I would like to test the performance of a custom string and map implementation in my code. I would like to replace all objects of types std::string and std::map with custom::string and custom::map. Is there a reasonably scriptable way of doing this?
I am more interested in a methodology that would work for any given source and target types. Ideally a method that would also support different API names, i.e. replace std::map::insert() with custom::map::custom_insert().
I don't/can't trust a search/replace/regex or any solution that solely depends on textual representation of the types. Providing a tutorial or working example would also be amazing.
Related
I'm looking for a data structure which behaves similar to boost::property_tree but (optionally) leaves the get/set implementation for each value item to the developer.
You should be able to do something like this:
std::function<int(void)> f_foo = ...;
my_property_tree tree;
tree.register<int>("some.path.to.key", f_foo);
auto v1 = tree.get<int>("some.path.to.key"); // <-- calls f_foo
auto v2 = tree.get<int>("some.other.path"); // <-- some fallback or throws exception
I guess you could abuse property_tree for this but I haven't looked into the implementation yet and I would have a bad feeling about this unless I knew that this is an intended use case.
Writing a class that handles requests like val = tree.get("some.path.to.key") by calling a provided function doesn't look too hard in the first place but I can imagine a lot of special cases which would make this quite a bulky library.
Some extra features might be:
subtree-handling: not only handle terminal keys but forward certain subtrees to separate implementations. E.g.
tree.register("some.path.config", some_handler);
// calls some_handler.get<int>("network.hostname")
v = tree.get<int>("some.path.config.network.hostname");
search among values / keys
automatic type casting (like in boost::property_tree)
"path overloading", e.g. defaulting to a property_tree-implementation for paths without registered callback.
Is there a library that comes close to what I'm looking for? Has anyone made experiences with using boost::property_tree for this purpose? (E.g. by subclassing or putting special objects into the tree like described here)
After years of coding my own container classes I ended up just adopting QVariantMap. This way it pretty much behaves (and is as flexible as) python. Just one interface. Not for performance code though.
If you care to know, I really caved in for Qt as my de facto STL because:
Industry standard - used even in avionics and satellite software
It has been around for decades with little interface change (think about long term support)
It has excellent performance, awesome documentation and enormous user base.
Extensive feature set, way beyond the STL
Would an std::map do the job you are interested in?
Have you tried this approach?
I don't quite understand what you are trying to do. So please provide a domain example.
Cheers.
I have some home-cooked code that lets you register custom callbacks for each type in GitHub. It is quite basic and still missing most of the features you would like to have. I'm working on the second version, though. I'm finishing a helper structure that will do most of the job of making callbacks. Tell me if you're interested. Also, you could implement some of those features yourself, as the code to register callbacks is already done. It shouldn't be so difficult.
Using only provided data structures:
First, getters and setters are not native features to c++ you need to call the method one way or another. To make such behaviour occur you can overload assignment operator. I assume you also want to store POD data in your data structure as well.
So without knowing the type of the data you're "get"ting, the only option I can think of is to use boost::variant. But still, you have some overloading to do, and you need at least one assignment.
You can check out the documentation. It's pretty straight-forward and easy to understand.
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_61_0/doc/html/variant/tutorial.html
Making your own data structures:
Alternatively, as Dani mentioned, you can come up with your own implementation and keep a register of overloaded methods and so on.
Best
It is well know how to build the adapter when the adaptee's methods look same except for the name.
For example,
http://sourcemaking.com/design_patterns/adapter/cpp/2
where none of "doThis", "doThat", and "doOther" has inputs. However, what if different methods have different number of input parameters?
Thanks
The example given in linked document describes a use of the adapter pattern in a situation where the change is purely syntactic. The situation implied by your question contains a semantic change, ie the adaptee method does not provide the exact same service than what the adapter interface "promises" to deliver formally. This means that the adaptee's must be somehow wrapped with more than a simple name change: some work must be done around it to build the missing parameters or transform the existing parameters into those required by the adaptee.
If each new adaptee has different requirements, then each adapter must contain the ad-hoc adapting code. There's not much one can do to factor out a common pattern out of this situation. The only easy case is the trivial one, when all the needed parameters are independent of the passed ones, and can be computed once for all before constructing the adapter, hence allowing an adapter as a simple std::bind equivalent.
So I have a need to be able to parse some relatively simple C++ files with annotations and generate additional source files from that.
As an example, I may have something like this:
//# service
struct MyService
{
int getVal() const;
};
I will need to find the //# service annotation, and get a description of the structure that follows it.
I am looking at possibly leveraging LLVM/Clang since it seems to have library support for embedding compiler/parsing functionality in third-party applications. But I'm really pretty clueless as far as parsing source code goes, so I'm not sure what exactly I would need to look for, or where to start.
I understand that ASTs are at the core of language representations, and there is library support for generating an AST from source files in Clang. But comments would not really be part of an AST right? So what would be a good way of finding the representation of a structure that follows a specific comment annotation?
I'm not too worried about handling cases where the annotation would appear in an inappropriate place as it will only be used to parse C++ files that are specifically written for this application. But of course the more robust I can make it, the better.
One way I've been doing this is annotating identifiers of:
classes
base classes
class members
enumerations
enumerators
E.g.:
class /* #ann-class */ MyClass
: /* #ann-base-class */ MyBaseClass
{
int /* #ann-member */ member_;
};
Such annotation makes it easy to write a python or perl script that reads the header line by line and extracts the annotation and the associated identifier.
The annotation and the associated identifier make it possible to generate C++ reflection in the form of function templates that traverse objects passing base classes and members to a functor, e.g:
template<class Functor>
void reflect(MyClass& obj, Functor f) {
f.on_object_start(obj);
f.on_base_subobject(static_cast<MyBaseClass&>(obj));
f.on_member(obj.member_);
f.on_object_end(obj);
}
It is also handy to generate numeric ids (enumeration) for each base class and member and pass that to the functor, e.g:
f.on_base_subobject(static_cast<MyBaseClass&>(obj), BaseClassIndex<MyClass>::MyBaseClass);
f.on_member(obj.member_, MemberIndex<MyClass>::member_);
Such reflection code allows to write functors that serialize and de-serialize any object type to/from a number of different formats. Functors use function overloading and/or type deduction to treat different types appropriately.
Parsing C++ code is an extremely complex task. Leveraging a C++ compiler might help but it could be beneficial to restrict yourself to a more domain-specific less-powerful format i.e., to generate the source and additional C++ files from a simpler representation something like protobufs proto files or SOAP's WSDL or even simpler in your specific case.
I did some very similar work recently. The research I did indicated that there wasn't any out-of-the-box solutions available already, so I ended up hand-rolling one.
The other answers are dead-on regarding parsing C++ code. I needed something that could get ~90% of C++ code parsed correctly; I ended up using srcML. This tool takes C++ or Java source code and converts it to an XML document, which makes it easier for you to parse. It keeps the comments in-tact. Furthermore, if you need to do a source code transformation, it comes with an reverse tool which will take the XML document and produce source code.
It works in 90% of the cases correctly, but it trips on complicated template metaprogramming and the darkest corners of C++ parsing. Fortunately, my input source code is fairly consistent in design (not a lot of C++ trickery), so it works for us.
Other items to look at include gcc-xml and reflex (which actually uses gcc-xml). I'm not sure if GCC-XML preserves comments or not, but it does preserve GCC attributes and pragmas.
One last item to look at is this blog on writing GCC plugins, written by the author of the CodeSynthesis ODB tool.
Good luck!
I am developing a C++ application used to simulate a real world scenario. Based on this simulation our team is going to develop, test and evaluate different algorithms working within such a real world scenrio.
We need the possibility to define several scenarios (they might differ in a few parameters, but a future scenario might also require creating objects of new classes) and the possibility to maintain a set of algorithms (which is, again, a set of parameters but also the definition which classes are to be created). Parameters are passed to the classes in the constructor.
I am wondering which is the best way to manage all the scenario and algorithm configurations. It should be easily possible to have one developer work on one scenario with "his" algorithm and another developer working on another scenario with "his" different algorithm. Still, the parameter sets might be huge and should be "sharable" (if I defined a set of parameters for a certain algorithm in Scenario A, it should be possible to use the algorithm in Scenario B without copy&paste).
It seems like there are two main ways to accomplish my task:
Define a configuration file format that can handle my requirements. This format might be XML based or custom. As there is no C#-like reflection in C++, it seems like I have to update the config-file parser each time a new algorithm class is added to project (in order to convert a string like "MyClass" into a new instance of MyClass). I could create a name for every setup and pass this name as command line argument.
The pros are: no compilation required to change a parameter and re-run, I can easily store the whole config file with the simulation results
contra: seems like a lot of effort, especially hard because I am using a lot of template classes that have to be instantiated with given template arguments. No IDE support for writing the file (at least without creating a whole XSD which I would have to update everytime a parameter/class is added)
Wire everything up in C++ code. I am not completely sure how I would do this to separate all the different creation logic but still be able to reuse parameters across scenarios. I think I'd also try to give every setup a (string) name and use this name to select the setup via command line arg.
pro: type safety, IDE support, no parser needed
con: how can I easily store the setup with the results (maybe some serialization?)?, needs compilation after every parameter change
Now here are my questions:
- What is your opinion? Did I miss
important pros/cons?
- did I miss a third option?
- Is there a simple way to implement the config file approach that gives
me enough flexibility?
- How would you organize all the factory code in the seconde approach? Are there any good C++ examples for something like this out there?
Thanks a lot!
There is a way to do this without templates or reflection.
First, you make sure that all the classes you want to create from the configuration file have a common base class. Let's call this MyBaseClass and assume that MyClass1, MyClass2 and MyClass3 all inherit from it.
Second, you implement a factory function for each of MyClass1, MyClass2 and MyClass3. The signatures of all these factory functions must be identical. An example factory function is as follows.
MyBaseClass * create_MyClass1(Configuration & cfg)
{
// Retrieve config variables and pass as parameters
// to the constructor
int age = cfg->lookupInt("age");
std::string address = cfg->lookupString("address");
return new MyClass1(age, address);
}
Third, you register all the factory functions in a map.
typedef MyBaseClass* (*FactoryFunc)(Configuration *);
std::map<std::string, FactoryFunc> nameToFactoryFunc;
nameToFactoryFunc["MyClass1"] = &create_MyClass1;
nameToFactoryFunc["MyClass2"] = &create_MyClass2;
nameToFactoryFunc["MyClass3"] = &create_MyClass3;
Finally, you parse the configuration file and iterate over it to find all the entries that specify the name of a class. When you find such an entry, you look up its factory function in the nameToFactoryFunc table and invoke the function to create the corresponding object.
If you don't use XML, it's possible that boost::spirit could short-circuit at least some of the problems you are facing. Here's a simple example of how config data could be parsed directly into a class instance.
I found this website with a nice template supporting factory which I think will be used in my code.
What are the advantages of using boost.any library ? Could you please give me some real life examples ? Why the same functionality couldn't be achieved by having some generic type in the root of object's hierarchy and creating containers with that base type ?
boost::any will happily store ints and floats, types that clearly have no base classes. A real-life example where you can use it is a virtual machine for a high-level interpreted language. Your "function" objects will need an array of arguments. This can easily be implemented with a std::list<boost::any> behind the scenes.
I consider that Boost.Variant should always be preferred as it's non-intrusive and still calls for very structured programming.
But i guess the main idea behind boost.any is to provide the equivalent of java and c# object types. It's a way of saying "yes we can" ! :-)
We've used it in a property map, (std::map<std::string, boost::any>), to store a lot of things dynamically in a simple, flat dataspace.
Mostly we either stored smart-ptr-to-scriptable-objects or strings, but some entries where other types (floats, vec3f, matrices, and other non-standard objects).
It works pretty well for adding more dynamic capabilities to c++, or wherever you want some type-erasure to just add any type of data to an object.
Why the same functionality couldn't be achieved by having some generic type in the root of object's hierarchy and creating containers with that base type ?
That calls an object hierarchy -- a construct you are injecting in artificially in to the design for solving a peripheral problem. Further, such a construct is easy to get wrong and a wrong implementation can wreak havoc. Boost.Any is a community reviewed safe, well-tested alternative.
Could you please give me some real life examples ?
TinyJSON uses boost.Any.
What are the advantages of using boost.any library ?
I refer the introductory documentation.
We use boost.any as the carrier type for a type-safe tagged variadic container. Here's what that means:
We have a "raft" object, which travels through a set of filters. When a filter wants to add data to the raft, it can do something like this:
raft.addTaggedData<ETag1>(3.0);
raft.addTaggedData<ETag2>("a string")`;
std::string str = raft.getTaggedData<ETag2>();
int a = raft.getTaggedData<ETag1>(); // <-- Compile error
Where ETag1 and ETag2 are members of an enum, and we use a traits template to map tags to types.
The raft class is using a list of pair<ETagType, boost::any> as a backing store. Boost.any saved us the pain of managing raw buffers for various types.