How to serialize / deserialize INTs in C++ - c++

So, I´d want to implement simple serialization for some int variables in C++ and I really don´t know how...
My goal is the following:
I essentially want to be able to convert any integer to binary, preferably with a simple function call.
// Here´s some dummy code of what I essentially want to do
int TestVariable = 25;
String FilePath = "D:\dev\Test.txt";
Serialize(TestVariable, FilePath);
// [...]
// at some later point in the code, when I want to access the file
Deserialize(&TestVariable, FilePath);
I already heard of libraries like Boost, but I think that´d be a bit overkill when I just want to serialize simple variables.
Already thank you in advance for your answers. :D

First of all, there is a little "inconsistency": you're asking for binary serialization, in something that looks like a text file. I will assume you really want a binary output.
The only thing to take care about when serializing integers is the endianness of the machine (even though most of machines are little endian).
In C++17 or lower the easiest way is a runtime check like
inline bool littleEndian()
{
static const uint32_t test = 0x01020304;
return *((uint8_t *)&test) == 0x04;
}
C++20 introduces a compile-time check so you can rewrite the previous as
constexpr bool littleEndian()
{
return std::endian::native == std::endian::little;
}
At this point what you want, is writing in a standard way all integers.
Usually BigEndian is the standard.
template <typename T>
inline static T revert(T num)
{
T res;
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < sizeof(T); i++)
((uint8_t *)&res)[i] = ((uint8_t *)&num)[sizeof(T) - 1 - i];
return res;
}
at this point your serializer would be:
template <typename T>
void serialize(T TestVariable, std::string& FilePath)
{
static_assert(std::is_integral<T>::value); //check that T is of {char, int, ...} type
static_assert(!std::is_reference<T>::value); //check that T is not a reference
std::ofstream o(FilePath);
if (littleEndian())
TestVariable = revert(TestVariable);
o.write((char *)&TestVariable, sizeof(T));
}
and your deserializer would be
template <typename T>
void deserialize(T *TestVariable, std::string FilePath)
{
static_assert(std::is_integral<T>::value);
std::ifstream i(FilePath);
i.read((char *)TestVariable, sizeof(T));
if (littleEndian())
*TestVariable = revert(*TestVariable);
}
Notice: this code is just an example that works with your interface, you just have to include <iostream>, <fstream> and if you're using the c++20 version, include <bit>

First let me laydown the reasons not to do this:
It will be not safe to reuse the files on a different machine
Speed could be much slower than any library
Complex type like pointer, maps or structure are very difficult to implement right
But if you really what to do something custom made you can simply use streams, here is an example using stringstream (I always use stringstream in my unit test because I want them to be quick), but you can simply modify it to use filestream.
Please note, the type must be default constructable to be used by deserialize template function. That must be a very stringent requirement for complex classes.
#include <sstream>
#include <iostream>
template<typename T>
void serialize(std::ostream& os, const T& value)
{
os << value;
}
template<typename T>
T deserialize(std::istream& is)
{
T value;
is >> value;
return value;
}
int main()
{
std::stringstream ss;
serialize(ss, 1353);
serialize(ss, std::string("foobar"));
std::cout << deserialize<int>(ss) << " " << deserialize<std::string>(ss) << std::endl;
return 0;
}

Related

What's the most simple way to read and write data from a struct to and from a file in c++ without serialization library?

I am writing a program to that regularly stores and reads structs in the form below.
struct Node {
int leftChild = 0;
int rightChild = 0;
std::string value;
int count = 1;
int balanceFactor = 0;
};
How would I read and write nodes to a file? I would like to use the fstream class with seekg and seekp to do the serialization manually but I'm not sure how it works based off of the documentation and am struggling with finding decent examples.
[edit] specified that i do not want to use a serialization library.
This problem is known as serialization. Use a serializing library like e.g. Google's Protocol Buffers or Flatbuffers.
To serialize objects, you will need to stick to the concept that the object is writing its members to the stream and reading members from the stream. Also, member objects should write themselves to the stream (as well as read).
I implemented a scheme using three member functions, and a buffer:
void load_from_buffer(uint8_t * & buffer_pointer);
void store_to_buffer(uint8_t * & buffer_pointer) const;
unsigned int size_on_stream() const;
The size_on_stream would be called first in order to determine the buffer size for the object (or how much space it occupied in the buffer).
The load_from_buffer function loads the object's members from a buffer using the given pointer. The function also increments the pointer appropriately.
The store_to_buffer function stores the objects's members to a buffer using the given pointer. The function also increments the pointer appropriately.
This can be applied to POD types by using templates and template specializations.
These functions also allow you to pack the output into the buffer, and load from a packed format.
The reason for I/O to the buffer is so you can use the more efficient block stream methods, such as write and read.
Edit 1: Writing a node to a stream
The problem with writing or serializing a node (such a linked list or tree node) is that pointers don't translate to a file. There is no guarantee that the OS will place your program in the same memory location or give you the same area of memory each time.
You have two options: 1) Only store the data. 2) Convert the pointers to file offsets. Option 2) is very complicated as it may require repositioning the file pointer because file offsets may not be known ahead of time.
Also, be aware of variable length records like strings. You can't directly write a string object to a file. Unless you use a fixed string width, the string size will change. You will either need to prefix the string with the string length (preferred) or use some kind of terminating character, such as '\0'. The string length first is preferred because you don't have to search for the end of the string; you can use a block read to read in the text.
If you replace the std::string by a char buffer, you can use fwrite and fread to write/read your structure to and from disk as a fixed size block of information. Within a single program that should work ok.
The big bug-a-boo is the fact that compilers will insert padding between fields in order to keep the data aligned. That makes the code less portable as if a module is compiled with different alignment requirements the structure literally can be a different size, throwing your fixed size assumption out the door.
I would lean toward a well worn in serialization library of some sort.
Another approach would be to overload the operator<< and operator>> for the structure so that it knows how to save/load itself. That would reduce the problem to knowing where to read/write the node. In theory, your left and right child fields could be seek addresses to where the nodes actually reside, while a new field could hold the seek location of the current node.
When implementing your own serialization method, the first decision you'll have to make is whether you want the data on disk to be in binary format or textual format.
I find it easier to implement the ability to save to a binary format. The number of functions needed to implement that is small. You need to implement functions that can write the fundamental types, arrays of known size at compile time, dynamic arrays and strings. Everything else can be built on top of those.
Here's something very close to what I recently put into production code.
#include <cstring>
#include <fstream>
#include <cstddef>
#include <stdexcept>
// Class to write to a stream
struct Writer
{
std::ostream& out_;
Writer(std::ostream& out) : out_(out) {}
// Write the fundamental types
template <typename T>
void write(T number)
{
out_.write(reinterpret_cast<char const*>(&number), sizeof(number));
if (!out_ )
{
throw std::runtime_error("Unable to write a number");
}
}
// Write arrays whose size is known at compile time
template <typename T, uint64_t N>
void write(T (&array)[N])
{
for(uint64_t i = 0; i < N; ++i )
{
write(array[i]);
}
}
// Write dynamic arrays
template <typename T>
void write(T array[], uint64_t size)
{
write(size);
for(uint64_t i = 0; i < size; ++i )
{
write(array[i]);
}
}
// Write strings
void write(std::string const& str)
{
write(str.c_str(), str.size());
}
void write(char const* str)
{
write(str, std::strlen(str));
}
};
// Class to read from a stream
struct Reader
{
std::ifstream& in_;
Reader(std::ifstream& in) : in_(in) {}
template <typename T>
void read(T& number)
{
in_.read(reinterpret_cast<char*>(&number), sizeof(number));
if (!in_ )
{
throw std::runtime_error("Unable to read a number.");
}
}
template <typename T, uint64_t N>
void read(T (&array)[N])
{
for(uint64_t i = 0; i < N; ++i )
{
read(array[i]);
}
}
template <typename T>
void read(T*& array)
{
uint64_t size;
read(size);
array = new T[size];
for(uint64_t i = 0; i < size; ++i )
{
read(array[i]);
}
}
void read(std::string& str)
{
char* s;
read(s);
str = s;
delete [] s;
}
};
// Test the code.
#include <iostream>
void writeData(std::string const& file)
{
std::ofstream out(file);
Writer w(out);
w.write(10);
w.write(20.f);
w.write(200.456);
w.write("Test String");
}
void readData(std::string const& file)
{
std::ifstream in(file);
Reader r(in);
int i;
r.read(i);
std::cout << "i: " << i << std::endl;
float f;
r.read(f);
std::cout << "f: " << f << std::endl;
double d;
r.read(d);
std::cout << "d: " << d << std::endl;
std::string s;
r.read(s);
std::cout << "s: " << s << std::endl;
}
void testWriteAndRead(std::string const& file)
{
writeData(file);
readData(file);
}
int main()
{
testWriteAndRead("test.bin");
return 0;
}
Output:
i: 10
f: 20
d: 200.456
s: Test String
The ability to write and read a Node is very easily implemented.
void write(Writer& w, Node const& n)
{
w.write(n.leftChild);
w.write(n.rightChild);
w.write(n.value);
w.write(n.count);
w.write(n.balanceFactor);
}
void read(Reader& r, Node& n)
{
r.read(n.leftChild);
r.read(n.rightChild);
r.read(n.value);
r.read(n.count);
r.read(n.balanceFactor);
}
The process you are referring to are known as serialization. I'd recommend Cereal at http://uscilab.github.io/cereal/
It supports both json, xml and binary serialization and is very easy to use (with good examples).
(Unfortunately it does not support my favourite format yaml)

Using function as operator overload in c++

I have to write a program working in general as a buffer. I created a class with some methods like AddToBuffer with overloads for char*, int, string, another instance of class etc. My task is also to create some operator overloads. So I came up with an idea to use + operator for adding to buffer, working same as AddToBuffer. Do I really have to create overloads for all parameters or can maybe 'alias' operator+ to AddToBuffer. Or maybe I should change all AddToBuffer to operator+?
Thanks in advance.
I expect you could do a template something like:
class someclass
{
...
template<typename T>
someclass operator+(T a)
{
return AddToBuffer(a);
}
...
}
Since you didn't explain exactly how AddToBuffer works, it's hard to say exactly what to call to make, etc
You can use function template http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/function_template.
Like this:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
class MyBuffer
{
public:
void AddToBuffer (const std::string& str) {
}
void AddToBuffer (const char* str) {
}
void AddToBuffer (int i) {
}
template<typename T>
MyBuffer& operator+= (const T& str) {
this->AddToBuffer (str);
return (*this);
}
};
int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
MyBuffer buffer;
buffer += std::string("abcd");
buffer += "abcd";
buffer += 1;
return(0);
}
Since others already answered the question (I think), I'll just add a few lines of personal experience:
Using operator overloads is cool. Using template classes is cool. Using polymorphism is waaaaaay cool. However, cooler doesn't make your code better; nor does shorter. There's a reason why you have string.operator+ but not queue.operator+. Operators are meant ONLY for times when you're doing something related to an operator. Adding stuff to a buffer isn't one of them. I'll give you an example. Compare this:
Stack b;
int i;
while ((i = --b) > 0)
b--;
b += i * 2;
to this:
Stack b;
int i;
while ((i = b.Peek()) > 0)
b.Pop();
b.Push(i * 2);
See the difference? Sure, it's cooler to override some operators and write code that no one can read, but code (at least useful code) isn't meant to be cool. It's meant to work, to be reusable, to be readable, etc. C++ is a very dangerous language in that it allows you to do virtually anything, and lets you get away with it. If you're not careful what you do, you might end up knee-deep in trouble, trying to get something to work that would have worked so much better had you just written it some other way. I've been there. Don't make the same mistake.

C++ similar behavior to java.lang.Enum<E> [duplicate]

It is common knowledge that built-in enums in C++ are not typesafe.
I was wondering which classes implementing typesafe enums are used out there...
I myself use the following "bicycle", but it is somewhat verbose and limited:
typesafeenum.h:
struct TypesafeEnum
{
// Construction:
public:
TypesafeEnum(): id (next_id++), name("") {}
TypesafeEnum(const std::string& n): id(next_id++), name(n) {}
// Operations:
public:
bool operator == (const TypesafeEnum& right) const;
bool operator != (const TypesafeEnum& right) const;
bool operator < (const TypesafeEnum& right) const;
std::string to_string() const { return name; }
// Implementation:
private:
static int next_id;
int id;
std::string name;
};
typesafeenum.cpp:
int TypesafeEnum::next_id = 1;
bool TypesafeEnum::operator== (const TypesafeEnum& right) const
{ return id == right.id; }
bool TypesafeEnum::operator!= (const TypesafeEnum& right) const
{ return !operator== (right); }
bool TypesafeEnum::operator< (const TypesafeEnum& right) const
{ return id < right.id; }
Usage:
class Dialog
{
...
struct Result: public TypesafeEnum
{
static const Result CANCEL("Cancel");
static const Result OK("Ok");
};
Result doModal();
...
};
const Dialog::Result Dialog::Result::OK;
const Dialog::Result Dialog::Result::CANCEL;
Addition:
I think I should have been more specific about the requirements. I'll try to summarize them:
Priority 1: Setting an enum variable to an invalid value should be impossible (a compile-time error) with no exceptions.
Priority 2: Converting an enum value to/from an int should be possible with a single explicit function/method call.
Priority 3: As compact, elegant and convenient declaration and usage as possible
Priority 4: Converting enum values to and from strings.
Priority 5: (Nice to have) Possibility to iterate over enum values.
I'm currently playing around with the Boost.Enum proposal from the Boost Vault (filename enum_rev4.6.zip). Although it was never officially submitted for inclusion into Boost, it's useable as-is. (Documentation is lacking but is made up for by clear source code and good tests.)
Boost.Enum lets you declare an enum like this:
BOOST_ENUM_VALUES(Level, const char*,
(Abort)("unrecoverable problem")
(Error)("recoverable problem")
(Alert)("unexpected behavior")
(Info) ("expected behavior")
(Trace)("normal flow of execution")
(Debug)("detailed object state listings")
)
And have it automatically expand to this:
class Level : public boost::detail::enum_base<Level, string>
{
public:
enum domain
{
Abort,
Error,
Alert,
Info,
Trace,
Debug,
};
BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(index_type, size = 6);
Level() {}
Level(domain index) : boost::detail::enum_base<Level, string>(index) {}
typedef boost::optional<Level> optional;
static optional get_by_name(const char* str)
{
if(strcmp(str, "Abort") == 0) return optional(Abort);
if(strcmp(str, "Error") == 0) return optional(Error);
if(strcmp(str, "Alert") == 0) return optional(Alert);
if(strcmp(str, "Info") == 0) return optional(Info);
if(strcmp(str, "Trace") == 0) return optional(Trace);
if(strcmp(str, "Debug") == 0) return optional(Debug);
return optional();
}
private:
friend class boost::detail::enum_base<Level, string>;
static const char* names(domain index)
{
switch(index)
{
case Abort: return "Abort";
case Error: return "Error";
case Alert: return "Alert";
case Info: return "Info";
case Trace: return "Trace";
case Debug: return "Debug";
default: return NULL;
}
}
typedef boost::optional<value_type> optional_value;
static optional_value values(domain index)
{
switch(index)
{
case Abort: return optional_value("unrecoverable problem");
case Error: return optional_value("recoverable problem");
case Alert: return optional_value("unexpected behavior");
case Info: return optional_value("expected behavior");
case Trace: return optional_value("normal flow of execution");
case Debug: return optional_value("detailed object state listings");
default: return optional_value();
}
}
};
It satisfies all five of the priorities which you list.
A nice compromise method is this:
struct Flintstones {
enum E {
Fred,
Barney,
Wilma
};
};
Flintstones::E fred = Flintstones::Fred;
Flintstones::E barney = Flintstones::Barney;
It's not typesafe in the same sense that your version is, but the usage is nicer than standard enums, and you can still take advantage of integer conversion when you need it.
I use C++0x typesafe enums. I use some helper template/macros that provide the to/from string functionality.
enum class Result { Ok, Cancel};
I don't. Way too much overhead for little benefit. Also, being able to caste enumerations to different data types for serialization is a very handy tool. I have never seen an instance where a "Type safe" enumeration would be worth the overhead and complexity where C++ offers a good enough implementation already.
My take is that you're inventing a problem and then fitting a solution onto it. I see no need to do an elaborate framework for an enumeration of values. If you are dedicated to having your values only be members of a certain set, you could hack up a variant of a unique set datatype.
I'm personally using an adapted version of the typesafe enum idiom. It doesn't provide all the five "requirements" that you've stated in your edit, but I strongly disagree with some of them anyway. For example, I don't see how Prio#4 (conversion of values to strings) has anything to do with type safety. Most of the time string representation of individual values should be separate from the definition of the type anyway (think i18n for a simple reason why). Prio#5 (iteratio, which is optional) is one of the nicest things I'd like to see naturally happening in enums, so I felt sad that it appears as "optional" in your request, but it seems it is better addressed via a separate iteration system such as begin/end functions or an enum_iterator, which makes them work seamlessly with STL and C++11 foreach.
OTOH this simple idiom nicely provides Prio#3 Prio#1 thanks to the fact that it mostly only wraps enums with more type information. Not to mention it is a very simple solution that for the most part doesn't require any external dependency headers, so it's pretty easy to carry around. It also has the advantage of making enumerations scoped a-la-C++11:
// This doesn't compile, and if it did it wouldn't work anyway
enum colors { salmon, .... };
enum fishes { salmon, .... };
// This, however, works seamlessly.
struct colors_def { enum type { salmon, .... }; };
struct fishes_def { enum type { salmon, .... }; };
typedef typesafe_enum<colors_def> colors;
typedef typesafe_enum<fishes_def> fishes;
The only "hole" that solution provides is that it doesn't address the fact that it doesn't prevent enums of different types (or an enum and an int) from being directly compared, because when you use values directly you force the implicit conversion to int:
if (colors::salmon == fishes::salmon) { .../* Ooops! */... }
But so far I've found such problems can be solved by simply offering a better comparison to the compiler - for example, explicitly providing an operator that compares any two different enum types, then forcing it to fail:
// I'm using backports of C++11 utilities like static_assert and enable_if
template <typename Enum1, typename Enum2>
typename enable_if< (is_enum<Enum1>::value && is_enum<Enum2>::value) && (false == is_same<Enum1,Enum2>::value) , bool >
::type operator== (Enum1, Enum2) {
static_assert (false, "Comparing enumerations of different types!");
}
Though it doesn't seem to break code so far, and it does to explicitly deal with the specific problem without doing something else, I'm not sure it such thing is a thing one "should" do (I suspect it will interfere with enums already taking part in conversion operators declared elsewhere; I'd gladly receive commentary about this).
Combining this with the above typesafe idiom gives something that is relatively close to C++11 enum class in humanibility (readability and maintainability) without having to do anything too obscure. And I have to admit it was fun to do, I had never thought to actually ask the compiler if I was dealing with enums or not...
I think the Java enum would be a good model to follow. Essentially, the Java form would look like this:
public enum Result {
OK("OK"), CANCEL("Cancel");
private final String name;
Result(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
}
What's interesting about the Java approach is that OK and CANCEL are immutable, singleton instances of Result (with the methods that you see). You cannot create any further instances of Result. Since they're singletons, you can compare by pointer/reference---very handy. :-)
ETA: In Java, instead of doing bitmasks by hand, instead you use an EnumSet to specify a bit set (it implements the Set interface, and works like sets---but implemented using bitmasks). Much more readable than hand-written bitmask manipulation!
I gave an answer to this here, on a different topic. It's a different style of approach which allows most of the same functionality without requiring modification to the original enum definition (and consequently allowing usage in cases where you don't define the enum). It also allows runtime range checking.
The downside of my approach is that it doesn't programmatically enforce the coupling between the enum and the helper class, so they have to be updated in parallel. It works for me, but YMMV.
I am currently writing my own typesafe enum library at https://bitbucket.org/chopsii/typesafe-enums
I am not the most experienced C++ developer ever, but I am writing this due to the shortcomings of the BOOST vault enums.
Feel free to check it out and use them yourself, but they have some (hopefully minor) usability issues, and are probably not at all cross-platform.
Please contribute if you want to. This is my first open source undertaking.
Use boost::variant!
After trying a lot of the above ideas and finding them lacking I hit upon this simple approach:
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/variant.hpp>
struct A_t {};
static const A_t A = A_t();
template <typename T>
bool isA(const T & x) { if(boost::get<A_t>(&x)) return true; return false; }
struct B_t {};
static const B_t B = B_t();
template <typename T>
bool isB(const T & x) { if(boost::get<B_t>(&x)) return true; return false; }
struct C_t {};
static const C_t C = C_t();
template <typename T>
bool isC(const T & x) { if(boost::get<C_t>(&x)) return true; return false; }
typedef boost::variant<A_t, B_t> AB;
typedef boost::variant<B_t, C_t> BC;
void ab(const AB & e)
{
if(isA(e))
std::cerr << "A!" << std::endl;
if(isB(e))
std::cerr << "B!" << std::endl;
// ERROR:
// if(isC(e))
// std::cerr << "C!" << std::endl;
// ERROR:
// if(e == 0)
// std::cerr << "B!" << std::endl;
}
void bc(const BC & e)
{
// ERROR:
// if(isA(e))
// std::cerr << "A!" << std::endl;
if(isB(e))
std::cerr << "B!" << std::endl;
if(isC(e))
std::cerr << "C!" << std::endl;
}
int main() {
AB a;
a = A;
AB b;
b = B;
ab(a);
ab(b);
ab(A);
ab(B);
// ab(C); // ERROR
// bc(A); // ERROR
bc(B);
bc(C);
}
You can probably come up with a macro to generate the boilerplate. (Let me know if you do.)
Unlike other approaches this one is actually type-safe and works with old C++. You can even make cool types like boost::variant<int, A_t, B_t, boost::none>, for example, to represent a value that could be A, B, an integer or nothing which is almost Haskell98 levels of type safety.
Downsides to be aware of:
at-least with old boost -- I'm on a system with boost 1.33 -- you are limited to 20 items in your variant; there is a work-around however
affects compile time
insane error messages -- but that's C++ for you
Update
Here, for your convenience is your typesafe-enum "library". Paste this header:
#ifndef _TYPESAFE_ENUMS_H
#define _TYPESAFE_ENUMS_H
#include <string>
#include <boost/variant.hpp>
#define ITEM(NAME, VAL) \
struct NAME##_t { \
std::string toStr() const { return std::string( #NAME ); } \
int toInt() const { return VAL; } \
}; \
static const NAME##_t NAME = NAME##_t(); \
template <typename T> \
bool is##NAME(const T & x) { if(boost::get<NAME##_t>(&x)) return true; return false; } \
class toStr_visitor: public boost::static_visitor<std::string> {
public:
template<typename T>
std::string operator()(const T & a) const {
return a.toStr();
}
};
template<BOOST_VARIANT_ENUM_PARAMS(typename T)>
inline static
std::string toStr(const boost::variant<BOOST_VARIANT_ENUM_PARAMS(T)> & a) {
return boost::apply_visitor(toStr_visitor(), a);
}
class toInt_visitor: public boost::static_visitor<int> {
public:
template<typename T>
int operator()(const T & a) const {
return a.toInt();
}
};
template<BOOST_VARIANT_ENUM_PARAMS(typename T)>
inline static
int toInt(const boost::variant<BOOST_VARIANT_ENUM_PARAMS(T)> & a) {
return boost::apply_visitor(toInt_visitor(), a);
}
#define ENUM(...) \
typedef boost::variant<__VA_ARGS__>
#endif
And use it like:
ITEM(A, 0);
ITEM(B, 1);
ITEM(C, 2);
ENUM(A_t, B_t) AB;
ENUM(B_t, C_t) BC;
Notice you have to say A_t instead of A in the ENUM macro which destroys some of the magic. Oh well. Also, notice there's now a toStr function and a toInt function to meet OPs requirement of simple conversion to strings and ints. The requirement I can't figure out is a way to iterate over the items. Let me know if you know how to write such a thing.
Not sure if this post is too late, but there's an article on GameDev.net which satisfies all but the 5th point (ability to iterate over enumerators):
http://www.gamedev.net/reference/snippets/features/cppstringizing/
The method described by the article allows string conversion support for existing enumerations without changing their code. If you only want support for new enumerations though, I'd go with Boost.Enum (mentioned above).

single get method which return different type variables

I want to make a class that will have a single get template method which will receive an std::string to find in a std::map the right variable and return it.
The std::map should store any type of variable, so I used boost::any, so far the std::map looks like that:
std::map<std::string, boost::any> variables_;
for the get function, I tried something like that:
template <typename T>
T get(std::string& parameter)
{
return variables_[parameter];
}
But no lucky, my question is, is that even possible to do? If so, how?
The basic idea is that I dont want to make an specific method to every specific variable in my class, so other classes dont need to know about every get method of it.
Thanks!
ps: For anyone asking why I want this, here is a resume of it, I have a lot of algorithms, that will run in a certain order, and it will use that for the last one already runned algorithm. So, what I want is to make an xml file, that will tell what algorithms will run, in which order and what data it will use from another algorithm.
So, for example, algorithm A have an variable named "threshold", algorithm B need that information, so, normally it will have to ask it from the A using something like A.getThreshold, but as far as I know, I can't call a object function with it name in an string (from the xml file), so my solution would be have only an get function which i pass the variable name I want and that function will return it to me.
An alternative solution would be to "wrap" the boost::any object into another object which can be automatically converted to anything you want. I don't think it's a good practice but it's the best fit according to your question.
class AnyWrapper {
boost::any value;
public:
AnyWrapper(const boost::any& val) : value(val) {}
template<typename T> operator T() {
return boost::any_cast<T>(value);
}
}
And your getter would be something like :
AnyWrapper get(std::string& parameter)
{
return variables_[parameter]; // variables is a std::map<std::string, boost::any>
}
And then you should be able to retrieve your elements like that :
int integerValue = myContainer.get("age");
std::string stringValue = myContainer.get("name");
But again, this is not a clean solution. There is a reason why the boost authors chose to make the any_cast explicit :)
An boost::any value won't implicitly convert to a type T, you have to request that cast manually:
template <typename T>
T get(std::string& parameter)
{
return boost::any_cast<T>(variables_[parameter]);
}
The call will fail with a boost::bad_any_cast exception if the type stored in the any is not exactly T.
You can also return an boost::any. You lose encapsulation of your implementation, but depending on how you use the return value, it may be the better way.
What you want is not possible as you are trying to mix compile time (template) and runtime (map lookup) code.
You either have to make it fully runtime:
struct base_type { virtual ~base_type{} };
struct derived_type: base_type { ... };
std::map<std::string, base_type*> lookup_map;
base_type* get(std::string const& key) { return lookup_map[key]; }
Or fully compile time (boost.fusion example):
#include <boost/fusion/container/map.hpp>
#include <boost/fusion/sequence/intrinsic/at_key.hpp>
#include <boost/fusion/sequence/intrinsic/value_at_key.hpp>
namespace bf=boost::fusion;
struct key_a; // analogues of string keys in compile time world
struct key_b;
struct key_c;
typedef bf::map<
bf::pair<key_a, long>,
bf::pair<key_b, double>,
bf::pair<key_c, char const*>
> rtmap_t;
rtmap_t rtmap;
template <class Key>
void set_value(typename bf::result_of::value_at_key<rtmap_t, Key>::type const& val)
{
bf::at_key<Key>(rtmap) = val;
}
template <class Key>
typename bf::result_of::at_key<rtmap_t, Key>::type get_value()
{
return bf::at_key<Key>(rtmap);
}
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
char const* cval = "hello metaprogramming";
set_value<key_a>(123l);
set_value<key_b>(456.789);
set_value<key_c>(cval);
std::cout << get_value<key_a>() << std::endl;
std::cout << get_value<key_b>() << std::endl;
std::cout << get_value<key_c>() << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Considering the information you provided in your question I would choose runtime variant with dynamic polymorphism.

Stringify template arguments

Is it possible in C++ to stringify template arguments?
I tried this:
#include <iostream>
#define STRINGIFY(x) #x
template <typename T>
struct Stringify
{
Stringify()
{
std::cout << STRINGIFY(T) << endl;
}
};
int main()
{
Stringify<int> s;
}
But what I get is a T, and not an int. Seems that the preprocessor macros are evaluated before template instantiation.
Is there any other way to do this?
Is there any way for the preprocessing to take place after template instantiation? (Compiler is VC++).
You could try
typeid(T).name()
Edit: Fixed based on comments.
You could use some template magic.
#include <iostream>
template <typename T>
struct TypeName { static const char *name; };
template <typename T>
const char *TypeName<T>::name = "unknown";
template <>
const char *TypeName<int>::name = "int";
template <typename T>
struct Stringify
{
Stringify()
{
std::cout << TypeName<T>::name << std::endl;
}
};
int main()
{
Stringify<int> s;
}
This has an advantage over RTTI (i.e. typeinfo) - it is resolved during compilation; and disadvantage - you need to provide type information yourself (unless there is some library that does that already that I'm not aware of; maybe something in Boost even).
Or, as Martin York suggested in comments, use inline function templates instead:
template <typename T>
inline const char* typeName(void) { return "unknown"; }
template <>
inline const char* typeName<int>(void) { return "int"; }
// ...
std::cout << typeName<T>() << std::endl;
But, if you'll ever need to store more information about that particular type, then class templates will probably be better.
Your code doesn't work because the preprocessor, responsible for searching and expanding the macros you use in your code, is not aware of the language itself. It is just a text parser. It finds that STRINGIFY(T) in the very function template and expand it, much before you give a type to that template. As it turns out, you will always get "T" instead of the typename you expected, unfortunately.
As litb suggested, I've (badly) implemented this `getTypeName' function template that returns the typename you pass it:
#include <iostream>
template <typename _Get_TypeName>
const std::string &getTypeName()
{
static std::string name;
if (name.empty())
{
const char *beginStr = "_Get_TypeName =";
const size_t beginStrLen = 15; // Yes, I know...
// But isn't it better than strlen()?
size_t begin,length;
name = __PRETTY_FUNCTION__;
begin = name.find(beginStr) + beginStrLen + 1;
length = name.find("]",begin) - begin;
name = name.substr(begin,length);
}
return name;
}
int main()
{
typedef void (*T)(int,int);
// Using getTypeName()
std::cout << getTypeName<float>() << '\n';
std::cout << getTypeName<T>() << '\n'; // You don't actually need the
// typedef in this case, but
// for it to work with the
// typeid below, you'll need it
// Using typeid().name()
std::cout << typeid(float).name() << '\n';
std::cout << typeid(T).name() << '\n';
return 0;
}
The code above results in the following output with GCC flag -s ("strip all symbols from binary") enabled:
float
void (*)(int, int)
f
PFviiE
So, you see, getTypename() does a fairly better job, at the cost of that fugly string parsing hack (I KNOW, it's damn ugly).
A few points to take into account:
The code is GCC only. I don't know how to port it to another compiler. Probably only a few others have such a facility to produce so pretty function names, and from what I searched, MSVC++ doesn't have one, if you're asking yourself that.
If, in a new version, GCC formats __PRETTY_FUNCTION__'s differently, the string matching can break and you'll have to fix it. For this same reason I also warn that getTypeName() might be good for debugging (and, still, maybe not even good for that), but it is surely bad, bad, and bad for other purposes such as comparing two types in a template or something like that (I don't know, just guessing what someone might think of..). Use it solely for debugging, and preferentially don't call it in release builds (use macros to disable), so that you don't use __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ and thus the compiler doesn't produce the string for it.
I'm definitely no expert, and I'm not sure whether some odd type could cause the string matching to fail. I'd like to ask for people who read this post to comment if they know of such a case.
The code uses a static std::string. It means that, if some exception is thrown from its constructor or destructor, there is no way that it will reach a catch block and you'll get an unhandled exception. I don't know whether std::strings can do that, but beware that, if they do, you're potentially in trouble. I used it because it needs a destructor to free the memory. You could implement your own class for that, though, ensuring no exception is thrown besides allocation failure (that's pretty much fatal, isn't it? So...), and return a simple C-string.
With typedefs you can get some weird results, like this (for some reason, the site breaks the formatting of this snippet, so I'm using this paste link): http://pastebin.com/f51b888ad
Despite those disadvantages, I'd like to say that it sure is fast. For the second time you lookup for one same type name, it will cost picking a reference to a global std::string containing the name. And, comparatively to the template specialiazation methods suggested before, there is nothing else you have to declare besides the very template itself, so it is really much easier to use.
No, you cannot work on types as if they were variables. You could write code that extracted the typeid() of an element and printed the name, but the resulting value will probably not be what you expect (type names are not standarized).
You can also work with template specializations (and some macro magic) to achieve a more interesting version if the number of types you want to work with is limited:
template <typename T> const char* printtype(); // not implemented
// implement specializations for given types
#define DEFINE_PRINT_TYPE( type ) \
template<>\
const char* printtype<type>() {\
return #type;\
}
DEFINE_PRINT_TYPE( int );
DEFINE_PRINT_TYPE( double );
// ... and so on
#undef DEFINE_PRINT_TYPE
template <typename T> void test()
{
std::cout << printtype<T>() << std::endl;
}
int main() {
test<int>();
test<double>();
test<float>(); // compilation error, printtype undefined for float
}
Or you could even combine both versions: implement the printtype generic template using typeinfo and then provide specializations for the types you want to have fancier names.
template <typename T>
const char* printtype()
{
return typeid(T).name();
}
This breaks one of my primary tenets of C++ code writing: Avoid using tricks in both the template features and the preprocessor at the same time.
Part of the reason for templates and the nastiness they introduce into the language was an attempt to wean developers away from using the preprocessor. If you use both, then the terrorists win.
If you use boost/core/demangle.hpp, you can get a reliable human-readable string.
char const * name = typeid(T).name();
boost::core::scoped_demangled_name demangled( name );
std::cout << (demangled.get() ? demangled.get() : "Failed to demangle") << std::endl;
in my code I use the "awful" double-declaration of the "Class-Name"
MqFactoryC<MyServer>::Add("MyServer").Default();
because c++ is NOT able to extract the string "MyServer" from the template…
the only "way" to get "rid" of this… using a cpp "wrapper"
#define MQ_CPPSTR(s) #s
#define MqFactoryCAdd(T) MqFactoryC<T>::Add(MQ_CPPSTR(T)).Default()
Here’s what I do: I have a demangle() function (implemented on top of abi::__cxa_demangle() which I call with a couple of convenience template function overloads, nameof(), with either the type I want stringified or an instance of same.
It’s fairly compact, so I’ll reproduce it here in all its glory. In demangle.hh we have:
#pragma once
#include <typeinfo>
namespace terminator {
/// actual function to demangle an allegedly mangled thing
char const* demangle(char const* const symbol) noexcept;
/// convenience function template to stringify a name of a type,
/// either per an explicit specialization:
/// char const* mytypename = terminator::nameof<SomeType>();
template <typename NameType>
char const* nameof() {
try {
return demangle(typeid(NameType).name());
} catch (std::bad_typeid const&) {
return "<unknown>";
}
}
/// … or as implied by an instance argument:
/// char const* myinstancetypename = terminator::nameof(someinstance);
template <typename ArgType>
char const* nameof(ArgType argument) {
try {
return demangle(typeid(argument).name());
} catch (std::bad_typeid const&) {
return "<unknown>";
}
}
} /* namespace terminator */
… And then in demangle.cpp:
#include "demangle.hh"
#include <cstdlib>
#include <cxxabi.h>
#include <mutex>
#include <memory>
namespace terminator {
namespace {
/// define one singular, private, static std::mutex,
/// to keep the demangler from reentering itself
static std::mutex mangle_barrier;
/// define a corresponding private and static std::unique_ptr,
/// using a delete-expression to reclaim the memory malloc()'ed by
/// abi::__cxa_demangle() upon its return.
/// … we use clang pragmas to add flags locally for this to work:
#pragma clang diagnostic push
#pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wglobal-constructors"
#pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wexit-time-destructors"
std::unique_ptr<char, decltype(std::free)&> demangled_name{ nullptr, std::free };
#pragma clang diagnostic pop
}
char const* demangle(char const* const symbol) noexcept {
if (!symbol) { return "<null>"; }
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(mangle_barrier);
int status = -4;
demangled_name.reset(
abi::__cxa_demangle(symbol,
demangled_name.get(),
nullptr, &status));
return ((status == 0) ? demangled_name.release() : symbol);
}
} /* namespace terminator */
To use this, I think you’ll have to link to libc++ (or whatever your local equivalent is) to use abi::__cxa_demangle(). What may be suboptimal for the OP is the fact that this does the demangling and stringification at runtime. I’d personally love something constexpr-friendly in leu of this, but since I suffer from a severe macro-abuse allergy, I find this to be the least generally-unreasonable solution to this problem.
(the terminator namespace is inconsequential – I use this code in a libunwind-based stacktracer called from termination handler – feel free to s///g that token)