Related
I'm implementing Lua in a game engine. All of the functions being exported to Lua have headers that start with luavoid, luaint or luabool just for quick reference of the expected parameters, and so I can see at a glance that this function is being exported.
#define luavoid(...) void
luavoid(std::string s) TextMsg()
{
std::string s;
ExtractLuaParams(1, s);
::TextMsg(s.c_str());
}
To actually export a function to Lua, they're added to a dictionary. On startup, the map is used to call lua_register.
std::unordered_map<std::string, ScriptCall> _callMap = {
{ "TextMsg", TextMsg },
...
}
There will be a lot of functions exported. Rather than have to maintain this map manually, I'd like to automate its creation.
My first instinct was something with macros at compile-time. I gave up on it initially and started writing a program to parse the code (as a pre-build event), since all the functions can be text-matched with the luaX macros. It would create a header file with the map automatically generated.
Then I went back to doing it at compile-time after figuring out a way to do it. I came up with this solution as an example before I finally implement it in the game:
using MapType = std::unordered_map<std::string, int>;
template <MapType& m>
struct MapMaker
{
static int MakePair(std::string s, int n)
{
m[s] = n;
return n;
}
};
#define StartMap(map) MapType map
#define AddMapItem(map, s, n) int map##s = MapMaker<map>::MakePair(#s, n)
StartMap(myMap);
AddMapItem(myMap, abc, 1);
AddMapItem(myMap, def, 2);
AddMapItem(myMap, ghi, 3);
void main()
{
for (auto& x : myMap)
{
std::cout << x.first.c_str() << "->" << x.second << std::endl;
}
}
It works.
My question is, how horrible is this and can it be improved? All I want in the end is a list mapping a a string to a function. Is there a better way to create a map or should I just go with the text-parsing method?
Be gentle(-ish). This is my first attempt at coding with templates like this. I assume this falls under template metaprogramming.
how horrible is this and can it be improved?
Somewhere between hideous and horrendous. (Some questions better left unasked.) And yes...
All I want in the end is a list mapping a a string to a function. Is there a better way to create a map or should I just go with the text-parsing method?
The simplest thing to do is:
#define ADDFN(FN) { #FN, FN }
std::unordered_map<std::string, ScriptCall> _callMap = {
ADDFN(TextMsg),
...
};
This uses the macros to automate the repetition in the string literal function names and identifiers - there's nothing further substantive added by your implementation.
That said, you could experiment with automating things further than your implementation, perhaps something like this:
#define LUAVOID(FN, ...) \
void FN(); \
static auto addFN ## __LINE__ = myMap.emplace(#FN, FN); \
void FN()
LUAVOID(TextMsg, string s)
{
...
}
See it running here.
The idea here is that the macro generates a function declaration so that it can register the function, then a definition afterwards. __LINE__ likely suffices for uniqueness of the identifiers - assuming you have one file doing this, and that your compiler substitutes a numeric literal (which all compilers I've used do, but I can't remember if the Standard mandates that). The emplace function has a non-void return type so can be used directly to insert to the map.
Be gentle(-ish). This is my first attempt at coding with templates like this.
Sorry.
I assume this falls under template metaprogramming.
It's arguable. Many C++ programmers (myself included) think of "metaprogramming" as involving more advanced template usage - such as variable-length lists of parameters, recursive instantiations, and specialisation - but many others consider all template usage to be "metaprogramming" since the templates provide instructions for how to create instantiations, which is technically sufficient to constitute metaprogramming.
Is it possible to have 2 macros with the same name, but different arguments? Something like this:
#define FI(value) do {l<<value; Doit(l); } while(0)
#define FI(value, level) do {l<<value ; Doit(l,level); } while(0)
It is not possible.
A symbol name cannot be redefined. Unlike functions macros cannot be overloaded. Think of it logically macros are for pure textual replacement, So how can you replace two different things for the same entity?
An alternative and better solution:
You can write a inline function for achieving the same result. It provides you additional advantage of type checking and saves you from the murky side effects of macros.
This would work.
#define FI(value, ...) FI_(value, ##__VA_ARGS__, 2, 1)
#define FI_(value, level, n, ...) FI##n(value, level)
#define FI1(value, ...) do {l << value; Doit(l);} while (0)
#define FI2(value, level) do {l << value; Doit(l, level);} while (0)
Actually it is possible. However, it will result in compiler warning regarding redefinition.
See this for more details:
http://efesx.com/2010/08/31/overloading-macros/
This is a situation in which you really should use inline functions. Knowing nothing about the types you are using, a possible implementation might look like this:
template<typename T>
inline void fi(T & l, const T & value) {
l << value;
Doit(l);
}
template<typename T>
inline void fi(T & l, const T & value, const T & level) {
l << value;
Doit(l, level);
}
If you ever encounter a situation in which you have to stick to macros, you will have to work-around this limitation that they can't be overloaded, at least not per the standard. To "overload" them, we just write the number of arguments on the name of the macro, which is a common way to do so (in fact, even the OpenGL library uses this method to "overload" C functions).
#define FI1(value) do {l<<value; Doit(l); } while(0)
#define FI2(value, level) do {l<<value ; Doit(l,level); } while(0)
I'm working in C++ enviroment and:
a) We are forbidden to use exceptions
b) It is application/data server code that evaluates lot of requests of different kinds
I have simple class encapsulating result of server operation that is also used internally for lot of functions there.
class OpResult
{
.....
bool succeeded();
bool failed(); ....
... data error/result message ...
};
As I try to have all functions small and simple, lot of blocks like this are arising:
....
OpResult result = some_(mostly check)function(....);
if (result.failed())
return result;
...
The question is, is it bad practise to make macro looking like this and use it everywhere?
#define RETURN_IF_FAILED(call) \
{ \
OpResult result = call; \
if (result.failed()) \
return result; \
}
I understand that someone can call it nasty, but is there a better way?
What other way of handling results and avoiding lot of bloat code would you suggest?
It's a trade off. You are trading code size for obfuscation of the logic. I prefer to preserve the logic as visible.
I dislike macros of this type because they break Intellisense (on Windows), and debugging of the program logic. Try putting a breakpoint on all 10 return statements in your function - not the check, just the return. Try stepping through the code that's in the macro.
The worst thing about this is that once you accept this it's hard to argue against the 30-line monster macros that some programmers LOVE to use for commonly-seen mini-tasks because they 'clarify things'. I've seen code where different exception types were handled this way by four cascading macros, resulting in 4 lines in the source file, with the macros actually expanding to > 100 real lines. Now, are you reducing code bloat? No. It's impossible to tell easily with macros.
Another general argument against macros, even if not obviously applicable here, is the ability to nest them with hard to decipher results, or to pass in arguments that result in weird but compilable arguments e.g. the use of ++x in a macros that uses the argument twice. I always know where I stand with the code, and I can't say that about a macro.
EDIT: One comment I should add is that if you really do repeat this error check logic over and over, perhaps there are refactoring opportunities in the code. Not a guarantee but a better way of code bloat reduction if it does apply. Look for repeated sequences of calls and encapsulate common sequences in their own function, rather than addressing how each call is handled in isolation.
Actually, I prefer slightly other solution. The thing is that the result of inner call is not necessarily a valid result of an outer call. For example, inner failure may be "file not found", but the outer one "configuration not available". Therefore my suggestion is to recreate the OpResult (potentially packing the "inner" OpResult into it for better debugging). This all goes to the direction of "InnerException" in .NET.
technically, in my case the macro looks like
#define RETURN_IF_FAILED(call, outerresult) \
{ \
OpResult innerresult = call; \
if (innerresult.failed()) \
{ \
outerresult.setInner(innerresult); \
return outerresult; \
} \
}
This solution requires however some memory management etc.
Some purist argue that having no explicit returns hinders the readability of the code. In my opinion however having explicit RETURN as a part of the macro name is enough to prevent confusion for any skilled and attentive developer.
My opinion is that such macros don't obfuscate the program logic, but on the contrary make it cleaner. With such a macro, you declare your intent in a clear and concise way, while the other way seems to be overly verbose and therefore error-prone. Making the maintainers parse in mind the same construct OpResult r = call(); if (r.failed) return r is wasting of their time.
An alternative approach without early returns is applying to each code line the pattern like CHECKEDCALL(r, call) with #define CHECKEDCALL(r, call) do { if (r.succeeded) r = call; } while(false). This is in my eyes much much worse and definitely error-prone, as people tend to forget about adding CHECKEDCALL() when adding more code.
Having a popular need to do checked returns (or everything) with macros seems to be a slight sign of missing language feature for me.
As long as the macro definition sits in an implementation file and is undefined as soon as unnecessary, I wouldn't be horrified.
// something.cpp
#define RETURN_IF_FAILED() /* ... */
void f1 () { /* ... */ }
void f2 () { /* ... */ }
#undef RETURN_IF_FAILED
However, I would only use this after having ruled out all non-macro solutions.
After 10 years, I'm going to answer my own question to my satisfaction, if only I had a time machine ...
I encountered a similar situation many times in new projects. Even when exceptions were allowed, I don't want to always use them for "normal fails".
I eventually discovered a way to write these kind of statements.
For generic Result that includes message, I use this:
class Result
{
public:
enum class Enum
{
Undefined,
Meaningless,
Success,
Fail,
};
static constexpr Enum Undefined = Enum::Undefined;
static constexpr Enum Meaningless = Enum::Meaningless;
static constexpr Enum Success = Enum::Success;
static constexpr Enum Fail = Enum::Fail;
Result() = default;
Result(Enum result) : result(result) {}
Result(const LocalisedString& message) : result(Fail), message(message) {}
Result(Enum result, const LocalisedString& message) : result(result), message(message) {}
bool isDefined() const { return this->result != Undefined; }
bool succeeded() const { assert(this->result != Undefined); return this->result == Success; }
bool isMeaningless() const { assert(this->result != Undefined); return this->result == Enum::Meaningless; }
bool failed() const { assert(this->result != Undefined); return this->result == Fail; }
const LocalisedString& getMessage() const { return this->message; }
private:
Enum result = Undefined;
LocalisedString message;
};
And then, I have a special helper class in this form, (similar for other return types)
class Failed
{
public:
Failed(Result&& result) : result(std::move(result)) {}
explicit operator bool() const { return this->result.failed(); }
operator Result() { return this->result; }
const LocalisedString& getMessage() const { return this->result.getMessage(); }
Result result;
};
When these are combined, I can write code like this:
if (Failed result = trySomething())
showError(result.getMessage().str());
Isn't it beutiful?
I agree with Steve's POV.
I first thought, at least reduce the macro to
#define RETURN_IF_FAILED(result) if(result.failed()) return result;
but then it occurred to me this already is a one-liner, so there really is little benefit in the macro.
I think, basically, you have to make a trade off between write-ability and readability. The macro is definitely easier to write. It is, however, an open question whether it is also is easier to read. The latter is quite a subjective judgment to make. Still, using macros objectively does obfuscate code.
Ultimately, the underlying problem is that you must not use exceptions. You haven't said what the reasons for that decision are, but I surely hope they are worth the problems this causes.
Could be done with C++0x lambdas.
template<typename F> inline OpResult if_failed(OpResult a, F f) {
if (a.failed())
return a;
else
return f();
};
OpResult something() {
int mah_var = 0;
OpResult x = do_something();
return if_failed(x, [&]() -> OpResult {
std::cout << mah_var;
return f;
});
};
If you're clever and desperate, you could make the same kind of trick work with regular objects.
In my opinion, hiding a return statement in a macro is a bad idea. The 'code obfucation' (I like that term..! ) reaches the highest possible level. My usual solution to such problems is to aggregate the function execution at one place and control the result in the following manner (assuming you have 5 nullary functions):
std::array<std::function<OpResult ()>, 5> tFunctions = {
f1, f2, f3, f4, f5
};
auto tFirstFailed = std::find_if(tFunctions.begin(), tFunctions.end(),
[] (std::function<OpResult ()>& pFunc) -> bool {
return pFunc().failed();
});
if (tFirstFailed != tFunctions.end()) {
// tFirstFailed is the first function which failed...
}
Is there any information in result which is actually useful if the call fails?
If not, then
static const error_result = something;
if ( call().failed() ) return error_result;
would suffice.
So I have a series of global functions, say:
foo_f1(int a, int b, char *c);
foo_f2(int a);
foo_f3(char *a);
I want to make a C++ wrapper around these, something like:
MyFoo::f1(int a, int b, char* c);
MyFoo::f2(int a);
MyFoo::f3(char* a);
There's about 40 functions like this, 35 of them I just want to pass through to the global function, the other 5 I want to do something different with.
Ideally the implementation of MyFoo.cpp would be something like:
PASSTHRU( f1, (int a, int b, char *c) );
PASSTHRU( f2, (int a) );
MyFoo::f3(char *a)
{
//do my own thing here
}
But I'm having trouble figuring out an elegant way to make the above PASSTHRU macro.
What I really need is something like the mythical X getArgs() below:
MyFoo::f1(int a, int b, char *c)
{
X args = getArgs();
args++; //skip past implicit this..
::f1(args); //pass args to global function
}
But short of dropping into assembly I can't find a good implementation of getArgs().
You could use Boost.Preprocessor to let the following:
struct X {
PASSTHRU(foo, void, (int)(char))
};
... expand to:
struct X {
void foo ( int arg0 , char arg1 ) { return ::foo ( arg0 , arg1 ); }
};
... using these macros:
#define DO_MAKE_ARGS(r, data, i, type) \
BOOST_PP_COMMA_IF(i) type arg##i
#define PASSTHRU(name, ret, args) \
ret name ( \
BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(DO_MAKE_ARGS, _, args) \
) { \
return ::name ( \
BOOST_PP_ENUM_PARAMS(BOOST_PP_SEQ_SIZE(args), arg) \
); \
}
At 40-odd functions, you could type the wrappers out by hand in an hour. The compiler will check the correctness of the result. Assume an extra 2 minutes for each new function that needs wrapping, and an extra 1 minute for a change in signature.
As specified, and with no mention of frequent updates or changes, it doesn't sound like this problem requires a cunning solution.
So, my recommendation is to keep it simple: do it by hand. Copy prototypes into source file, then use keyboard macros (emacs/Visual Studio/vim) to fix things up, and/or multiple passes of search and replace, generating one set of definitions and one set of declarations. Cut declarations, paste into header. Fill in definitions for the non-passing-through functions. This won't win you any awards, but it'll be over soon enough.
No extra dependencies, no new build tools, works well with code browsing/tags/intellisense/etc., works well with any debugger, and no specialized syntax/modern features/templates/etc., so anybody can understand the result. (It's true that nobody will be impressed -- but it will be the good kind of unimpressed.)
Slightly different syntax but...
#include <boost/preprocessor.hpp>
#include <iostream>
void f1(int x, int y, char* z) { std::cout << "::f1(int,int,char*)\n"; }
#define GENERATE_ARG(z,n,unused) BOOST_PP_CAT(arg,n)
#define GET_ARGS(n) BOOST_PP_ENUM(n, GENERATE_ARG, ~)
#define GENERATE_PARAM(z,n,seq) BOOST_PP_SEQ_ELEM(n,seq) GENERATE_ARG(z,n,~)
#define GENERATE_PARAMS(seq) BOOST_PP_ENUM( BOOST_PP_SEQ_SIZE(seq), GENERATE_PARAM, seq )
#define PASSTHROUGH(Classname, Function, ArgTypeSeq) \
void Classname::Function( GENERATE_PARAMS(ArgTypeSeq) ) \
{ \
::Function( GET_ARGS( BOOST_PP_SEQ_SIZE(ArgTypeSeq) ) ); \
}
struct test
{
void f1(int,int,char*);
};
PASSTHROUGH(test,f1,(int)(int)(char*))
int main()
{
test().f1(5,5,0);
std::cin.get();
}
You could get something closer to yours if you use tuples, but you'd have to supply the arg count to the base function (you can't derive a size from a tuple). Sort of like so:
PASSTHROUGH(test,f1,3,(int,int,char*))
That about what you're looking for? I knew it could be done; took about a half hour to solve. You seem to expect that there's an implicit 'this' that has to be gotten rid of but I don't see why...so maybe I misunderstand the problem. At any rate, this will let you quickly make default "passthrough" member functions that defer to some global function. You'll need a DECPASSTHROUGH for the class declaration if you want to skip having to declare them all...or you could modify this to make inline functions.
Hint: Use BOOST_PP_STRINGIZE((XX)) to test the output of preprocessor metafunctions.
My initial thought, and this probably won't work or others would have stated this, is to put all your base functions together in a class as virtual. Then, write the functionality improvements into inherited classes and run with it. It's not a macro wrapper, but you could always call the global functions in the virtual classes.
With some assembly trickery, you could probably do exactly what you'd want, but you would lose portability more than likely. Interesting question and I want to hear other's answers as well.
You may want to use a namespace if you want to not deal with class stuff, like this. You could also use static member methods in a class, but I think that people don't like that anymore.
#ifndef __cplusplus
#define PASSTHRU(type, prefix, func, args) type prefix##_##func args
#else
#define PASSTHRU(type, prefix, func, args) type prefix::func args
#endif
Or
#ifndef __cplusplus
#define PASSTHRU(type, prefix, func, ...) type prefix##_##func(__VA_ARGS__)
...
Perfect forwarding relies on rvalue references. STL has a blog entry on it at Link and you would want to choose a compiler that supported the feature to take this approach. He's discussing Visual C++ 2010.
Okay, this is just a minor caveat. I am currently working with the lovely ArcSDK from ESRI. Now to get a value from any of their functions, you basically have to pass the variable, you want to assign the value to.
E.g.:
long output_width;
IRasterProps->get_Width(&output_width);
Its such a minor thing, but when you have to pick out around 30 different pieces of data from their miscellaneous functions, it really starts to get annoying.
So what i was wondering is it possible to somehow by the magic of STL or C++ change this into:
long output_width = IRasterProps->get_Width(<something magical>);
All of the functions return void, otherwise the off chance some of them might return a HRESULT, which i can safely ignore. Any ideas?
***EDIT****
Heres the final result i got which works :)!!!!!
A magic(P p, R (__stdcall T::*f)(A *)) {
A a;
((*p).*f)(&a);
return a;
}
I know I've already answered, but here's another way. It's better in that it's faster (no boost::function overhead) and avoids the binders (since people seem to have an aversion to them), but is worse in that it's much less general (since it only works for one-argument member functions).
template <typename P, typename T, typename A>
A magic(P p, void (T::*f)(A &)) {
A a;
((*p).*f)(a);
return a;
}
Which you'd call like this:
long output_width = magic(raster_props_object, &IRasterProps::get_Width);
Or, if you happen to be using GCC, we can use some more tricks:
#define MORE_MAGIC(p,f) ({ \
typedef __typeof(*(p)) big_ugly_identifier; \
magic((p),(&big_ugly_identifier::f)); \
})
Which will let us do this:
long output_width = MORE_MAGIC(raster_props_object, get_Width);
(Bonus points if the naming conventions made you think of a PDP-10.)
EDIT: Updated to take any pointer-like type, so it will now work with shared_ptr, iterators, and hopefully _com_ptr.
EDIT: Oops, they're pointers, not references. Here's a version (or overload) that deals with that, and allows -- by ignoring -- arbitrarily-typed return values.
template <typename P, typename T, typename A, typename R>
A magic(P p, R (T::*f)(A *)) {
A a;
((*p).*f)(&a);
return a;
}
This is not quite what you specified because you need to wrap get() around the method, but it works:
template<class T, class S>
T get(S fun(T&)) {
T result;
fun(result);
return result;
}
void foo(int& x) {
x = 5;
}
bool bar(char& x) {
x = 'c';
return false;
}
int main() {
int x = get(foo);
char y = get(bar);
return 0;
}
Can you derive from IRasterProps? Being that the case you can construct your own interface to it.
EDIT: Following on the concept you can probably also apply the Adapter design pattern (or even a Facade if you wish to apply a common interface to several like-minded classes of the SDK).
Looks like a COM object to me.
Visual C++ supports an #import directive to import the type library, and create high-legel wrappers. So you either end up with
width = ptr->GetWidth();
or - even better -
width = ptr->Width;
If a function fails, the HRESULT returned will be transformed into an _com_error exception.
I've used that successfully on many OS and 3rd party COM objects, makes them much easier to use.
Note that you control the wrapper generation through options, the first thing I do is usually adding a rename_namespace or no_namespace, because otherwise the symbold end up in a namespace depending on the typelib name, which is usually ugly.
also, unless you use named_guids option, you might needto change CLSID_xxx and IID_xxx constants to __uuidof(xxx).
EDIT: In retrospect, I'm not sure this one will actually work, since I don't think the template arguments will deduce. Buyer Beware.
Sure! What you need is something to which you can pass a function that will call it and return you the outputted value.
Here's the easy, if less efficient way:
template <typename T>
T magic(boost::function<void(T&)> f) {
T x;
f(x);
return x;
}
Which you'd then call like this using boost::lambda:
long output_width = magic(raster_props_object->*&IRasterProps::get_Width);
Or like this, using boost::bind:
long output_width = magic(bind(&IRasterProps::get_Width, raster_props_object, _1));
You can get rid of boost::function, but that's uglier. Probably worth it, though.
Don't think this is possible. Assigning void to a long should be an error in any case.
Remember, it's probably more performant to pass-by-reference than to return a large object. (won't really make a difference with long's though)
Compiling this:
void foo(long &a) {
}
int main(void) {
long a=0;
a = foo(a);
return 0;
}
gives this error:
g++ x.cc
x.cc: In function ‘int main()’:
x.cc:9: error: void value not ignored as it ought to be
I'm not aware of something insane you could do, precisely like you're asking, and if there was some insane hackery that did work on some peculiar platform I'm pretty sure in a code-review I'd hate it.
It may may more sense to either...
define some trivial inline function wrappers around the APIs you care about
make a specialized class descend from IRasterProps (or whatever) that provides the appropriate accessor methods.
Either of those will impact maintenance time of the code but would safely and cleanly give you the call syntax you are looking for.