I have a base class Base, with many derived classes (eg. Derived1, Derived2). Base has a pure virtual function fn, which is called many times using a Base pointer. Every time the function is called, I need to do some extra logging and related stuff. In particular, I use BOOST_CURRENT_FUNCTION in the derived-class functions to find out which function was called. Is there a way to know this information before calling the function, so that I do not have to rewrite the bookkeeping code in every derived function?
Edit: I wish to avoid writing __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ in each derived function.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Base {
public:
virtual void fn() = 0;
};
class Derived1:public Base {
public:
void fn() {
cout<<__PRETTY_FUNCTION__<<endl;
}
};
class Derived2:public Base {
public:
void fn() {
cout<<__PRETTY_FUNCTION__<<endl;
}
};
int main()
{
int choice =0;
Base *ptr1 = nullptr;
cout<<"Choose 0/1: "<<endl;
cin>>choice;
if(choice == 0) {
ptr1 = new Derived1;
}else {
ptr1 = new Derived2;
}
//********CAN I WRITE SOMETHING HERE, TO GIVE THE SAME RESULT?
ptr1->fn();
}
No, it cannot be. C++ does not support this kind of introspection. __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ is all you're gonna get.
From your description it seems you migth have a design issue. Have you considered using the template method design patter? The idea is to have your base class implement the common functionality and through virtual functions implement the specifics in your derived classes.
One idea is to implement the base pure virtual function and call it in each derived override. In the base one you increment a static counter. Something like:
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
struct Base
{
static size_t counter;
virtual void f() = 0;
virtual ~Base() = default;
};
size_t Base::counter{0};
void Base::f() // IMPLEMENTATION, yes it's possible to implement a pure virtual function
{
++counter;
}
struct Derived1: Base
{
void f() override
{
Base::f(); // increment the counter
std::cout << "Derived1::f()\n";
}
};
struct Derived2: Base
{
void f() override
{
Base::f(); // increment the counter
std::cout << "Derived2::f()\n";
}
};
int main()
{
std::unique_ptr<Base> pBase1{new Derived1};
std::unique_ptr<Base> pBase2{new Derived2};
pBase1->f();
pBase1->f();
pBase2->f();
std::cout << Base::counter << std::endl; // outputs 3
}
Live on Wandbox
If I'm not wrong I believe this is an instance of the Template Method design pattern mentioned by #LordDosias. There is no other intrinsic way of getting this information out from the language, as C++ does not have genuine runtime reflection capabilities.
Well, aside from wrapping your macro in another macro that is smaller/shorter/does more, there is nothing that will provide the name of a function for you.
#define WHERE cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << endl
...
void fn() {
WHERE;
}
This also means you can turn on/off the tracing trivially:
#if TRACING
#define WHERE cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << endl
#else
#define WHERE
#endif
(You may want to wrap that in do { ... } while(0) in both sides to avoid problems if you were to put a WHERE inside an if, or some such, and still want it to work correctly when when it's "nothing")
The simplest answer is that, since C++ doesn't have auxiliary methods, you have to split the implementation of fn into a utility wrapper and the virtual function proper:
class Base {
protected:
virtual void fn_impl() = 0;
public:
void fn() { fn_impl(); }
};
class BaseWithLogging: public Base {
public:
void fn(); {
/* do logging */
fn_impl();
}
};
If you want the logs to capture the exact identity of the virtual (function name, file, line number, ...) which is actually, then there is no workaround for that; the boilerplate has to go into the function.
The crusty old preprocessor can be of help. E.g. simple-minded illustration:
#define LOG (cout<<__PRETTY_FUNCTION__<<endl)
and then you just have
LOG;
at the beginning of the function.
Related
I have a base interface, declaration like this - IBaseTest.h:
#pragma once
template <class T1>
class IBaseTest
{
public:
virtual ~IBaseTest();
virtual T1 DoSomething() = 0;
};
And two children who overrides DoSomething() CBaseTest1 claass in - BaseTest1.h:
#pragma once
#include "IBaseTest.h"
class CBaseTest1: public IBaseTest<int>
{
public:
virtual int DoSomething();
};
BaseTest1.cpp:
#include "BaseTest1.h"
int CBaseTest1::DoSomething()
{
return -1;
}
And CBaseTest2 in - BaseTest2.h
#pragma once
#include "IBaseTest.h"
class CBaseTest2: public IBaseTest<long long>
{
public:
virtual long long DoSomething();
};
BaseTest2.cpp:
#include "BaseTest2.h"
long long CBaseTest2::DoSomething()
{
return -2;
}
So CBaseTest1::DoSomething() overrides return type to int, and CBaseTest2::DoSomething() to long long. Now, i want to use a pointer to the base interface, to work with those classes, and there i have the problem:
#include "IBaseTest.h"
#include "BaseTest1.h"
#include "BaseTest2.h"
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
IBaseTest<T1> * pBase = NULL;
pBase = new CBaseTest1();
cout << pBase->DoSomething() << endl;
pBase = new CBaseTest2();
cout << pBase->DoSomething() << endl;
getchar();
return 0;
}
The problem is i cannot declare IBaseTest<T1> * pBase = NULL; T1 is undefined. If declare the template before _tmain like this:
template <class T1>
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
...
}
I get: error C2988: unrecognizable template declaration/definition
So what do i put here instead of T1?
IBaseTest<??> * pBase = NULL;
The problem is that T1 parameter needs to be known when you instantiate an object of the template class IBaseTest. Technically, IBaseTest<int> and IBaseTest<long long> are two different types without a common base and C++ does not allow you to declare a variable IBaseTest<T1> pBase = NULL; where T1 is determined at runtime. What you are trying to achieve is something that would be possible in a dynamically typed language, but not in C++ because it is statically typed.
However, if you know the expected return type of DoSomething whenever you call that method, you can sort of make your example to work. First, you need to introduce a common base class that is not a template:
#include <typeinfo>
#include <typeindex>
#include <assert.h>
class IDynamicBase {
public:
virtual std::type_index type() const = 0;
virtual void doSomethingVoid(void* output) = 0;
template <typename T>
T doSomething() {
assert(type() == typeid(T));
T result;
doSomethingVoid(&result);
return result;
}
virtual ~IDynamicBase() {}
};
Note that it has a template method called doSomething that takes a type parameter for the return value. This is the method that we will call later.
Now, modify your previous IBaseTest to extend IDynamicBase:
template <class T1>
class IBaseTest : public IDynamicBase
{
public:
std::type_index type() const {return typeid(T1);}
void doSomethingVoid(void* output) {
*(reinterpret_cast<T1*>(output)) = DoSomething();
}
virtual T1 DoSomething() = 0;
virtual ~IBaseTest() {}
};
You don't need to change CBaseTest1 or CBaseTest2.
Finally, you can now write the code in your main function like this:
IDynamicBase* pBase = nullptr;
pBase = new CBaseTest1();
std::cout << pBase->doSomething<int>() << std::endl;
pBase = new CBaseTest2();
std::cout << pBase->doSomething<long long>() << std::endl;
Note that instead of calling pBase->DoSomething(), we now call pBase->doSomething<T>() where T is a type that must be known statically where we call the method and we provide that type at the call site, e.g. pBase->doSomething<int>().
The language does not allows to do directly what you are trying to do. At that point, you should ask yourself if that is the right solution for the problem.
The first approach that might work well assuming that you don't have too much different operations to do for each type would be to simply do the action in the function itself instead of returning type that are not related through inheritance.
class IBaseTest
{
public:
virtual void OutputTo(std::ostream &os) = 0;
};
class CBaseTest1
{
public:
virtual void OutputTo(std::ostream &os) override;
private:
int DoSomething();
};
void CBaseTest1OutputTo(std::ostream &os)
{
os << DoSomething() << std::endl;
}
If you have only a few types but a lot of operation, you might use the visitor pattern instead.
If you mainly have operation that depends on type, you could use:
class IVisitor
{
public:
virtual void Visit(int value) = 0;
virtual void Visit(long value) = 0;
};
Otherwise, use that which is more general
class IVisitor
{
public:
virtual void Visit (CBaseTest1 &test1) = 0;
virtual void Visit (CBaseTest2 &test2) = 0;
};
Then in your classes add an apply function
class IBaseTest
{
public:
virtual void Apply(IVisitor &visitor) = 0;
};
In each derived class, you implement the Apply function:
void CBaseTest1 : public IBaseTest
{
virtual void Apply(IVisitor &visitor) override
{
visitor.Visit(this->DoSomething()); // If you use first IVisitor definition
visitor.Visit(*this); // If you use second definition
};
And for creation purpose, you could have a factory that return the appropriate class from a type tag if you need to create those class from say a file…
One example assuming you want a new object each time:
enum class TypeTag { Integer = 1, LongInteger = 2 };
std::unique_ptr<IBaseTest> MakeObjectForTypeTag(TypeTag typeTag)
{
switch (typeTag)
{
case TypeTag::Integer : return new CBaseTest1();
case TypeTag::LongInteger : return new CBaseTest2();
}
}
So the only time you would do a switch statement is when you are creating an object… You could also use a map or even an array for that...
The right approach depends on your actual problem.
How many CBaseClass* do you have?
Do you expect to add other classes? Often?
How many operations similar to DoSomething() do you have?
How many actions that works on the result of DoSomething do you have?
Do you expect to add other actions? Often?
By responding to those questions, it will be much easier to take the right decision. If the action are stables (and you only have a few one), then specific virtual functions like OutputToabove is more appropriate. But if you have dozen of operation but don't expect much changes to ITestBase class hierarchy, then visitor solution is more appropriate.
And the reason why a given solution is more appropriate in a given context is mainly the maintenance effort when adding classes or actions in the future. You typically want that the most frequent change (adding a class or an action) require les changes everywhere in the code.
The same question exists for C#, but does not apply to C++.
class Base
{
void dispatch()
{
if (newStyleHasBeenOverridden()) //how to find this out?
newStyle(42);
else
oldStyle(1, 2);
}
virtual void oldStyle(int, int) { throw "Implement me!"; }
virtual void newStyle(int) { throw "Implement me!"; }
}
class Derived:public Base
{
void newStyle(int) override
{
std::cout<<"Success!";
}
}
WARNING: This solution is not cross-platform in that it relies on a GCC extension and some undefined behavior.
GCC allows a syntax to grab the pointer to the function from the vtable of this by saying this->*&ClassName::functionName. It is probably not a good idea to actually use this, but here's a demo anyway:
#include <iostream>
class Base {
public:
void foo() {
auto base_bar_addr = reinterpret_cast<void*>(&Base::bar);
auto this_bar_addr = reinterpret_cast<void*>(this->*&Base::bar);
std::cout << (base_bar_addr == this_bar_addr ? "not overridden" : "overridden") << std::endl;
}
virtual void bar() { };
};
class Regular : public Base { };
class Overriding : public Base {
public:
virtual void bar() { };
};
int main() {
Regular r;
r.foo();
Overriding o;
o.foo();
}
And for posterity:
ICC allows the syntax, but it has a different meaning, which is the same as just saying &Base::bar, so you'll always think it isn't being overridden.
Clang and MSVC reject the code outright.
This is a design problem.
However, in the interest of answering the actual question, there are a couple ways you could accomplish this without a redesign (but really, you should redesign it).
One (terrible) option is to call the newstyle method and catch the exception that occurs if it's not overridden.
void dispatch() {
try {
newStyle(42);
} catch (const char *) {
oldStyle(1, 2);
}
}
If newStyle has been overridden, the override will be called. Otherwise, the base implementation will throw, which dispatch will catch and then fall back to oldStyle. This is an abuse of exceptions and it will perform poorly.
Another (slightly less terrible) approach is to make the base implementation of newStyle forward to oldStyle.
void dispatch() {
newStyle(42);
}
virtual void newStyle(int) { oldStyle(1, 2); }
virtual void oldStyle(int, int) { throw "implement me"; }
This at least moves in the direction of a better design. The point of inheritance is to allow high level code to be able to use objects interchangeably, regardless of their specialization. If dispatch has to inspect the actual object type, then you've violated the Liskov Substitution Principle. Dispatch should be able to treat all the objects the same way, and any differences in behavior should arise from the overridden methods themselves (rather than the existence of overrides).
Making things simpler, the dispatch decision is done by the Derived class. Abstract Base class is basically just an "interface" where the Derived class should implement all virtual functions.
The problem too sounded like an XY problem.
I thought this is what you want:
class Base // abstract class
{
virtual void oldStyle(int, int) = 0; // pure virtual functions
virtual void newStyle(int) = 0; // needs to be implemented
};
class Derived:public Base
{
public:
Derived(bool useNewStyle): _useNewStyle(useNewStyle) {}
void newStyle(int) { std::cout << "new style"; }
void oldStyle(int, int) { std::cout << "old style"; }
void dispatch()
{
if (_useNewStyle) {
newStyle(42);
return;
}
oldStyle(1, 2);
return;
}
private:
bool _useNewStyle = false;
};
Derived d(true); // use new style
d.dispatch(); // "new style"
I was wondering whether there's a way to override a function for a specific instance only. For ex,
class A
{
public:
...
void update();
...
}
int main()
{
...
A *first_instance = new A();
// I want this to have a specific update() function.
// ex. void update() { functionA(); functionB(); ... }
A *second_instance = new A();
// I want this to have a different update() function than the above one.
// ex. void update() { functionZ(); functionY(); ...}
A *third_instance = new A();
// ....so on.
...
}
Is there a way to achieve this?
I think virtual function is just what you want, with virtual function, different instances of the same type can have different functions, but you need to inherit the base class. for example
class A
{
public:
...
virtual void update()
{
std::cout << "Class A\n";
}
...
};
class B: public A
{
public:
virtual void update()
{
std::cout << "Class B\n";
}
};
class C: public A
{
public:
virtual void update()
{
std::cout << "Class C\n";
}
};
int main()
{
...
A *first_instance = new A();
// I want this to have a specific update() function.
// ex. void update() { functionA(); functionB(); ... }
A *second_instance = new B();
// I want this to have a different update() function than the above one.
// ex. void update() { functionZ(); functionY(); ...}
A *third_instance = new C();
// ....so on.
...
}
each instance in the above code will bind different update functions.
Besides, you can also use function pointer to implement your requirement, but it is not recommended. For example
class A
{
public:
A(void(*u)())
{
this->update = u;
}
...
void (*update)();
};
void a_update()
{
std::cout << "update A\n";
}
void b_update()
{
std::cout << "update B\n";
}
void c_update()
{
std::cout << "update C\n";
}
int main()
{
...
A first_instance(a_update);
// I want this to have a specific update() function.
// ex. void update() { functionA(); functionB(); ... }
A second_instance(b_update);
// I want this to have a different update() function than the above one.
// ex. void update() { functionZ(); functionY(); ...}
A third_instance(c_update);
// ....so on.
...
}
Hope helps!
Hold a function in the class.
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
using namespace std;
class Foo
{
public:
Foo(const function<void ()>& f) : func(f)
{
}
void callFunc()
{
func();
}
private:
function<void ()> func;
};
void printFoo() { cout<<"foo"<<endl; }
void printBar() { cout<<"bar"<<endl; }
int main()
{
Foo a(printFoo);
Foo b(printBar);
a.callFunc();
b.callFunc();
}
You may have noticed that the end brace of a class is often followed by a semicolon, whereas the end braces of functions, while loops etc don't. There's a reason for this, which relates to a feature of struct in C. Because a class is almost identical to a struct, this feature exists for C++ classes too.
Basically, a struct in C may declare a named instance instead of (or as well as) a named "type" (scare quotes because a struct type in C isn't a valid type name in itself). A C++ class can therefore do the same thing, though AFAIK there may be severe limitations on what else that class can do.
I'm not in a position to check at the moment, and it's certainly not something I remember using, but that may mean you can declare a named class instance inheriting from a base class without giving it a class name. There will still be a derived type, but it will be anonymous.
If valid at all, it should look something like...
class : public baseclass // note - no derived class name
{
public:
virtual funcname ()
{
...
}
} instancename;
Personally, even if this is valid, I'd avoid using it for a number of reasons. For example, the lack of a class name means that it's not possible to define member functions separately. That means that the whole class declaration and definition must go where you want the instance declared - a lot of clutter to drop in the middle of a function, or even in a list of global variables.
With no class name, there's presumably no way to declare a constructor or destructor. And if you have non-default constructors from the base class, AFAIK there's no way to specify constructor parameters with this.
And as I said, I haven't checked this - that syntax may well be illegal as well as ugly.
Some more practical approaches to varying behaviour per-instance include...
Using dependency injection - e.g. providing a function pointer or class instance (or lambda) for some part of the behavior as a constructor parameter.
Using a template class - effectively compile-time dependency injection, with the dependency provided as a function parameter to the template.
I think it will be the best if you'll tell us why do you need to override a function for a specific instance.
But here's another approach: Strategy pattern.
Your class need a member that represent some behaviour. So you're creating some abstract class that will be an interface for different behaviours, then you'll implement different behaviours in subclasses of that abstract class. So you can choose those behaviours for any object at any time.
class A;//forward declaration
class Updater
{
public:
virtual ~Updater() {};//don't forget about virtual destructor, though it's not needed in this case of class containing only one function
virtual void update(A&) = 0;
}
class SomeUpdater
{
public:
virtual void update(A & a);//concrete realisation of an update() method
}
class A
{
private:
Updater mUpdater;
public:
explicit A(Updater updater);//constructor takes an updater, let's pretend we want to choose a behaviour once for a lifetime of an object - at creation
void update()
{
mUpdater.update(this);
}
}
You can use local classes, yet, personally, I consider the "hold function in the class" approach mentioned in the other answer better. I'd recommend the following approach only if doFunc must access internals of your base class, which is not possible from a function held in a member variable:
class ABase {
public:
void Func () { this->doFunc (); }
private:
virtual void doFunc () = 0;
public:
virtual ~ABase () { }
};
ABase* makeFirstA () {
class MyA : public ABase {
virtual void doFunc () { std::cout << "First A"; }
};
return new MyA;
}
ABase* makeSecondA () {
class MyA : public ABase {
virtual void doFunc () { std::cout << "Second A"; }
};
return new MyA;
}
int main () {
std::shared_ptr<ABase> first (makeFirstA ());
std::shared_ptr<ABase> second (makeSecondA ());
first->Func ();
second->Func ();
}
From a design patterns point of view, the "local classes" approach implements the template method pattern, while the "hold a function(al) in a member variable" approach reflects the strategy pattern. Which one is more appropriate depends on what you need to achieve.
I wrote some code and got scared that it will not work - so I wrote a prototype:
#include <boost/function.hpp>
#include <boost/bind.hpp>
#include <iostream>
class base {
private:
boost::function<void (int)> action;
protected:
virtual void onDataBaseReady(int i) { std::cout << i << std::endl; }
public:
void call() {
action(10);
}
base() {
action = boost::bind(&base::onDataBaseReady, this, _1);
}
};
class child : public base {
protected:
virtual void onDataBaseReady(int i) { std::cout << i+10 << std::endl; }
};
int main()
{
static child c;
c.call();
std::cin.get();
return 0;
}
that compiles and works. (outputs 20). But Why? Also I tested under VS2010 and wonder if it would work across platforms (say compiled under GCC)?
Mainly action = boost::bind(&base::onDataBaseReady, this, _1); scares me - we say &base::...
A pointer to a virtual method does a virtual function lookup when called.
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
struct base {
virtual void foo() { std::cout << "base\n"; }
virtual ~base() {}
};
struct derived:base {
void foo() override final { std::cout << "derived\n"; }
};
int main() {
void (base::*mem_ptr)() = &base::foo;
std::unique_ptr<base> d( new derived() );
base* b = d.get();
(b->*mem_ptr)();
}
so, it "just works". The member function pointer (this->*&base::foo)() is not the same as a fully qualified function call this->base::foo(). The first is a way to store the foo part of calling this->foo(), the second is a way to skip virtual method lookup and directly call base::foo.
Mainly action = boost::bind(&base::onDataBaseReady, this, _1); scares me - we say &base::...
It would actually be much more scary if it performed static dispatch, rather than dynamic dispatch. Consider this simple example:
struct base {
virtual void foo() { /* maintain some invariants */ }
};
struct derived : base {
virtual void foo() { /* maintain different invariants */ }
};
And then consider that you bind the function at the parent and call it on the derived object. The implementor of derived knows what invariants apply to the derived type, which might be the same, a subset or completely different than the invariants in the base type.
void apply(base & b) {
std::bind(&base::foo, &b)();
}
If dispatch was resolved at binding time, and the functor was applied to the derived type (of which you might not know the exact type!) then the invariants of the derived type might be broken. In the context of the apply function it is impossible to know what the object really is, or what the invariants of that type are, so what you probably want to do is let dynamic dispatch do its magic.
[That is from a high level design point of view, without even going into the detail that you cannot use a pointer to member to perform static dispatch...]
I'm trying to implement an event manager based on the linked code in the top answer here:
Game Objects Talking To Each Other
However I'm getting an error when I try to register the callbacks.
I'm sure it has to do with the typedef, and I admit I'm not sure how it works exactly, but it is in the exact same form in the linked code.
The B class should be inherriting from the Interface, so why is the type different?
I've condensed the code into the smallest example below.
#include <iostream>
class Interface;
typedef void (Interface::*Callback)(void *data);
class Interface
{
public:
void Register (Callback func);
};
void Interface::Register(Callback func)
{
std::cout << "Register" << std::endl;
}
class B : public Interface
{
public:
B();
void Echo(void *data);
};
B::B()
{
Register( (Callback)Echo );
}
void B::Echo(void *data)
{
std::cout << "Echo" << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
B b;
return 0;
}
Here's the error I get under g++ 4.6.1:
test.cpp: In constructor ‘B::B()’:
test.cpp:31:22: error: argument of type ‘void (B::)(void*)’ does not match ‘Callback {aka void (Interface::*)(void*)}’
Could anyone please explain what I'm doing wrong?
Thanks
As #Kerrek correctly pointed out, Echo is not a member of Interface, therefore B::Echo doesn't qualify as Interface::*Callback. But you can use a template to accomplish that, e.g.:
template <class T> class Interface {
public:
typedef void (T::*Callback)(void *data);
void Register(Callback func) {
std::cout << "Register" << std::endl;
}
// ...
};
class B : public Interface<B> {
public:
B() {
Register(&B::Echo);
}
void Echo(void *data) {
// Do something
}
};
I think you might be better off using std::function (c++11) or boost::function (c++03+boost)
#include <iostream>
class Interface;
typedef void (Interface::*Callback)(void *data);
class Interface
{
public:
std::function<void(void*)> register;
Interface(std::function<void(void*)> register_)
: register(register_) //intializer list
{}
virtual ~Interface(){} //put me in
};
void Interface::Register(Callback func)
{
std::cout << "Register" << std::endl;
}
class B : public Interface
{
public:
B();
void Echo(void *data);
};
B::B()
: Interface( std::bind(B::Echo, this) )
{}
void B::Echo(void *data)
{
std::cout << "Echo" << std::endl;
}
Although why you aren't using pure virtuals is beyond me
class Interface
{
public:
virtual void Echo(void*)=0;
};
void B::Echo(void *data) //implements Echo
{
std::cout << "Echo" << std::endl;
}
call interface->echo will call the child
if you need performance then use the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiously_recurring_template_pattern
And be very careful with void* they are generally considered bad.
EDIT ADDRESSING POINT IN COMMENTS: non pure virtuals
class Interface
{
public:
virtual ~Interface(){} //put me in
virtual void echo(void*){} //if implementation is not extended it will do nothing.
//others
};
This ins't Java, interfaces aren't a thing defined by the language. This way you can have an interface which you can pick can choose which part to implement, if a callback doesn't concern your class, then just don't implement it.
void* are bad for a whole host of reasons. from C++ FAQ
avoid void* (keep them inside low-level functions and data structures
if you really need them and present type safe interfaces, usually
templates, to your users)
http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html
search on "void*"
but basically void* bypass all the type safety that C++ went out of it's way adding. It is a hack in C to make up for the fact that it doesn't have any polymorphism or generic code.