curious to know when shorthand notation will cause panic ?
I know this is ok:
class Player{
private:
std::string ScreenName, SignUpDate, PublicKey, PrivateKey;
int Id, CreditBalance, GlobalRank, RegionalRank, localRank;
static int TotalPlayers, TotalLivePlayers;
}
what about this inside function parameters, (trying to learn to code like the pros )
void SetAllValues(
std::string NewScreenName, NewSignUpDate, NewPublicKey, NewPrivateKey,
NewPlayerId, NewCreditBalance, NewGlobalRank, NewRegionalRank, NewlocalRank
);
Your second notation would break the language: you are allowed to specify parameter types in a function parameter list and omit the parameter names.
With your proposal, there would be no way of distinguishing that.
(Finally, it may be better to recast your SetAllValues function as a constructor.)
Related
I created a function like:
void triangle(int n, int start=1, int spcs=0, char dec_y='n', char lf='#',char decf='o') {
//some code
}
I wanted to know is there any way that I could call this function like this:
triangle(9, dec_y='y', lf='&');
without doing this:
void triangle2(int nn, char d_ec_y, char llf) {
triangle(nn, 1, 0, d_ec_y, llf, 'o');
}
// then in main simply
triangle2(9, 'y', '&');
You can't change the order of the parameters. So you can't do what you want directly. You have three options:
One that you don't want to.
You can pass the parameters as structure. The struct can have default values. And you can only alter the ones which you want before calling the function.
For example:
struct params
{
params(int n_)
:n(n_)
{
}
int start=1;
int spcs=0;
char dec_y='n';
char lf='#';
char decf='o';
};
...
params p(0);
p.dec_y='y';
p.lf='&';
triangle(p);
You can use boost::parameter which provides exactly what you want. Check this question for a sample usage.
No, c++ requires that any parameters for which the default parameter will be used come after all specified parameters.
In some circumstances this can be worked around by having multiple overloads. But due to argument ambiguity that is not always possible. The idea is to leave out some of the middle arguments, as in:
void foo(int, char const *, int =0);
void foo(int, int=0);
This pair always requires the first int but allows that to be followed by either a string or another int, and if the string version is used still allows the final int argument.
Using some advanced meta-programming it is actually possible to make all the arguments optional and to supply them in any order without declaring any overloads. For example this is implemented in boost.process API:
namespace bp = ::boost::process;
bp::environment env{::boost::this_process::environment()};
bp::child ch0("cmd", env); // ok
bp::child ch1("cmd", env, bp::windows::hide); // fine too
bp::child ch2("cmd", bp::windows::hide, env); // still fine
bp::child ch3("cmd", bp::windows::hide); // no problem
The idea behind this is that each supported argument is wrapped into a trait class that supplies manipulation method(s) and all those calls invoke the same template function which invokes manipulation method for each supplied argument.
I am learning C++ and very new at using classes, and I am getting very confused in trying to use them. I am trying to convert my existing code (which used structs) so that it uses classes - so while I know what I am trying to do I don't know if I'm doing it correctly.
I was told that when using functions from the class, I first need to instantiate an object of the class. So what I have tried (a snippet) in my main function is:
int main()// line 1
{
string message_fr_client = "test"; //line2
msgInfo message_processed; //line 3
message_processed.incMsgClass(message_fr_client); //line 4
if (!message_processed.priority_check(qos_levels, message_processed)) //line 5
cout << "failure: priority level out of bounds\n"; //line 6
return 0; //line 7
}
Could you help me clarify if my following assumptions are correct? The compiler is not showing any error and so I don't know if it is error-free, or if there are ones lurking beneath.
At line 4, is the function incMsgClass being performed on the string message_fr_client and returning the resultant (and modified) message_processed?
At line 5, the function priority_check is being performed on the message_processed and returning a boolean?
In my class definition, I have a function getPath that is meant to modify the value of nodePath - is it just a matter of using message_processed.getPath(/*arguments*/)?
I haven't included the body of the functions because I know they work - I would just like to find out how the class functions interact. Please let me know if I can be clearer - just trying to clear up some confusion here.
Here is my class:
#ifndef clientMsgHandling_H
#define clientMsgHandling_H
#include <list>
#include <map>
#include <queue>
class msgInfo
{
public:
msgInfo();
msgInfo(int, int, int, std::string, std::list<int>);
/*classifying message*/
msgInfo incMsgClass(std::string original_msg);
/*message error checks*/
bool priority_check(int syst_priority, msgInfo msg); //check that message is within qos levels
bool route_check(std::map<std::pair<int, int>, int> route_table, msgInfo msg); //check that route exists
void getPath(msgInfo msg, std::map<std::pair<int, int>, int> route_info, int max_hop);
private:
int source_id;
int dest_id;
int priority;
std::string payload;
std::list<int> nodePath;
};
#endif
While it may compile (and even run), there are a few oddities with the code as shown:-
First off, class methods know which object they are operating on - so your priority_check and route_check methods probably don't need msgInfo as a parameter.,
for example, your old non-class function might be like this
bool priority_check(int p, msgInfo msg)
{
return msg.priority < p;
}
But the new one should look like this:
bool msgInfo::priority_check(int p)
{
return priority < p;
}
Also, incMsgClass is a bit odd, as it's a non-static class method that returns a msgInfo object. It's difficult to tell without understanding what it's supposed to do, but it seems possible that this function should actually be a constructor, rather than a regular method.
One other thing is that you're currently passing a msgInfo by value to those methods. So if the method needed to modify the passed msgInfo, it would not have any effect. It's generally better to pass objects by reference or const reference to other methods. So, back to the previous non-method example, it should really be this.
bool priority_check(int p, const msgInfo &msg)
...
But, as I said, you probably don't need the msgInfo parameters anyway.
At line 4, is the function incMsgClass being performed on the string message_fr_client
Yes
and returning the resultant (and modified) message_processed?
Whatever it's returning, you're ignoring the return value. It can modify the object itself, yes, because the function is not const.
At line 5, the function priority_check is being performed on the message_processed and returning a boolean?
Yes
In my class definition, I have a function getPath that is meant to modify the value of nodePath - is it just a matter of using message_processed.getPath(/arguments/)?
If a member function is intended to modify one of the class members, it's just a matter of not marking that function const
Hard to tell without implementation-details, but here we go:
I. You are passing a std::string as value (C++ is call-by-value by default), so you get a copy of the std::string in your method. If you want to work on the object you passed and manipulate it, use a reference on the object, like
msgInfo incMsgClass(std::string& original_msg); // notice the ampersand
then you can change your signature to
void incMsgClass(std::string& original_msg);
as you don't need to return the std::string you passed.
II. Yes, at least according to your signature
III. Can see a node_path only as a member.
For all your questions, see C++-FAQ.
Your basic assumptions are correct.
message_processed.incMsgClass(message_fr_client); //line 4
This line is not correct. The function you call returns msgInfo which is simply dropped. You should assign it to something. But it is not as it is usually done. You should make it a constructor of msgInfo, like
class msgInfo
{
public:
msgInfo(std::string original_msg);
...
}
Then you could call it like this
msgInfo message_processed(message_fr_client);
That line would create a msgInfo that is already properly initialized.
There is another pattern for creating class instances - static creating function. In your case you could mark incMsgClass static and then call it like
msgInfo message_processed = msgInfo.incMsgClass(message_fr_client);
I seriously doubt you need this pattern here, so I'd advise to move to constructor.
As of other functions, I see no problems there. Just note that all member functions not marked as const can modify the object they are called on. So, you don't need to pass this object explicitly. For functions a pointer to the object they are called on is available by name this. Also the functions can access all class variables as if these variables are global for normal (non-member) functions.
this is my first question after long time checking on this marvelous webpage.
Probably my question is a little silly but I want to know others opinion about this. What is better, to create several specific methods or, on the other hand, only one generic method? Here is an example...
unsigned char *Method1(CommandTypeEnum command, ParamsCommand1Struct *params)
{
if(params == NULL) return NULL;
// Construct a string (command) with those specific params (params->element1, ...)
return buffer; // buffer is a member of the class
}
unsigned char *Method2(CommandTypeEnum command, ParamsCommand2Struct *params)
{
...
}
unsigned char *Method3(CommandTypeEnum command, ParamsCommand3Struct *params)
{
...
}
unsigned char *Method4(CommandTypeEnum command, ParamsCommand4Struct *params)
{
...
}
or
unsigned char *Method(CommandTypeEnum command, void *params)
{
switch(command)
{
case CMD_1:
{
if(params == NULL) return NULL;
ParamsCommand1Struct *value = (ParamsCommand1Struct *) params;
// Construct a string (command) with those specific params (params->element1, ...)
return buffer;
}
break;
// ...
default:
break;
}
}
The main thing I do not really like of the latter option is this,
ParamsCommand1Struct *value = (ParamsCommand1Struct *) params;
because "params" could not be a pointer to "ParamsCommand1Struct" but a pointer to "ParamsCommand2Struct" or someone else.
I really appreciate your opinions!
General Answer
In Writing Solid Code, Steve Macguire's advice is to prefer distinct functions (methods) for specific situations. The reason is that you can assert conditions that are relevant to the specific case, and you can more easily debug because you have more context.
An interesting example is the standard C run-time's functions for dynamic memory allocation. Most of it is redundant, as realloc can actually do (almost) everything you need. If you have realloc, you don't need malloc or free. But when you have such a general function, used for several different types of operations, it's hard to add useful assertions and it's harder to write unit tests, and it's harder to see what's happening when debugging. Macquire takes it a step farther and suggests that, not only should realloc just do _re_allocation, but it should probably be two distinct functions: one for growing a block and one for shrinking a block.
While I generally agree with his logic, sometimes there are practical advantages to having one general purpose method (often when operations is highly data-driven). So I usually decide on a case by case basis, with a bias toward creating very specific methods rather than overly general purpose ones.
Specific Answer
In your case, I think you need to find a way to factor out the common code from the specifics. The switch is often a signal that you should be using a small class hierarchy with virtual functions.
If you like the single method approach, then it probably should be just a dispatcher to the more specific methods. In other words, each of those cases in the switch statement simply call the appropriate Method1, Method2, etc. If you want the user to see only the general purpose method, then you can make the specific implementations private methods.
Generally, it's better to offer separate functions, because they by their prototype names and arguments communicate directly and visibly to the user that which is available; this also leads to more straightforward documentation.
The one time I use a multi-purpose function is for something like a query() function, where a number of minor query functions, rather than leading to a proliferation of functions, are bundled into one, with a generic input and output void pointer.
In general, think about what you're trying to communicate to the API user by the API prototypes themselves; a clear sense of what the API can do. He doesn't need excessive minutae; he does need to know the core functions which are the entire point of having the API in the first place.
First off, you need to decide which language you are using. Tagging the question with both C and C++ here makes no sense. I am assuming C++.
If you can create a generic function then of course that is preferable (why would you prefer multiple, redundant functions?) The question is; can you? However, you seem to be unaware of templates. We need to see what you have omitted here to tell if you if templates are suitable however:
// Construct a string (command) with those specific params (params->element1, ...)
In the general case, assuming templates are appropriate, all of that turns into:
template <typename T>
unsigned char *Method(CommandTypeEnum command, T *params) {
// more here
}
On a side note, how is buffer declared? Are you returning a pointer to dynamically allocated memory? Prefer RAII type objects and avoid dynamically allocating memory like that if so.
If you are using C++ then I would avoid using void* as you don't really need to. There is nothing wrong with having multiple methods. Note that you don't actually have to rename the function in your first set of examples - you can just overload a function using different parameters so that there is a separate function signature for each type. Ultimately, this kind of question is very subjective and there are a number of ways of doing things. Looking at your functions of the first type, you would perhaps be well served by looking into the use of templated functions
You could create a struct. That's what I use to handle console commands.
typedef int (* pFunPrintf)(const char*,...);
typedef void (CommandClass::*pKeyFunc)(char *,pFunPrintf);
struct KeyCommand
{
const char * cmd;
unsigned char cmdLen;
pKeyFunc pfun;
const char * Note;
long ID;
};
#define CMD_FORMAT(a) a,(sizeof(a)-1)
static KeyCommand Commands[]=
{
{CMD_FORMAT("one"), &CommandClass::CommandOne, "String Parameter",0},
{CMD_FORMAT("two"), &CommandClass::CommandTwo, "String Parameter",1},
{CMD_FORMAT("three"), &CommandClass::CommandThree, "String Parameter",2},
{CMD_FORMAT("four"), &CommandClass::CommandFour, "String Parameter",3},
};
#define AllCommands sizeof(Commands)/sizeof(KeyCommand)
And the Parser function
void CommandClass::ParseCmd( char* Argcommand )
{
unsigned int x;
for ( x=0;x<AllCommands;x++)
{
if(!memcmp(Commands[x].cmd,Argcommand,Commands[x].cmdLen ))
{
(this->*Commands[x].pfun)(&Argcommand[Commands[x].cmdLen],&::printf);
break;
}
}
if(x==AllCommands)
{
// Unknown command
}
}
I use a thread safe printf pPrintf, so ignore it.
I don't really know what you want to do, but in C++ you probably should derive multiple classes from a Formatter Base class like this:
class Formatter
{
virtual void Format(unsigned char* buffer, Command command) const = 0;
};
class YourClass
{
public:
void Method(Command command, const Formatter& formatter)
{
formatter.Format(buffer, command);
}
private:
unsigned char* buffer_;
};
int main()
{
//
Params1Formatter formatter(/*...*/);
YourClass yourObject;
yourObject.Method(CommandA, formatter);
// ...
}
This removes the resposibility to handle all that params stuff from your class and makes it closed for changes. If there will be new commands or parameters during further development you don't have to modifiy (and eventually break) existing code but add new classes that implement the new stuff.
While not full answer this should guide you in correct direction: ONE FUNCTION ONE RESPONSIBILITY. Prefer the code where it is responsible for one thing only and does it well. The code whith huge switch statement (which is not bad by itself) where you need cast void * to some other type is a smell.
By the way I hope you do realise that according to standard you can only cast from void * to <type> * only when the original cast was exactly from <type> * to void *.
/* Thanks to anyone looking at this who might attempt to answer it. I'm really not trying to waste anyone's time here, but I have beat my head on this for about three days. I realize it is probably very simple for someone who understands it. I have tried most every possible combination I can think of and still get compiler errors.
C:\random\RNDNUMTEST.cpp(41) : error C2102: '&' requires l-value
I am trying to pass a pointer as a parameter to a function makeRndmNumber() for the member function fstream.open(). I want to open the file in RNDNUMTEST.cpp and then pass it to makeRndmNumber() so that it can be modified in some way. I have looked online for help, including this website, but I feel like I am overlooking something important or simple or maybe I am just missing the concept altogether.
This isn't for homework, I'm not a college student. Although I did go to school for it, it has been over 10 years since I've done any programming and I never really understood this that well to begin with. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
// These are only excerpts from the actual files.
// RndmNum_Class.h file
typedef void(fstream::*fStream_MPT)(const char*); // fStream_MPT (Member Pointer Type)
class RandomNumber {
public:
RandomNumber();
~RandomNumber() {};
static void loadDigits(double, double, char array[]);
static int getLastNDigits(char array[], int);
static int makeRndmNumber(int, int, fStream_MPT);
};
//*************************************************************8
//RndmNum_Class.cpp file
int RandomNumber::makeRndmNumber(int seed, int _fileSize, fStream_MPT FILE) {
......
}
//**************************************************************/
// RNDNUMTEST.cpp file
#include "RndmNum_Class.h"
int main() {
const char* RNDM_FILE = "c:\\RandomFile.txt";
fstream FStream_Obj;
// FStream_Obj.open(RNDM_FILE);
fStream_MPT FileMembPtr = &FStream_Obj.open(RNDM_FILE);
//fStream_MPT FileMembPtr = &fstream::open;
int seed = 297814;
int size = 20000;
cout << RandomNumber::makeRndmNumber(seed, size, FileMembPtr);
return 0;
}
This: &FStream_Obj.open(RNDM_FILE) is not taking the address of the function, it's trying to take the address of the return value of a call to that function. But that function returns void, hence the error message.
First, change the function definition from typedef void(fstream::*fStream_MPT)(const char*); to typedef void(fstream::*fstream_MPT)(const char*,ios_base::openmode), there is a default parameter you are forgetting.
Change the fStream_MPT FileMembPtr = &FStream_Obj.open(RNDM_FILE); to fStream_MPT FileMembPtr = &fstream::open; as per your comment, and add an additional parameter to makeRndNumber, a pointer to an fstream to operate on.
int RandomNumber::makeRndmNumber(int seed, int _fileSize, fStream_MPT FILE, fstream *file)
{
((*file).*FILE)("ExampleText",ios_base::in | ios_base::out);
}
FILE = fstream::open;
EDIT
This could also be done a little cleaner with std::function objects.
First redefine your type.
typedef std::function<void(const char*)> fStream_MPT;
Then when you assign, be sure to bind your objects.
fStream_MPT FILE = std::bind(&fstream::open,&file,std::placeholders::_1, ios_base::in | ios_base::out);
Then in your function you simply call the function
int RandomNumber::makeRndmNumber(int seed, int _fileSize, fStream_MPT FILE)
{
FILE("Example text");
}
It doesn't make any sense: member function pointers is used so you can apply different member functions somewhere without knowing which exact function is called. It is like passing the function's name around (except that the name is resolved at compile-time). It doesn't seem that this is what you want to do!
Even if you would correctly obtain the function's address (rather than trying to get the address of the result of calling open()), it wouldn't work because std::fstream::open() takes two arguments: the second argument is for the open-mode and it is defaulted to std::ios_base::in | std::ios_base::out.
I'm not quite sure what you really want to d but it seems you want to pass the file stream around. The normal way to do this is to pass a reference to a std::iostream as argument to the function. Well, actually you probably want to use a std::ifstream initially and hence pass the argument as std::istream&.
Is it possible to store pointers to various heterogenous functions like:
In the header:
int functionA (int param1);
void functionB (void);
Basically this would the part I don't know how to write:
typedef ??boost::function<void(void)>?? functionPointer;
And afterwards:
map<char*,functionPointer> _myMap;
In the .cpp
void CreateFunctionMap()
{
_myMap["functionA"] = &functionA;
_myMap["functionB"] = &functionB;
...
}
And then reuse it like:
void execute(int argc, char* argv[])
{
if(argc>1){
int param = atoi(argv[1]);
int answer;
functionPointer mfp;
mfp = map[argv[0]];
answer = *mfp(param);
}
else{
*map[argv[0]];
}
}
etc.
Thanks
--EDIT--
Just to give more info:
The reason for this question is that I am implementing a drop-down "quake-style" console for an already existing application. This way I can provide runtime command line user input to access various already coded functions of various types i.e.:
/exec <functionName> <param1> <param2> ...
If you want to have "pointer to something, but I'm not going to define what, and it could be a variety of things anyway" you can use void *.
But you really shouldn't.
void * is purely a pointer. In order to do anything with it, you have to cast it to a more meaningful pointer, but at that point, you've lost all type safety. What's to stop someone from using the wrong function signature? Or using a pointer to a struct?
EDIT
To give you a more useful answer, there's no need to put this all into a single map. It's ok to use multiple maps. I.e.
typedef boost::function<void(void)> voidFunctionPointer;
typedef boost::function<int(int)> intFunctionPointer;
map<std::string, voidFunctionPointer> _myVoidMap;
map<std::string, intFunctionPointer > _myIntMap;
void CreateFunctionMap()
{
_myVoidMap["functionA"] = &functionA;
_myIntMap["functionB"] = &functionB;
...
}
void execute(int argc, char* argv[])
{
if(argc>1){
int param = atoi(argv[1]);
int answer;
// todo: check that argv[0] is actually in the map
intFunctionPointer mfp = _myIntMap[argv[0]];
answer = mfp(param);
}
else{
// todo: check that argv[0] is actually in the map
voidFunctionPointer mfp = _myVoidMap[argv[0]];
mfp();
}
}
You can use
boost::variant<
boost::function<void(void)>,
boost::function<void(int)> >
Why not just add functions of type int (*func)(int argc, char* argv[])? You could easily remove first arg from execute's params and call the relevant one.
Can you not use the command pattern to encapsulate the function calls. So you can store the functions in functors and call them after wards. For functor implementation you can have a look at Modern C++ Design by Andrei Alexandrescu.
Each of your functions has a different type, so you need some kind of type erasure. You could use the most generic of them: Boost.Any. You can have a map of boost::any, but you need to know the type of the function in order to get it back and call it.
Alternatively, if you know your arguments ahead of time you can bind them with the function call and have all functions in the map be nullary functions: function< void() >. Even if you don't, you may be able to get away with it by binding the argument to references, and then at call time fill the referred variables with the appropiate arguments.