I've been racking my brain over getting the syntax right on declaring, defining and finally calling a member function pointer inside my program.
I'm writing a window manager with Xlib, and am trying to enable the user to define all key bindings in a vector of Keybinds. The Keybind struct contains more member variables, which I have left out here for the sake of brevity.
Here's what I've got so far.
Keybind, a struct containing a member variable, func, that points to a MyClass member function.
struct MyBind {
MyBind(void (MyClass::*_func)(const XKeyEvent&))
: func(_func) {}
void (MyClass::*func)(const XKeyEvent&);
}
Declaration and populating of a vector that holds user-defined Keybinds.
// in my_class.hh
std::vector<MyBind*> my_binds_;
// in my_class.cc, constructor
my_binds_.push_back(new MyBind( &MyClass::do_this ));
my_binds_.push_back(new MyBind( &MyClass::do_that ));
At this point, everything compiles and runs.
Now, when I try to delegate work by iterating over the my_binds_ vector, things go wrong. It is worth noting that I've left out error handling and other member variable accesses for clarity.
void
MyClass::handle_input(const XKeyEvent& e)
{
for (const MyBind* my_bind: my_binds_) {
(my_bind->*func)(e); // erroneous line
}
}
This should be the correct syntax, but it fails to compile, stating error: ‘func’ was not declared in this scope (g++, similar error from clang++).
This is weird to me, as replacing the erroneous line of code with auto test = keybind->func; does compile.
What am I doing wrong? Is there a better way to handle user key bind definitions? Thanks!
It would be best to use std::function and forget about raw member-function pointers altogether. They will only bring you pain :)
The problem with you code is that you only have a pointer to a method but no object. Your bind struct should also store an object pointer to call the method on:
struct MyBind {
MyBind(MyClass *obj, void (MyClass::*_func)(const XKeyEvent&))
: obj(obj), func(_func) {}
MyClass *obj;
void (MyClass::*func)(const XKeyEvent&);
void operator()(const XKeyEvent& event) const
{
(obj->*func)(event);
}
}
And then use it like this:
void
MyClass::handle_input(const XKeyEvent& e)
{
for (const MyBind* my_bind: my_binds_) {
(*my_bind)();
}
}
I've added a call operator to the bind struct for convenience. Note that the ->* operator is applied to the object the method belongs to.
This is not an answer, rather a pointer to your answer or my so-question :)
You had to use
(this->*(my_bind->func))(e);
instead of:
(my_bind->*func)(e);
I have re-created your error msg and asked a question after many different attempts.
See this( pointer to your answer ;) ): How to call pointer to member function, which has been saved in a vector of custom struct?
MyBind holds the pointer to member function of some instance of MyClass. Therefore in order to call these function pointers, you need to explicitly tell using this keyword, for which instance of MyClass you want the func to be called.
Related
So I got myself onto shaky ground by insisting on making a C++ class immitate a regular function. The class overloads the function operator, making it a functor, of course. This all works fine, until you want to pass the function pointer of this functor.
Naturally, I want to let the compiler know that we know what we're doing (lol), by doing a reinterpret_cast of this pointer. However, how do I get the address of this particular member function, since it is an overloaded operator. How does one get the address of that?
UPDATE: You asked for an example. Here is a minimal one.
So I have an interface, which I cannot change. It looks like this;
typedef void (*some_callback_t)(SomeType);'
void someFunc(some_callback_t);
Now, this is quite straight-forward; the API is setting some callback function pointer. So, the idea was to implement the callback as a functor class, by overloading the operator(), like so, as usual.
class Bah {
void operator()(SomeType);
};
Here comes the question; seeing as I cannot change the API used (the function that expects a function pointer of a certain signature), how can I then get the address of the member function and pass that?
I suspect it goes something like;
someFunc(reinterpet_cast<some_callback_t>( ? ? ? )); to make sure that the compiler won't barf at me.
Supposing that you have to use a function pointer, and that your functor has no state, you can use a lambda as glue:
void takesFunctionPointer(void (*)());
struct MyFunctor {
void operator()();
};
// ...
takesFunctionPointer([] { return MyFunctor{}(); });
How does one get the address of that?
In the same way as any other member function. The name of the function is class_name::operator(). An example:
struct class_name {
void operator()(){}
};
void (class_name::*member_function_pointer)() = &class_name::operator();
class_name instance;
(instance.*member_function_pointer)(); // in a block scope
Naturally, I want to let the compiler know that we know what we're doing (lol), by doing a reinterpret_cast of this pointer.
That's usually not what one would want to do.
I'm trying to implement more flexibility in my numerics by allowing me to choose different forms of a mathematical function and vary their parameters through instantiating them as objects of a certain class. That class includes certain mathematical functions I may choose plus parameters that I can vary. The constructor of the class sets a member function pointer in the class to a member function according to what mathematical function I want. I want to solely use the pointer to call whatever function it points to by directly using the pointer in my routine.
However, that proved daunting as I didn't know that member function pointers require a certain syntax and seem to work somewhat differently from regular function pointers according to what I could gather. I've experimented quite a bit and constructed myself a minimal example shared below.
#include<iostream>
#include<string.h>
#include<cstdlib>
#include<stdio.h>
class Someclass
{
public:
// constructor to set pointer
Someclass(std::string);
// member function pointer to hold functions
void (Someclass::*fptr)();
// auxiliary function to call testfunction via pointer
void call ();
// testfunction
void foo();
};
// testfunction
void Someclass::foo()
{
printf("foo says hi! \n");
}
// call via specific function
void Someclass::call()
{
(this->*fptr)();
}
// constructor
Someclass::Someclass(std::string name)
{
if(name=="foo")
{
this->fptr = &Someclass::foo;
}
}
int main()
{
Someclass someobject("foo");
someobject.foo(); // direct testfunction call: Works OK
someobject.call(); // call via auxiliary function: Works OK
//(someobject.*fptr)(); // direct pointer dereferencing: Gives Error
return(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
It shows that I can access the pointer by use of another member function that just calls whatever the pointer points to via use of a this pointer. However, I still can't seem to get the function call to work if I try to use the pointer directly in my main function through the line,
(someobject.*fptr)()
This particular expression leads to my compiler complaining about the scope and if I include the class scope, the compiler mentions invalid use of non-static members. Still, I'm confused as to why my implementation here doesn't work and if it does, how the proper syntax in my problem would be and why that has to be so.
Any insights would be really appreciated.
fptr is a member of the object, not a variable local to main. In such respect member function pointers behave exactly the same as all other variable types. You were so close, and just need to qualify the function pointer name with the object name:
(someobject.*(someobject.fptr))();
The reasons for this is .* indicates a pointer to member function and does not directly reference the members of an object like the . and .-> operators. Since fptr is a member of Someclass and not a local variable you need to reference it directly like so
(someobject.*someobject.fptr)();
This is probably something elementary, I have a function from one class (called cell) with identifier woo_func_ptr taking a pointer to function of type void with no arguments (void (*void_ptr)(void)) (which I typedef). In another class, I have an object of cell and I use the method woo_func_ptr. It won't allow me to, I get the error in the above title. If these two functions were not embedded inside a class, they would work fine
typedef void (*void_ptr)(void);
double WOO{0};
struct cell {
void woo_func_ptr(void_ptr jo)
{
jo();
}
};
class woosah
{
public:
void woo_func()
{
WOO+=rand();
std::cout << WOO << std::endl;
};
void run()
{
// other stuff
temp_cell.woo_func_ptr(woo_func);
// yet more stuff
}
cell temp_cell;
};
First of all pointer to woosah member function should be declared as
typedef void (woosah::*void_ptr)(void);
and then compiler would complain that it needs to see woosah definition while parsing this statement.
If you let compiler parse class woosah first by moving it up then it will complain that type cell is not defined (since it is contained within woosah). That wil still not solve your problem because of cyclic dependency while parsing.
One way is to solve cyclic dependency is by making temp_cell a pointer to cell instance and have it contained within woosah.
Also note, the syntax to call member function is by using .* or ->*
void run()
{
// other stuff
temp_cell->woo_func_ptr(temp_cell->*woo_func); // assuming temp_cell is pointer to some cell instance
// yet more stuff
}
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b0x1aatf(v=vs.80).aspx shows similar errors and their fixes.
A member function is not like a regular function. That's why there's a seperate "pointer to member function" type. It's because member functions are passed the implicit this pointer.
In fact, the standard even limits (severly) the casting of pointer to member function.
That's the source of your error.
You could use a static class function...
Change
void woo_func()
to
static void woo_func()
This will of coarse may not be what you want if you are trying to access data members of a particular object.
Member functions are kind of special and should not be treated as normal functions.
Ok so often times I have seen the following type of event handling used:
Connect(objectToUse, MyClass::MyMemberFunction);
for some sort of event handling where objectToUse is of the type MyClass. My question is how exactly this works. How would you convert this to something that would do objectToUse->MyMemberFunction()
Does the MyClass::MyMemberFunction give an offset from the beginning of the class that can then be used as a function pointer?
In addition to Mats' answer, I'll give you a short example of how you can use a non-static member function in this type of thing. If you're not familiar with pointers to member functions, you may want to check out the FAQ first.
Then, consider this (rather simplistic) example:
class MyClass
{
public:
int Mult(int x)
{
return (x * x);
}
int Add(int x)
{
return (x + x);
}
};
int Invoke(MyClass *obj, int (MyClass::*f)(int), int x)
{ // invokes a member function of MyClass that accepts an int and returns an int
// on the object 'obj' and returns.
return obj->*f(x);
}
int main(int, char **)
{
MyClass x;
int nine = Invoke(&x, MyClass::Mult, 3);
int six = Invoke(&x, MyClass::Add, 3);
std::cout << "nine = " << nine << std::endl;
std::cout << "six = " << six << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Typically, this uses a static member function (that takes a pointer as an argument), in which case the the objectToUse is passed in as a parameter, and the MyMemberFunction would use objectToUse to set up a pointer to a MyClass object and use that to refer to member variables and member functions.
In this case Connect will contain something like this:
void Connect(void *objectToUse, void (*f)(void *obj))
{
...
f(objectToUse);
...
}
[It is also quite possible that f and objectToUse are saved away somewhere to be used later, rather than actually inside Connnect, but the call would look the same in that case too - just from some other function called as a consequence of the event that this function is supposed to be called for].
It's also POSSIBLE to use a pointer to member function, but it's quite complex, and not at all easy to "get right" - both when it comes to syntax and "when and how you can use it correctly". See more here.
In this case, Connect would look somewhat like this:
void Connect(MyClass *objectToUse, void (Myclass::*f)())
{
...
objectToUse->*f();
...
}
It is highly likely that templates are used, as if the "MyClass" is known in the Connect class, it would be pretty pointless to have a function pointer. A virtual function would be a much better choice.
Given the right circumstances, you can also use virtual functions as member function pointers, but it requires the compiler/environment to "play along". Here's some more details on that subject [which I've got no personal experience at all of: Pointers to virtual member functions. How does it work?
Vlad also points out Functors, which is an object wrapping a function, allowing for an object with a specific behaviour to be passed in as a "function object". Typically this involves a predefined member function or an operatorXX which is called as part of the processing in the function that needs to call back into the code.
C++11 allows for "Lambda functions", which is functions declared on the fly in the code, that doesn't have a name. This is something I haven't used at all, so I can't really comment further on this - I've read about it, but not had a need to use it in my (hobby) programming - most of my working life is with C, rather than C++ although I have worked for 5 years with C++ too.
I might be wrong here, but as far as I understand,
In C++, functions with the same signature are equal.
C++ member functions with n parameters are actually normal functions with n+1 parameters. In other words, void MyClass::Method( int i ) is in effect void (some type)function( MyClass *ptr, int i).
So therefore, I think the way Connect would work behind the scenes is to cast the member method signature to a normal function signature. It would also need a pointer to the instance to actually make the connection work, which is why it would need objectToUse
In other words, it would essentially be using pointers to functions and casting them to a more generic type until it can be called with the parameters supplied and the additional parameter, which is the pointer to the instance of the object
If the method is static, then a pointer to an instance doesn't make sense and its a straight type conversion. I have not figured out the intricacies involved with non-static methods yet - a look at the internals of boost::bind is probably what you want to do to understand that :) Here is how it would work for a static function.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
void sayhi( std::string const& str )
{
std::cout<<"function says hi "<<str<<"\n";
}
struct A
{
static void sayhi( std::string const& str )
{
std::cout<<"A says hi "<<str<<"\n";
}
};
int main()
{
typedef void (*funptr)(std::string const&);
funptr hello = sayhi;
hello("you"); //function says...
hello = (&A::sayhi); //This is how Connect would work with a static method
hello("you"); //A says...
return 0;
}
For event handling or callbacks, they usually take two parameters - a callback function and a userdata argument. The callback function's signature would have userdata as one of the parameters.
The code which invokes the event or callback would invoke the function directly with the userdata argument. Something like this for example:
eventCallbackFunction(userData);
In your event handling or callback function, you can choose to use the userdata to do anything you would like.
Since the function needs to be callable directly without an object, it can either be a global function or a static method of a class (which does not need an object pointer).
A static method has limitations that it can only access static member variables and call other static methods (since it does not have the this pointer). That is where userData can be used to get the object pointer.
With all this mind, take a look at the following example code snippet:
class MyClass
{
...
public:
static MyStaticMethod(void* userData)
{
// You can access only static members here
MyClass* myObj = (MyClass*)userdata;
myObj->MyMemberMethod();
}
void MyMemberMethod()
{
// Access any non-static members here as well
...
}
...
...
};
MyClass myObject;
Connect(myObject, MyClass::MyStaticMethod);
As you can see you can access even member variables and methods as part of the event handling if you could make a static method which would be invoked first which would chain the call to a member method using the object pointer (retrieved from userData).
i have made a sample example, in this i'm trying to pass a function as argument i am getting error, could you please help me
typedef void (*callbackptr)(int,int);
class Myfirst
{
public:
Myfirst();
~Myfirst();
void add(int i,callbackptr ptr)
{
ptr(i,3);
}
};
class Mysec
{
public:
Myfirst first_ptr;
Mysec();
~Mysec();
void TestCallback()
{
callbackptr pass_ptr = NULL;
pass_ptr = &Mysec::Testing;
first_ptr.add(2,&Mysec::Testing);
}
void Testing(int a,int b)
{
int c = a+b;
}
};
The type of the callback function you're passing as parameter is not defined as part of a class. You probably should define Testing as static.
You are geting an error because you are pointing to a member function. Pointers to member functions are different. See here:
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/pointers-to-members.html#faq-33.1
A member function needs to know what instance it is working with (the this pointer) so it can't be called like any other function. If you moved the callback function out of the class (or made it static, which is similar to moving it out of the class) you could call it like any other function.
A more modern way of doing this is to use functors, e.g. boost::function and something like boost::bind :
C++ Functors - and their uses
how boost::function and boost::bind work
Those can hide the difference between member and global functions.
You are trying to access a member function pointer here, using a simple function pointer typedef, which will not work. Let me explain.
When you write a normal, non-member function (similar to C), the function's code actually exists in a location indicated by the name of the function - which you would pass to a function pointer parameter.
However, in the case of a member function, all you have is the class definition; you don't have the actual instance of the class allocated in memory yet. In such a function, since the this pointer is not yet defined, any reference to member variables wouldn't make sense, since the compiler doesn't have enough information to resolve their memory locations. In fact, member function pointers are not exact addresses; they encode more information than that (which may not be visible to you). For more, read Pointers to Member Functions.