I need the syntax for a lambda expression that will return a pointer to a member function.
For example I have class A:
class A
{
int x;
void (A::*SomeFunction)();
}
I want to set SomeFunction to a lambda. I tried doing it like this:
A a();
a.SomeFunction = [this](){ printf("Hello from lambada %d",this->x);};
The problem is that:
[this](){ printf("Hello from lambda %d",this->x);};
does not give me a pointer to a member function of class A. it gives me a pointer to a normal function. How do i declare inside the lambda that this is a member function of A.
Alternativly if such a thing isn't possible in cpp. How do you suggest I'll access variable x of class A from the function that SomeFunction is pointing at without using virtual functions (this kind of code will run about 700 times per second).
Edit:
To make it clear I do care about performance. but the main reason why I need this is specific design problems not performance.
I understand this is probably not possible to do in cpp.
Workarounds suggestions would be welcomed.
That is not possible for several reasons.
First, a pointer to member function is different in type from a pointer to stand-alone function, and non-capturing lambdas can only be converted to pointers to standalone functions.
Second, your lambda is capturing, and as such, it can not be converted to a pointer to function at all, and can only remain a functor of unspecified type.
However, you shouldn't think too much into it and just store a lambda in a std::function. Granted, you will end with virtual dispatch and some performance degradation associated with that, but 700 times a second is nothing, and you will never detect a hit because of virtual dispatch.
It's impossible to add extra methods to a class after its definition. Therefore, since there are no methods in your class A, it's impossible to ever set A::SomeFunction to point to any non-static method of A. As a workaround, you could have
void (*SomeFunction)(A*);
and
A a {}; // note {} instead of ()
a.SomeFunction = [](A* a){ /* do something with a->x */ };
From the comments:
This is part of an ECS implemention. and I am simply not willing to create a new class for etch system i want to give the user the option to declare the system in the scene constructor or inheriate from the system class.
You want different behavior from the same class without any indirection? You'll have to give up one.
But you don't have to write a class for each system either. You can make the class a template, so the compiler can generate a class for each systems:
template<typename T>
struct A : private T {
A(T function) noexcept : T{std::move(function)} {}
void SomeFunction() {
(*this)(this);
}
int x = 0;
};
It can then be used like that:
auto lambda = [](auto a){ printf("Hello from lambda %d",a->x); };
auto my_a = A{lambda}; // Generate a new A type from lambda
my_a.SomeFunction(); // calls the lambda!
Well following up for future people here's a workaround to make it look a bit nicer.
I created a template class
template <class Parent,class Return, class...Params>
struct MemberLambda
{
Parent* self; // pointer to self
void (*lambda)(Parent * self,Params...);//the lambda
MemberLambda() = default;//Constructor
MemberLambda(Parent* self, void(*lambda)(Parent* self,Params...)) :
self(self),lambda(lambda) {};//Constructor
Return operator()(Params... p) const { return lambda(self,p...); };
void operator=(void (*lambda)(Parent* self, Params...)) {
this->lambda = lambda;
}
};
Usage in class:
class A {
public:
int someMember;
MemberLambda<A, void, int, int> func =
MemberLambda<A, void, int, int>(this, nullptr);
};
*Note in the example I set the lambda to nullptr but it can be set to a lambda expression.
In the example, the lambda is a member of A takes two ints and returns void.
User usage:
A a;
a.someMember = 3;
a.func = [](A* self, int a, int b){ std::cout << self->someMember + a + b; };
a.func(5,6);
Will output 14, which is 3 + 5 + 6.
Related
You can convert Lambdas to function pointers. What are the practical use cases for this? Why do we need this?
Play with it
int main() {
auto test = []() -> int { return 1; };
using func_point = int (*)();
func_point fp = test;
return test();
}
First, you can only convert lambdas with empty closure. Such lambdas are effectively stateless, which makes the conversion possible.
As for the use cases, one important use case is integration with C. There are plenty C APIs, which allow registration of user callbacks, usually taking one or more arguments, like this:
// Registers callback to be called with the specified state pointer
void register_callback(void (*callback)(void* state), void* state);
You can associate the state with a C++ class instance and translate the callback invokation to a method call:
class Foo
{
public:
void method();
};
Foo foo;
register_callback([](void* p) { static_cast< Foo* >(p)->method(); }, &foo);
Alternatives to function pointers are std::function and template parameters / generic functors. All of those impact your code in different ways.
You can pass lambdas to code that expects either std::function, generic functors or function pointers. It is convenient to have a single concept in the calling code that supports all those different interface concepts so consistently and after all, convenience is all, lambdas are about.
Just to make this complete:
function pointers are the least universal concept of the ones above, so not every lambda can be turned into a function pointer. The capture clause must be empty.
Prefixing lambdas with a + explicitly casts them to a function pointer, if possible, i.e. in the following snippet, f has the type int (*)( int ): auto f = +[]( int x ) { return x; };
Fairly simple question:
I have a class that uses a (variable) heuristic function to perform a certain algorithm. This heuristic function should ideally be fed to the class constructor as some sort of pointer and implement the following declaration:
int heuristic_Function(GridLocation a, GridLocation b);
What is the best way to accomplish this? Ideally I would like to avoid additional classes and keep the code fairly self-contained (and yes, I am aware of things like delegates and the strategy pattern).
(This has probably been asked hundreds of times already but in different terms)
Well, as you said, you could store a function pointer:
struct Algo
{
using HeurFn = int(GridLocation, GridLocation);
Algo(HeurFn * heuristic) : heuristic_(heuristic) {}
void Run()
{
// use "heuristic_(a, b)"
}
HeurFn * heuristic_;
};
Then instantiate it:
extern int my_fn(GridLocation, GridLocation);
Algo algo(my_fn);
algo.Run();
An alternative would be to pass the function directly to Run, in which case you could make Run a template and perhaps allow for inlining of the actual heuristic code, but you explicitly asked for the heuristic to be configured via the constructor.
Instead of old C function pointer, I would recommend std::function.
So you could write it like this
#include <functional>
struct algorithm{
algorithm (std::function<int(GridLocation, GridLocation)> heuristic_function) :
heuristic(heuristic_function) {}
int do_something (GridLocation a, GridLocation b){
return heuristic(a,b);
}
private:
std::function<int(GridLocation, GridLocation)> heuristic;
}
Advantages are the better readable syntax, and that the caller can use std::bind expressions.
Or you could just take the heuristic as a template, but then you would to either make your algorithm to just a function or write the type to every new instance. See https://stackoverflow.com/a/2156899/3537677
Things get really simple if only the method that does the computations needs the function, and you can forgo storing the function in the class itself. You can then parametrize the method on the type of the passed function, and you get full flexibility:
struct Calculate {
template <typename F> int run(F && f) {
return f(1, 2);
}
};
int f1(int, int) { return 0; }
struct F2 {
int operator()(int, int) { return 0; }
};
int main() {
Calculate calc;
// pass a C function pointer
calc.run(f1);
// pass a C++98 functor
calc.run(F2());
// pass a C++11 stateless lambda
calc.run(+[](int a, int b) -> int { return a-b; });
// pass a C++11 stateful lambda
int k = 8;
calc.run([k](int a, int b) -> int { return a*b+k; });
}
You don't need to manually spell out any types, and you can pass function-like objects that can be stateful.
The power of C++11 comes from the && syntax. There's more to it than meets the eye. In run's parameter, F is a deduced type, and && is a universal reference. That means that, depending on the context, it acts either as an lvalue-reference we know from C++98, or as an rvalue-reference.
The + operator applied to the lambda stresses that it is in fact stateless. Its uses forces a conversion from the abstract lambda type to a C function pointer. The type of the +[](int,int)->int {...} expression is int(*)(int,int). The use of the + operator is not necessary, I've only used it to underline the statelessness.
I need to store multiple types of a template class in a single vector.
Eg, for:
template <typename T>
class templateClass{
bool someFunction();
};
I need one vector that will store all of:
templateClass<int> t1;
templateClass<char> t2;
templateClass<std::string> t3;
etc
As far as I know this is not possible, if it is could someone say how?
If it isn't possible could someone explain how to make the following work?
As a work around I tried to use a base, non template class and inherit the template class from it.
class templateInterface{
virtual bool someFunction() = 0;
};
template <typename T>
class templateClass : public templateInterface{
bool someFunction();
};
I then created a vector to store the base "templateInterface" class:
std::vector<templateInterface> v;
templateClass<int> t;
v.push_back(t);
This produced the following error:
error: cannot allocate an object of abstract type 'templateInterface'
note: because the following virtual functions are pure within 'templateInterface'
note: virtual bool templateInterface::someFunction()
To fix this error I made the function in templateInterface not a pure virtual by providing a function body, this compiled but when calling the function the overide is not used, but instead the body in the virtual function.
Eg:
class templateInterface{
virtual bool someFunction() {return true;}
};
template <typename T>
class templateClass : public templateInterface{
bool someFunction() {return false;}
};
std::vector<templateInterface> v;
templateClass<int> i;
v.push_back(i);
v[0].someFunction(); //This returns true, and does not use the code in the 'templateClass' function body
Is there any way to fix this so that the overridden function is used, or is there another workaround to store multiple template types in a single vector?
Why your code doesn't work:
Calling a virtual function on a value doesn't use polymorphism. It calls the function which is defined for the type of this exact symbol as seen by the compiler, not the runtime type. When you insert sub types into a vector of the base type, your values will be converted into the base type ("type slicing"), which is not what you want. Calling functions on them will now call the function as defined for the base type, since not it is of that type.
How to fix this?
The same problem can be reproduced with this code snippet:
templateInterface x = templateClass<int>(); // Type slicing takes place!
x.someFunction(); // -> templateInterface::someFunction() is called!
Polymorphism only works on a pointer or reference type. It will then use the runtime type of the object behind the pointer / reference to decide which implementation to call (by using it's vtable).
Converting pointers is totally "safe" with regard to type slicing. Your actual values won't be converted at all and polymorphism will work as expected.
Example, analogous to the code snippet above:
templateInterface *x = new templateClass<int>(); // No type slicing takes place
x->someFunction(); // -> templateClass<int>::someFunction() is called!
delete x; // Don't forget to destroy your objects.
What about vectors?
So you have to adopt these changes in your code. You can simply store pointers to actual types in the vector, instead of storing the values directly.
When working with pointers you also have to care about deleting your allocated objects. For this you can use smart pointers which care about deletion automatically. unique_ptr is one such smart pointer type. It deletes the pointee whenever it goes out of scope ("unique ownership" - the scope being the owner). Assuming the lifetime of your objects is bound to the scope this is what you should use:
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<templateInterface>> v;
templateClass<int> *i = new templateClass<int>(); // create new object
v.push_back(std::unique_ptr<templateInterface>(i)); // put it in the vector
v.emplace_back(new templateClass<int>()); // "direct" alternative
Then, call a virtual function on one of these elements with the following syntax:
v[0]->someFunction();
Make sure you make all functions virtual which should be possible to be overridden by subclasses. Otherwise their overridden version will not be called. But since you already introduced an "interface", I'm sure you are working with abstract functions.
Alternative approaches:
Alternative ways to do what you want is to use a variant type in the vector. There are some implementations of variant types, the Boost.Variant being a very popular one. This approach is especially nice if you don't have a type hierarchy (for example when you store primitive types). You would then use a vector type like std::vector<boost::variant<int, char, bool>>
Polymorphism only works through pointers or references. You'll
need the non-template base. Beyond that, you'll need to decide
where the actual objects in container will live. If they're all
static objects (with sufficient lifetime), just using
a std::vector<TemplateInterface*>, and inserting with
v.push_back(&t1);, etc., should do the trick. Otherwise,
you'll probably want to support cloning, and keep clones in the
vector: preferably with Boost pointer containers, but
std::shared_ptr can be used as well.
The solutions given so far are fine though be aware that in case you were returning the template type other than bool in your example , none of these would help as the vtable slots would not be able to be measured before hand. There are actually limits , from a design point of view , for using a template oriented polymorphic solution.
Solution nr. 1
This solution inspired by Sean Parent's C++ Seasoning talk. I highly recommend to check it out on youtube. My solution simplified a bit and the key is to store object in method itself.
One method only
Create a class that will invoke method of stored object.
struct object {
template <class T>
object(T t)
: someFunction([t = std::move(t)]() { return t.someFunction(); })
{ }
std::function<bool()> someFunction;
};
Then use it like this
std::vector<object> v;
// Add classes that has 'bool someFunction()' method
v.emplace_back(someClass());
v.emplace_back(someOtherClass());
// Test our vector
for (auto& x : v)
std::cout << x.someFunction() << std::endl;
Several methods
For several methods use shared pointer to share object between methods
struct object {
template <class T>
object(T&& t) {
auto ptr = std::make_shared<std::remove_reference_t<T>>(std::forward<T>(t));
someFunction = [ptr]() { return ptr->someFunction(); };
someOtherFunction = [ptr](int x) { ptr->someOtherFunction(x); };
}
std::function<bool()> someFunction;
std::function<void(int)> someOtherFunction;
};
Other types
Primitive types (such as int, float, const char*) or classes (std::string etc.) may be wrapped in the same way as object class do but behave differently. For example:
struct otherType {
template <class T>
otherType(T t)
: someFunction([t = std::move(t)]() {
// Return something different
return true;
})
{ }
std::function<bool()> someFunction;
};
So now it is possible to add types that does not have someFunction method.
v.emplace_back(otherType(17)); // Adding an int
v.emplace_back(otherType("test")); // A string
Solution nr. 2
After some thoughts what we basically done in first solution is created array of callable functions. So why not just do the following instead.
// Example class with method we want to put in array
struct myclass {
void draw() const {
std::cout << "myclass" << std::endl;
}
};
// All other type's behaviour
template <class T>
void draw(const T& x) {
std::cout << typeid(T).name() << ": " << x << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
myclass x;
int y = 17;
std::vector<std::function<void()>> v;
v.emplace_back(std::bind(&myclass::draw, &x));
v.emplace_back(std::bind(draw<int>, y));
for (auto& fn : v)
fn();
}
Conclusion
Solution nr. 1 is definitely an interesting method that does not require inheritance nor virtual functions. And can be used to other stuff where you need to store a template argument to be used later.
Solution nr. 2, on the other hand, is simpler, more flexible and probably a better choice here.
If you're looking at a container to store multiple types, then you should explore boost variant from the popular boost library.
I have 2 classes
class B {
public:
int func(int i);
};
class A {
public:
typedef int (B::*fPtr)(int);
void run();
B* mB;
};
void A::run() {
// create a pointer
fPtr p = &(B::func);
// invoke the function
mB->*p(2); <------- Compilation Error
}
What i need is to create a pointer to func() in A's run function. I get a compilation error saying that mB is not corresponding to a function with 1 argument.
please help
You need to put parentheses around the function expression:
(mB->*p)(2);
But as others have pointed out, there's almost certainly a better way to do what you're trying to do.
Instance methods on a class always have a hidden first parameter for the this pointer, thus it is incompatible with your function pointer typedef. There is no way directly to obtain a pointer to a member function. The typical workaround is to use a "thunk" where you pass a static function that accepts a generic "catch all" parameter (such as void *) which can be statically cast to a pointer of your choosing on which you can invoke the member function. Example:
class B
{
public:
static void MyThunk(void * obj)
{
static_cast<B *>(obj)->MyRealFunc();
}
void MyRealFunc()
{
// do something here
}
// . . .
};
You can get a pointer to the static function easily as it has no 'hidden this', just reference it using B::MyThunk. If your function requires additional parameters, you can use something like a functor to capture the necesssary parameters and state.
You should definitely read this C++ FAQ Lite page which tells you much more about all this: Pointers to member functions
why can you not call mB->func(2);?
If you need different functions for B perhaps look into virtual functions and class inheritance
I have a std::map which I'm trying to store void pointers for the values. The problem is, most of the pointer I'm trying to store are methods in a class and have different amount of params. I know for the params I can use a va list so thats not too much of a problem, the problem would be the actual pointer itself.
This is what I have:
class A
{
public:
A();
void methodA(...);
};
class B
{
public:
B();
void methodB(...);
};
void method_no_class(...) { }
std::map<int, void(*)(...)> my_map;
my_map[0] = &method_no_class;
B* cb = new B();
my_map[1] = &cb->methodB; // will return error
Maybe this information my help you:
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/pointers-to-members.html#faq-33.1
Pointer to method is of different type than pointer to function. If you want to store them both in single collection you have to do manual casts.
The clean OO way would be to define a command interface. The interface would take an instance (of A or B) and all parameters. In the invoke() method, it would call the method of the instance.
You could then use a map of these command interfaces (just define a common subclass for them which defines the abstract invoke() method). The compiler would check all types and arguments for you, and you wouldn't have to use varargs.
Following up on Kamil Szot's answer, the C++ FAQ (and the book) is an excellent reference to the murky depths of C++ and object oriented programming in general. Section 33 addresses specifically the problem you are having:
In C++, member functions have an implicit parameter which points to the object (the this pointer inside the member function). Normal C functions can be thought of as having a different calling convention from member functions, so the types of their pointers (pointer-to-member-function vs. pointer-to-function) are different and incompatible.
Of course, the answer to your question is somewhat lacking in details.
You might want to look at method operaters ->, ::, and their friends. I'll try to find a better link but start here.
UPDATE: hopefully this is a better article for method pointers and operators.
You should functionoids here. They can be used as a flexible and type safe replacement for function pointers with different signatures. A abstract base class is needed. It contains the actual function invocation with the common parameters, if there are any.
class Functioniod: public YourClass {
virtual void execute(char d, common_parameters,...) = 0
}
For every function you want to use, you create a derived class. The constructor contains the function-specific parameters, and the execute() function the actual call. This execute function is later called instead of the function pointer. It needs to have the same signature in every functionoid. It could call something different in any other class too, of course.
class FuncA: public Functionoid {
FuncA(int _a, float _b, string _c, function-specific-parameters...) {
a = _a; b = _b; c = _c;
}
void execute(char d, common-parameters,...) {
call-to-member(d, a, b, c);
}
int a;
float b;
string c;
}
Now if you want to use this as a replacement for your member function pointer, you would do:
std::map<int, *Functionoid> my_map;
my_map[0] = new FuncA(someInt, someFloat, someString);
my_map[1] = new FuncB(some-other-parameters...);
and execute them with
my_map[0]->execute(common-parm);
my_map[1]->execute(common-parm);
Here's an example code to get you started. Haven't compiled it, so might require some tuning.
#define func(Instance,Method,Class) \
(__int64(Instance)<<32 + __int64(&Class::Method))
#define invoke(Func,Method,Class) \
invoke1(Func,(Class*)0)->*invoke2(Func,&Class::Method)
template<class Class>
Class* invoke1(__int64 Func,Class*)
{
return (Class*)(int)(Func>>32);
}
template<class Method>
Method invoke2(__int64 Func,Method)
{
return (Method)(int)Func;
}
------------ USAGE ------------
class B
{
void methodB(int a,float b){}
};
std::map<int, __int64> my_map;
my_map[0] = func(cb,methodB,B);
invoke(my_map[0],methodB,B)(1,2.f);