My use case is generating and parsing AT commands
I'm looking for something similar to Boost.Spirit or https://github.com/ColinH/PEGTL , but friendly to an embedded environment (mbed OS) and doesn't need to be quite as powerful as the aforementioned. The mbed OS ATParser swings the other way and is a bit too weak/scanf-y for my tastes (no dispresect to the ATParser folks)
Boost.Spirit I can't get to compile under that environment and I am hesitant to try PEGTL for similar reasons in addition to it being a bit complex.
Not AT-specific, but this looks promising: embedded-commandline.
To use it, looks like you:
Create a class that inherits from Outputter, which implements the putchar() and puts() member functions for your platform. (You'll pass a reference to an instance of the class to the DumbLineEditor and CommandManager constructors.)
Create classes that derive from Command, and implement the execute() member function for each of your commands.
Instantiate a CommandManager. Call CommandManager::addCommand() with an instance of each of your derived Commands.
Instantiate DumbLineEditor, passing references to your CommandManager and derived Outputter to its constructor.
below project maybe what you looking for:
CMDB: A Command Interpreter with support for used defined commands, subsystems, macros, help and parameter parsing.
https://developer.mbed.org/users/wvd_vegt/code/CMDB/
Looks like I'm rolling my own. If it's not against stackoverflow rules, I'll post the link here.
Related
Is there a way to create generic set/get functions in C++? I have a class with a large number of attributes but no functions (ok I should probably use a struct), and really don't want to write individual set and get functions for each data member. The functions I'm thinking of would be something like 'set_member( T variable ), where T could be anything, primitive types or user defined. I imagine perhaps you could create a struct with a struct as a member, then whenever you want to access a specific member of the member struct, you refer to it by the appropriate pointer. I've tried writing something to achieve this but no luck so far.
C++ has (as far as I know) no inbuilt way to autogenerate setter/getter functions.
You might be able to work some macro-magic (with all its pitfalls), otherwise your options are slim.
I can think of following alternatives:
Some IDEs generate get, set methods automatically for the data members of class. I am not sure if it is possible for C++ IDE. But I know that Eclipse IDE for Java does it. You may check once if Eclipse IDE for C++ has this facility.
You may write a short shell script or python script for automatically generating get, set method given a text file containing names and types of variables in each line.
By default all the members of struct are public. So use struct. Or if you decide to use class, then, put all the data members in public section. If you are not doing anything other than simple set, get, then, it might be ok to do so. However, debugging will be tedious in case if you encounter issues with changes in the data members.
I have a function which exposes all of my required C++ functions to Lua, there are various tables representing different aspects of my "Scripting API", what I wish to do is use doxygen to make a scripting reference using the C++ code that exposes these script functions.
I have tried to make 'fake' classes in the body of the function, which successfully makes a new entry with the name I have given it, for instance if I make a table named 'Math' which has several functions exposed on it, how would I also make 'fake' member functions in this 'fake' class, I have tried to simply pass in \fn defining the function, however it does not show up as they are not actually real members to add a description to. How would I create this sort of effect in doxygen without hand righting a verbatim definition of every class, but instead treat the comment block as if it were a real class with real members?
It sounds like you're trying to document Lua code as if they were C++. Maybe it's possible, but it's probably more trouble than it's worth.
If you're trying to document Lua code with doxygen, maybe you could try doxygen-lua.
If your Lua API is small, you could just write a page by hand, with \ref's to the relavent C++ code. (Kind of hacky, but I've done this before.)
You could also consider using some other doc generator for your Lua API, such as LuaDoc, or anything else listed on the lua-users wiki DocumentingLuaCode.
I ended up writing a fake .doxy file which had typenames similar to lua values, apparently doxygen will document any type to throw at it.
I know that isn't exactly possible in C++, but maybe a toolchain that can generate code which has a function, which when called gives me a list of all those classes. For example, across multiple files I have stuff like:
class MyClass : public ParticularClass {
....
}
class MyClass2 : public ParticularClass {
....
}
Then, during runtime, I just want a pointer to single instances of the class. Let's say my generated code looks something like this:
void __populate_classes() {
superList.append(new MyClass());
superList.append(new MyClass2());
}
Also, superList would be of type List<ParticularClass*>. Plus, I'll be using Qt and ParticularClass will be QObject derived, so I can fetch the name of the class anyways. I need to basically introspect the class, so my internal code doesn't really bother much about the newly defined type.
So, is there a way to generate this code with some toolchain? If it is possible with qmake alone, that'd be like icing on the freaking cake :)
Thanks a lot for your time.
Doxygen does a nice job at doing this -- offline. Various IDEs do a nice job at this -- offline. The compiler does not do this. Such knowledge is not needed or used by the compiler.
Here at work I use a tool called Understand 4 C++. It is a tool that helps you analyze your code. It will do this quite easily.
But my favorite part is it comes with a C and Perl API which allows you to take advantage of the abstract syntax tree that 'understand' encapsulates and write your own static analysis tools. I have written tons of tools using this API.
Anyways, it's written by SciTools. http://scitools.com and I don't work for them. I just wholeheartedly like their product. In fact I wrote a C# API that wraps their C API and posted it on CodePlex a few years ago. Sure beats using C or Perl to write static analysis tools.
I don't think what you're trying to do is a good idea. Those who will maintain code after you will have hard times to understand it.
Maybe instead of it you'll try see how you can do it in plan C++. One possible solution which comes to mind i to implement factory design pattern. Than you can iterate over all data types in factory and add then to superList.
Any way, using ack (simple grep replacement) can do the job if you always declare the inheritence in one line:
ack ": *public ParticularClass" *.h
I had a question about boost python. I've been working on exporting some functionality of a project into boost python, and I haven't found a way to solve the following problem:
I have a set of StatusEffect objects that i store and use throughout the game. At the game startup, I want to be able to call a python script that will populate/add to the set of status effect objects. I'm having no problems exposing the StatusEffect class and it's derived class to python and calling the script.
The problem is that I'm storing that StatusEffect objects in an std::vector<boost::shared_ptr<StatusEffect> > Effects;
I have no idea how to create new instances of boost::shared_ptr<StatusEffect> aside from the method of adding a static create method as described here http://wiki.python.org/moin/boost.python/PointersAndSmartPointers Given the large number of constructors and the wide variety of derived classes I have, this seems an unoptimal solution at best. I'd like to be able to create instances of boost::shared_ptr directly using the constructors of the StatusEffect objects, and be able to add those to the vector. Is this possible?
An answer or some helpful suggestions would be helpful. I asked a simialr question yesterday but unfortunately it wasn't of much help.
Thanks in advance
I hope I am understanding your question. If you declare your python class with the shared_ptr as shown at http://wiki.python.org/moin/boost.python/PointersAndSmartPointers, then boost::python will automatically convert StatusEffect objects you create in python to shared_ptr<StatusEffect> if necessary (you can try this e.g. by .def-ing a function which takes const shared_ptr<StatusEffect>& or shared_ptr<StatusEffect> as argument, and call it with StatusEffect instance created in python.
If you want to assign an attribute of type vector<shared_ptr<StatusEffect> >, you must create converters for it (from python sequences, and back), that's described in documentation. For an example, see c++ to python converter template (line 120), python to c++ template (line 127), and then using it for various types (including shared_ptr's) contained in the sequences (line 212).
Then you can write something like yourObject.listOfStatusEffects=[StatusEffect(),StatusEffect(),StatusEffect()]
I am developing a C++ application used to simulate a real world scenario. Based on this simulation our team is going to develop, test and evaluate different algorithms working within such a real world scenrio.
We need the possibility to define several scenarios (they might differ in a few parameters, but a future scenario might also require creating objects of new classes) and the possibility to maintain a set of algorithms (which is, again, a set of parameters but also the definition which classes are to be created). Parameters are passed to the classes in the constructor.
I am wondering which is the best way to manage all the scenario and algorithm configurations. It should be easily possible to have one developer work on one scenario with "his" algorithm and another developer working on another scenario with "his" different algorithm. Still, the parameter sets might be huge and should be "sharable" (if I defined a set of parameters for a certain algorithm in Scenario A, it should be possible to use the algorithm in Scenario B without copy&paste).
It seems like there are two main ways to accomplish my task:
Define a configuration file format that can handle my requirements. This format might be XML based or custom. As there is no C#-like reflection in C++, it seems like I have to update the config-file parser each time a new algorithm class is added to project (in order to convert a string like "MyClass" into a new instance of MyClass). I could create a name for every setup and pass this name as command line argument.
The pros are: no compilation required to change a parameter and re-run, I can easily store the whole config file with the simulation results
contra: seems like a lot of effort, especially hard because I am using a lot of template classes that have to be instantiated with given template arguments. No IDE support for writing the file (at least without creating a whole XSD which I would have to update everytime a parameter/class is added)
Wire everything up in C++ code. I am not completely sure how I would do this to separate all the different creation logic but still be able to reuse parameters across scenarios. I think I'd also try to give every setup a (string) name and use this name to select the setup via command line arg.
pro: type safety, IDE support, no parser needed
con: how can I easily store the setup with the results (maybe some serialization?)?, needs compilation after every parameter change
Now here are my questions:
- What is your opinion? Did I miss
important pros/cons?
- did I miss a third option?
- Is there a simple way to implement the config file approach that gives
me enough flexibility?
- How would you organize all the factory code in the seconde approach? Are there any good C++ examples for something like this out there?
Thanks a lot!
There is a way to do this without templates or reflection.
First, you make sure that all the classes you want to create from the configuration file have a common base class. Let's call this MyBaseClass and assume that MyClass1, MyClass2 and MyClass3 all inherit from it.
Second, you implement a factory function for each of MyClass1, MyClass2 and MyClass3. The signatures of all these factory functions must be identical. An example factory function is as follows.
MyBaseClass * create_MyClass1(Configuration & cfg)
{
// Retrieve config variables and pass as parameters
// to the constructor
int age = cfg->lookupInt("age");
std::string address = cfg->lookupString("address");
return new MyClass1(age, address);
}
Third, you register all the factory functions in a map.
typedef MyBaseClass* (*FactoryFunc)(Configuration *);
std::map<std::string, FactoryFunc> nameToFactoryFunc;
nameToFactoryFunc["MyClass1"] = &create_MyClass1;
nameToFactoryFunc["MyClass2"] = &create_MyClass2;
nameToFactoryFunc["MyClass3"] = &create_MyClass3;
Finally, you parse the configuration file and iterate over it to find all the entries that specify the name of a class. When you find such an entry, you look up its factory function in the nameToFactoryFunc table and invoke the function to create the corresponding object.
If you don't use XML, it's possible that boost::spirit could short-circuit at least some of the problems you are facing. Here's a simple example of how config data could be parsed directly into a class instance.
I found this website with a nice template supporting factory which I think will be used in my code.