How to get a reference/pointer to a class (not an object)? - c++

I have a std::map where key is string and I want the value to be, not an object, but a reference/pointer to a class which I can instantiate.
std::map<::std::string, ?class_reference?> handlers_;
Once the specific entry is chosen, I want to create instance of the class and execute a member function.

As others have already mentioned, if you want to create relevant objects via a string (such as class name), you'll need to use factory pattern which can create related objects (same base class). Here's a simple example easy to understand (you just store lambda which returns objects in the map):
#include <map>
#include <string>
#include <functional>
#include <iostream>
class Base {};
class A : public Base{
public:
A() { std::cout << "A ctr" << std::endl; }
};
class B : public Base {
public:
B() { std::cout << "B ctr" << std::endl; }
};
int main() {
std::map<std::string, std::function<Base*()> > m;
m["a"] = []() { return new A(); };
m["b"] = []() { return new B(); };
m["a"]();
m["b"]();
}

How to get a reference/pointer to a class (not an object)?
Short answer, you can't. Unfortunately, C++ doesn't work that way.
However, to solve your specific problem, you have the option of a factory pattern, which would look something like this:
template <class T>
class factory {
public:
virtual std::unique_ptr<T> createObject() = 0;
};
class base { // some base class common to all the types you are intending to create
};
class foo : public base { // some class you want to create
};
class fooCreator : public fatory<base> {
public:
std::unique_ptr<T> createObject() {
return someUniquePointerToANewObject;
}
}
int main() {
std::map<std::string, std::unique_ptr<factory<base>>> myMap; // because we are creating some bases
myMap["some key"] = new myFooCreator;
// now let's create some new `base`
if(myMap.find("some matching key") != myMap.end()) {
std::unique_ptr<base> myBaseObject = myMap["some matching key"]->createObject();
// use created object
}
return 0;
}
Of course, there are a lot of things that could go wrong here, like if for some reason you push a nullptr to myMap. But at least you have an idea of what it looks like now.

Related

Good way to create class object instance according to a string value in c++?

See the code snip for the question:
class Base;
typedef Base* BasePtr;
template<typename D>
BasePtr CreateDerivedClass() {
return new D();
}
class D1 : public Base {
....
};
class D2 : public Base {
....
}
void main() {
std::string derived_name = {"D1", "D2"};
std::vector<BasePtr> derived_vec;
for (auto& name : derived_name) {
// QUESTION: Other than factory design pattern, how can I pass the derived
// class typename which is the value of string "name" to CreateDerivedClass<name> ?
derived_vec.push_back(CreateDerivedClass<name>());
}
}
Note: Here, I don't want to use the factory design pattern which required the derived class register itself during definition.
Template parameter values must be known at compile-time. There is simple no way to directly convert a string at runtime to a type for use in a template parameter. You will have to compare the string value at runtime to decide which CreateDerivedClass specialization to call.
For instance, the simplest way to handle this is to use a std::map where its elements hold pointers to the specialized functions that you want to be able to call, eg:
using createFuncType = BasePtr (*)();
std::map<std::string, createFuncType> createFuncs;
createFuncs["D1"] = &CreateDerivedClass<D1>;
createFuncs["D2"] = &CreateDerivedClass<D2>;
...
Then you can do this:
std::string derived_names[] = {"D1", "D2"};
std::vector<BasePtr> derived_vec;
for (auto& name : derived_names) {
derived_vec.push_back(createFuncs[name]());
}
There is really no other option in this situation.
That being said, you should be using std::unique_ptr<Base> instead of raw Base* pointers, eg:
#include <map>
#include <vector>
#include <string>
#include <memory>
class Base {
public:
virtual ~Base() = default;
};
using BasePtr = std::unique_ptr<Base>;
using createFuncType = BasePtr (*)();
template<typename D>
BasePtr CreateDerivedClass() {
return std::make_unique<D>();
}
class D1 : public Base {
...
};
class D2 : public Base {
...
}
...
int main() {
std::map<std::string, createFuncType> createFuncs;
createFuncs["D1"] = &CreateDerivedClass<D1>;
createFuncs["D2"] = &CreateDerivedClass<D2>;
...
std::string derived_names = {"D1", "D2", ...};
std::vector<BasePtr> derived_vec;
for (auto& name : derived_names) {
derived_vec.push_back(createFuncs[name]());
}
...
return 0;
}
The type T of the template should be known in compilation time, this is because the compiler needs to create the piece of code matching to the implementation of the class/function with the type T. This is how templates in C++ work.
What if derived_names will consist the value "D8" which is not a known type, we are going to have a trouble.

c++ Mapping class to number

I recently started with c++ development. I've come to a problem of which I am not able to solve, given that I am unaware if the following is possible.
I want to create a mapping between a number and class, which are derived from an abstract class.
Essentially what I would like to be able to do is create a factory method that can create a new instance of a class based on a given number associated with that class.
I know that I could do the following...
Vehicle *Vehicle::from_type(byte type)
{
switch(type)
{
case 0x00: return new Bicyle();
case 0x01: return new Car();
...
case 0x10: return new Truck();
}
return null;
}
..., but I'd rather not as I want to keep it DRY.
It there a way where one can do something along the lines of this:
// I know this is incorrect syntax
const map<byte, class extends Vehicle> VEHICLE_MAPPING = {{0x00, Bicyle}, {0x01, Car}, ..., {0x10, Truck}};
Vehicle *Vehicle::from_type(byte type)
{
return new VEHICLE_MAPPING[type]();
}
I can see how your approach could work with usage of std::map<uint8_t, std::unique_ptr<Vehicle>>, but there is a problem - you wouldn't be able to initialise that map with initializer_list, since it copies the elements and, as we all know, std::unique_ptr cannot be copied. You would have to create an init() function to initialise the map that would use similar logic to your Vehicle *Vehicle::from_type(byte type), which would simply be pointless given you already have your function.
Furthermore, I disagree that your first solution violates DRY. It is actually correct in a sense that you won't be forced to use switch or ifs elsewhere in the code. I'd definitely stick with it.
The final note - you could use std::map<uint8_t, std::shared_ptr<Vehicle>> instead of std::map<uint8_t, std::unique_ptr<Vehicle>> and initialise it with initializer_list, since std::shared_ptr can be copied, but I wouldn't advise that since it wrongly indicates the usage of shared_ptr. If you somehow feel forced to do so, here is an example:
class Base{ public: virtual ~Base() = default; };
class Derived1 : public Base{};
class Derived2 : public Base{};
class derived_factory{
private:
derived_factory();
static inline std::map<uint8_t, std::shared_ptr<Base>> base_map = {
{0x00, std::make_shared<Derived1>()},
{0x01, std::make_shared<Derived2>()}
};
public:
static std::unique_ptr<Base> from_type(uint8_t type)
{
return std::make_unique<Base>(*base_map[type]);
}
};
int main()
{
auto ptr = derived_factory::from_type(0x00);
// ptr is of a type std::unique_ptr<Base> and points to Derived1 object
}
Additional note that should be a final discouragement of using this solution is that it's quite slow. It constructs the objects in a map and does nothing with them except for keeping them as 'templated' copy examples.
If they're all derived from a base class, you can use the factory pattern, e.g., from Loki's implementation (see Modern C++ Design for the details, though that book is pre-C++11).
The following creates some concrete vehicles and puts them in a vector and then calls the drive() method on each of them:
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
#include <vector>
#include "factory.h"
struct Vehicle
{
virtual ~Vehicle() = default;
virtual void drive() = 0;
};
struct Car : Vehicle
{
static constexpr auto ID = 1;
void drive() override { std::cout << "Car\n"; }
};
struct Truck : Vehicle
{
static constexpr auto ID = 2;
void drive() override { std::cout << "Truck\n"; }
};
// Create the factory object
auto g_factory = MyUtil::Factory<std::unique_ptr<Vehicle>, int>{};
void RegisterTypesWithFactory()
{
// We pass in creator functions for each type. Note that these
// could be lambdas or some other freestanding function and they
// could accept parameters.
g_factory.Register( Car::ID, &std::make_unique<Car> );
g_factory.Register( Truck::ID, &std::make_unique<Truck> );
}
int main()
{
// Configure the factory
// Note: Registration can be done any time, e.g., later based on input
// from a file. I do them all at once here for convenience of illustration.
RegisterTypesWithFactory();
// Create some objects with the factory
auto vehicles = std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Vehicle>>{};
vehicles.emplace_back( g_factory.Create( Car::ID ) );
vehicles.emplace_back( g_factory.Create( Truck::ID ) );
// Do something with the objects
for( const auto& v : vehicles )
{
v->drive();
}
}
Which prints:
Car
Truck
See it run live on Wandbox.

How to store templated objects of different type in container?

Assuming I have a vector (or list or whatever container might be more suitable here) that I would like to store multiple objects (or pointers) of a templated type in:
std::vector<MyClass<double>> v;
// std::vector<MyClass<double> *> v;
Unfortunately, I want to store different templated objects in this container (and I need to access them ideally at constant time).
My first intuition was to create some sort of WrapperClass around MyClass that would internally manage any MyClass as a member variable, but it's not clear to me how I could pass along the appropriate type through to MyClass:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
template<typename T>
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass() {}
~MyClass() {}
};
// templating this of course works, but it doesn't solve my problem
template<typename T>
class WrapperClass
{
public:
WrapperClass()
{
m_object = MyClass<T>();
}
~WrapperClass() { }
private:
MyClass<T> m_object;
};
int main()
{
WrapperClass<bool> tmp = WrapperClass<bool>();
std::vector<WrapperClass<bool> *> v;
return 0;
}
So is there (A) a different container than vector that I could be using for this problem or (B) a way to select the type of MyClass in WrapperClass inside the constructor? I was thinking of something along the lines of:
class WrapperClass2
{
public:
WrapperClass2(unsigned int typeId)
{
switch (typeId)
{
case 0: m_object = new MyClass<bool>();
case 1: m_object = new MyClass<int>();
case 2: m_object = new MyClass<float>();
default: m_object = new MyClass<double>();
}
}
~WrapperClass2()
{
delete m_object;
}
private:
MyClass * m_object;
};
Another idea may be to have some parent AbstractType that I would be using in the vector, but I'm not sure how that would help with the templated type problem.
Different instantiations of a class template are completely unrelated types, so you cannot have a container that directly stores them.
You have a few options:
Keep a collection of pointers to some base class that your class template inherits from:
class Base
{
virtual ~Base {}
virtual void someMethod() const = 0;
};
template <typename T>
class MyClass : public Base
{
void someMethod() const
{
// stuff
}
};
int main()
{
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Base>> objs;
objs.push_back(std::make_unique<MyClass<int>>());
objs.push_back(std::make_unique<MyClass<std::string>>());
for (auto& i : objs) {
i->someMethod();
}
}
This is a fairly simple approach, but it incurs a bit of runtime overhead with dynamic allocation and RTTI. Note also that someMethod can't return T, since it's a method on a parent class that doesn't know what T is.
Use some sort of type-erased wrapper like boost::any (or the forthcoming std::any in C++17).
#include <any>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
template <typename T>
class MyClass {
public:
T someMethod() const {
// stuff
return {};
}
};
void someFunctionThatTakesInt(int i) {}
void someFunctionThatTakesString(std::string s) {}
int main() {
std::vector<std::any> objs;
objs.push_back(MyClass<int>());
objs.push_back(MyClass<std::string>());
for (const auto& i : objs) {
if (i.type() == typeid(MyClass<int>)) {
auto& mc = std::any_cast<const MyClass<int>&>(i);
someFunctionThatTakesInt(mc.someMethod());
} else if (i.type() == typeid(MyClass<std::string>)) {
auto& mc = std::any_cast<const MyClass<std::string>&>(i);
someFunctionThatTakesString(mc.someMethod());
}
}
}
This approach means that you can have someMethod return T, but makes it much harder to handle retrieving objects from the vector because you have to figure out what type they are before you can do anything with them (you're essentially rolling your own RTTI).
Don't.
Rethink why you need this in the first place. Maybe another approach could work better. Maybe something with callbacks or visitors. I don't know your objective here, so I can't really say what's appropriate.
Can you do a base class and have all other classes inherit from the base class.
And you can make a list that holds a list of base class elements.
Now this is more of a pseudo example, but I hope this way would solve your problem.
Example:
class Base:
{
}
class whatever:Base
{
}
class whatever2:Base
int main()
{
list<whatever> object1;
list<whatever2> object2;
list<list<Base>> mainObj;
mainObj.push_back(object1);
mainObj.push_back(object2);
}
Now if the problem is to just have different datatypes than abstract datatypes in some container. Can't you have a Singly Link List, and have your Node generic.
Example:
template<typenameT>
struct Node
{
T data;
Node* next;
}
class LinkList
{
//Your code:
}

Overwrite Base Class Member with New Type

I'm trying to use C++ to emulate something like dynamic typing. I'm approaching the problem with inherited classes. For example, a function could be defined as
BaseClass* myFunction(int what) {
if (what == 1) {
return new DerivedClass1();
} else if (what == 2) {
return new DerivedClass2();
}
}
The base class and each derived class would have the same members, but of different types. For example, BaseClass may have int xyz = 0 (denoting nothing), DerivedClass1 might have double xyz = 123.456, and DerivedClass2 might have bool xyz = true. Then, I could create functions that returned one type but in reality returned several different types. The problem is, when ere I try to do this, I always access the base class's version of xyz. I've tried using pointers (void* for the base, and "correct" ones for the derived classes), but then every time I want to access the member, I have to do something like *(double*)(obj->xyz) which ends up being very messy and unreadable.
Here's an outline of my code:
#include <iostream>
using std::cout;
using std::endl;
class Foo {
public:
Foo() {};
void* member;
};
class Bar : public Foo {
public:
Bar() {
member = new double(123.456); // Make member a double
};
};
int main(int argc, char* args[]) {
Foo* obj = new Bar;
cout << *(double*)(obj->member);
return 0;
};
I guess what I'm trying to ask is, is this "good" coding practice? If not, is there a different approach to functions that return multiple types or accept multiple types?
That is not actually the way to do it.
There are two typical ways to implement something akin to dynamic typing in C++:
the Object-Oriented way: a class hierarchy and the Visitor pattern
the Functional-Programming way: a tagged union
The latter is rather simple using boost::variant, the former is well documented on the web. I would personally recommend boost::variant to start with.
If you want to go down the full dynamic typing road, then things get trickier. In dynamic typing, an object is generally represented as a dictionary containing both other objects and functions, and a function takes a list/dictionary of objects and returns a list/dictionary of objects. Modelling it in C++ is feasible, but it'll be wordy...
How is an object represented in a dynamically typed language ?
The more generic representation is for the language to represent an object as both a set of values (usually named) and a set of methods (named as well). A simplified representation looks like:
struct Object {
using ObjectPtr = std::shared_ptr<Object>;
using ObjectList = std::vector<ObjectPtr>;
using Method = std::function<ObjectList(ObjectList const&)>;
std::map<std::string, ObjectPtr> values;
std::map<std::string, Method> methods;
};
If we take Python as an example, we realize we are missing a couple things:
We cannot implement getattr for example, because ObjectPtr is a different type from Method
This is a recursive implementation, but without the basis: we are lacking innate types (typically Bool, Integer, String, ...)
Dealing with the first issue is relatively easy, we transform our object to be able to become callable:
class Object {
public:
using ObjectPtr = std::shared_ptr<Object>;
using ObjectList = std::vector<ObjectPtr>;
using Method = std::function<ObjectList(ObjectList const&)>;
virtual ~Object() {}
//
// Attributes
//
virtual bool hasattr(std::string const& name) {
throw std::runtime_error("hasattr not implemented");
}
virtual ObjectPtr getattr(std::string const&) {
throw std::runtime_error("gettattr not implemented");
}
virtual void setattr(std::string const&, ObjectPtr) {
throw std::runtime_error("settattr not implemented");
}
//
// Callable
//
virtual ObjectList call(ObjectList const&) {
throw std::runtime_error("call not implemented");
}
virtual void setcall(Method) {
throw std::runtime_error("setcall not implemented");
}
}; // class Object
class GenericObject: public Object {
public:
//
// Attributes
//
virtual bool hasattr(std::string const& name) override {
return values.count(name) > 0;
}
virtual ObjectPtr getattr(std::string const& name) override {
auto const it = values.find(name);
if (it == values.end) {
throw std::runtime_error("Unknown attribute");
}
return it->second;
}
virtual void setattr(std::string const& name, ObjectPtr object) override {
values[name] = std::move(object);
}
//
// Callable
//
virtual ObjectList call(ObjectList const& arguments) override {
if (not method) { throw std::runtime_error("call not implemented"); }
return method(arguments);
}
virtual void setcall(Method m) {
method = std::move(m);
}
private:
std::map<std::string, ObjectPtr> values;
Method method;
}; // class GenericObject
And dealing with the second issue requires seeding the recursion:
class BoolObject final: public Object {
public:
static BoolObject const True = BoolObject{true};
static BoolObject const False = BoolObject{false};
bool value;
}; // class BoolObject
class IntegerObject final: public Object {
public:
int value;
}; // class IntegerObject
class StringObject final: public Object {
public:
std::string value;
}; // class StringObject
And now you need to add capabilities, such as value comparison.
You can try the following design:
#include <iostream>
using std::cout;
using std::endl;
template<typename T>
class Foo {
public:
Foo() {};
virtual T& member() = 0;
};
class Bar : public Foo<double> {
public:
Bar() : member_(123.456) {
};
virtual double& member() { return member_; }
private:
double member_;
};
int main(int argc, char* args[]) {
Foo<double>* obj = new Bar;
cout << obj->member();
return 0;
};
But as a consequence the Foo class already needs to be specialized and isn't a container for any type anymore.
Other ways to do so, are e.g. using a boost::any in the base class
If you need a dynamic solution you should stick to using void* and size or boost::any. Also you need to pass around some type information as integer code or string so that you can decode the actual type of the content.
See also property design pattern.
For example, you can have a look at zeromq socket options https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/blob/master/src/options.cpp

Dynamically creating an instance of a class from a string containing the class name in C++

Lets say I have a base class with 100 children:
class Base {
virtual void feed();
...
};
class Child1 : public Base {
void feed(); //specific procedure for feeding Child1
...
};
...
class Child100 : public Base {
void feed(); //specific procedure for feeding Child100
...
};
At runtime I want to read a file that contains which children to create and feed. Lets say I've read the file and the vector of strings "names" contains the names of the child classes (ie. Child1, Child4, Child99). Now I'm going to iterate through these strings, create an instance of the specific child, and feed it with its specific feeding procedure:
vector<Base *> children;
for (vector<string>::iterator it = names.begin(); it != names.end(); ++it) {
Base * child = convert_string_to_instance(*it)
child->feed()
children.push_back(child);
}
How would I create the function convert_string_to_instance() such that if it takes in the string "Child1" it returns a "new Child1", if the string argument is "Child4" it returns a "new Child4", etc
<class C *> convert_string_to_instance(string inName) {
// magic happens
return new C; // C = inName
// <brute force?>
// if (inName == "Child1")
// return new Child1;
// if (inName == "Child2")
// return new Child2;
// if (inName == "Child3")
// return new Child3;
// </brute force>
}
C++ does not provide a method for dynamic construction of class instances like this. However, you may be able to use code generation to generate the "brute force" code (like you showed above) from a list of classes. Then, #include the generated code in your convert_string_to_instance method.
You can also set up your project build system to rebuild the generated code anytime the list of classes changes.
I asked a question entitled automatic registration of object creator function with a macro that has the following example program that runs:
#include <map>
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
struct Object{ virtual ~Object() {} }; // base type for all objects
struct ObjectFactory {
static Object* create(const std::string& id) { // creates an object from a string
const Creators_t::const_iterator iter = static_creators().find(id);
return iter == static_creators().end() ? 0 : (*iter->second)(); // if found, execute the creator function pointer
}
private:
typedef Object* Creator_t(); // function pointer to create Object
typedef std::map<std::string, Creator_t*> Creators_t; // map from id to creator
static Creators_t& static_creators() { static Creators_t s_creators; return s_creators; } // static instance of map
template<class T = int> struct Register {
static Object* create() { return new T(); };
static Creator_t* init_creator(const std::string& id) { return static_creators()[id] = create; }
static Creator_t* creator;
};
};
#define REGISTER_TYPE(T, STR) template<> ObjectFactory::Creator_t* ObjectFactory::Register<T>::creator = ObjectFactory::Register<T>::init_creator(STR)
namespace A { struct DerivedA : public Object { DerivedA() { std::cout << "A::DerivedA constructor\n"; } }; }
REGISTER_TYPE(A::DerivedA, "A");
namespace B { struct DerivedB : public Object { DerivedB() { std::cout << "B::DerivedB constructor\n"; } }; }
REGISTER_TYPE(B::DerivedB, "Bee");
namespace C { struct DerivedC : public Object { DerivedC() { std::cout << "C::DerivedC constructor\n"; } }; }
REGISTER_TYPE(C::DerivedC, "sea");
namespace D { struct DerivedD : public Object { DerivedD() { std::cout << "D::DerivedD constructor\n"; } }; }
REGISTER_TYPE(D::DerivedD, "DEE");
int main(void)
{
delete ObjectFactory::create("A");
delete ObjectFactory::create("Bee");
delete ObjectFactory::create("sea");
delete ObjectFactory::create("DEE");
return 0;
}
compile and run output is:
> g++ example2.cpp && ./a.out
A::DerivedA constructor
B::DerivedB constructor
C::DerivedC constructor
D::DerivedD constructor
If you have a lot of classes, you'd usually choose a less brute force approach. A trie or hash_map between class names and factory functions is a good approach.
You can use a codegen approach as suggested by Greg to build this factory table, for example doxygen can parse your source code and output a list of all classes in xml format along with inheritance relationships, so you could easily find all classes deriving from a common "interface" base class.
It sounds like you might be using subclasses for things that should be encoded as fields.
Instead of coding the different behaviour in 100 classes, consider building a look-up table with rules/constants/function-pointers that allow you to implement the proper behaviour from one class.
For example, instead of:
class SmallRedSquare : public Shape {...};
class SmallBlueSquare : public Shape {...};
class SmallBlueCircle : public Shape {...};
class SmallRedCircle : public Shape {...};
class BigRedSquare : public Shape {...};
class BigBlueSquare : public Shape {...};
class BigBlueCircle : public Shape {...};
class BigRedCircle : public Shape {...};
try:
struct ShapeInfo
{
std::string type;
Size size;
Color color;
Form form;
};
class Shape
{
public:
Shape(std::string type) : info_(lookupInfoTable(type)) {}
void draw()
{
// Use info_ to draw shape properly.
}
private:
ShapeInfo* lookupInfoTable(std::string type) {info_ = ...;}
ShapeInfo* info_;
static ShapeInfo infoTable_[];
};
const ShapeInfo Shape::infoTable_[] =
{
{"SmallRedSquare", small, red, &drawSquare},
{"SmallBlueSquare", small, blue, &drawSquare},
{"SmallRedCircle", small, red, &drawCircle},
{"SmallBlueCircle", small, blue, &drawCircle},
{"BigRedSquare", big, red, &drawSquare},
{"BigBlueSquare", big, blue, &drawSquare},
{"BigBlueCircle", big, red, &drawCircle},
{"BigRedCircle", big, blue, &drawCircle}
}
int main()
{
Shape s1("SmallRedCircle");
Shape s2("BigBlueSquare");
s1.draw();
s2.draw();
}
This idea might not be applicable to your problem, but I figure it couldn't hurt to present it anyway. :-)
My idea is like the Replace Subclass with Fields refactoring, but I go a bit further.
You can abuse the preprocessor and set up some static class members that register your classes with a factory via a hash_map like Ben describes. If you have visual studio, look at how DECLARE_DYNCREATE is implemented in MFC. I've done something similar to implement a class factory. Non-standard for sure but since C++ does not offer any kind of support for this type of mechanism any solution is probably going be non-standard.
Edit
I said in a comment earlier I was working on documenting a scaled down version of something I had done. The scaled down version is still rather large so I posted it here. If there is enough interest I can copy/paste it on this site. Let me know.
This is the skeleton of a horrible, horrible way to do it:
class Factory {
public:
virtual Base * make() = 0;
};
template<typename T> class TemplateFactory : public Factory {
public:
virtual Base * make() {
return dynamic_cast<Base *>(new T());
}
};
map<string, Factory *> factories;
#define REGISTER(classname) factories[ #classname ] = new TemplateFactory<classname>()
Then call REGISTER(classname); for every relevant derived class of Base, and use factories["classname"]->make() to get a new object of type classname. Obvious flaws with the above code as written include massive potential for memory leaks, and the general awfulness of combining macros and templates.
Behold the mighty Boost.
The one thing you have to do in order to use my solution is to add a new member to all your classes, and that is a static const string that contains the name of the class. There are probably other ways to do it too, but that's what I have right now.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <string>
#include <boost/fusion/container/list/cons.hpp>
#include <boost/fusion/algorithm/iteration/for_each.hpp>
#include <boost/fusion/view/iterator_range.hpp>
using namespace std;
using boost::fusion::cons;
class Base { virtual void feed(){ } };
class Child1 : public Base{
void feed(){ }
public:
static const string name_;
};
const string Child1::name_ = "Child1";
class Child3 : public Base{
void feed(){ }
public:
static const string name_;
};
const string Child3::name_ = "Child3";
//...
class Child100 : public Base{
void feed(){ }
public:
static const string name_;
};
const string Child100::name_ = "Child100";
// This is probably the ugliest part, but I think it's worth it.
typedef cons<Child1, cons<Child3, cons<Child100> > > MyChildClasses;
typedef vector<Base*> Children;
typedef vector<string> Names;
struct CreateObjects{ // a.k.a convert_string_to_instance() in your example.
CreateObjects(Children& children, string name) : children_(&children), name_(name){ }
template <class T>
void operator()(T& cs) const{
if( name_ == cs.name_ ){
cout << "Created " << name_ << " object." << endl;
(*children_).push_back(new T);
}else{
cout << name_ << " does NOT match " << cs.name_ << endl;
}
}
Children* children_;
string name_;
};
int main(int argc, char* argv[]){
MyChildClasses myClasses;
Children children;
Names names;
names.push_back("Child1");
names.push_back("Child100");
names.push_back("Child1");
names.push_back("Child100");
// Extra test.
// string input;
// cout << "Enter a name of a child class" << endl;
// cin >> input;
// names.push_back(input);
using namespace boost::fusion;
using boost::fusion::begin;
using boost::fusion::for_each;
for(Names::iterator namesIt = names.begin(); namesIt != names.end(); ++namesIt){
// You have to know how many types there are in the cons at compile time.
// In this case I have 3; Child1, Child3, and Child100
boost::fusion::iterator_range<
result_of::advance_c<result_of::begin<MyChildClasses>::type, 0>::type,
result_of::advance_c<result_of::begin<MyChildClasses>::type, 3>::type
> it(advance_c<0 >(begin(myClasses)),
advance_c<3>(begin(myClasses)));
for_each(it, CreateObjects(children, *namesIt));
}
cout << children.size() << " objects created." << endl;
return 0;
}