C++ Object Creation through Inputs - c++

I would like to create objects of a class with the name of an input
class Rectangle {
public:
int width;
int height;
...
//assume a constructor that assigns (width, height)
}
how would i generate an object of a new name using an input. (not me typing Rectangle myRectangle(1,1); )
assume that there is anywhere from 1 to infinite objects created by the user
(i am not looking for help with the human input, or checking if they still want an input, solely how to use an input to create a uniquely named object)
this is my first stack overflow post so please inform me if i did something wrong.
Cheers,
Coal lad

You can use a map from (user supplied) class name to a factory function.
class Creatable {
virtual ~Creatable() {}
};
class Rectangle : public Creatable {
int width;
int height;
};
class Circle : public Creatable {
int radius;
};
// assume suitable constructors for these
// Given a string (with parameters such as the
// radius or width/height) construct an object
// and return a managed pointer to it
using FactoryFunction_t =
std::function<std::unique_ptr<Creatable>(std::string const &)>;
// maps for example "rectangle" to a function which parses width and height from the string and returns an allocated rectangle
std::map<std::string, FactoryFunction_t> factories;
factories.insert({{"rectangle", CreateRectangle}, {"circle", CreateCircle}});
factories.at("rectangle")("width=21; height=42;");
Instead of using polymorphism (a common base class) you can also use std::variant if the possible classes are known at compile time.
Instead of having each factory function parse a string you can also parse the parameters before - for example into a map parameter name -> parameter value and pass that to the factory functions.
If you want to let the user name the created objects then you could keep the managed pointers from above in a map:
std::map<std::string, std::unique_ptr<Creatable>> objects;
objects["my_rectangle"] = factories.at("rectangle")("width=21; height=42;");
This could be the result from input from the user similar to this:
my_rectangle = rectangle(width=21;height=42;);

#include<vector>
class Rectangle {
public:
int width;
int height;
};
int main(){
/*You can't use unique names. You can use a vector of objects
std::vector<Rectangles> rectsVector; and then when you want
to create anew object ask the user for (width,height) then
rectVector.push_back(Rectangle{width,height}) and so on*/
std::vector<Rectangle> rectsVector;
size_t width{3},height{2};
rectsVector.push_back(Rectangle{width,height});
return 0;
}

Related

What is the best way to initialize a more complex class construct with many unchangeable members in c++

I'm currently designing classes that should represent a chaotic storage system.
Lets say we have slots in rows and columns with certain properties.
So the slots have different restrictions in min/max height, width, length, weight and some more that come from a parameter file.
Also the Slots have a max total weight that must be checked before a new parcel gets added to that slot. And also the max weight that a row of slots can hold is lower than the sum of the max weights of the single slots. So for example each individual slot might be able to hold 50kg but the row of 10 slots must not exceed 200kg, so it is not allowed to fill every slot by 100%. The same is true for the Columns where the maximum weight is lower than the sum of the individual weights of the single rows. The row_id and column_id are atrificial numbers for adressing the slot in the physical system with barcodes or whatever that get read for positioning.
As all this parameters do not change over the lifetime of the program, my intention was to design the classes in a way that this properties are readable by getter functions but there should not be any setter functions (maybe not even private ones) in the object o the values cannot be changed by accident.
There is one class/function that reads the config-file and generates the data structure for the rows and columns with the slots. This function should be able to read the config and create objects for every column holding a row of slots and pass all the values from the config down to the slot.
Later when the program is running I also need some way to search for the best matching slot to add the next parcel or for searching parcels and unload them in a certain sequence.
So the (simplfied) basic structure of the classes would be like this:
Class Parcel {
int width;
int height;
int length;
int weight;
}
Class Slot {
vector<Parcel> parcel;
int min_width;
int max_width;
int min_height;
int max_height;
int min_length;
int max_length;
int max_total_weight;
int act_total_weight;
int total_length;
int free_length;
}
Class Row {
vector<Slot> slot;
int row_id;
int max_total_weight;
int act_total_weight;
}
Class Column {
vector<Row> row;
int column_id;
int max_total_weight;
int act_total_weight;
}
Class Storage {
vector<Column> column;
}
So here are my thoughts about how to initialize the data structure:
First possibility would be to pass all the properties in the constructor(s) of the classes, but then the constructors has some huge parameter lists specially for the Slot class that has a lot of properties.
Second thing that came to my mind (and currently my fafourite way to go) is to use config-data-structures that hold all the parameters. This parameter-objects get filled by the config-function and passed to the constructor when initializing the class. Then it also may be useful to use the parameter class as such and not having all the parameters defined in the storage class once more.
Third way is to use private setter and public getter and make the config class friends with the data structure classes to be able to access the setter functions (but i would prefer to have no setters at all in the final storage structure classes.
Fourth way that i was thinking off, was to derive child classes from the structure classes that hold the setter functions (and also some other logic needed for creating the data structure) so the child has no own variables but only additional functions. So the child class is used to fill the properties but the base class gets added to the data structure vector.
I also want to use Factory pattern to initialize the data structure because the objects have often similar or only slightly different properties. So with the second aproach after creating one row of slots I would maybe want to change the max weight of the slots in that row. Therefore I would need to change the setting in the factory and the factory then fills the parameter data structure differently and passes it to the Slot class. Or is it better to pass the data structure to the factory directly and the factory assigns it but then i think this is not what the factory pattern is meant to be.
I don't know if this is a good aproach or which of the above is best practice.
Or am I missing something and there is a way more convenient solution or this?
Thank you (and sorry if the question is maybe not the way it should be)
When constructing your classes as you describe it you can have a look at the creational design patterns.
Your second proposed solution is almost a builder design pattern. This will help you to construct the Slot e.g. piecewise.
As an example:
#include <iostream>
class Slot {
public:
int GetMinWidth() const { return min_width_; };
int GetMaxWidth() const { return max_width_; };
// Builder class
class SlotBuilder {
public:
SlotBuilder& SetMinWidth(int min_width) {
min_width_ = min_width;
return *this;
}
SlotBuilder& SetMaxWidth(int max_width) {
max_width_ = max_width;
return *this;
}
Slot Build() {
return Slot(min_width_, max_width_);
}
private:
int min_width_{/* you can add default value here*/};
int max_width_{/* you can add default value here*/};
};
// This is optional, but creates a neat interface
static SlotBuilder Create() {
static SlotBuilder slot_builder;
return slot_builder;
}
private:
// Make constructor private to restrict access and force the use of the builder
Slot(int min_width, int max_width) : min_width_(min_width), max_width_(max_width) {}
const int min_width_;
const int max_width_;
// .
// .
// Continue with your const attributes
};
int main() {
// Create the slot with the builder
Slot slot = Slot::Create()
.SetMinWidth(10)
.SetMaxWidth(20)
.Build();
std::cout << slot.GetMinWidth() << ", " << slot.GetMaxWidth();
return 0;
}
You can see the example working here
For having different types that are almost the same a Prototype pattern could work if you want to "clone" a class or in your case a Factory pattern could do the job.
There is never an ideal solution or that one pattern that solves it all, so I can't give you a definitive answer, but here are some collected thoughts:
Default values
Primitive types like int don't have a default value, so make sure you give them one explicitly:
struct Parcel {
int width{};
int height = 0;
int length = {};
int weight{};
}
All those different versions above are equivalent, but you really should use one of them. Otherwise you will probably run into UB down the line.
Const correctness
One thing that I love about C++ and that I dearly miss in languages like C# is const correctness. If you want an object to be immutable, declare it as const. To prevent changes to your objects, either instantiate the object as a const:
const Parcel x;
x.width = 10; // compiler error
or make the members of your classes const:
struct Parcel {
const int width{};
const int height{};
const int length{};
const int weight{};
};
Parcel x;
x.width = 10; // compiler error
Aggregate initialization
If you keep your types simple enough you can initialize the class members with curly braces directly:
const Parcel x { 1, 2, 3, 4 };
In C++ 20, you can also name the members, so this code is equivalent to the line above:
const Parcel x { .width = 1, .height = 2, .length = 3, .weight = 4 };
Note that this can bite you later though if you have to deal with ABI stability and versioning. In that case you are better off using getter and setter functions, because that allows you to still change the data layout of your members.
I have to think about design patterns a bit more. I'll update this post if something useful comes out of it.

Can a C++ class's default value be changed at runtime?

In C++ is it possible to change the default values of a class so that all future objects made of that class will have the values specified?
I am trying to make a class that is user-defined at run time that should function nearly identical to other child of the same parent class, but I am struggling with a way to have the same format constructor exist across both. The only way I can think to properly funnel the correct information to every new object is to have either the class type be always treated differently on creation (always put in the user inputs into the constructor) or have the class's object behavior on creation change to default to the inputs defined.
Edit: To better explain the issue and address the XY problem possibility here is the scenario:
General Program:
I want to have the user first define a custom shape by providing a name and the number of lines that define it. The user then can add triangles, squares and the custom shape to their "cart". Each custom shape is the same shape that they specified at the start, the user does not change it during the program. The program could then return general information such as the number of members of a specific type that exists or the total number of lines in the cart.
There is a parent class:
Class Shape
member numLines, name;
And three classes are children of Shape:
Class Triangle
overwritten numLines = 3, name = "triangle";
...
Class userShape
overwritten numline = ????, name = ????;
When I create methods for the cart that interact with "shape" objects I would like to be able to have the same code across the board for creating additional objects, instead of needing to treat the userShape's constructor differently.
From the answers I have received, the static type seems to best fit the user-setting of the default values but I am entirely open to better ways to implement something like this.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Now that I got that out of the way, here's how:
#include <iostream>
struct C {
static int default_val;
C(int i = default_val) {
std::cout << i << '\n';
}
};
int C::default_val = 0;
int main() {
C c;
C::default_val = 1;
C c2;
return 0;
}
A default argument to a function doesn't have to be a constant expression, it just has to be "available" at every place the function is called. And a static variable is just that.
It also doesn't have to be accessible at the call site. So if you want the class to control it, but not have it be modifiable from outside the class, you can make it private.
I would recommend following the next pattern:
Run your application
Read/Load the configuration
Create a factory for that object from that configuration
Use the factory to create more instances of the same object throught the lifetime of your application
For example:
struct Object {
Object(int x, int y) : _x(x), _y(y) {}
int _x, _y;
};
struct DynamicFactory {
DynamicFactory(int x, int y) : _x(x), _y(y) {}
std::shared_ptr<Object> generate() { return std::make_shared<Object>(_x, _y); }
int _x, _y;
};
int main(){
// Load configuration
// Initialize dynamic factory using configuration
DynamicFactory factory(1, 3);
// Generate objects
auto obj1 = factory.generate();
auto obj2 = factory.generate();
return 0;
}
Try to use static members so these are shared across the objects.

Construct an object by reading it's name from text file

I have a base class named shapes with derived class of a 3D shape, i.e. Ball or Tetraeder.
My program should read the type of the shape and it's parameters from a text file and write the volume and area to an output text.
#include <fstream>
#include <string>
#include <sstream>
#include <iostream>
#include <cstring>
#include <cstdlib>
#include "Shape.h"
#include "Ball.h"
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
int
main( int argc, char** argv )
{
string input = string(argv[1]);
string output = string(argv[2]);
ifstream file(input);
string line;
string shapename;
int nx = atoi(argv[3]);
int ny = atoi(argv[4]);
int nz = atoi(argv[5]);
while (std::getline(file, line))
{
std::stringstream lineStream(line);
lineStream >> shapename;
int value;
std::vector<int> lineData;
while (lineStream >> value)
{
lineData.push_back(value);
}
Shape * objShape = new shapename(lineData);
objShape -> calc_volume;
objShape -> calc_projection(nx,ny,nz);
std::ofstream f(output);
f << objShape -> get_volume() << " " << objShape -> get_projection << endl;
}
}
My Question is now how can i create an object from a string in a textfile, especially without knowing all derived classes.
It should be possible to add more shapes to the program without changing the code, only by adding new files.
The question is:
My Question is now how can i create an object from a string in a
textfile, especially without knowing all derived classes.
The answer is: you have to know all the derived classes.
C++ does not have reflection. As such all class names are bound at compile time, and this kind of a factory has no choice but to do some variation of:
if (name == "box")
return new Box();
else if (name == "circle")
return new Circle();
// ... etc ... etc ...
There are various different approaches and design patterns that make it possible to automate some of this drudge work, and make this flexible enough to avoid having to explicitly maintain a hardcoded list of all subclasses.
I'll just outline a brief, very brief approach. A very simple one that I've used before, and achieves, pretty much, the same result: a factory that can instantiate a given subclass by name, in a manner where you don't have to manually edit the factory, and add a few more lines of code. The entire process of creating a factory for a new subclass can be neatly wrapped into the process of creating a new subclass, making this a fairly bulletproof, compartmentalized solution.
Consider a simple mechanism for registering a factory for these subclasses:
typedef Shape (*shape_factory_t)();
Shape is your superclass of shapes.
The factory would work something like this:
std::map<std::string, shape_factory_t> all_factories;
void register_factory(const std::string &name, shape_factory_t factory)
{
all_factories[name]=factory;
}
So now you have a map of all your factories. Instead of an endless if statement you have a single map, which you can look up by class name, and call the appropriate factory, something like:
auto iter=all_factories.find(name);
if (iter == all_factories.end())
throw; // Some exception, unknown subclass
return (*iter->second)();
All right, that part's taken care of. The issue now becomes: how to register a factory for each subclass.
Let's say you have an implementation of Circle:
class Circle : public Shape {
class initializer;
// ... other things that make up the Circle
};
Then, in circle.cpp, which implements this subclass:
static Shape *create_circle()
{
return new Circle(); // Add constructor parameters, as appropriate
}
class Circle::initializer {
public:
initializer() {
register_factory("circle", create_circle);
}
};
static initializer initialize_me;
In this manner, the Circle class registers itself with the factory that creates an instance of a given Shape, by class name. You can proceed and implement all other subclasses, individually, without touching the main factory code. You can declare your Box subclass in the same manner, and have it register itself with the factory, which will then automatically know to create a Box class (presumably by invoking the create_box() function), given the name "box".
There is one other detail that needs to be taken care of: initialization order. As you know, the relative initialization order of globally-scoped objects in different translation units is implementation defined, and is otherwise unspecified by C++.
The global std::map of all factory functions must be constructed before all the subclasses try to register themselves, and put themselves into the map, when the application starts.
This is a fairly typical static initialization order fiasco question, for which there are several known solutions. The one explained in this answer should work fine, here.
C++ isn't so flexible. Adding new shapes would mean adding new classes (since you have already made a Shapes, a Ball and a Tetraeder class, I'm assuming you want to make more classes). And if you add new classes, you'll have to change the code, which means you have to recompile.
You have to know what the derived classes are. You're the one who codes them, so you might as well also have a list of them. The best thing you can do about your program being flexible is using header files, which you already seem to be doing anyway.
As for creating an object from a string in a text file (while you know what the 3D object classes are), you can parse the string, read what kind of a shape it wants to make and then do something fairly simple such as this:
//shapeType - a string containing the type of the 3D object
Shape *newShape;
switch(shapeType) {
case "ball":
newShape = new Ball(...); // ... - parameters for the ball dimensions
break;
case "tetraeder":
newShape = new Tetraeder(...); // ... - parameters again
break;
default:
return -1;
}
//and now you can use newShape as you wish

Creating a new object by calling the new constructor with a string

I was recently in a job interview and my interviewer gave me a modeling question that involved serialization of different shapes into a file.
The task was to implements shapes like circle or rectangles by first defining an abstract class named Shape and then implements the various shapes (circle, rectangle..) by inheriting from the base class (Shape).
The two abstract methods for each shape were: read_to_file (which was supposed to read the shape from a file) and write_to_file which supposed to write the shape into a file.
All was done by the implementation of that virtual function in the inherited shape (Example: For Circle I was writing the radius, for square I saved the side of the square....).
class Shape {
public:
string Shape_type;
virtual void write_into_file()=0;
virtual void read_into_files()=0;
Shape() {
}
virtual ~Shape() {
}};
class Square: public Shape {
public:
int size;
Square(int size) {
this->size = size;
}
void write_into_file() {
//write this Square into a file
}
void read_into_files() {
//read this Square into a file
}
};
That was done in order to see if I know polymorphism.
But, then I was asked to implement two functions that take a vector of *shape and write/read it into a file.
The writing part was easy and goes something like that:
for (Shape sh : Shapes) {
s.write_into_file();
}
as for the reading part I thought about reading the first word in the text (I implemented the serializable file like a text file that have this line: Shape_type: Circle, Radius: 12; Shape_type:Square...., so the first words said the shape type). and saving it to a string such as:
string shape_type;
shape_type="Circle";
Then I needed to create a new instance of that specific shape and I thought about something like a big switch
<pre><code>
switch(shape_type):
{
case Circle: return new circle;
case Square: return new square
......
}
</pre></code>
And then, the interviewer told me that there is a problem with this implementation
which I thought was the fact that every new shape the we will add in the future we should also update int that big swicht. he try to direct me into a design pattern, I told him that maybe the factory design pattern will help but I couldn't find a way to get rid of that switch. even if I will move the switch from the function into a FactoryClass I will still have to use the switch in order to check the type of the shape (according to the string content i got from the text file).
I had a string that I read from the file, that say the current type of the shape. I wanted to do something like:
string shape_type;
shape_type="Circle";
Shape s = new shape_type; //which will be like: Shape s = new Circle
But I can't do it in c++.
Any idea on what I should have done?
In you factory you could map a std::string to a function<Shape*()>. At startup you register factory methods will the factory:
shapeFactory.add("circle", []{new Circle;});
shapeFactory.add("square", []{new Square;});
shapeFactory.add("triangle", []{new Triangle;});
In your deserialization code you read the name of the type and get its factory method from the factory:
std::string className = // read string from serialization stream
auto factory = shapeFactory.get(className);
Shape *shape = factory();
You've now got a pointer to the concrete shape instance which can be used to deserialize the object.
EDIT: Added more code as requested:
class ShapeFactory
{
private:
std::map<std::string, std::function<Shape*()> > m_Functions;
public:
void add(const std::string &name, std::function<Share*()> creator)
{
m_Functions.insert(name, creator)
}
std::function<Shape*()> get(const std::string &name) const
{
return m_Functions.at(name);
}
};
NOTE: I've left out error checking.
In C++, with
for (Shape sh : Shapes) {
s.write_into_file();
}
you have object slicing. The object sh is a Shape and nothing else, it looses all inheritance information.
You either need to store references (not possible to store in a standard collection) or pointers, and use that when looping.
In C++ you would to read and write some kind of type tag into the file to remember the concrete type.
A virtual method like ShapeType get_type_tag() would do it, where the return type is an enumeration corresponding to one of the concrete classes.
Thinking about it, though, the question was probably just getting at wanting you to add read and write functions to the interface.
You could create a dictionary of factory functions keyed by a shape name or shape id (shape_type).
// prefer std::shared_ptr or std::unique_ptr of course
std::map<std::string, std::function<Shape *()>> Shape_Factory_Map;
// some kind of type registration is now needed
// to build the map of functions
RegisterShape(std::string, std::function<Shape *()>);
// or some kind of
BuildShapeFactoryMap();
// then instead of your switch you would simply
//call the appropriate function in the map
Shape * myShape = Shape_Factory_Map[shape_type]();
In this case though you still have to update the creation of the map with any new shapes you come up with later, so I can't say for sure that it buys you all that much.
All the answers so far still appear to have to use a switch or map somewhere to know which class to use to create the different types of shapes. If you need to add another type, you would have to modify the code and recompile.
Perhaps using the Chain of Responsibility Pattern is a better approach. This way you can dynamically add new creation techniques or add them at compile time without modifying any already existing code:
Your chain will keep a linked list of all the creation types and will traverse the list until it finds the instance that can make the specified type.
class Creator{
Creator*next; // 1. "next" pointer in the base class
public:
Creator()
{
next = 0;
}
void setNext(Creator*n)
{
next = n;
}
void add(Creator*n)
{
if (next)
next->add(n);
else
next = n;
}
// 2. The "chain" method in the Creator class always delegates to the next obj
virtual Shape handle(string type)
{
next->handle(i);
}
);
Each subclass of Creator will check if it can make the type and return it if it can, or delegate to the next in the chain.
I did create a Factory in C++ some time ago in which a class automatically registers itself at compile time when it extends a given template.
Available here: https://gist.github.com/sacko87/3359911.
I am not too sure how people react to links outside of SO but it is a couple of files worth. However once the work is done, using the example within that link, all that you need to do to have a new object included into the factory would be to extend the BaseImpl class and have a static string "Name" field (see main.cpp). The template then registers the string and type into the map automatically. Allowing you to call:
Base *base = BaseFactory::Create("Circle");
You can of course replace Base for Shape.

Design suggestions for an Image class hierarchy

I need some design suggestions for an Image class hierarchy.
Currently, I have 2 types of images (one is a standard image, the second doesn't contain standard image data).
Sometimes I want the object to allocate the memory for the image data, and other times I just want it to point to it.
The problem arises when I want to give TypeA images specific functionality.
If TypeA images inherit from Image, I will have to duplicate the functionality of the Allocated vs. non-Allocated Image.
I'm sure there is a better way to do this, I remember some elegant solutions with mixins during university, but can't find a way to use that here.
My current design looks like:
class Image
{
public:
Image(int width, int height, int bpp);
virtual ~Image() {};
// getters
template <typename T>
T* ptr() { return reinterpret_cast<T*>(m_imageData); } // T depends on bpp
protected:
// metadata
char* m_imageData;
};
class AllocImage : public Image
{
public:
AllocImage(int width, int height, int bpp, DataType dataType) :
Image(width, height, bpp, dataType)
{
m_imageData = new char[m_dataSize];
}
~AllocImage()
{
delete m_imageData;
}
};
class ImageHolder : public Image
{
public:
ImageHolder(int width, int height, int bpp, DataType m_dataType);
void setPtr(const void* ptr);
};
class AllocatedImageTypeA : public AllocImage
{
public:
// Type A specific methods
};
class NonAllocatedImageTypeA : public ImageHolder
{
public:
// duplicated Type A specific methods
};
If all the differences are constrained to how the image is held (allocated or not), you could use the policy model.
The short explanation is that you would pass a policy object to the image, where the policy describes whether you need to deallocate the image or not, how to access it, etc., basically anything that relates to the differences that arise from how the image data is held (allocated vs. pointed). Then all your access to the image will be through the policy.
For example, instead of writing
delete image;
You would write:
policy.del(image);
Where policy.del can be a delegate to delete or a no-op, depending on the actual type of the policy (that is in line with what the image requires)
Why so many types? If the difference is only in allocation, then simply create multiple constructors, one which takes a pointer to a pre-allocated data holder, one that doesn't and does the allocation internally. You could also use dependency injection to get the variations in behaviour / functionality.
I had a similar case.
Let's make something clear. Your class hierarchy its not based if an image is allocated or not, but, each class will have some features.
You may want to have a very specialized class that allocates images, another that references, and, warp that class with another of the same hierarchy, with similar features.
The following example, explains the idea of wraping one class, with another class,
from the same inheritance, that seems to apply to your questio.
Disclaimer: Please ignore, some minor bugs or non relevant syntax errors:
// generic base class for my image library:
/* abstract */ class GenericImage
{
public:
int width;
int height;
public:
/* constructor */ GenericImage() ;
/* destructor */ ~GenericImage() ;
/* constructor */ GenericImage(int newwidth, int newheight);
}; // class GenericImage
// in charge of allocating or deallocating an image
class AllocatedImage: GenericImage
{
public:
/* constructor */ AllocatedImage() ;
/* destructor */ ~AllocatedImage() ;
/* constructor */ AllocatedImage(int newwidth, int newheight);
/* constructor */ AllocatedImage(char* filename);
}; // class AllocatedImage
// access an image, but doesn't allocate or deallocate
class ContainedImage: GenericImage
{
public:
/* constructor */ ContainedImage() ;
/* destructor */ ~ContainedImage() ;
/* constructor */ ContainedImage(int newwidth, int newheight);
}; // class AllocatedImage
// real working class, will allocate other objects,
// of same hierarchy
class WrapperImage: GenericImage
{
public:
GenericImage* RealImage;
public:
/* constructor */ GenericImage() ;
/* destructor */ ~GenericImage() ;
void AllocateImage(AllocatedImage* newimage);
void HoldImage(ContainedImage* newimage);
}; // class AllocatedImage
Suggestions:
Its good idea, to have a constructor without parameters, specially if you are designing a class hierarchy, instead of a single class.
I know its a quick example, but, you may want to move all code to body file.
Cheers.