Static map to function pointers - c++

I am trying to implement something similar to C# setters in C++. The idea is to have an enum of class properties and the corresponding setters. My code looks as follows. I will write the implementation in the class definition.
#include <string>
#include <map>
enum ClassProperties
{
Id, Name
};
class MyClass
{
public:
int Id;
std::string Name;
public void SetValue(ClassProperties c, std::string value){
setters[c](this, value);
}
private:
typedef void (* t_setter)(MyClass *, std::string);
static void set_id(MyClass * obj, std::string value) {
obj->Id = std::stoi(value);
}
static void set_name(MyClass * obj, std::string value) {
obj->Name = value;
}
static std::map<ClassProperties, t_setter> setters = {{ClassProperties:: Id, set_id}, {ClassProperties::Name, set_name}};
};
I'd expect this code to choose the cooresponding function and call it, but I get an error on the last line
error: in-class initialization of static data member ‘std::map<ClassProperties, void (**)(MyClass*, std::basic_string<char>)> MyClass::setters’ of incomplete type
error: could not convert ‘{{Id, MyClass::set_id}, {Name, MyClass::set_name}}’ from ‘<brace-enclosed initializer list>’ to ‘std::map<ClassProperties, void (**)(MyClass*, std::basic_string<char>)>’
What am I doing wrong?

Your initialization of setters is wrong. You should change it as follows:
1) Remove the line from the class body:
static std::map<ClassProperties, t_setter> setters =
{{ClassProperties:: Id, set_id}, {ClassProperties::Name, set_name}};
2) Add appropriate initialization of static member out of the class body:
std::map<ClassProperties, MyClass::t_setter> MyClass::setters = {
{ ClassProperties::Id, &MyClass::set_id },
{ ClassProperties::Name, &MyClass::set_name }
};
Besides, you have to remove public specifier before SetValue function.
wandbox example

Related

Modifying a data of type "static const int* const" from a member function

TLDR Question:
class MyClass
{
public:
void Modify()
{
//How can I modify MyData here
}
public:
static const int* const MyData;
};
Lore:
I have a class like this:
class Window
{
public:
const int* GetKeyboard()
{
return m_Keyboard;
}
private:
const int* const m_Keyboard = 0;
};
With this I would access keyboard as WindowObjectPtr->GetKeyboard() but I want to access it as Input::Keyboard. So I wrote something like this:
class Window
{
public:
const int* GetKeyboard()
{
return m_Keyboard;
}
private:
const int* const m_Keyboard = 0;
};
const int* Input::Keyboard = 0;
class Application;
class Input
{
friend class Application;
private:
static void SetKeyboard(const int* k) { Keyboard = k; }
public:
static const int* Keyboard;
};
class Application
{
public:
void Init()
{
Input::SetKeyboard(m_Window.GetKeyboard());
}
private:
Window m_Window;
};
int main()
{
Application application;
application.Init();
//Input::Keyboard
}
The only problem with the above code is that I can do Input::Keyboaord = nullptr;
So I want to change definition of keyboard to static const int* const Keyboard; but then Input::SetKeyboard cannot set it anymore.
Is there a valid version of something like mutable static const int* const Keyboard; ? or a different method of achieving what I am trying to do?
Either an object is const or it isn't. If it is const it must be given a value in its initialization and any attempt at changing it later will cause undefined behavior (if it isn't ill-formed to begin with).
There is no way to make an object const after a certain other point in the execution flow.
Of course you can just add a const reference to the object and use that whenever you don't intent to modify it for const-correctness:
static const int* Keyboard;
static const int* const& cKeyboard = Keyboard;
Now Keyboard can be used for modification and cKeyboard can't (without const_cast trickery).
But that all seems like completely avoidable and messy, since you could just have Keyboard be a non-static member, have Application have a non-static Input member and then have all initialization happen in the constructor's initializer lists. Then there wouldn't be a problem with having Keyboard be const-qualified at all.
Many things can be hacked.
For example you can have a constant static member which references a private non-static member. The private member can be initialized and set later by a friend. The public member can only be used to read:
#include<iostream>
struct foo {
static const int& x_public;
friend class bar;
private:
static int x_private;
};
const int& foo::x_public = foo::x_private;
int foo::x_private = 0;
struct bar {
bar() {
foo::x_private = 42;
}
};
int main() {
bar b;
std::cout << foo::x_public;
}
Thgouh, I am not really suggesting to use this. I agree with this answer that you should rather use a non-static member.

Initialization of a member variable tuple

I have the following code:
struct A
{
const string name;
A(string name) :name(name) {}
};
struct Parent
{
public:
const decltype(make_tuple(A("AA"))) children{ make_tuple(A("AA")) };
Parent()
{
}
};
Is it possible to avoid typing A("AA") twice?
Like when you use the auto keyword- but working.
You can move A("AA") or even better make_tuple(A("AA")) into its own function:
namespace {
auto make_children() { return make_tuple(A("AA")); }
}
struct Parent
{
public:
const decltype(make_children()) children{ make_children() };
Parent()
{
}
};
Live example
That way you only need to repeat the name of the helper function twice. Depending on the size/complexity of the expression in your real code, that might be a win.

C++ pointer to class method

I want to do something like this:
struct CLI_Command{
CLI_Command(char* s, void (*h)(void)){
command_string = s;
handler = h;
}
char* command_string;
void (*handler)(void);
};
class CLI {
public:
CLI();
private:
CLI_Command cli_table[NO_CLI_COMMANDS] = {
CLI_Command("Command1", handler1),
CLI_Command("Command2", handler2)
};
void handler1(){};
void handler2(){};
};
I know that I need something similar to CLI::*handler, but I can't get the syntax right. I keep running into errors like this:
"error: no matching function for call to 'CLI_Command::CLI_Command(const char [4], <unresolved overloaded function type>)"
This illustrates the correct syntax:
class CLI;
struct CLI_Command
{
CLI_Command(char* s, void (CLI::*h)(void))
{
command_string = s;
handler = h;
}
char* command_string;
void (CLI::*handler)(void);
void raise( CLI* the_cli ) { return (the_cli->*handler)(); }
};
class CLI
{
public:
CLI();
private:
static CLI_Command cli_table[NO_CLI_COMMANDS];
void handler1(){};
void handler2(){};
};
CLI::CLI_Command cli_table[NO_CLI_COMMANDS] = {
{ "Command1", &CLI::handler1 },
{ "Command2", &CLI::handler2 }
};
Names of member functions do not decay to pointer-to-member. You must use & explicitly, and a qualified name, when creating a pointer-to-member.
In addition to other answers, another option is to use std::function together with std::bind():
struct CLI_Command{
...
std::function<void> handler;
};
class CLI {
...
CLI_Command cli_table[NO_CLI_COMMANDS] = {
{ "Command1", std::bind(&CLI::handler1, this) },
{ "Command2", std::bind(&CLI::handler2, this) }
};
void handler1(){};
void handler2(){};
};
void handler1(){}
void handler2(){}
are member functions of CLI. The correct way to "address to" them is &CLI::handler1 and not handler1. However then, they won't be accepted by void (*h)(void), which would need to be changed to void (CLI::*h)(void). But that is probably not what you want.
Maybe consider reading about std::function for type erasure, or make your handler1/handler2 static.
You should use the syntax for a pointer to class member instead of the syntax for a loose function pointer.
class CLI;
struct CLI_Command{
CLI_Command(char* s, void (CLI::*h)(void)){
command_string = s;
handler = h;
}
char* command_string;
void (CLI::*handler)(void);
};
In addition, make sure you call the function through the pointer of the current CLI class;
void CLI::process(char *cmd) {
CLI_Command command* = /* lookup the command */
this->(command->handle)();
}
To get it working, make your methods static
static void handler1(){};
static void handler2(){};
Whatever consequences (read here please, for more detailed info) this will have :-( .

Use singleton classes in c++

I created a singleton class
class AreaDataRepository {
private:
AreaDataRepository();
AreaDataRepository(const AreaDataRepository& orig);
virtual ~AreaDataRepository();
Way onGoingWay;
public:
static AreaDataRepository& Instance()
{
static AreaDataRepository singleton;
return singleton;
}
void SetOnGoingWay(Way onGoingWay);
Way const & GetOnGoingWay() const;
};
void AreaDataRepository::SetOnGoingWay(Way onGoingWay) {
this->onGoingWay = onGoingWay;
}
Way const & AreaDataRepository::GetOnGoingWay() const {
return onGoingWay;
}
header file of Way
class Way {
private:
std::string id;
std::string name;
public:
Way();
Way(const Way& orig);
virtual ~Way();
void SetName(std::string name);
std::string const & GetName() const;
void SetId(std::string id);
std::string const & GetId() const;
};
Then i'm created a Way object and set vales of id and name.
Way wayNode;
wayNode.SetId("123");
wayNode.SetName("jan")
AreaDataRepository::Instance().SetOnGoingWay(wayNode);
After assign OngoingWay accessing it from another class.
std::cout << AreaDataRepository::Instance().GetOnGoingWay().GetId();
the vale is not printing.
I'm going psychic here.... and I divine that your implementation of SetId is like this:
void SetId(std::string id) { id = id; }
that does not set the member variable, that sets the parameter to itself. And since your constructor most likely set the member variable id to "" you're printing empty strings. Either change the name of the parameter (to newId for example) to avoid the conflict or change the implementation to:
void SetId(std::string id) { this->id = id; }
As proof of this claim here's the result for the first version, as you see it prints nothing. And here is the result for the second, as you can see it prints the number.
The problem boils down to this: you have function parameter names that are the same as the name of your member variables and the function parameters are shadowing/hiding the member variables.
The only place this cannot happen is in a constructor's initialization list:
class Foo {
int x;
public:
Foo(int x): x(x) {} // <-- this works
void SetX(int x) { x = x; } // <-- this won't the parameter is hiding the member variable
};
Demo for the above snippet
std::cout is buffered in most implementations, if not in all. That means, the stream will wait for you to end a line before writing out any data. So, you can easily fix this by changing your output statement to
std::cout << AreaDataRepository::Instance().GetOnGoingWay().GetId() << std::endl;

a function instead of copy-and-paste programming

I have an object, every member variable in this object has a name which I can acquire it by calling get_name() ,what I want to do is concatenate all the names of the member variables in alphabetical order, then do something. for example:
class CXMLWrapper<class T>
{
public:
CXMLWrapper(const char* p_name) : m_local_name(p_name)
{
}
//skip the get_name(), set_name() and others
private:
string m_local_name;
T m_type_var;
}
class object
{
public:
object() : m_team("team"), m_base("base")
{
}
public:
CXMLWrapper<string> m_team;
CXMLWrapper<string> m_base;
...
}
I have to hard-code like this:
object o;
string sign = o.m_base.get_name();
sign += o.m_team.get_name();
I need a function to do this instead of copying and pasting when the object varies. Anyone has an idea?
One way to do this in normal C++, provided all of the members belong to the same class or are derived from some base class will be to use variable number of arguments to a function. An example follows.
#include <stdarg.h>
string concatenateNames(int numMembers, ...)
{
string output;
va_list args;
va_start(args, numMembers);
for(int i = 0; i < numMembers; i++)
{
MemberClass *pMember = va_arg(args, MemberClass*);
output += pMember->get_name();
}
va_end(args);
return output;
}
class Object
{
public:
MemberClass x;
MemberClass y;
MemberClass z;
};
int main()
{
Object o;
string sign = concatenateNames(3, &o.x, &o.y, &o.z);
}
If the types of all the members are different, you can look into variadic templates of C++11x: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variadic_Templates, but I can't seem to find a way to do otherwise.
If variables which have name have a same type (or these types belongs one hierarchy) you can use map of these vars. Is not good way, but maybe it helps you
Example
class object
{
public:
object() //: m_team("team"), m_base("base")
{
this->vars["m_team"] = CXMLWrapper<string>("team");
//.....
}
public:
map<string, CXMLWrapper<string> > vars;
/*CXMLWrapper<string> m_team;
CXMLWrapper<string> m_base;*/
...
}
object o;
string sign;
for(auto& x : o.vars)//i cannot remember syntax of for of map
sign += x.get_name;
PS Sorry for my writing mistakes. English in not my native language.
One method is to have an external library of member names which the CXMLWrapper class updates:-
class BaseXMLWrapper
{
public:
void ListMembers (const char *parent)
{
// find "parent" in m_types
// if found, output members of vector
// else output "type not found"
}
protected:
void RegisterInstance (const char *parent, const char *member)
{
// find 'parent' in m_types
// if not found, create a new vector and add it to m_types
// find 'member' in parent vector
// if not found, add it
}
private:
static std::map <const std::string, std::vector <const std::string> >
m_types;
};
class CXMLWrapper <class T, const char *parent> : BaseXMLWrapper
{
public:
CXMLWrapper(const char* p_name) : m_local_name(p_name)
{
RegisterInstance (parent, p_name);
}
// you could override assignments, copy and move constructors to not call RegisterInstance
//skip the get_name() set_name()
private:
m_local_name;
}
class object
{
public:
object() : m_team("team"), m_base("base")
{
}
public:
CXMLWrapper<string, "object"> m_team;
CXMLWrapper<string, "object"> m_base;
...
};
This does add overhead to the construction of objects, but as it's only a constructor overhead it might not affect overall system performance much.
This looks like a "observe pattern", you just need to keep a single copy in object as a member variable "string name_;", and pass the name_s's reference into CXMLWrapper like this:
class CXMLWrapper<class T>
{
public:
CXMLWrapper(const string &name)
: local_name_(name)
{
}
//skip the get_name() set_name()
private:
const string &local_name_;
}
class object
{
public:
object()
: team_("team"),
base_("base"),
m_team(team_)
, m_base(base_)
{
}
public:
string team_;
string base_;
CXMLWrapper<string> m_team;
CXMLWrapper<string> m_base;
}