}
public:
map<string, CXMLWrapper<string> > vars;
/*CXMLWrapper<string> m_team;
CXMLWrapper<string> m_base;*/
...
}
object o;
string sign;
for(auto& x : o.vars)//i cannot remember syntax of for of map
sign += x.get_name;
PS Sorry for my writing mistakes. English in not my native language.
One method is to have an external library of member names which the CXMLWrapper class updates:-
class BaseXMLWrapper
{
public:
void ListMembers (const char *parent)
{
// find "parent" in m_types
// if found, output members of vector
// else output "type not found"
}
protected:
void RegisterInstance (const char *parent, const char *member)
{
// find 'parent' in m_types
// if not found, create a new vector and add it to m_types
// find 'member' in parent vector
// if not found, add it
}
private:
static std::map <const std::string, std::vector <const std::string> >
m_types;
};
class CXMLWrapper <class T, const char *parent> : BaseXMLWrapper
{
public:
CXMLWrapper(const char* p_name) : m_local_name(p_name)
{
RegisterInstance (parent, p_name);
}
// you could override assignments, copy and move constructors to not call RegisterInstance
//skip the get_name() set_name()
private:
m_local_name;
}
class object
{
public:
object() : m_team("team"), m_base("base")
{
}
public:
CXMLWrapper<string, "object"> m_team;
CXMLWrapper<string, "object"> m_base;
...
};
This does add overhead to the construction of objects, but as it's only a constructor overhead it might not affect overall system performance much.
This looks like a "observe pattern", you just need to keep a single copy in object as a member variable "string name_;", and pass the name_s's reference into CXMLWrapper like this:
class CXMLWrapper<class T>
{
public:
CXMLWrapper(const string &name)
: local_name_(name)
{
}
//skip the get_name() set_name()
private:
const string &local_name_;
}
class object
{
public:
object()
: team_("team"),
base_("base"),
m_team(team_)
, m_base(base_)
{
}
public:
string team_;
string base_;
CXMLWrapper<string> m_team;
CXMLWrapper<string> m_base;
}

Print out the values stored in vars of different classes, that have the same ancestor

I have this class:
class CComputer {
public:
// constructor
CComputer(string name) {
this->name = name;
};
// overloaded operator << for printing
friend ostream& operator<<(ostream& os, const CComputer& c);
// adds some component for this computer
CComputer & AddComponent(Component const & component) {
this->listOfComponents.push_back(component);
return *this;
};
// sets address for this computer
CComputer & AddAddress(const string & address) {
this->address = address;
return *this;
};
string name;
string address;
list<Component> listOfComponents;
};
and then these classes:
// ancestor for other classes...It's really dummy yet, but I dunno what to add there
class Component {
public:
Component() {};
~Component() {};
};
class CCPU : public Component {
public:
CCPU(int cores, int freq) {
this->cores = cores;
this->freq = freq;
};
int cores;
int freq;
};
class CMemory : public Component {
public:
CMemory(int mem) {
this->mem = mem;
};
int mem;
};
Now I feed my CComputer class with some values:
CComputer c("test.com");
c . AddAddress("123.45.678.910") .
AddComponent(CCPU(8, 2400)) .
AddComponent(CCPU(8, 1200)).
AddComponent(CMemory(2000)).
AddComponent(CMemory(2000)));
And now I would like to print it out with all the info I've put in there (CCPU & CMemory details including)
but how to implement it, to be able to iterate through CComputer::listOfComponents and don't care if I acctually access CCPU or CMemory ? I can add it to that list, but I have really no idea, how to make it, to be able to access the variables of those components.
So the output should look like:
##### STARTING #####
CComputer:
name:test.com
address:123.45.678.910
CCPU:
cores:8,freq:2400
CCPU:
cores:8, freq:1200
CMemory:
mem:2000
CMemory:
mem:2000
###### FINISHED! #####
As others have mentioned, you need to implement a virtual function (e.g. virtual std::string ToString() const = 0;) in the base class that is inherited and overridden by each child class.
However, that isn’t enough. Your code exhibits slicing which happens when you copy your child class instances into the list: the list contains objects of type Component, not of the relevant child class.
What you need to do is store polymorphic instances. Values themselves are never polymorphic, you need to use (smart) pointers or references for this. References are out, however, since you cannot store them in a standard container (such as std::list). Using raw pointers is considered bad style nowadays, but judging from the naming conventions of your classes you don’t learn modern C++ in your class (sorry!).
Therefore, raw pointers is probably the way to go. Change your code accordingly:
Store a list of pointers:
list<Component*> listOfComponents;
Make the argument type of AddComponent a pointer instead of const&.
Call the function by passing a newed object, e.g.:
AddComponent(new CCPU(8, 2400))
Now your code leaks memory left, right and center. You need to implement a destructor to free the memory:
~CComputer() {
typedef std::list<Component*>::iterator iter_t;
for (iter_t i = listOfComponents.begin(); i != listOfComponents.end(); ++i)
delete *i;
}
But now your code violates the Rule of Three (read this article! It’s important, and it may be the most useful thing about C++ you’re going to learn in this programming class) and consequently you also need to implement the copy constructor and copy assignment operator. However, we can’t. Sorry. In order to implement copying for your class, you would have to implement another virtual function in your Component class, namely one that clones an object (virtual Component* Clone() const = 0;). Only then can we proceed.
Here’s a sample implementation in CCPU:
Component* Clone() const {
return new CCPU(cores, freq);
}
… this needs to be done in all classes deriving from Component, otherwise we cannot correctly copy an object of a type that derives from Component and is hidden behind a pointer.
And now we can implement copying in the CComputer class:
CComputer(CComputer const& other)
: name(name)
, address(addess) {
typedef std::list<Component*>::iterator iter_t;
for (iter_t i = other.listOfComponents.begin(); i != other.listOfComponents.end(); ++i)
listOfComponents.push_back((*i)->Clone());
}
CComputer& operator =(CComputer const& other) {
if (this == &other)
return *this;
name = other.name;
address = other.address;
listOfComponents.clear();
for (iter_t i = other.listOfComponents.begin(); i != other.listOfComponents.end(); ++i)
listOfComponents.push_back((*i)->Clone());
return *this;
}
This code is brittle, not thread-safe and error-prone and no competent C++ programmer would ever write this1. Real code would for instance use smart pointers instead – but as mentioned before I’m pretty sure that this would be beyond the scope of the class.
1 What does this make me now, I wonder?
Just add a virtual method to Class Component called e.g. toString(), which returns a string describing the component. Then you can iterate through all components and call toString() without worrying about exactly what each component is. If you do that, then for each computer you would be able to print out the values of all the components.
However, as pointed out in one of the comments, the example output you give in the question outputs the CCPU for all computers, then all the memory for all computers. To order the output like that, you'll need to add another virtual method to Component called e.g. getType() which returns an enum or integer that represents the type of the information. You can then have two for-next loops, one nested inside the other, where the outer loop iterates through all the types and the inner loop iterating through all the computers calling the toString() on all components which match the type specified in the outer for loop.
Here's something that implements this idea.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <list>
using namespace std;
int const TYPE_CCPU = 1;
int const TYPE_MEMORY = 2;
class Component {
public:
virtual int GetType() { return -1; }
virtual std::string ToString() const {
return "OOPS! Default `ToString` called";
}
};
class CComputer {
public:
typedef std::list<Component*>::iterator iter_t;
// constructor
CComputer(string name) {
this->name = name;
};
~CComputer() {
for (iter_t i = listOfComponents.begin(); i != listOfComponents.end(); ++i) {
delete *i;
}
}
// overloaded operator << for printing
friend ostream& operator<<(ostream& os, const CComputer& c);
// adds some component for this computer
CComputer & AddComponent(Component *component) {
this->listOfComponents.push_back(component);
return *this;
};
// sets address for this computer
CComputer & AddAddress(const string & address) {
this->address = address;
return *this;
};
void PrintType(int type) {
for (iter_t i = listOfComponents.begin(); i != listOfComponents.end(); ++i) {
if ((*i)->GetType() == type)
std::cout << (*i)->ToString() << '\n';
}
}
string name;
string address;
list<Component*> listOfComponents;
};
class CCPU : public Component {
public:
CCPU(int cores, int freq) {
this->cores = cores;
this->freq = freq;
};
int GetType() { return TYPE_CCPU; }
std::string ToString() const {
return "CCPU::ToString()";
}
int cores;
int freq;
};
class CMemory : public Component {
public:
CMemory(int mem) { this->mem = mem; };
int GetType() { return TYPE_MEMORY; }
std::string ToString() const {
return "CMemory::ToString()";
}
int mem;
};
typedef std::list<CComputer*>::iterator iter_c;
int main() {
list<CComputer*> computerlist;
CComputer *c1 = new CComputer("test.com"), *c2 = new CComputer("test2.com");
c1->AddAddress("123.45.678.910").
AddComponent(new CCPU(8, 1200)).
AddComponent(new CMemory(2000));
computerlist.push_back(c1);
c2->AddAddress("987.65.432.10").
AddComponent(new CCPU(8, 2400)).
AddComponent(new CMemory(4000));
computerlist.push_back(c2);
for(int t=TYPE_CCPU; t<=TYPE_MEMORY; t++)
for (iter_c i = computerlist.begin(); i != computerlist.end(); ++i) {
(*i)->PrintType(t);
}
for (iter_c i = computerlist.begin(); i != computerlist.end(); ++i) {
delete (*i);
}
}
Implement ToString() in each of your classes. In .NET this is a standard even the "object" type implements.

C++ getter/setter paradigm

I recently came across this class and was surprised at how the getters and
setters were implemented.
I have not come across this before and would welcome some second opinions.
Do you think this is a good paradigm?
Is is bad?
Is it evil?
Header:
class Tool
{
public:
Tool();
virtual ~Tool();
bool setName(const std::string &name);
bool getName(std::string &name) const;
void clearName();
private:
std::string m_name;
bool m_nameSet;
};
cpp file:
#include "Tool.h"
Tool::Tool()
: m_name("")
, m_nameSet(false)
{
}
Tool::~Tool()
{
}
bool Tool::setName(const std::string &name)
{
m_name = name;
m_nameSet = true;
return (m_nameSet);
}
bool Tool::getName(std::string &name) const
{
bool success = false;
if (m_nameSet)
{
name = m_name;
success = true;
}
return (success);
}
The way you selected for getter is not popular, programmers prefer to return data from getter
std::string getName() const;
Why an item that set before, or has an initial data, should be re-checked on getter? If you want validate the data, validate it on setter.
However if your insist to return a value as "is name set before", you can write a third method by means of bool isNameSet() const;
This looks a lot like C where it is usual to return status codes to see if a functions fails or not.
Then also there are better methods to verify that a name is set or not. One could be to use the boost::optional to me this is a better way to declare intent that the name might not be set at all times.
I would however wonder if it's not better to make sure the name is set at all times by only having one constructor that takes a std::string as a parameter.
class Tool
{
public:
//Constructor already does the right thing
Tool() = default;
virtual ~Tool();
//Use void or return the modified class, akin to operators
void setName(const std::string& name)
{
m_name = name;
}
//Alternatively
Tool& setName(const std::string &name)
{
m_name = name;
return *this;
}
//Return const reference to the value if possible, avoids copying if not needed
//This will fail at run time if name is not set
//Maybe throw an exception if that is preferred
const std::string& getName() const
{
return *m_name;
//Or
if(m_name) return *m_name;
else throw some_exception;
}
//Or return the optional, then calling code can check if name where set or not
const boost::optional<std::string>& getName() const
{
return m_name;
}
void clearName()
{
m_name = boost::optional<std::string>();
}
private:
boost::optional<std::string> m_name;
};
I wouldn't call that a paradigm. This seems to be a solution for architecture, where a field may be in unspecified state (why not? Sometimes it is a sane requirement). Though, I don't like much this solution, because getter is supposed to return value (symmetrically, setter is supposed to set it) and the convention usually requires specific prototypes:
Type GetValue();
SetValue (const Type & newValue);
or
SetValue (Type & newValue);
or
SetValue (Type newValue);
You shall choose one of three setters depending on situation, usually the first or second one fits.
If a field may be in an unspecified state, I would choose another approach, as M M. suggests in his answer, I'll take liberty to provide an example:
class C
{
private:
int field;
bool fieldSet;
public:
C()
{
field = 0;
fieldSet = false;
}
bool IsFieldSet()
{
return fieldSet;
}
int GetField()
{
if (!fieldSet)
throw std::exception("Attempt to use unset field!");
return field;
}
void SetField(const int newValue)
{
field = newValue;
fieldSet = true;
}
};
Note though, that I wouldn't call this way of implementing getters evil. It may be just uncomfortable to use.

How to return a class object by reference in C++?

I have a class called Object which stores some data.
I would like to return it by reference using a function like this:
Object& return_Object();
Then, in my code, I would call it like this:
Object myObject = return_Object();
I have written code like this and it compiles. However, when I run the code, I consistently get a seg fault. What is the proper way to return a class object by reference?
You're probably returning an object that's on the stack. That is, return_Object() probably looks like this:
Object& return_Object()
{
Object object_to_return;
// ... do stuff ...
return object_to_return;
}
If this is what you're doing, you're out of luck - object_to_return has gone out of scope and been destructed at the end of return_Object, so myObject refers to a non-existent object. You either need to return by value, or return an Object declared in a wider scope or newed onto the heap.
You can only use
Object& return_Object();
if the object returned has a greater scope than the function. For example, you can use it if you have a class where it is encapsulated. If you create an object in your function, use pointers. If you want to modify an existing object, pass it as an argument.
class MyClass{
private:
Object myObj;
public:
Object& return_Object() {
return myObj;
}
Object* return_created_Object() {
return new Object();
}
bool modify_Object( Object& obj) {
// obj = myObj; return true; both possible
return obj.modifySomething() == true;
}
};
You can only return non-local objects by reference. The destructor may have invalidated some internal pointer, or whatever.
Don't be afraid of returning values -- it's fast!
I will show you some examples:
First example, do not return local scope object, for example:
const string &dontDoThis(const string &s)
{
string local = s;
return local;
}
You can't return local by reference, because local is destroyed at the end of the body of dontDoThis.
Second example, you can return by reference:
const string &shorterString(const string &s1, const string &s2)
{
return (s1.size() < s2.size()) ? s1 : s2;
}
Here, you can return by reference both s1 and s2 because they were defined before shorterString was called.
Third example:
char &get_val(string &str, string::size_type ix)
{
return str[ix];
}
usage code as below:
string s("123456");
cout << s << endl;
char &ch = get_val(s, 0);
ch = 'A';
cout << s << endl; // A23456
get_val can return elements of s by reference because s still exists after the call.
Fourth example
class Student
{
public:
string m_name;
int age;
string &getName();
};
string &Student::getName()
{
// you can return by reference
return m_name;
}
string& Test(Student &student)
{
// we can return `m_name` by reference here because `student` still exists after the call
return stu.m_name;
}
usage example:
Student student;
student.m_name = 'jack';
string name = student.getName();
// or
string name2 = Test(student);
Fifth example:
class String
{
private:
char *str_;
public:
String &operator=(const String &str);
};
String &String::operator=(const String &str)
{
if (this == &str)
{
return *this;
}
delete [] str_;
int length = strlen(str.str_);
str_ = new char[length + 1];
strcpy(str_, str.str_);
return *this;
}
You could then use the operator= above like this:
String a;
String b;
String c = b = a;
Well, it is maybe not a really beautiful solution in the code, but it is really beautiful in the interface of your function. And it is also very efficient. It is ideal if the second is more important for you (for example, you are developing a library).
The trick is this:
A line A a = b.make(); is internally converted to a constructor of A, i.e. as if you had written A a(b.make());.
Now b.make() should result a new class, with a callback function.
This whole thing can be fine handled only by classes, without any template.
Here is my minimal example. Check only the main(), as you can see it is simple. The internals aren't.
From the viewpoint of the speed: the size of a Factory::Mediator class is only 2 pointers, which is more that 1 but not more. And this is the only object in the whole thing which is transferred by value.
#include <stdio.h>
class Factory {
public:
class Mediator;
class Result {
public:
Result() {
printf ("Factory::Result::Result()\n");
};
Result(Mediator fm) {
printf ("Factory::Result::Result(Mediator)\n");
fm.call(this);
};
};
typedef void (*MakeMethod)(Factory* factory, Result* result);
class Mediator {
private:
Factory* factory;
MakeMethod makeMethod;
public:
Mediator(Factory* factory, MakeMethod makeMethod) {
printf ("Factory::Mediator::Mediator(Factory*, MakeMethod)\n");
this->factory = factory;
this->makeMethod = makeMethod;
};
void call(Result* result) {
printf ("Factory::Mediator::call(Result*)\n");
(*makeMethod)(factory, result);
};
};
};
class A;
class B : private Factory {
private:
int v;
public:
B(int v) {
printf ("B::B()\n");
this->v = v;
};
int getV() const {
printf ("B::getV()\n");
return v;
};
static void makeCb(Factory* f, Factory::Result* a);
Factory::Mediator make() {
printf ("Factory::Mediator B::make()\n");
return Factory::Mediator(static_cast<Factory*>(this), &B::makeCb);
};
};
class A : private Factory::Result {
friend class B;
private:
int v;
public:
A() {
printf ("A::A()\n");
v = 0;
};
A(Factory::Mediator fm) : Factory::Result(fm) {
printf ("A::A(Factory::Mediator)\n");
};
int getV() const {
printf ("A::getV()\n");
return v;
};
void setV(int v) {
printf ("A::setV(%i)\n", v);
this->v = v;
};
};
void B::makeCb(Factory* f, Factory::Result* r) {
printf ("B::makeCb(Factory*, Factory::Result*)\n");
B* b = static_cast<B*>(f);
A* a = static_cast<A*>(r);
a->setV(b->getV()+1);
};
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
B b(42);
A a = b.make();
printf ("a.v = %i\n", a.getV());
return 0;
}
It isn't really good practice to return an initiated object as it does go out of scope. There are rare instances that this is the desired option. It actually can be done if the class is a referencing counting smart pointer or some other smart pointer.
How does a reference-counting smart pointer's reference counting work?

C++ Experiment: How can I improve this class? [duplicate]

How to Define or Implement C# Property in ISO C++ ?
Assume following C# code :
int _id;
int ID
{
get { return _id; }
set { _id = value; }
}
I know C# convert the get and set lines to getXXX and setXXX methods in compile time. in C++ , programmers usually define these two function manually like :
int _id;
int getID() { return _id; }
void setID(int newID) { _id = newID; }
but, I want to have the C# syntax or a stuff like it in order to have a simple usability.
In C#, we can use properties like :
ID = 10; // calling set function
int CurrentID = ID; // calling get function
In C++, we can use our function like :
setID(10); // calling set function
int CurrentID = getID(); // calling get function
Now tell me how can I implement the C# properties in ISO C++.
thanks.
As Alexandre C. has already stated, it's very awkward and not really worth it, but to give an example of how you might do it.
template <typename TClass, typename TProperty>
class Property
{
private:
void (TClass::*m_fp_set)(TProperty value);
TProperty (TClass::*m_fp_get)();
TClass * m_class;
inline TProperty Get(void)
{
return (m_class->*m_fp_get)();
}
inline void Set(TProperty value)
{
(m_class->*m_fp_set)(value);
}
public:
Property()
{
m_class = NULL;
m_fp_set = NULL;
m_fp_set = NULL;
}
void Init(TClass* p_class, TProperty (TClass::*p_fp_get)(void), void (TClass::*p_fp_set)(TProperty))
{
m_class = p_class;
m_fp_set = p_fp_set;
m_fp_get = p_fp_get;
}
inline operator TProperty(void)
{
return this->Get();
}
inline TProperty operator=(TProperty value)
{
this->Set(value);
}
};
In your class where you wish to use it, you create a new field for the property, and you must call Init to pass your get/set methods to the property. (pref in .ctor).
class MyClass {
private:
int _id;
int getID() { return _id; }
void setID(int newID) { _id = newID; }
public:
Property<MyClass, int> Id;
MyClass() {
Id.Init(this, &MyClass::getID, &MyClass::setID);
}
};
Short answer: you can't.
Long answer: You could try to simulate them via proxy classes, but believe me this is not worth the minor incovenience in having set/get functions.
You'd have basically to define a class which forwards all the behavior of the variable. This is insanely hard to get right, and impossible to be made generic.
Quite simply. I'd argue this even has no overhead compared to making the variable public. However, you can't modify this any further. Unless, of course, you add two more template parameters that are call backs to functions to call when getting and setting.
template<typename TNDataType>
class CProperty
{
public:
typedef TNDataType TDDataType;
private:
TDDataType m_Value;
public:
inline TDDataType& operator=(const TDDataType& Value)
{
m_Value = Value;
return *this;
}
inline operator TDDataType&()
{
return m_Value;
}
};
EDIT: Don't make the call back functions template parameters, just data members that are constant and must be initialized in the constructor for the property. This inherently has greater overhead than simply writing a get and set method your self, because you're making function calls inside of your gets and sets this way. The callbacks will be set at run-time, not compile-time.