I am going through a code and I have come across the following code snippets
using ConnectCallback = delegate<void(Connection_ptr self)>;
using DisconnectCallback = delegate<void(Connection_ptr self, Disconnect)>;
I have tried to understand about delegates, but the sources were of no help.
What is the function of delegate in the above code ?
C++ has no out-of-the-box delegate keyword, so with language confusion eliminated the only thing left is delegate being a template defined elsewhere.
delegate doesn't do anything in the given snippet. It is merely an identifier that is being aliased. The action will occur later when the alias is used. Without the definition of delegate any number of things could be going on behind the scenes inside the delegate template, but this code snippet is defining a pair of aliases to the delegate template with specific prototypes of function pointers.
Instead of having to type delegate<void(Connection_ptr self)> or delegate<void(Connection_ptr self, Disconnect)>, the programmer can use ConnectCallback or DisconnectCallback which is probably cleaner and has more meaning in context. We don't have context here, unfortunately, so I can't give a good example of usage.
Related
It is rather simple to get a Glib::RefPtr to any widget by using get_widget function of Gtk::Builder, but when it comes to getting other objects the corresponding get_object function returns Glib::Object, which is not easily convertable to the needed class (such as Gtk::TreeView).
What is the appropriate way of doing that?
It would be best to use Glib::RefPtr<TheDerivedype>::cast_dynamic(object) .
However, Gtk::TreeView (which you mention in your question) is a Gtk::Widget, so you would use get_widget() instead of get_object().
If you meant, Gtk::TreeModel, well, defining GtkTreeModels in Glade, for use in gtkmm C++ code, is something that might work since we added some fixes for that in gtkmm recently:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=742637
But it's not something that we generally expect to work - many C++ developers would prefer the static type safety of defining the DataModel structure completely in code, and not relying on a translation between C and C++ types. For instance: https://developer.gnome.org/gtkmm-tutorial/stable/sec-treeview-model.html.en#treeview-model-liststore
Glib::RefPtr has a static template function which allows one to do what is needed. This function is logically called cast_static.
The sample code can be:
treeStore =
Glib::RefPtr< Gtk::TreeStore >::cast_static( builder->get_object("treestore1") );
Hoping someone can provide an explain-like-I’m-five elucidation of the difference between the following types of functions within Famo.us, and when it’s appropriate to use them:
sampleFunction() {}
_sampleFunction() {}
SampleView.prototype.sampleFunction() {}
.bind and .call are also thrown around a lot…I understand them vaguely but not as concretely as I’d like. That might be a different question, but please feel free to use them in your explanation!
Apologies for the vagueness...wish there was more regarding this in famo.us university.
None of what you're looking at is syntax specific to Famo.us. It's actually common, if intermediate level, VanillaJS.
The _ is simply a coding convention to denote that a specific function should belong to the parent scope (ie a member/private function, whatever you prefer to call it). Javascript doesn't really have support for encapsulation - the act of blocking other classes and objects from accessing another class's functions and variables. While it is possible, it's quite cumbersome and hacky.
You'll see that Famo.us uses the underscore convention to denote that a function is a member of the class using it. Some of these functions are actually just aliases to the actual Javascript native function, for example ._add actually just call's Javascript's .add method. Of course, ._add could be updated in the future on Famo.us's end to do more in the future if that's required. You really wouldn't want to try and write over the native Javascript add. That's super bad.
The other upshot is that you can document that class and say that you can and should use the _add method for a specific purpose/scenario. You'll see that in the API docs.
Understanding prototype is a core part of what it means to be a Javascript Programmer, after all, it is a prototype driven language. MDN has a much better explanation than anything I can offer here but it's basically at the core of your classes.
If you want to extend off of an existing class (say, create your own View or Surface type) you would extend it's prototype. Check out Famous Starter Kit's App examples and see how many of them create an "AppView" class, which takes the prototype of the core View, copies it for itself, and then adds it's own functions, thus extending View without ruining the original copy.
What would be the best representation of a C/C++ function pointer (fp) in an UML structural diagram?
I'm thinking about using an interface element, may be even if 'degenerate' with the constraint of having at most a single operation declared.
I found some proposal in this document: C and UML Synchronization User Guide, Section 5.7.4. But this sounds quite cumbersome and not very useful in practice. Even if right from a very low level of semantic view. Here's a diagram showing their concept briefly:
IMHO in C and C++ function pointers are used as such a narrowed view of an interface which only provides a single function and it's signature. In C fp's would be used also to implement more complex interfaces declaring a struct containing a set of function pointers.
I think I can even manage to get my particular UML tool (Enterprise Architect) to forward generate the correct code, and synchronizing with code changes without harm.
My questions are:
Would declaration of fp's as part of interface elements in UML proivde a correct semantic view?
What kind of stereotype should be used for single fp declaration? At least I need to provide a typedef in code so this would be my guts choice.(I found this stereotype is proprietary for Enterprise Architect) and I need to define an appropriate stereotype to get the code generation adapted. Actually I have chosen the stereotype name 'delegate', does this have any implications or semantic collisions?
As for C++, would be nesting a 'delegate' sterotyped interface with in a class element enough to express a class member function pointer correctly?
Here's a sample diagram of my thoughts for C language representation:
This is the C code that should be generated from the above model:
struct Interface1;
typedef int (*CallbackFunc)(struct Interface1*);
typedef struct Interface1
{
typedef void (*func1Ptr)(struct Interface1*, int, char*);
typedef int (*func2Ptr)(struct Interface1*, char*);
typedef int (*func3Ptr)(struct Interface1*, CallbackFunc);
func1Ptr func1;
func2Ptr func2;
func3Ptr func3;
void* instance;
};
/* The following extern declarations are only dummies to satisfy code
* reverse engineering, and never should be called.
*/
extern void func1(struct Interface1* self, int p1, char* p2) = 0;
extern int func2(struct Interface1* self, char*) = 0;
extern int func3(struct Interface1* self, CallbackFunc p1) = 0;
EDIT:
The whole problem boils down what would be the best way with the UML tool at hand and its specific code engineering capabilities. Thus I have added the enterprise-architect tag.
EA's help file has the following to say on the subject of function pointers:
When importing C++ source code, Enterprise Architect ignores function pointer declarations. To import them into your model you could create a typedef to define a function pointer type, then declare function pointers using that type. Function pointers declared in this way are imported as attributes of the function pointer type.
Note "could." This is from the C++ section, the C section doesn't mention function pointers at all. So they're not well supported, which in turn is of course due to the gap between the modelling and programming communities: non-trivial language concepts are simply not supported in UML, so any solution will by necessity be tool-specific.
My suggestion is a bit involved and it's a little bit hacky, but I think it should work pretty well.
Because in UML operations are not first-class and cannot be used as data types, my response is to create first-class entities for them - in other words, define function pointer types as classes.
These classes will serve two purposes: the class name will reflect the function's type signature so as to make it look familiar to the programmer in the diagrams, while a set of tagged values will represent the actual parameter and return types for use in code generation.
0) You may want to set up an MDG Technology for steps 1-4.
1) Define a tagged value type "retval" with the Detail "Type=RefGUID;Values=Class;"
2) Define a further set of tagged value types with the same Detail named "par1", "par2" and so on.
3) Define a profile with a Class stereotype "funptr" containing a "retval" tagged value (but no "par" tags).
4) Modify the code generation scripts Attribute Declaration and Parameter to retrieve the "retval" (always) and "par1" - "parN" (where defined) and generate correct syntax for them. This will be the tricky bit and I haven't actually done this. I think it can be done without too much effort, but you'll have to try it. You should also make sure that no code is generated for "funptr" class definitions as they represent anonymous types, not typedefs.
5) In your target project, define a set of classes to represent the primitive C types.
With this, you can define a function pointer type as a «funptr» class with a name like "long(*)(char)" for a function that takes a char and returns a long.
In the "retval" tag, select the "long" class you defined in step 4.
Add the "par1" tag manually, and select the "char" class as above.
You can now use this class as the type of an attribute or parameter, or anywhere else where EA allows a class reference (such as in the "par1" tag of a different «funptr» class; this allows you to easily create pointer types for functions where one of the parameters is itself of a function pointer type).
The hackiest bit here is the numbered "par1" - "parN" tags. While it is possible in EA to define several tags with the same name (you may have to change the tagged value window options to see them), I don't think you could retrieve the different values in the code generation script (and even if you could I don't think the order would necessarily be preserved, and parameter order is important in C). So you'd need to decide the maximum number of parameters beforehand. Not a huge problem in practice; setting up say 20 parameters should be plenty.
This method is of no help for reverse engineering, as EA 9 does not allow you to customize the reverse-engineering process. However, the upcoming EA 10 (currently in RC 1) will allow this, although I haven't looked at it myself so I don't know what form this will take.
Defining of function pointers is out of scope of UML specification. What is more, it is language-specific feature that is not supported by many UML modeling software. So I think that the general answer to your first question suggests avoiding of this feature. Tricks you provided are relevant to Enterprise Architect only and are not compatible with other UML modeling tools. Here is how function pointers is supported in some other UML software:
MagicDraw UML uses <<C++FunctionPtr>> stereotypes for FP class members and <<C++FunctionSignature>> for function prototype.
Sample of code (taken from official site -- see "Modeling typedef and function pointer for C++ code generation" viewlet):
class Pointer
{
void (f*) ( int i );
}
Corresponding UML model:
Objecteering defines FP attributes with corresponding C++ TypeExpr note.
Rational Software Architect from IBM doesn't support function pointers. User might add them to generated code in user-defined sections that are leaved untouched during code->UML and UML->code transformations.
Seems correct to me. I'm not sure you should dive into the low-level details of descripting the type and relation of your single function pointer. I usually find that description an interface is enough detalization without the need to decompose the internal elements of it.
I think you could virtually wrap the function pointer with a class. I think UML has not to be blueprint level to the code, documenting the concept is more important.
My feeling is that you desire to map UML interfaces to the struct-with-function-pointers C idiom.
Interface1 is the important element in your model. Declaring function pointer object types all over the place will make your diagrams illegible.
Enterprise Architect allows you to specify your own code generators. Look for the Code Template Framework. You should be able to modify the preexisting code generator for C with the aid of a new stereotype or two.
I have been able to get something sort of working with Enterprise Architect. Its a bit of a hacky solution, but it meets my needs. What I did:
Create a new class stereotype named FuncPtr. I followed the guide here: http://www.sparxsystems.com/enterprise_architect_user_guide/10/extending_uml_models/addingelementsandmetaclass.html
When I did this I made a new view for the profile. So I can keep it contained outside of my main project.
Modified the Class code templates. Basically selecting the C language and start with the Class Template and hit the 'Add New Stereotype Override' and add in FuncPtr as a new override.
Add in the following code to that new template:
%PI="\n"%
%ClassNotes%
typedef %classTag:"returnType"% (*%className%)(
%list="Attribute" #separator=",\n" #indent=" "%
);
Modified the Attribute Declaration code template. Same way as before, adding in a new Stereotype
Add in the following code to the new template:
%PI=""% %attConst=="T" ? "const" : ""%
%attType%
%attContainment=="By Reference" ? "*" : ""%
%attName%
That's all that I had to do to get function pointers in place in Enterprise Architect. When I want to define a function pointer I just:
Create a regular class
Add in the tag 'returnType' with the type of return I want
Add in attributes for the parameters.
This way it'll create a new type that can be included as attributes or parameters in other classes (structures), and operators. I didn't make it an operator itself because then it wouldn't have been referenced inside the tool as a type you can select.
So its a bit hacky, using special stereotyped classes as typedefs to function pointers.
Like your first example I would use a Classifier but hide it away in a profile. I think they've included it for clarity of the explaining the concept; but in practice the whole idea of stereotypes is abstract away details into profiles to avoid the 'noise' problem. EA is pretty good for handling Profiles.
Where I differ from your first example is that I would Classify the Primitive Type Stereotype not the Data Type stereotype. Data Type is a Domain scope object, while Primitive Type is an atomic element with semantics defined out side the scope of UML. That is not to say you cannot add notes, especially in the profile or give it a very clear stereotype name like functionPointer.
So I have this huge tree that is basically a big switch/case with string keys and different function calls on one common object depending on the key and one piece of metadata.
Every entry basically looks like this
} else if ( strcmp(key, "key_string") == 0) {
((class_name*)object)->do_something();
} else if ( ...
where do_something can have different invocations, so I can't just use function pointers. Also, some keys require object to be cast to a subclass.
Now, if I were to code this in a higher level language, I would use a dictionary of lambdas to simplify this.
It occurred to me that I could use macros to simplify this to something like
case_call("key_string", class_name, do_something());
case_call( /* ... */ )
where case_call would be a macro that would expand this code to the first code snippet.
However, I am very much on the fence whether that would be considered good style. I mean, it would reduce typing work and improve the DRYness of the code, but then it really seems to abuse the macro system somewhat.
Would you go down that road, or rather type out the whole thing? And what would be your reasoning for doing so?
Edit
Some clarification:
This code is used as a glue layer between a simplified scripting API which accesses several different aspects of a C++ API as simple key-value properties. The properties are implemented in different ways in C++ though: Some have getter/setter methods, some are set in a special struct. Scripting actions reference C++ objects casted to a common base class. However, some actions are only available on certain subclasses and have to be cast down.
Further down the road, I may change the actual C++ API, but for the moment, it has to be regarded as unchangeable. Also, this has to work on an embedded compiler, so boost or C++11 are (sadly) not available.
I would suggest you slightly reverse the roles. You are saying that the object is already some class that knows how to handle a certain situation, so add a virtual void handle(const char * key) in your base class and let the object check in the implementation if it applies to it and do whatever is necessary.
This would not only eliminate the long if-else-if chain, but would also be more type safe and would give you more flexibility in handling those events.
That seems to me an appropriate use of macros. They are, after all, made for eliding syntactic repetition. However, when you have syntactic repetition, it’s not always the fault of the language—there are probably better design choices out there that would let you avoid this decision altogether.
The general wisdom is to use a table mapping keys to actions:
std::map<std::string, void(Class::*)()> table;
Then look up and invoke the action in one go:
object->*table[key]();
Or use find to check for failure:
const auto i = table.find(key);
if (i != table.end())
object->*(i->second)();
else
throw std::runtime_error(...);
But if as you say there is no common signature for the functions (i.e., you can’t use member function pointers) then what you actually should do depends on the particulars of your project, which I don’t know. It might be that a macro is the only way to elide the repetition you’re seeing, or it might be that there’s a better way of going about it.
Ask yourself: why do my functions take different arguments? Why am I using casts? If you’re dispatching on the type of an object, chances are you need to introduce a common interface.
I have a function (actually from ATL, it is ATL::CSoapMSXMLInetClient::SendRequest(LPCTSTR)) whose behaviour should slightly be modified. That is, I just have to add one function call somewhere in the middle of the function.
Taking into consideration that this is not a template method, what is the best practice of changing its behaviour? Do I have to re-write the whole function?
Thanks in advance.
EDIT: Deriving from the class ATL::CSoapMSXMLInetClient and copy-pasting whole function code with a slight modification in subclass function definition does not work because most of the members used in ATL::CSoapMSXMLInetClient::SendRequest are "private" and accessing them in subclass is a compile time error.
Rather than best practice I am looking for a way to do it now, if there is any. :(
Yes you will. If it's in the middle of the function there is no way of getting around it.
There are some refactoring methods you can use. But I cannot think of any pretty ones, and all depend heavily on the code within the class, although for you case it might be tough to find any that works.
Like if you have a line:
do_frobnicate();
dingbat->pling();
And you need to call somefunc() after the dingbat plings. You can, if the dingbat is an interface that you provide, make a new dingbat that also do somefunc() when it plings. Given that the only place this dingbat plings is in this function.
Also, if do_frobnicate() is a free function and you want to add the somefunc() after this, you could create a function within the class, or within its namespace that is called the same. That way you make your own do_frobnicate() that also does somefunc().