I've had trouble with setting up variables in namespaces multiple times already, but usually now solve it by having the setup be as follows:
.h
namespace MyNS {
extern Variable var;
}
.cpp
#include "MyNS.h"
Variable MyNS::var;
Now, this works fine with primitives, but becomes a problem when the Variable object is somewhat of a more complex object.
Namely, my problem this time is that I would like to leave some variables uninitialized until I call a certain function. Something as follows:
.h
namespace MyNS {
extern Variable var;
void init();
}
.cpp
#include "MyNS.h"
Variable MyNS::var;
void MyNS::init() { var = Variable(a, b, c); }
This gives a compile time error, because Variable does not have a default constructor (And I don't want it to have one). But when I remove the 2nd line in the .cpp, I get linker error unresolved external symbol.
How can I solve this problem? How do I initialize a variable of a namespace "later"?
The "hacky" solution I have so far is to have my namespace hold a Variable*, initialize it to nullptr, and then assign it the actual object in my init function. But that seems incredibly hacky for something so simple, since I have no actual reason for using pointers in this case.
Variable does not have a default constructor (And I don't want it to have one)
Then you simply can't create an instances of Variable without passing values into its constructor, eg:
namespace MyNS {
extern Variable var;
void init();
}
#include "MyNS.h"
Variable MyNS::var(0, 0, 0);
void MyNS::init() { var = Variable(a, b, c); }
Another solution is to make var be a Variable* pointer instead, and then init() can new it, eg:
namespace MyNS {
extern Variable* var;
void init();
void cleanup();
}
#include "MyNS.h"
Variable* MyNS::var = nullptr;
void MyNS::init() { var = new Variable(a, b, c); }
void MyNS::cleanup() { delete var; }
Alternatively:
#include <memory>
namespace MyNS {
extern std::unique_ptr<Variable> var;
void init();
}
#include "MyNS.h"
std::unique_ptr<Variable> MyNS::var;
void MyNS::init() { var = std::make_unique<Variable>(a, b, c); }
Another solution would be to make var be a std::optional<Variable> instead, eg:
#include <optional>
namespace MyNS {
extern std::optional<Variable> var;
void init();
}
#include "MyNS.h"
std::optional<Variable> MyNS::var;
void MyNS::init() { var = Variable(a, b, c); }
Another solution is to wrap var inside of a singleton, eg:
namespace MyNS {
struct VariableAccess {
static Variable& Var();
};
}
#include "MyNS.h"
Variable& MyNS::VariableAccess::Var() {
static Variable var(a, b, c);
return var;
};
Related
I hope to use map library to call a function by a string with the function name, I've tested the following example and everything are working well.
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
typedef void (*pFunc)();
map<string, pFunc> strFuncMap;
void func1()
{
printf("this is func1!\n");
}
void buildMap()
{
strFuncMap["func1"] = &func1;//
}
void callFunc(const std::string& str)
{
(*strFuncMap[str])();
}
int main()
{
buildMap();
callFunc("func1");
return 0;
}
However, as I define all these things in a class, there is a compiler error occur:
#include <map>
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class theClass {
public:
typedef void (*pFunc)();
map<string, pFunc> strFuncMap;
void func1()
{
printf("this is func1!\n");
}
void buildMap()
{
strFuncMap["func1"] = &func1;// a value of type cannot be assigned to an entity of type
}
void callFunc(const std::string& str)
{
(*strFuncMap[str])();
}
};
int main()
{
theClass a;
a.buildMap();
a.callFunc("func1");
return 0;
}
I've tried to solve this problem for a couple of hours. Or is there any other way to use string to call function in a class? I will very appreciate if someone can help me. THANKS!!
Your code doesn't work because func1 is a member function and the syntax for member functions is different.
You need a map of member function pointers (offsets)
typedef void (theClass::*pFunc)();
map<string, pFunc> strFuncMap;
Then you can store the pointer with
strFuncMap["func1"] = &theClass::func1;
And you need an object to call a member function
(this->*strFuncMap[str])();
The final code:
#include <map>
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class theClass {
public:
typedef void (theClass::*pFunc)();
map<string, pFunc> strFuncMap;
void func1()
{
printf("this is func1!\n");
}
void buildMap()
{
strFuncMap["func1"] = &theClass::func1;
}
void callFunc(const std::string& str)
{
(this->*strFuncMap[str])();
}
};
int main()
{
theClass a;
a.buildMap();
a.callFunc("func1");
return 0;
}
typedef void (*pFunc)();
This declares pFunc to be the type of function pointers. That is, the type of pointers to functions which exist at the top-level. This excludes member functions, lambda functions, and functors. Consider
using pFunc = std::function<void()>
Now your type will correctly accept anything that can reasonably be interpreted as a callable object. Note that member functions still need to be wrapped in a lambda, since you're closing around this.
strFuncMap["func1"] = [this]() { this->func1(); };
How can an object access a variable belonging the class containing it?
Right now I have a class called system that contains some other objects, and those objects need to access and modify one of the variables in the System class.
Example:
Class System {
BlockA _blockA = new BlockA();
BlockB _blockB = new BlockB();
BlockC _blockC = new BlockC();
BlockD _blockD = new BlockD();
int myVariable;
...stuff...
}
Class BlockA {
...stuff...
void someFunction () {
System.myVariable++;
}
...stuff...
}
etc...
Alright so I thought about this some more and realized that when initializing the objects, I will pass a pointer to the variable of interest. That way all objects can read that variable. For anyone else with this problem, if you need to write, you'll have to make sure that the variable is atomic.
Hard to know exactly what you're after, but appears something along these lines:
#BlockA.h
#ifndef BLOCKA_H
#define BLOCKA_H
class System;
class BlockA {
System* sys;
public:
BlockA(System* sys) : sys(sys) {}
void SomeFunction();
};
#endif // BLOCKA_H
#BlockA.cpp
#include "System.h"
void BlockA::SomeFunction() {
sys->setMyVariable(sys->getMyVariable() + 1);
}
#System.h
#ifndef SYSTEM_H
#define SYSTEM_H
class BlockA;
class System {
BlockA* _blockA;
int myVariable;
public:
System();
int getMyVariable() const;
void setMyVariable(int value);
BlockA& getBlockA() const;
};
#endif // SYSTEM_H
#System.cpp
#include "System.h"
#include "BlockA.h"
System::System()
: _blockA(new BlockA(this)) { }
int System::getMyVariable() const {
return myVariable;
}
void System::setMyVariable(int value) {
myVariable = value;
}
BlockA& System::getBlockA() const {
return *_blockA;
}
I have these two files table.cpp and table.h in my program code apart from the main.cpp. The files are described as below
table.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include "table.h"
using namespace std;
// accessor function for Name
char* PeriodicTable::Name()
{
return Name;
}
// accessor function for Symbol
char* PeriodicTable::Symbol()
{
return Symbol;
}
table.h
#ifndef TABLE_H
#define TABLE_H
class PeriodicTable
{
char Name[15], Symbol[3], GroupName[20], Block, State[25], Colour[15], Classification[20];
int GroupNo, AtomicNo, PeriodNo;
float Weight;
public:
char* Name();
char* Symbol();
};
#endif
but the problem is that the IntelliSense(since I am using Visual C++ Express 2010) shows a red curved underline below the name and symbol in the accessor function in table.cpp. I can't understand why???
Your member functions and member variables have the same name. This is not possible in C++. That's why various conventions exist for naming member variables, e.g. m_name, name_ etc. (NB: When dealing with underscores in identifiers make sure you don't use a reserved name by accident.)
You might wonder why and how that could possibly go wrong. In your example there clearly is no way to invoke operator() on char[15], but the problem is that the compiler only knows that after performing semantic analysis. There could also be cases where it is impossible to disambiguate. For example:
struct Func {
void operator()() { };
};
struct C {
Func f;
void f() {}
};
int main() {
C c;
c.f(); // which one?
}
Before I present the code which is found at the bottom of this post I would like to talk about the issue and the fix's that I do not desire. Okay basically I've created a GUI from scratch sort of and one requirement I wanted for this was allow components to have their own click executions so if i click a button or tab etc.. It would call Component->Execute(); Well normally you would do something like a switch statement of ids and if that components ID equaled n number then it would perform this action. Well that seemed kinda dumb to me and I thought there has to be a better way. I eventually tried to incorporate a feature in JAVA where you would do like Component.AddActionListener(new ActionListener( public void execute(ActionEvent ae) { })); or something like that and I thought that this feature has to be possible in C++. I eventually came across storing void functions into a variable in which could be executed at any time and modified at any time. However I hadn't noticed an issue and that was this only worked with static functions. So below you'll see my problem. I've patched the problem by using a pointer to SomeClass however this would mean having an individual function call for every class type is there no way to store a function callback to a non-static class member without doing the below strategy? and instead doing a strategy like the commented out code?
//Main.cpp
#include <iostream> //system requires this.
#include "SomeClass.h"
void DoSomething1(void)
{
std::cout << "We Called Static DoSomething1\n";
}
void DoSomething2(void)
{
std::cout << "We Called Static DoSomething2\n";
}
int main()
{
void (*function_call2)(SomeClass*);
void (*function_call)() = DoSomething1; //This works No Problems!
function_call(); //Will Call the DoSomething1(void);
function_call = DoSomething2; //This works No Problems!
function_call(); //Will Call the DoSomething2(void);
SomeClass *some = new SomeClass(); //Create a SomeClass pointer;
function_call = SomeClass::DoSomething3; //Static SomeClass::DoSomething3();
function_call(); //Will Call the SomeClass::DoSomething3(void);
//function_call = some->DoSomething4; //Non-Static SomeClass::DoSomething4 gives an error.
//function_call(); //Not used because of error above.
function_call2 = SomeClass::DoSomething5; //Store the SomeClass::DoSomething(SomeClass* some);
function_call2(some); //Call out SomeClass::DoSomething5 which calls on SomeClass::DoSomething4's non static member.
system("pause");
return 0;
}
//SomeClass.hpp
#pragma once
#include <iostream>
class SomeClass
{
public:
SomeClass();
~SomeClass();
public:
static void DoSomething3(void);
void DoSomething4(void);
static void DoSomething5(SomeClass* some);
};
//SomeClass.cpp
#include "SomeClass.h"
SomeClass::SomeClass(void)
{
}
SomeClass::~SomeClass(void)
{
}
void SomeClass::DoSomething3(void)
{
std::cout << "We Called Static DoSomething3\n";
}
void SomeClass::DoSomething4(void)
{
std::cout << "We Called Non-Static DoSomething4\n";
}
void SomeClass::DoSomething5(SomeClass *some)
{
some->DoSomething4();
}
Secondary Fix for what I'll do not an exact answer I wanted but it meets my needs for now along with allowing additional features which would have become overly complicate had this not existed.
//Component.hpp
#pragma once
#include <iostream>
#include <windows.h>
#include <d3dx9.h>
#include <d3d9.h>
#include "Constants.hpp"
#include "ScreenState.hpp"
#include "ComponentType.hpp"
using namespace std;
class Component
{
static void EMPTY(void) { }
static void EMPTY(int i) { }
public:
Component(void)
{
callback = EMPTY;
callback2 = EMPTY;
callback_id = -1;
}
Component* SetFunction(void (*callback)())
{
this->callback = callback;
return this;
}
Component* SetFunction(void (*callback2)(int), int id)
{
this->callback_id = id;
this->callback2 = callback2;
return this;
}
void execute(void)
{
callback();
callback2(callback_id);
}
}
The syntax for pointers-to-member-functions is as follows:
struct Foo
{
void bar(int, int);
void zip(int, int);
};
Foo x;
void (Foo::*p)(int, int) = &Foo::bar; // pointer
(x.*p)(1, 2); // invocation
p = &Foo::zip;
(x.*p)(3, 4); // invocation
Mind the additional parentheses in the function invocation, which is needed to get the correct operator precedence. The member-dereference operator is .* (and there's also ->* from an instance pointer).
that this snippet of code actually do?
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdio>
#include <cstdlib>
using namespace std;
void test();
namespace {
static struct StaticStruct {
StaticStruct() {
test();
}
} TheStaticSupport;
}
int main(void) {
return 0;
}
void test() {
printf("testing function\n");
}
why does the test function actually get called? and why use the "anonymous" namespace? I found this piece of code in an open source project...
This:
static struct StaticStruct {
StaticStruct() {
test();
}
} TheStaticSupport;
Is equivalent to this:
struct StaticStruct {
StaticStruct() {
test();
}
};
static StaticStruct TheStaticSupport;
It defines a type named StaticStruct and an instance of the type named TheStaticSupport with internal linkage (though, since it is declared in an unnamed namespace, the static is redundant).
The constructor for TheStaticSupport is called before main() is entered, to construct the object. This calls the test() function.
The anonymous namespace gives the contained objects internal linkage, as their fully qualified name can never be known to anyone outside the translation unit. It's the sophisticated man's version of the old static in C.
Note that you do declare a global object of type StaticStruct, and its constructor (which runs before main() is called) calls test().