Related
If i want to inherit from "BaseClass" but i have to manage one of the private members, can i "unprivate" it with something like this?:
using BaseClass::private_member;
If not, what to do when some of the members are NOT marked as protected as it should be? If is not possible, that means we are not supposed to inherit from classes that we did not develop?
If i want to inherit from "BaseClass" but i have to manage one of the private members, can i "unprivate" it with something like this?
No. Private members cannot be managed by derived classes. If you think you have to manage a private member of a base class, then someone's design or implementation is wrong. It might be the base class that is flawed, but keep an open mind – be sure to consider the possibility that the flaw is in your design. (Better yet, assume the flaw is probably in your design until proven otherwise.)
If not, what to do when some of the members are NOT marked as protected as it should be?
First, verify this assumption. Should the member be marked protected, or are you trying to misuse the base class? If the member truly should be marked as protected, then the thing to do is fix the base class. File a bug report if the base class is not under your control.
If is not possible, that means we are not supposed to inherit from classes that we did not develop?
No, that means you should not build upon a flawed foundation. (Or possibly it means that you should work with the base class design instead of against it.) There are plenty of well-implemented base classes out there. Use the right tool for the job at hand.
I have a class A which has public methods and used by 100 other classes implemented in different applications. Now I want to make those public methods as private so that no new classes access them, but I want the existing client classes to still access them.
But I don't want to even touch those client classes , because the owners seldom allow even any ripple in their classes.
I checked
Can I access private members from outside the class without using friends?
C++: Is there a way to limit access to certain methods to certain classes without exposing other private members?
friend class with limited access
But all ( not all really ) demand a change in the client's code. The client code should not change.
One straight forward way is to make all those N classes friends , But I am somewhat not comfortable doing that. Is there any pattern or an acceptable technique ( not a hack please ) to achieve this access restriction?
Thank you and I apologize if this is a duplicate.
Classes in C++ are made friends in order to indicate an special intentional strong coupling between classes. This use of friend infact enhances Encapsulation rather than break it as maybe the popular feeling.
How?
Without friendship the only non-hack way to expose the functionality to other class would be to provide public, get and set member functions,this in fact breaks encapsulation because all classes(even those who don't need to) now have access to these methods and hence the members increasing the risk of potentially breaking down the class data.
Back to your situation, If you have a 100 classes which need access to this particular class, then you already had the right design in-place by having those methods as public. Now trying to make those methods private to future classes is a trying to hack your existing design, Your design does not support it.
Making the existing classes as friends does not ideally fit in the above mentioned criteria and hence is not a good choice for the scenario.
However, given the situation there is no other way in which you can implement this. Making the existing classes as friend and granting them the special access seems the only way. This is still bad because the 100 classes which only had access to the few methods will now have access to your entire class.
I think you can extract an interface of the A class (let it be IA) and make A to implement IA. You should not define those public methods in IA at all.
Then, old code will continue using A and will have access to A public methods, while new code will use restricted interface, that code would receive through some fabric .
Of cause, this can be unimplementable, if you need to (copy-)construct class, or smth like this, but I can't say it now without knowing the usage of class.
Also, you get a little overhead due to virtual functions
Any opinions on best way to organize members of a class (esp. when there are many) in C++. In particular, a class has lots of user parameters, e.g. a class that optimizes some function and has number of parameters such as # of iterations, size of optimization step, specific method to use, optimization function weights etc etc. I've tried several general approaches and seem to always find something non-ideal with it. Just curious others experiences.
struct within the class
struct outside the class
public member variables
private member variables with Set() & Get() functions
To be more concrete, the code I'm working on tracks objects in a sequence of images. So one important aspect is that it needs to preserve state between frames (why I didn't just make a bunch of functions). Significant member functions include initTrack(), trackFromLastFrame(), isTrackValid(). And there are a bunch of user parameters (e.g. how many points to track per object tracked, how much a point can move between frames, tracking method used etc etc)
If your class is BIG, then your class is BAD.
A class should respect the Single Responsibility Principle , i.e. : A class should do only one thing, but should do it well. (Well "only one" thing is extreme, but it should have only one role, and it has to be implemented clearly).
Then you create classes that you enrich by composition with those single-role little classes, each one having a clear and simple role.
BIG functions and BIG classes are nest for bugs, and misunderstanding, and unwanted side effects, (especially during maintainance), because NO MAN can learn in minutes 700 lines of code.
So the policy for BIG classes is: Refactor, Composition with little classes targetting only at what they have do.
if i had to choose one of the four solutions you listed: private class within a class.
in reality: you probably have duplicate code which should be reused, and your class should be reorganized into smaller, more logical and reusable pieces. as GMan said: refactor your code
First, I'd partition the members into two sets: (1) those that are internal-only use, (2) those that the user will tweak to control the behavior of the class. The first set should just be private member variables.
If the second set is large (or growing and changing because you're still doing active development), then you might put them into a class or struct of their own. Your main class would then have a two methods, GetTrackingParameters and SetTrackingParameters. The constructor would establish the defaults. The user could then call GetTrackingParameters, make changes, and then call SetTrackingParameters. Now, as you add or remove parameters, your interface remains constant.
If the parameters are simple and orthogonal, then they could be wrapped in a struct with well-named public members. If there are constraints that must be enforced, especially combinations, then I'd implement the parameters as a class with getters and setters for each parameter.
ObjectTracker tracker; // invokes constructor which gets default params
TrackerParams params = tracker.GetTrackingParameters();
params.number_of_objects_to_track = 3;
params.other_tracking_option = kHighestPrecision;
tracker.SetTrackingParameters(params);
// Now start tracking.
If you later invent a new parameter, you just need to declare a new member in the TrackerParams and initialize it in ObjectTracker's constructor.
It all depends:
An internal struct would only be useful if you need to organize VERY many items. And if this is the case, you ought to reconsider your design.
An external struct would be useful if it will be shared with other instances of the same or different classes. (A model, or data object class/struct might be a good example)
Is only ever advisable for trivial, throw-away code.
This is the standard way of doing things but it all depends on how you'll be using the class.
Sounds like this could be a job for a template, the way you described the usage.
template class FunctionOptimizer <typename FUNCTION, typename METHOD,
typename PARAMS>
for example, where PARAMS encapsulates simple optimization run parameters (# of iterations etc) and METHOD contains the actual optimization code. FUNCTION describes the base function you are targeting for optimization.
The main point is not that this is the 'best' way to do it, but that if your class is very large there are likely smaller abstractions within it that lend themselves naturally to refactoring into a less monolithic structure.
However you handle this, you don't have to refactor all at once - do it piecewise, starting small, and make sure the code works at every step. You'll be surprised how much better you quickly feel about the code.
I don't see any benefit whatsoever to making a separate structure to hold the parameters. The class is already a struct - if it were appropriate to pass parameters by a struct, it would also be appropriate to make the class members public.
There's a tradeoff between public members and Set/Get functions. Public members are a lot less boilerplate, but they expose the internal workings of the class. If this is going to be called from code that you won't be able to refactor if you refactor the class, you'll almost certainly want to use Get and Set.
Assuming that the configuration options apply only to this class, use private variables that are manipulated by public functions with meaningful function names. SetMaxInteriorAngle() is much better than SetMIA() or SetParameter6(). Having getters and setters allows you to enforce consistency rules on the configuration, and can be used to compensate for certain amounts of change in the configuration interface.
If these are general settings, used by more than one class, then an external class would be best, with private members and appropriate functions.
Public data members are usually a bad idea, since they expose the class's implementation and make it impossible to have any guaranteed relation between them. Walling them off in a separate internal struct doesn't seem useful, although I would group them in the list of data members and set them off with comments.
I personally find it weird/ugly when a class uses a getter to access its own member data. I know the performance impact is none but I just don't like to see all those method calls.
Are there any strong arguments either way, or is it just one of those things that's personal preference and should be left to each coder, or arbitrarily controlled in a coding standard?
Update: I'm meaning simple getters, specifically for a class' non-public members.
The reason you might want to use a getter/setter is because it conceals the implementation. You won't have to rewrite all of your code if you are using getters/setters in case the implementation does change, because those members can continue to work.
EDIT based on the many clever comments:
As for a class using setters and getters on itself, that may depend on the particulars. After all, the implementation of a particular class is available to the class itself. In the cases where a class is normally instantiated, the class should use the member values directly for its own members (private or otherwise) and its parent classes (if they are protected) and only use getters/setters in the case that those members are private to the parent class.
In the case of an abstract type, which will usually not contain any implementation at all, it should provide pure virtual getters and setters and use only those in the methods it does implement.
Willingness to use getters/setters within class member implementation is the canary in the mine telling that your class is growing unreasonably. It tells that your class is trying to do too many different things, that it serves several purposes where it should serve one instead.
In fact, this is usually encountered when you are using one part of your class to store or access your data, and another part to make operations on it. Maybe you should consider using a standalone class to store and give access to your data, and another one to provide a higher view, with more complex operations with your data.
THE OBVIOUS
getters and setters for protected members makes as much sense as for public... derived classes are just another form of client code, and encapsulating implementation details from them can still be useful. I'm not saying always do it, just to weight pros and cons along the normal lines.
getters and setters for private members is rarely a net benefit, though:
it does provide the same kind of encapsulation benefits
single place for breakpoints/logging of get/set + invariant checks during dev (if used consistently)
virtual potential
etc...
but only to the presumably relatively small implementation of the same struct/class. In enterprise environments, and for public/protected member data, those benefits can be substantial enough to justify get/set methods: a logging function may end up having millions of lines of code depedent on it, and hundreds or thousands of libraries and apps for which a change to a header may trigger recompilation. Generally a single class implementation shouldn't be more than a few hundred (or at worst thousand) lines - not big or complex enough to justify encapsulating internal private data like this... it could be said to constitute a "code smell".
THE NOT-SO OBVIOUS
get/set methods can very occasionally be more readable than direct variable access (though more often less readable)
get/set methods may be able to provide a more uniform and convenient interface for code-generated member or friend methods (whether from macros or external tools/scripts)
less work required to transition between being a member or friend to a freestanding helper function should that become possible
implementation may be rendered more understandable (and hence maintainable) to people who're normally only users of the class (as more operations are expressed via, or in the style of, the public interface)
It's a bit out of scope for the question, but it's worth noting that classes should generally provide action-oriented commands, event-triggered callbacks etc. rather than encouraging a get/set usage pattern.
It seems most people didn't read your question properly, the question is concerning whether or not class methods accessing its own class' members should use getters and setters; not about an external entity accessing the class' members.
I wouldn't bother using getter and setter for accessing a class' own members.
However, I also keep my classes small (typically about 200-500 lines), such that if I do need to change the fields or change its implementations or how they are calculated, search and replace wouldn't be too much work (indeed, I often change variable/class/function names in the early development period, I'm picky name chooser).
I only use getter and setters for accessing my own class members when I am expecting to change the implementation in the near future (e.g. if I'm writing a suboptimal code that can be written quickly, but plans to optimize it in the future) that might involve radically changing the data structure used. Conversely, I don't use getter and setter before I already have the plan; in particular, I don't use getter and setter in expectation of changing things I'm very likely never going to change anyway.
For external interface though, I strictly adhere to the public interface; all variables are private, and I avoid friend except for operator overloads; I use protected members conservatively and they are considered a public interface. However, even for public interface, I usually still avoid having direct getters and setters methods, as they are often indicative of bad OO design (every OO programmers in any language should read: Why getter and setter methods are Evil). Instead, I have methods that does something useful, instead of just fetching the values. For example:
class Rectangle {
private:
int x, y, width, height;
public:
// avoid getX, setX, getY, setY, getWidth, setWidth, getHeight, setHeight
void move(int new_x, int new_y);
void resize(int new_width, int new_height);
int area();
}
The only advantage is that it allows changing internal representation without changing external interface, permitting lazy evaluation, or why not access counting.
In my experience, the number of times I did this is very, very low. And it seems you do, I also prefer to avoid the uglyness and weightyness of getter/setters. It is not that difficult to change it afterwards if I really need it.
As you speak about a class using its own getter/setters in its own implementation functions, then you should consider writing non-friend non-member functions where possible. They improve encapsulation as explained here.
An argument in favor of using getters is that you might decide one day to change how the member field is calculated. You may decide that you need it to be qualified with some other member, for instance. If you used a getter, all you have to do is change that one getter function. If you didn't you have to change each and every place where that field is used currently and in the future.
Just a crude example. Does this help?
struct myclass{
int buf[10];
int getAt(int i){
if(i >= 0 && i < sizeof(buf)){
return buf[i];
}
}
void g(){
int index = 0;
// some logic
// Is it worth repeating the check here (what getAt does) to ensure
// index is within limits
int val = buf[index];
}
};
int main(){}
EDIT:
I would say that it depends. In case the getters do some kind of validation, it is better to go through the validation even if it means the class members being subjected to that validation. Another case where going through a common entry point could be helpful is when the access needs to be essentially in a sequential and synchronized manner e.g. in a multithreaded scenario.
Protecting a member variable by wrapping its access with get/set functions has its advantages. One day you may wish to make your class thread-safe - and in that instance, you'll thank yourself for using those get/set functions
this is actually for supporting the object oriented-ness of the class by abstracting the way to get(getter). and just providing its easier access.
Simple answer. If you are writing a one shoot program, that will never change, you can leave the getters at peace and do without any.
However if you write a program that could change or been written over time, or others might use that code, use getters.
If you use getters it helps change the code faster later on, like putting a guard on the property to verify correctness of value, or counting access to the property(debugging).
Getters to me are about easy possibilities(free lunch). The programmer who write the code does not need getters, he wants them.
hope that help.
My thoughts are as follows.
Everything should be static, constant, and private if possible.
As you need a variable to be instanced meaning more than one unique
copy you remove static.
As you need a variable to be modifiable you remove the const.
As you need a class/variable to be accessed by other classes you remove
the private.
The Usage of Setters/Getters - General Purpose.
Getter's are okay if the value is to ONLY be changed by the class and
we want to protect it. This way we can retrieve the current state of
this value without the chance of it's value getting changed.
Getter's should not be used if you are planning to provide a Setter
with it. At this point you should simply convert the value to public
and just modify it directly. Since this is the intent with a Get/Set.
A Setter is plain useless if you are planning to do more then simply
"this.value = value". Then you shouldn't be calling it "SetValue"
rather describe what it is actually doing.
If let's say you want to make modifications to a value before you
"GET" it's value. Then DO NOT call it "GetValue". This is ambiguous
to your intent and although YOU might know what's happening. Someone
else wouldn't unless they viewed the source code of that function.
If let's say you are indeed only Getting/Setting a value, but you are
doing some form of security. I.e. Size check, Null Check, etc.. this
is an alternative scenario. However you should still clarify that in
the name E.g. "SafeSetValue" , "SafeGetValue" or like in the "printf"
there is "printf_s".
Alternatives to the Get/Set situations
An example that I personally have. Which you can see how I handle a
Get/Set scenario. Is I have a GameTime class which stores all kinds
of values and every game tick these values get changed.
https://github.com/JeremyDX/DX_B/blob/master/DX_B/GameTime.cpp
As you will see in the above my "GETS" are not actually "GETS" of
values except in small cases where modification wasn't needed. Rather
they are descriptions of values I am trying to retrieve out of this
GameTime class. Every value is "Static Private". I cannot do Const
given the information is obtained until runtime and I keep this
static as there is no purpose to have multiple instances of Timing.
As you will also see I don't have any way of performing a "SET" on any of this data, but there are two functions "Begin()" and "Tick()" which both change the values. This is how ALL "setters" should be handled. Basically the "Begin()" function resets all the data and loads in our constants which we CANT set as constants since this is data we retrieve at runtime. Then TICK() updates specific values as time passes in this case so we have fresh up to date information.
If you look far into the code you'll find the values "ResetWindowFrameTime()" and "ElapsedFrameTicks()". Typically I wouldn't do something like this and would have just set the value to public. Since as you'll see I'm retrieving the value and setting the value. This is another form of Set/Get, but it still uses naming that fits the scenario and it uses data from private variables so it didn't make sense to pull another private variable and then multiply it by this rather do the work here and pull the result. There is also NO need to edit the value other then to reset it to the current frame index and then retrieve the elapsed frames. It is used when I open a new window onto my screen so I can know how long I've been viewing this window for and proceed accordingly.
Is it better to have all the private members, then all the protected ones, then all the public ones? Or the reverse? Or should there be multiple private, protected and public labels so that the operations can be kept separate from the constructors and so on? What issues should I take into account when making this decision?
I put the public interface first, but I didn't always do this. I used to do things backwards to this, with private, then protected, then public. Looking back, it didn't make a lot of sense.
As a developer of a class, you'll likely be well acquainted with its "innards" but users of the class don't much care, or at least they shouldn't. They're mostly interested in what the class can do for them, right?
So I put the public first, and organize it typically by function/utility. I don't want them to have to wade through my interface to find all the methods related to X, I want them to see all that stuff together in an organized manner.
I never use multiple public/protected/private sections - too confusing to follow in my opinion.
Google favors this order: "Typedefs and Enums, Constants, Constructors, Destructor, Methods, including static methods, Data Members, including static data members."
Matthew Wilson (Safari subscription required) recommends the following order: "Construction, Operations, Attributes, Iteration, State, Implementation, Members, and my favorite, Not to be implemented."
They offer good reasons, and this kind of approach seems to be fairly standard, but whatever you do, be consistent about it.
Coding style is a source for surprisingly heated conversation, with that in mind I risk providing a different opinion:
Code should be written so it is most readable for humans. I complete agree with this statement that was given here several times.
The deviation is which roll are we taking about.
To help the user of the class understand how to use it, one should write and maintain proper documentation. A user should never be needing to read the source code to be able to use the class. If this is done (either manually or using in-source documentation tools) then the order in which public and private class members are defined in the source does not matter for the user.
However, for someone who needs to understand the code, during code review, pull request, or maintenance, the order matters a great deal - the rule is simple:
items should be defined before they are used
This is neither a compiler rule not is it a strictly public v.s. private rule, but common sense - human readability rule. We read code sequentially, and if we need "juggle" back and forth every time we see a class member used, but don't know its type for example, it adversely affects the readability of the code.
Making a division strictly on private v.s. public violates this rule because private class members will appear after they have been used in any public method.
It's my opinion, and I would wager a guess that most people would agree, that public methods should go first. One of the core principles of OO is that you shouldn't have to care about implementation. Just looking at the public methods should tell you everything you need to know to use the class.
As always, write your code for humans first. Consider the person who will be using your class and place the most important members/enums/typedefs/whatever to them at the top.
Usually this means that public members are at the top since that's what most consumers of your class are most interested in. Protected comes next followed by privates. Usually.
There are some exceptions.
Occasionally initialisation order is important and sometimes a private will need to be declared before a public. Sometimes it's more important for a class to be inherited and extended in which case the protected members may be placed higher up. And when hacking unit tests onto legacy code sometimes it's just easier to expose public methods - if I have to commit this near-sin I'll place these at the bottom of the class definition.
But they're relatively rare situations.
I find that most of the time "public, protected, private" is the most useful to consumers of your class. It's a decent basic rule to stick by.
But it's less about ordering by access and more about ordering by interest to the consumer.
I usually define first the interface (to be read), that is public, then protected, then private stuff. Now, in many cases I go a step forward and (if I can handle it) use the PIMPL pattern, fully hiding all the private stuff from the interface of the real class.
class Example1 {
public:
void publicOperation();
private:
void privateOperation1_();
void privateOperation2_();
Type1 data1_;
Type2 data2_;
};
// example 2 header:
class Example2 {
class Impl;
public:
void publicOperation();
private:
std::auto_ptr<Example2Impl> impl_;
};
// example2 cpp:
class Example2::Impl
{
public:
void privateOperation1();
void privateOperation2();
private: // or public if Example2 needs access, or private + friendship:
Type1 data1_;
Type2 data2_;
};
You can notice that I postfix private (and also protected) members with an underscore. The PIMPL version has an internal class for which the outside world does not even see the operations. This keeps the class interface completely clean: only real interface is exposed. No need to argue about order.
There is an associated cost during the class construction as a dynamically allocated object must be built. Also this works really well for classes that are not meant to be extended, but has some short comings with hierarchies. Protected methods must be part of the external class, so you cannot really push them into the internal class.
I tend to follow the POCO C++ Coding Style Guide.
i think it's all about readability.
Some people like to group them in a fixed order, so that whenever you open a class declaration, you quickly know where to look for e.g. the public data members.
In general, I feel that the most important things should come first. For 99.6% of all classes, roughly, that means the public methods, and especially the constructor. Then comes public data members, if any (remember: encapsulation is a good idea), followed by any protected and/or private methods and data members.
This is stuff that might be covered by the coding standards of large projects, it can be a good idea to check.
In our project, we don't order the members according to access, but by usage. And by that I mean, we order the members as they are used. If a public member uses a private member in the same class, that private member is usually located in front of the public member somewhere, as in the following (simplistic) example:
class Foo
{
private:
int bar;
public:
int GetBar() const
{
return bar;
}
};
Here, the member bar is placed before the member GetBar() because the former is used by the latter. This can result in multiple access sections, as in the following example:
class Foo
{
public:
typedef int bar_type;
private:
bar_type bar;
public:
bar_type GetBar() const
{
return bar;
}
};
The bar_type member is used by the bar member, see?
Why is this? I dunno, it seemed more natural that if you encounter a member somewhere in the implementation and you need more details about that (and IntelliSense is screwed up again) that you can find it somewhere above from where you're working.
In practice, it rarely matters. It's primarily a matter of personal preference.
It's very popular to put public methods first, ostensibly so that users of the class will be able to find them more easily. But headers should never be your primary source of documentation, so basing "best practices" around the idea that users will be looking at your headers seems to miss the mark for me.
It's more likely for people to be in your headers if they're modifying the class, in which case they should care about the private interface.
Whichever you choose, make your headers clean and easy to read. Being able to easily find whatever info I happen to be looking for, whether I'm a user of the class or a maintainer of the class, is the most important thing.
It is really helpful to the folks that will use your class to list the public interface first. It's the part they care about and can use. Protected and private can follow along after.
Within the public interface, it's convenient to group constructors, property accessors and mutators, and operators in distinct groups.
Note that (depending on your compiler and dynamic linker), you can retain compatibility with previous versions of a shared library by only adding to the end of the class (i.e. to the end of the interface), and not removing or changing anything else. (This is true for G++ and libtool, and the three part versioning scheme for GNU/Linux shared libraries reflects this.)
There's also the idea that you should order members of the class to avoid wasted space due to memory alignment; one strategy is to order members from smallest to largest size. I've never done this either in C++ or C though.
Overall, your public interface should come before anything, because that's the main/only thing that users of your classes should be interested in. (Of course, in reality that doesn't always hold, but it's a good start.)
Within that, member types and constants are best first, followed by construction operators, operations, and then member variables.
Put the private fields first.
With modern IDEs, people don't read the class to figure out what it's public interface is.
They just use intellisence (or a class browser) for that.
If someone is reading through the class definition, it's usually because they want to understand how it works.
In that case, knowing the fields helps the most. It tells you what the parts of the object are.
binary compatibility
There are a few concrete reasons for the ordering of class members.
These have to do with binary compatibility.
Binary compatibility mainly affects changes to system DLLs and device drivers.
If you're not interested in these, ignore this answer.
Public members must go before private members.
This is so you can mix and change private members without affecting the location of public data.
New public members must go last.
This again avoids affecting the position of existing public members.
The same ordering applies to vtable members.
Apart from this there's no reason to not to follow your own/your colleagues' preferences.
Depends entirely on your preference. There is no "the right way".
When doing C++ in my own pet projects I personally keep convention that I put access modifier before each member or method declaration.