How to validate input parameters in C++ constructor? - c++

Following example shows the crux of the problem. I need to initialize const members of a class. This can only be done in the initializer-list and not in constructor body. I want to assert or throw an error if input to the constructor is invalid, that is, if the vector size is less than 3.
class A {
// In following constructor, how do we make sure if params.size()
// is at least 3.
A(const std::vector<int>& params):
x(params[0]), y(params[1]), z(params[2]) {}
private:
const int x;
const int y;
const int z;
};
Please advise how to achieve this in Modern C++ (11 and later)

Just add a layer of abstraction. You can write a function that makes sure the vector is of the correct size and you can even make sure the values are in an expected range, if you have one. That would look like
class A {
A(const std::vector<int>& params):
x(verify(params, 0)), y(verify(params, 1)), z(verify(params, 3)) {}
private:
static int verify(const std::vector<int>& params, int index)
{
if (params.size() < 4) // or use if (params.size() <= index) if you only care if the index will work
throw something;
return params[index];
}
const int x;
const int y;
const int z;
};

const members can only be initialized in the constructors's member initialization list. To validate the caller's input, you would have to call a helper function to validate each input value before passing it to the corresponding member, eg:
int check(const std::vector<int> &params, int index) {
if (params.size() <= index) throw std::length_error("");
return params[index];
}
class A {
A(const std::vector<int>& params):
x(check(params, 0)), y(check(params, 1)), z(check(params, 3)) {}
private:
const int x;
const int y;
const int z;
};
Or, simply utilize the vector's own built-in bounds checking instead:
class A {
A(const std::vector<int>& params):
x(params.at(0)), y(params.at(1)), z(params.at(3)) {}
private:
const int x;
const int y;
const int z;
};

Not as elegant as other solutions but... you can simply add a throw in a ternary operator inside the initialization of the first constant
class A
{
private:
const int x;
const int y;
const int z;
public:
A (const std::vector<int>& params)
: x{ params.size() < 4u ? throw std::runtime_error{"!"}
: params[0] },
y{params[1]}, z{params[3]}
{ }
};
Off Topic suggestion: if A is a class, maybe it's better that the constructor is public.

Other option extra layer through conversion:
class A_params{
friend class A;
int x;
int y;
int z;
void validate();
public:
A_params(std::initializer_list<int>);
A_params(const std::vector<int>&);
A_params(int(&)[3]);
//...
};
class A {
// In following constructor, how do we make sure if params.size()
// is at least 3.
public:
A(A_params params):
x(params.x), y(params.y), z(params.z) {}
private:
const int x;
const int y;
const int z;
};

Related

Friend class read only access C++ [duplicate]

Whoopee, not working on that socket library for the moment. I'm trying to educate myself a little more in C++.
With classes, is there a way to make a variable read-only to the public, but read+write when accessed privately? e.g. something like this:
class myClass {
private:
int x; // this could be any type, hypothetically
public:
void f() {
x = 10; // this is OK
}
}
int main() {
myClass temp;
// I want this, but with private: it's not allowed
cout << temp.x << endl;
// this is what I want:
// this to be allowed
temp.f(); // this sets x...
// this to be allowed
int myint = temp.x;
// this NOT to be allowed
temp.x = myint;
}
My question, condensed, is how to allow full access to x from within f() but read-only access from anywhere else, i.e. int newint = temp.x; allowed, but temp.x = 5; not allowed? like a const variable, but writable from f()...
EDIT: I forgot to mention that I plan to be returning a large vector instance, using a getX() function would only make a copy of that and it isn't really optimal. I could return a pointer to it, but that's bad practice iirc.
P.S.: Where would I post if I just want to basically show my knowledge of pointers and ask if it's complete or not? Thanks!
Of course you can:
class MyClass
{
int x_;
public:
int x() const { return x_; }
};
If you don't want to make a copy (for integers, there is no overhead), do the following:
class MyClass
{
std::vector<double> v_;
public:
decltype(v)& v() const { return v_; }
};
or with C++98:
class MyClass
{
std::vector<double> v_;
public:
const std::vector<double>& v() const { return v_; }
};
This does not make any copy. It returns a reference to const.
While I think a getter function that returns const T& is the better solution, you can have almost precisely the syntax you asked for:
class myClass {
private:
int x_; // Note: different name than public, read-only interface
public:
void f() {
x_ = 10; // Note use of private var
}
const int& x;
myClass() : x_(42), x(x_) {} // must have constructor to initialize reference
};
int main() {
myClass temp;
// temp.x is const, so ...
cout << temp.x << endl; // works
// temp.x = 57; // fails
}
EDIT: With a proxy class, you can get precisely the syntax you asked for:
class myClass {
public:
template <class T>
class proxy {
friend class myClass;
private:
T data;
T operator=(const T& arg) { data = arg; return data; }
public:
operator const T&() const { return data; }
};
proxy<int> x;
// proxy<std::vector<double> > y;
public:
void f() {
x = 10; // Note use of private var
}
};
temp.x appears to be a read-write int in the class, but a read-only int in main.
A simple solution, like Rob's, but without constructor:
class myClass {
private:
int m_x = 10; // Note: name modified from read-only reference in public interface
public:
const int& x = m_x;
};
int main() {
myClass temp;
cout << temp.x << endl; //works.
//temp.x = 57; //fails.
}
It is more like get method, but shorter.
Constant pointer is simple, and should work at all types you can make pointer to.
This may do what you want.
If you want a readonly variable but don't want the client to have to change the way they access it, try this templated class:
template<typename MemberOfWhichClass, typename primative>
class ReadOnly {
friend MemberOfWhichClass;
public:
inline operator primative() const { return x; }
template<typename number> inline bool operator==(const number& y) const { return x == y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator+ (const number& y) const { return x + y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator- (const number& y) const { return x - y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator* (const number& y) const { return x * y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator/ (const number& y) const { return x / y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator<<(const number& y) const { return x <<y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator>>(const number& y) const { return x >> y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator^ (const number& y) const { return x ^ y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator| (const number& y) const { return x | y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator& (const number& y) const { return x & y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator&&(const number& y) const { return x &&y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator||(const number& y) const { return x ||y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator~() const { return ~x; }
protected:
template<typename number> inline number operator= (const number& y) { return x = y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator+=(const number& y) { return x += y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator-=(const number& y) { return x -= y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator*=(const number& y) { return x *= y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator/=(const number& y) { return x /= y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator&=(const number& y) { return x &= y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator|=(const number& y) { return x |= y; }
primative x;
};
Example Use:
class Foo {
public:
ReadOnly<Foo, int> x;
};
Now you can access Foo.x, but you can't change Foo.x!
Remember you'll need to add bitwise and unary operators as well! This is just an example to get you started
You may want to mimic C# properties for access (depending what you're going for, intended environment, etc.).
class Foo
{
private:
int bar;
public:
__declspec( property( get = Getter ) ) int Bar;
void Getter() const
{
return bar;
}
}
There is a way to do it with a member variable, but it is probably not the advisable way of doing it.
Have a private member that is writable, and a const reference public member variable that aliases a member of its own class.
class Foo
{
private:
Bar private_bar;
public:
const Bar& readonly_bar; // must appear after private_bar
// in the class definition
Foo() :
readonly_bar( private_bar )
{
}
};
That will give you what you want.
void Foo::someNonConstmethod()
{
private_bar.modifyTo( value );
}
void freeMethod()
{
readonly_bar.getSomeAttribute();
}
What you can do, and what you should do are different matters. I'm not sure the method I just outlined is popular and would pass many code reviews. It also unnecessarily increases sizeof(Foo) (albeit by a small amount) whereas a simple accessor "getter" would not, and can be inlined, so it won't generate more code either.
You would have to leave it private and then make a function to access the value;
private:
int x;
public:
int X()
{
return x;
}
As mentioned in other answers, you can create read only functionality for a class member by making it private and defining a getter function but no setter. But that's a lot of work to do for every class member.
You can also use macros to generate getter functions automatically:
#define get_trick(...) get_
#define readonly(type, name) \
private: type name; \
public: type get_trick()name() {\
return name;\
}
Then you can make the class this way:
class myClass {
readonly(int, x)
}
which expands to
class myClass {
private: int x;
public: int get_x() {
return x;
}
}
You need to make the member private and provide a public getter method.
The only way I know of granting read-only access to private data members in a c++ class is to have a public function. In your case, it will like:
int getx() const { return x; }
or
int x() const { return x; }.
By making a data member private you are by default making it invisible (a.k.a no access) to the scope outside of the class. In essence, the members of the class have read/write access to the private data member (assuming you are not specifying it to be const). friends of the class get access to the private data members.
Refer here and/or any good C++ book on access specifiers.
Write a public getter function.
int getX(){ return x; }
I had a similiar problem. Here is my solution:
enum access_type{readonly, read_and_write};
template<access_type access>
class software_parameter;
template<>
class software_parameter<read_and_write>{
protected:
static unsigned int test_data;
};
template<>
class software_parameter<readonly> : public software_parameter<read_and_write>{
public:
static const unsigned int & test_data;
};
class read_and_write_access_manager : public software_parameter<read_and_write>{
friend class example_class_with_write_permission;
};
class example_class_with_write_permission{
public:
void set_value(unsigned int value);
};
And the .cpp file:
unsigned int software_parameter<read_and_write>::test_data=1;
const unsigned int & software_parameter<readonly>::test_data=software_parameter<read_and_write>::test_data;
void example_class_with_write_permission::set_value(unsigned int value){software_parameter<read_and_write>::test_data=value;};
The idea is, that everyone can read the software parameter, but only the friends of the class read_and_write_access_manager are allowed to change software parameter.
but temp.x = 5; not allowed?
This is any how not allowed in the snippet posted because it is anyhow declared as private and can be accessed in the class scope only.
Here are asking for accessing
cout << temp.x << endl;
but here not for-
int myint = temp.x;
This sounds very contradictory.

How can i return from a function a value that just can't be changed?

I know a function can return a const reference, but are there other methods to achieve this kind of behavior? Meaning, i want to return a value that just can't be modified.
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class A {
public:
A( int x, int y): _x(x), _y(y) {};
int _x;
int _y;
};
const A genObjA()
{
return A( 0,0 );
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
A new_obj = genObjA();
std::cout << new_obj._x;
new_obj._x = 10; // user can change new_obj
std::cout << new_obj._x;
}
This will print
0
10
You don't have to return a const reference, you can return a const object.
const Object function_name() {
// ...
}
You don't modify returned value, you modify it's copy. In this code, you can't do genObjA()._x=10;.
To reach your goal, you can write extra class:
class A_const{
protected:
int _x;
int _y;
operator=(const A_base&)=default;
public:
A()=default;
A(const A_base&)=default;
A( int x, int y): _x(x), _y(y) {};
int x(){return _x;}
int y(){return _y;}
//or
int get_x(){return _x;}
int get_y(){return _y;}
};
class A {
public:
using A_const::A_const;
A(const A&)=default;
int& x(){return _x;}
int& y(){return _y;}
//or
int& set_x(int val){return _x=val;}
int& set_y(int val){return _y=val;}
};
const A_const genObjA_const(){
return A_const(0, 0);
}
If you want a fool-proof modification safeguard, you can use the PIMPL idiom.
However, if you have reasonable faith in the sanity of your coleagues who work with your class, just use a const-reference. If you want to be sure, document the reason why you don't want the object to be modified, so that your fellows can follow your thoughts (and come to the same conclusion). The PIMPL idiom tries to save you from the determined fools. But determined fools will even work around PIMPL, so there's little point in messing up your code in the attempt.

Reference in place of getters?

in C++ is it a bad practice to use reference in place of getters?
for example:
class X
{
int mP;
public:
const int& P;
X():P(mP){}
};
and later
X xl;
int h = xl.P;
Just think about refactoring to make the access thread safe, that won't work well this way and require a lot of changes in the client classes/functions.
If you have class members, that are guaranteed not to be changed over lifetime of the instance, you can simply provide const int P; and initialize it properly in your class' constructors.
If the value is to be visible class wide use a static const int P;
In any other case use a public getter:
int P() const; // a return type of 'const int &' would be redundant
1st shot implementation:
int X::P() const
{
return mP;
}
Thread safe implementation:
class X {
{
// ...
private:
// ...
mutable std::mutex internalDataGuard;
};
int X::P() const
{
std::lock(internalDataGuard);
return mP;
}
None of this is good:
class X { public: int x; };
class X {
private: int m_x;
public: const int& get() const { return m_x; }
public: void set(const int& other) { m_x = other; }
};
class X {
private: int m_x;
public: const int& x() const { return m_x; }
public: void x(const int& other) { m_x = other; }
};
class X {
private: int m_x;
public: const int& x() const { return m_x; }
public: int& x() { return m_x; }
};
Pick one, it's a design decision.
Having 'const int& x' to publish the private member will work:
class X {
private: int m_x;
public: const int& x;
public: X() : m_x(0), x(m_x) {}
// Take care for copy and assignment
};
The cost is a larger memory footprint.

Declaring readonly variables on a C++ class or struct

I'm coming to C++ from C# and const-correctness is still new to me. In C# I could declare a property like this:
class Type
{
public readonly int x;
public Type(int y)
{
x = y;
}
}
This would ensure that x was only set during initialization. I would like to do something similar in C++. The best I can come up with though is:
class Type
{
private:
int _x;
public:
Type(int y) { _x = y; }
int get_x() { return _x; }
};
Is there a better way to do this? Even better: Can I do this with a struct? The type I have in mind is really just a collection of data, with no logic, so a struct would be better if I could guarantee that its values are set only during initialization.
There is a const modifier:
class Type
{
private:
const int _x;
int j;
public:
Type(int y):_x(y) { j = 5; }
int get_x() { return _x; }
// disable changing the object through assignment
Type& operator=(const Type&) = delete;
};
Note that you need to initialize constant in the constructor initialization list. Other variables you can also initialize in the constructor body.
About your second question, yes, you can do something like this:
struct Type
{
const int x;
const int y;
Type(int vx, int vy): x(vx), y(vy){}
// disable changing the object through assignment
Type& operator=(const Type&) = delete;
};
Rather than a collection of constants, you could have a constant collection. The property of being constant seems to pertain to your use case, not the data model itself. Like so:
struct extent { int width; int height; };
const extent e { 20, 30 };
It's possible to have specifically constant data members of a class, but then you need to write a constructor to initialize it:
struct Foo
{
const int x;
int & y;
int z;
Foo(int a, int & b) : x(a + b), y(b), z(b - a) { }
};
(The example also shows another type of data member that needs to be initialized: references.)
Of course, structs and classes are the same thing.
You can initialize class const members with constructor. If you need add some other logic in constructor, but in .cpp file not in .h, you can create a private method and call it in constructor.
File.h
class Example
{
private:
const int constantMember1;
const int constantMember2;
const int constantMember3;
void Init();
public:
Example(int a, int b) :constantMember1(a), constantMember2(b), constantMember3(a + b) {
//Initialization
Init();
};
};
File.cpp
void Init()
{
//Some Logic intialization
}
This is not exactly answering the question asked, but if you wanted to have the simplicity of directly accessing member variables in a struct without getters, but wanted to ensure that nobody could modify the values, you could do something like this:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class TypeFriend;
struct Type
{
const int &x;
const int y;
Type (int vx, int vy):x (_x), y (vy), _x (vx)
{
}
private:
friend class TypeFriend;
int _x;
};
struct TypeFriend
{
TypeFriend (Type & t):_t (t)
{
}
void setX (int newX)
{
_t._x = newX;
}
private:
Type & _t;
};
int main ()
{
Type t (1, 2);
TypeFriend tf (t);
cout << t.x << "," << t.y << endl;
// t.x = 6; // error: assignment of read-only location ‘t.Type::x’
// cout<<t.x << ","<<t.y<<endl;
tf.setX (5);
cout << t.x << "," << t.y << endl;
return 0;
}
The result of running this is:
1,2
5,2
Type::x cannot be modified externally, so it is read-only, but via TypeFriend it can be changed. This can be useful if you wanted to expose a simple interface of direct member access for reading, but wanted to restrict how those members could be changed.

Class variables: public access read-only, but private access read/write

Whoopee, not working on that socket library for the moment. I'm trying to educate myself a little more in C++.
With classes, is there a way to make a variable read-only to the public, but read+write when accessed privately? e.g. something like this:
class myClass {
private:
int x; // this could be any type, hypothetically
public:
void f() {
x = 10; // this is OK
}
}
int main() {
myClass temp;
// I want this, but with private: it's not allowed
cout << temp.x << endl;
// this is what I want:
// this to be allowed
temp.f(); // this sets x...
// this to be allowed
int myint = temp.x;
// this NOT to be allowed
temp.x = myint;
}
My question, condensed, is how to allow full access to x from within f() but read-only access from anywhere else, i.e. int newint = temp.x; allowed, but temp.x = 5; not allowed? like a const variable, but writable from f()...
EDIT: I forgot to mention that I plan to be returning a large vector instance, using a getX() function would only make a copy of that and it isn't really optimal. I could return a pointer to it, but that's bad practice iirc.
P.S.: Where would I post if I just want to basically show my knowledge of pointers and ask if it's complete or not? Thanks!
Of course you can:
class MyClass
{
int x_;
public:
int x() const { return x_; }
};
If you don't want to make a copy (for integers, there is no overhead), do the following:
class MyClass
{
std::vector<double> v_;
public:
decltype(v)& v() const { return v_; }
};
or with C++98:
class MyClass
{
std::vector<double> v_;
public:
const std::vector<double>& v() const { return v_; }
};
This does not make any copy. It returns a reference to const.
While I think a getter function that returns const T& is the better solution, you can have almost precisely the syntax you asked for:
class myClass {
private:
int x_; // Note: different name than public, read-only interface
public:
void f() {
x_ = 10; // Note use of private var
}
const int& x;
myClass() : x_(42), x(x_) {} // must have constructor to initialize reference
};
int main() {
myClass temp;
// temp.x is const, so ...
cout << temp.x << endl; // works
// temp.x = 57; // fails
}
EDIT: With a proxy class, you can get precisely the syntax you asked for:
class myClass {
public:
template <class T>
class proxy {
friend class myClass;
private:
T data;
T operator=(const T& arg) { data = arg; return data; }
public:
operator const T&() const { return data; }
};
proxy<int> x;
// proxy<std::vector<double> > y;
public:
void f() {
x = 10; // Note use of private var
}
};
temp.x appears to be a read-write int in the class, but a read-only int in main.
A simple solution, like Rob's, but without constructor:
class myClass {
private:
int m_x = 10; // Note: name modified from read-only reference in public interface
public:
const int& x = m_x;
};
int main() {
myClass temp;
cout << temp.x << endl; //works.
//temp.x = 57; //fails.
}
It is more like get method, but shorter.
Constant pointer is simple, and should work at all types you can make pointer to.
This may do what you want.
If you want a readonly variable but don't want the client to have to change the way they access it, try this templated class:
template<typename MemberOfWhichClass, typename primative>
class ReadOnly {
friend MemberOfWhichClass;
public:
inline operator primative() const { return x; }
template<typename number> inline bool operator==(const number& y) const { return x == y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator+ (const number& y) const { return x + y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator- (const number& y) const { return x - y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator* (const number& y) const { return x * y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator/ (const number& y) const { return x / y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator<<(const number& y) const { return x <<y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator>>(const number& y) const { return x >> y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator^ (const number& y) const { return x ^ y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator| (const number& y) const { return x | y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator& (const number& y) const { return x & y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator&&(const number& y) const { return x &&y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator||(const number& y) const { return x ||y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator~() const { return ~x; }
protected:
template<typename number> inline number operator= (const number& y) { return x = y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator+=(const number& y) { return x += y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator-=(const number& y) { return x -= y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator*=(const number& y) { return x *= y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator/=(const number& y) { return x /= y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator&=(const number& y) { return x &= y; }
template<typename number> inline number operator|=(const number& y) { return x |= y; }
primative x;
};
Example Use:
class Foo {
public:
ReadOnly<Foo, int> x;
};
Now you can access Foo.x, but you can't change Foo.x!
Remember you'll need to add bitwise and unary operators as well! This is just an example to get you started
You may want to mimic C# properties for access (depending what you're going for, intended environment, etc.).
class Foo
{
private:
int bar;
public:
__declspec( property( get = Getter ) ) int Bar;
void Getter() const
{
return bar;
}
}
There is a way to do it with a member variable, but it is probably not the advisable way of doing it.
Have a private member that is writable, and a const reference public member variable that aliases a member of its own class.
class Foo
{
private:
Bar private_bar;
public:
const Bar& readonly_bar; // must appear after private_bar
// in the class definition
Foo() :
readonly_bar( private_bar )
{
}
};
That will give you what you want.
void Foo::someNonConstmethod()
{
private_bar.modifyTo( value );
}
void freeMethod()
{
readonly_bar.getSomeAttribute();
}
What you can do, and what you should do are different matters. I'm not sure the method I just outlined is popular and would pass many code reviews. It also unnecessarily increases sizeof(Foo) (albeit by a small amount) whereas a simple accessor "getter" would not, and can be inlined, so it won't generate more code either.
You would have to leave it private and then make a function to access the value;
private:
int x;
public:
int X()
{
return x;
}
As mentioned in other answers, you can create read only functionality for a class member by making it private and defining a getter function but no setter. But that's a lot of work to do for every class member.
You can also use macros to generate getter functions automatically:
#define get_trick(...) get_
#define readonly(type, name) \
private: type name; \
public: type get_trick()name() {\
return name;\
}
Then you can make the class this way:
class myClass {
readonly(int, x)
}
which expands to
class myClass {
private: int x;
public: int get_x() {
return x;
}
}
You need to make the member private and provide a public getter method.
The only way I know of granting read-only access to private data members in a c++ class is to have a public function. In your case, it will like:
int getx() const { return x; }
or
int x() const { return x; }.
By making a data member private you are by default making it invisible (a.k.a no access) to the scope outside of the class. In essence, the members of the class have read/write access to the private data member (assuming you are not specifying it to be const). friends of the class get access to the private data members.
Refer here and/or any good C++ book on access specifiers.
Write a public getter function.
int getX(){ return x; }
I had a similiar problem. Here is my solution:
enum access_type{readonly, read_and_write};
template<access_type access>
class software_parameter;
template<>
class software_parameter<read_and_write>{
protected:
static unsigned int test_data;
};
template<>
class software_parameter<readonly> : public software_parameter<read_and_write>{
public:
static const unsigned int & test_data;
};
class read_and_write_access_manager : public software_parameter<read_and_write>{
friend class example_class_with_write_permission;
};
class example_class_with_write_permission{
public:
void set_value(unsigned int value);
};
And the .cpp file:
unsigned int software_parameter<read_and_write>::test_data=1;
const unsigned int & software_parameter<readonly>::test_data=software_parameter<read_and_write>::test_data;
void example_class_with_write_permission::set_value(unsigned int value){software_parameter<read_and_write>::test_data=value;};
The idea is, that everyone can read the software parameter, but only the friends of the class read_and_write_access_manager are allowed to change software parameter.
but temp.x = 5; not allowed?
This is any how not allowed in the snippet posted because it is anyhow declared as private and can be accessed in the class scope only.
Here are asking for accessing
cout << temp.x << endl;
but here not for-
int myint = temp.x;
This sounds very contradictory.