Related
I am trying to calculate area of all shapes (rectangle, rhombus, triangle, circle) through using virtual and override methods. But when I execute the code it returns 1 for the area for all shapes even though I have tried with the rectangle to alter it to input the given area multiple times in int main() it still only outputs "My figure type is My area is 1 My figure type is Triangle My area is 1 My figure type is Circle My area is 1 My figure type is Rhombus My area is 1"
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <cmath>
using namespace std;
class Figure
{
protected:
double x;
double y;
string type;
public:
Figure(double m_x, double m_y) : x{ m_x }, y{ m_y } {};
virtual double area(double x, double y) { return 0; };
Figure(double m_x, double m_y, double x = 0, double y = 0) { m_x = x; m_y = y; }
virtual void Print() const final;
Figure(const Figure& obj);
Figure() {};
};
class Rectangle : public Figure
{
public:
Rectangle(double x, double y)
{
this->x = x;
this->y = y;
type = " Rectangle";
double area();
}
double area(double x, double y) override {
return x * y;
}
Rectangle() {};
};
class Triangle : public Figure
{
public:
Triangle(double x, double y)
{
this->x = x;
this->y = y;
type = " Triangle";
double area();
}
double area(double x, double y)override {
return x * y / 2;
}
Triangle() {};
};
class Circle : public Figure
{
public:
Circle(double x, double y)
{
this->x = x;
this->y = y;
type = " Circle";
double area();
}
double area(double x, double y)override {
return pow(x, 2) * 3.14;
}
Circle() {};
};
class Rhombus : public Figure
{
public:
Rhombus(double x, double y)
{
this->x = x; this->y = y; type = " Rhombus"; double area();
}
double area(double x, double y)override {
return x * y / 2;
}
Rhombus() {};
};
void Figure::Print() const
{
cout << " My figure type is" << type
<< " My area is " << &Figure::area;
}
int main()
{
Rectangle rectangle;
rectangle.area(5.4,6.2);
rectangle.Print();
Triangle triangle(4.5,5.3);
triangle.Print();
Circle circle(6.6, 8.8);
circle.Print();
Rhombus rhombus(3.4,5.4);
rhombus.Print();
}
You are getting 1 because a valid function pointer is treated as true.
You should call the function area like Figure::area(x, y) instead of getting the address of the function area like &Figure::area.
it's simple. really.
When you do
rectangle.area(x, y);
you just return the value you obtain from the variables that you passed in. You never assign a value to the x and y of the actual rectangle. So when you do print the area of the rectangle you use its real x and y, which do not have a value assigned to them, hence resulting in a 1. it's the same for the other shapes.
I'm trying to make a custom vector data structure. It will always contain 4 float values. I want to make it accessible via its attributes names, but also through operator [ ], so it could be also accessed with index like e.g. array. It should be editable through operator [ ], like vector or array.
I've done so far this:
struct vec4
{
float* x;
float* y;
float* z;
float* w;
vec4() : data(4, 0.0f) { Init(); }
vec4(float x, float y, float z, float w)
{
data = std::vector<float>{ x, y, z, w };
Init();
}
float* operator[](int i) const
{
switch (i)
{
case 0: return x;
case 1: return y;
case 2: return z;
case 3: return w;
default: __debugbreak();
}
}
private:
std::vector<float> data;
void Init()
{
std::vector<float>::iterator start = data.begin();
this->x = &(*++start);
this->y = &(*++start);
this->z = &(*++start);
this->w = &(*start);
}
};
Is there any more elegant way how to solve this problem?
Having individual members and then using a switch statement is pretty much the way to do this. You don't need the vector though and can write the class like
struct vec4
{
float x = 0;
float y = 0;
float z = 0;
float w = 0;
vec4() = default;
vec4(float x, float y, float z, float w) : x(x), y(y), z(z), w(w) {}
const float& operator[](int i) const
{
switch (i)
{
case 0: return x;
case 1: return y;
case 2: return z;
case 3: return w;
default: __debugbreak();
}
}
float& operator[](int i)
{
// this is safe because we are in a non-const function, so this cant point to a const object
return const_cast<float&>(static_cast<const vec4&>(*this)[i]);
}
};
How about
struct vec4
{
vec4() : vec4(0, 0, 0, 0) {}
vec4(float x, float y, float z, float w) : data{ x, y, z, w } {}
float operator[](int i) const { return data[i]; }
float& operator[](int i) { return data[i]; }
float at(int i) const { return data.at(i); }
float& at(int i) { return data.at(i); }
float x() const { return data[0]; }
float y() const { return data[1]; }
float z() const { return data[2]; }
float w() const { return data[3]; }
float& x() { return data[0]; }
float& y() { return data[1]; }
float& z() { return data[2]; }
float& w() { return data[3]; }
private:
std::array<float, 4> data;
};
I am learning OpenGL w/ C++. I am building the asteroids game as an exercise. I'm not quite sure how to override the constructors:
projectile.h
class projectile
{
protected:
float x;
float y;
public:
projectile();
projectile(float, float);
float get_x() const;
float get_y() const;
void move();
};
projectile.cpp
projectile::projectile()
{
x = 0.0f;
y = 0.0f;
}
projectile::projectile(float X, float Y)
{
x = X;
y = Y;
}
float projectile::get_x() const
{
return x;
}
float projectile::get_y() const
{
return y;
}
void projectile::move()
{
x += 0.5f;
y += 0.5f;
}
asteroid.h
#include "projectile.h"
class asteroid : public projectile
{
float radius;
public:
asteroid();
asteroid(float X, float Y);
float get_radius();
};
main.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include "asteroid.h"
using namespace std;
int main()
{
asteroid a(1.0f, 2.0f);
cout << a.get_x() << endl;
cout << a.get_y() << endl;
}
error I'm getting:
main.cpp:(.text+0x20): undefined reference to `asteroid::asteroid(float, float)'
You can use the : syntax to call the parent's constructor:
asteroid(float X, float Y) : projectile (x ,y);
Ok, just figured it out.
I actually don't have asteroid constructors defined because I thought they would inherit. But I think I have to do the following in asteroid.h:
asteroid(float X, float Y) : projectile(X, Y){];
You need a asteroid.cpp.
Even though inheriting from projectile, for non-default constructors (i.e., asteroid(float,float)), you still need to define the child class constructor.
You'll also need to define get_radius, as it's not defined in your base class.
Here's how that might look (I've taken the liberty of passing values for radius into both ctors):
#include "asteroid.h"
asteroid::asteroid(float r)
: projectile()
{
radius = r;
}
asteroid::asteroid(float x, float y, float r)
: projectile(x, y)
{
radius = r;
}
float asteroid::get_radius()
{
return radius;
}
For example, we have this class:
class Coord
{
double x;
double y;
double z;
public:
Coord() { x = y = z = 0; }
void set(double xx, double yy, double zz)
{
x = xx;
y = yy;
z = zz;
}
void set_x(double xx) { x = xx; }
void set_y(double yy) { y = yy; }
void set_z(double zz) { z = zz; }
double get_x() { return x; }
double get_y() { return y; }
double get_z() { return z; }
};
On these 7 methods we can set and get x,y and z of a coordinate. I am interested in create less methods set() and get() where I can call something like that:
int main()
{
Coord c;
c.set_x(5); /* only set x */
c.set_y(6); /* or y */
c.set_z(7); /* or z */
c.set(1,2,5); /* or setting x, y and z */
c.get_x(); /* only get x */
c.get_y(); /* or y */
c.get_z(); /* or z */
}
If the Coord class is that simple, it could also be a struct.
Anyway you can write something like:
class Coord
{
public:
enum xyz {x = 0, y, z};
Coord() : vec{x, y, z} {}
template<xyz C> void set(double v) { vec[C] = v; }
template<xyz C> double get() const { return vec[C]; }
void set(double xx, double yy, double zz)
{
set<Coord::x>(xx);
set<Coord::y>(yy);
set<Coord::z>(zz);
}
private:
double vec[z + 1];
};
and use the class this way:
Coord c;
c.set<Coord::x>(5); /* only set x */
c.set<Coord::y>(6); /* or y */
c.set<Coord::z>(7); /* or z */
c.set(1,2,5); /* or setting x, y and z */
c.get<Coord::x>(); /* only get x */
c.get<Coord::y>(); /* or y */
c.get<Coord::z>(); /* or z */
getters and setters are meant to protect your data and provide encapsulation.
For example they allow you to add side effects to getting and setting operations (such as writing to a log), or allow you to catch invalid values early before they cause horrible problems later (For example preventing values greater than n being set).
Here's a brief and contrived setter example:
void set_x(int x)
{
// prevent an invalid value for x
if( x > 11 ) x = 11;
// set x
this.x = x;
// log the operation
log("user set x to {0}", x);
}
Assuming your c.set.x(5) example is not using some whacky preprocessor macros, it would require that the Coord class have a member variable called set with methods
x()
y()
z()
This would require just as much code as writing a set_x(), set_y() and set_z() method in your Coord class, but the methods would not belong to the class Coord, instead belonging to another class that is itself used as a member variable of Coord. Doing so would not really make any logical sense... the x, y, and z values belong to Coord and operations on them are operations on the Coord.
Furthermore the methods x() y() and z() would no longer obey the general principle of making methods verbs. Anyone reading the class with those methods would have no idea what function z() is supposed to do!
It would also create a refactoring nightmare: If for example in the future a business requirement appeared that meant no Coords could ever have values of x greater than 21 somone maintaining your code would have to change a class that is a member of Coord rather than the Coord class itself.
Encapsulation with getter and setter methods is often a really good idea and in C++ with the benefit of inlining it can even add no runtime overhead. But keep to the principle "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." In other words get_x() and set_x() are widely understood, useful, easily refactored, convenient, self-documenting and performant... other approaches are likely to be less so.
First: Your usage of c.set.x would not work because you would call a public element set on your object c and where set has a public element x.
I find both classes lack standards of clean code and usual style of getter and setter - even without specifying any language.
A usual way would be to create the following:
class Coord
{
double x;
double y;
double z;
public:
Coord() {
x = 0;
y = 0;
z = 0;
}
Coord(double x, double y, double z)
{
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
this.z = z;
}
void setX(double x) { this.x = x; }
void setY(double y) { this.y = y; }
void setZ(double z) { this.z = z; }
double getX() { return x; }
double getY() { return y; }
double getZ() { return z; }
};
Though some prefer to use m_x as setter variable parameter or any other convention.
Anyhow everyone would directly understand your code. Is able to set and get coordinate values for x, y, z and it would look pretty standard-default-behaviour if someone does following:
Coord P(10, 15, 20);
std::cout << P.getX() << " " << P.getY() << std::endl;
P.setX(-10);
P.setZ(40);
You've already gotten some good answers, but you could also use an enum if you really want a syntax with fewer setters and getters. The client syntax can get a little clunky and awkward, but it of course depends on what you're looking for!
#include <iostream>
class Coord {
public:
enum Axis {
X = 0,
Y,
Z,
NUM_AXES
};
// Using extended initializer lists (C++11)
Coord() : axes_{0, 0, 0} {}
Coord(double x, double y, double z) : axes_{x, y, z} {}
void set(Axis a, double d) {
axes_[a] = d;
}
double get(Axis a) const {
return axes_[a];
}
private:
double axes_[NUM_AXES];
// Copy constructor and assgn. operator included for good measure
Coord(const Coord &);
void operator=(const Coord &);
};
int main()
{
Coord c(1, 2, 3);
std::cout << "X: " << c.get(Coord::X) << std::endl;
std::cout << "Y: " << c.get(Coord::Y) << std::endl;
std::cout << "Z: " << c.get(Coord::Z) << std::endl;
c.set(Coord::Y, 4);
std::cout << "Y: " << c.get(Coord::Y) << std::endl;
return 0;
}
This strange code does exactly what you ask - just C++ fun. Don't do this!
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Coord {
double x;
double y;
double z;
public:
class Setter {
public:
Setter(Coord& coord) : c(coord) {}
void x(double value) { c.x = value; }
void y(double value) { c.y = value; }
void z(double value) { c.z = value; }
void operator()(double x, double y, double z) { c.x = x; c.y = y; c.z = z; }
private:
Coord& c;
};
class Getter {
public:
Getter(Coord& coord) : c(coord) {}
double x() { return c.x; }
double y() { return c.y; }
double z() { return c.z; }
private:
Coord& c;
};
Setter set;
Getter get;
Coord() : set(*this), get(*this) { x = y = z = 0; }
friend class Setter;
};
int main()
{
Coord c;
cout << c.get.x() << " " << c.get.y() << " " << c.get.z() << endl;
c.set.x(1);
c.set.y(2);
c.set.z(3);
cout << c.get.x() << " " << c.get.y() << " " << c.get.z() << endl;
c.set(5, 6, 7);
cout << c.get.x() << " " << c.get.y() << " " << c.get.z() << endl;
return 0;
}
Output:
0 0 0
1 2 3
5 6 7
The more or less standard way to expose this, if validation is not a concern, is to return mutable references from the non-const accessor, and values from the const one. This allows you to separate the interface from storage, while not making the syntax too heavy.
private:
double m_x, m_y, m_z;
public:
double & x() { return m_x; }
double & y() { return m_y; }
double & z() { return m_z; }
double x() const { return m_x; }
double y() const { return m_y; }
double z() const { return m_z; }
This will allow c.x() to obtain the value of the x coordinate whether the Coord object is const or not, and allows setting the value using the syntax c.x() = value.
In the interest of completeness, you can get exactly the syntax you want using the following code, but I would strongly recommend against it. It is a lot of extra code, provides no real benefit, and creates a syntax that is uncommon and most programmers will not find it intuitive.
The technique creates two nested classes getters and setters and exposes instances of them as public members of Coord.
This is provided as an example of how to achieve the result you asked for, but I do not recommend this approach.
class Coord
{
private:
double x, y, z;
public:
Coord();
Coord(double, double, double);
class setters {
friend class Coord;
private:
explicit setters(Coord &);
public:
setters(setters const &) = delete;
setters & operator=(setters const &) = delete;
void x(double) const;
void y(double) const;
void z(double) const;
private:
Coord & coord;
};
friend class setters;
class getters {
friend class Coord;
private:
explicit getters(Coord const &);
public:
getters(getters const &) = delete;
getters & operator=(getters const &) = delete;
double x() const;
double y() const;
double z() const;
private:
Coord const & coord;
};
friend class getters;
setters const set;
getters const get;
};
Coord::Coord() : x(0), y(0), z(0), set(*this), get(*this) { }
Coord::Coord(double px, double py, double pz) : x(px), y(py), z(pz), set(*this), get(*this) { }
Coord::setters::setters(Coord & c) : coord(c) { }
void Coord::setters::x(double px) const {
coord.x = px;
}
void Coord::setters::y(double py) const {
coord.y = py;
}
void Coord::setters::z(double pz) const {
coord.z = pz;
}
Coord::getters::getters(Coord const & c) : coord(c) { }
double Coord::getters::x() const {
return coord.x;
}
double Coord::getters::y() const {
return coord.y;
}
double Coord::getters::z() const {
return coord.z;
}
(Demo)
Actually the function can be reduce based on your requirement as follows,
class Coord
{
double x;
double y;
double z;
public:
Coord() {
x = 0;
y = 0;
z = 0;
}
void GetValues(double* x=NULL, double* y=NULL, double* z=NULL);
void SetValues(double x=0, double y=0, double z=0)
/* You can use constructors like below to set value at the creation of object*/
Coord(double x, double y, double z)
{
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
this.z = z;
}
/*You can set the values of x, y & z in a single function as follows. It can be used at any time without restriction */
void SetValues(double x, double y, double z)
{
if(x > 0) //It is optional to use condition so that you can update any one variable aloen by sending other two as ZERO
{
this.x = x;
}
if(y > 0)
{
this.y = y;
}
if(z > 0)
{
this.z = z;
}
}
/*You can Get the values of x, y & z in a single function as follows. Pass By Reference id the concept you need */
void GetValues(double* x, double* y, double* z)
{
if(x != NULL) //It x is not null.
{
x = this.x;
}
if(y != NULL)
{
y = this.y;
}
if(z != NULL)
{
z= this.z;
}
}
};
while calling you can call like the following,
SetValues(10, 20, 0); //To set x and y values alone.
double x1 = 0;double y1 = 0;double z1 = 0;
GetValues(&x1, &y1, &z1)//It will return the values x1 y1 and z1 as 10, 20 & 0
You cannot do exactly what you want.
In
c.set.x(5); /* only set x */
the c.set subexpression is retrieving a field set from c (unless set is a #define-d macro, but that would be silly).
LeftCollision in CheckCollision() goes true, when ever Object1 collides with Object2(square which is scrolling from right to left of screen) left side. But in the GameObject::Update()
Leftcollision never updates to True, though it changes to true in the CheckCollision section!!
What i want is, whenever the LeftCollision is true, Update should stop, until it becomes false again!!
Below is the code for Header file and CPP file!!
The problem is with LeftCollision updation!! Why is the value not reflected in the Update if condition!!
#pragma once
#include <iostream>
#include <allegro5/allegro5.h>
#include <allegro5/allegro_primitives.h>
#include "Globals.h"
class GameObject
{
private :
int ID;
bool alive;
bool collidable;
protected :
float velX;
float velY;
int dirX;
int dirY;
int boundX;
int boundY;
int maxFrame;
int curFrame;
int frameCount;
int frameDelay;
int frameWidth;
int frameHeight;
int animationColumns;
int animationDirection;
ALLEGRO_BITMAP *image;
public :
float x;
float y;
bool LeftCollision;
bool pause;
GameObject();
void virtual Destroy();
void Init(float x, float y, float velX, float velY, int dirX, int dirY, int boundX, int boundY);
void virtual Update();
void virtual Render();
float GetX() {return x;}
float GetY() {return y;}
void SetX(float x) {GameObject ::x = x;}
void SetY(float y) {GameObject ::y = y;}
int GetBoundX() {return boundX;}
int GetBoundY() {return boundY;}
int GetID() {return ID;}
void SetID(int ID) {GameObject::ID = ID;}
bool GetAlive() {return alive;}
void SetAlive(bool alive) {GameObject :: alive = alive;}
bool GetCollidable() {return collidable;}
void SetCollidable(bool collidable) {GameObject :: collidable = collidable;}
bool CheckCollisions(GameObject *otherObject);
void virtual Collided(int objectID);
bool Collidable();
};
#include "GameObject.h"
GameObject :: GameObject()
{
x = 0;
y = 0;
velX = 0;
velY = 0;
dirX = 0;
dirY = 0;
boundX = 0;
boundY = 0;
LeftCollision = false;
maxFrame = 0;
curFrame = 0;
frameCount = 0;
frameDelay = 0;
frameWidth = 0;
frameHeight = 0;
animationColumns = 0;
animationDirection = 0;
image = NULL;
alive = true;
collidable = true;
}
void GameObject :: Destroy()
{
}
void GameObject :: Init(float x, float y, float velX, float velY, int dirX, int dirY, int boundX, int boundY)
{
GameObject :: x = x;
GameObject :: y = y;
GameObject :: velX = velX;
GameObject :: velY = velY;
GameObject :: dirX = dirX;
GameObject :: dirY = dirY;
GameObject :: boundX = boundX;
GameObject :: boundY = boundY;
}
void GameObject :: Update()
{
if(LeftCollision == false)
{
x += velX * dirX;
y += velY * dirY;
}
}
void GameObject :: Render()
{
}
bool GameObject :: CheckCollisions(GameObject *otherObject)
{
float oX = otherObject->GetX();
float oY = otherObject->GetY();
int obX = otherObject->GetBoundX();
int obY = otherObject->GetBoundY();
if( x + boundX > oX - obX &&
x - boundX < oX + obX &&
y + boundY > oY - obY &&
y - boundY < oY + obY && otherObject->GetID() == TRIANGLE)
{
return true;
}
else if(((oX < x + boundX + 14)&&(oX+ 40 >x - boundX))&&!((oY < y + boundY)&&(oY+40 > y - boundY))
&& otherObject->GetID() == SQUARE)
{
y = oY - boundX - 10;
//x = oX + 40;
return true;
}
else if((oX < x + boundX + 14) && (oX > x - boundX) && otherObject->GetID() == SQUARE)
{
LeftCollision = true;
return false;
}
else
{
return false;
LeftCollision = false;
}
}
void GameObject :: Collided(int objectID)
{
}
bool GameObject :: Collidable()
{
return alive && collidable;
}
Is this part of your problem - returning without setting the value
else
{
return false;
LeftCollision = false;
}
The only thing that jumps to mind is that you've got more than one object going around and you're not always using the one you expect. Try putting something like:
printf("here(%s:%d) this=%p\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, this);
at the start of each method to make sure that the this point is what you think it is. The problem may lie in the calling code that you haven't shown.