So, it's been a while since I have written anything in C++ and now I'm working on a project using C++11 and macros.
I know that by using the stringify operator I can do this:
#define TEXT(a) #a //expands to "a"
How am I supposed to use the preprocessor for recognizing the tokens like + and * to do this:
#define TEXT(a)+ ??? //want to expand to "a+"
#define TEXT(a)* ??? //want to expand to "a*"
when the input has to be in that syntax?
I have tried doing that:
#define + "+"
but of course it doesn't work. How can I make the preprocessor recognize those tokens?
NOTE:
This is actually part of a project for a small language that defines and uses regular expressions, where the resulting string of the macros is to be used in a regex. The syntax is given and we have to use it as it is without making any changes to it.
eg
TEXT(a)+ is to be used to make the regular expression: std::regex("a+")
without changing the fact that TEXT(a) expands to "a"
First,
#define TEXT(a) #a
doesn't “convert to "a"”. a is just a name for a parameter. The macro expands to a string that contains whatever TEXT was called with. So TEXT(42 + rand()) will expand to "42 + rand()". Note that, if you pass a macro as parameter, the macro will not be expanded. TEXT(EXIT_SUCCESS) will expand to "EXIT_SUCCESS", not "0". If you want full expansion, add an additional layer of indirection and pass the argument to TEXT to another macro TEXT_R that does the stringification.
#define TEXT_R(STUFF) # STUFF
#define TEXT(STUFF) TEXT_R(STUFF)
Second, I'm not quite sure what you mean with TEXT(a)+ and TEXT(a)*. Do you want, say, TEXT(foo) to expand to "foo+"? I think the simplest solution in this case would be to use the implicit string literal concatenation.
#define TEXT_PLUS(STUFF) # STUFF "+"
#define TEXT_STAR(STUFF) # STUFF "*"
Or, if you want full expansion.
#define TEXT_R(STUFF) # STUFF
#define TEXT_PLUS(STUFF) TEXT_R(STUFF+)
#define TEXT_STAR(STUFF) TEXT_R(STUFF*)
Your assignment is impossible to solve in C++. You either misunderstood something or there’s an error in the project specification. At any rate, we’ve got a problem here:
TEXT(a)+ is to be used to make the regular expression: std::regex("a+") without changing the fact that TEXT(a) expands to "a" [my emphasis]
TEXT(a) expands to "a" — meaning, we can just replace TEXT(a) everywhere in your example; after all, that’s exactly what the preprocessor does. In other words, you want the compiler to transform this C++ code
"a"+
into
std::regex("a+")
And that’s simply impossible, because the C++ preprocess does not allow expanding the + token.
The best we can do in C++ is use operator overloading to generate the desired code. However, there are two obstacles:
You can only overload operators on custom types, and "a" isn’t a custom type; its type is char const[2] (why 2? Null termination!).
Postfix-+ is not a valid C++ operator and cannot be overloaded.
If your assignment had just been a little different, it would work. In fact, if your assignment had said that TEXT(a)++ should produce the desired result, and that you are allowed to change the definition of TEXT to output something other than "a", then we’d be in business:
#include <string>
#include <regex>
#define TEXT(a) my_regex_token(#a)
struct my_regex_token {
std::string value;
my_regex_token(std::string value) : value{value} {}
// Implicit conversion to `std::regex` — to be handled with care.
operator std::regex() const {
return std::regex{value};
}
// Operators
my_regex_token operator ++(int) const {
return my_regex_token{value + "+"};
}
// more operators …
};
int main() {
std::regex x = TEXT(a)++;
}
You don't want to jab characters onto the end of macros.
Maybe you simply want something like this:
#define TEXT(a, b) #a #b
that way TEXT(a, +) gets expanded to "a" "+" and TEXT(a, *) to "a" "*"
If you need that exact syntax, then use a helper macro, like:
#define TEXT(a) #a
#define ADDTEXT(x, y) TEXT(x ## y)
that way, ADDTEXT(a, +) gets expanded to "a+" and ADDTEXT(a, *) gets expanded to "a*"
You can do it this way too:
#define TEXT(a) "+" // "a" "+" -> "a+"
#define TEXT(a) "*" // "a" "*" -> "a*"
Two string literals in C/C++ will be joined into single literal by specification.
Related
I have defined the following macros:
#define START(x) A("start")-
#define ONE(x) -A(#x)
#define END -A("end");
and in my simple main i have:
(START ONE(one)) ONE(two) END
where A("") is a call to constructor of class A. I have made all the operators overload that are necessary, binary and unary minus, yet the compiler outputs that i miss a parenthesis.
What i would like to ask is how exactly the preprocessor replaces my macros into my code because when i run:
(A("start") - - A("one")) - A("two") - A("end");
it compiles without a problem.
(START ONE("one")) ONE("two") END
This will be expanded to this:
(START -A("\"one\"")) -A("\"two\"") -A("end");
The differences between the real result and your expectation is that START is not expanded and "one" and "two" have their quotes escaped.
To get what you want, START should not take arguments and you should not use the stringify operator in ONE:
#define START A("start")-
#define ONE(x) -A(x)
#define END -A("end");
The below code should output 100 to my knowledge of stringification. vstr(s) should be expanded with value of 100 then str(s) gets 100 and it should return the string "100". But, it outputs "a" instead. What is the reason? But, if I call with macro defined constant foo then it output "100". Why?
#include<stdio.h>
#define vstr(s) str(s)
#define str(s) #s
#define foo 100
int main()
{
int a = 100;
puts(vstr(a));
puts(vstr(foo));
return 0;
}
The reason is that preprocessors operate on tokens passed into them, not on values associated with those tokens.
#include <stdio.h>
#define vstr(s) str(s)
#define str(s) #s
int main()
{
puts(vstr(10+10));
return 0;
}
Outputs:
10+10
The # stringizing operator is part of the preprocessor. It's evaluated at compile time. It can't get the value of a variable at execution time, then somehow magically convert that to something it could have known at compile time.
If you want to convert an execution-time variable into a string at execution time, you need to use a function like std::to_string.
Since vstr is preprocessed, the line
puts(vstr(a));
is translated as:
puts("a");
The value of the variable a plays no role in that line. You can remove the line
int a = 100;
and the program will behave identically.
Stringification is the process of transforming something into a string. What your macro stringifies ?
Actually the name of the variable itself, this is done at compilation-time.
If you want to stringify and then print the value of the variable at execution-time, then you must used something like printf("%\n",v); in C or cout << v << endl; in C++.
A preprocessor macro is not the same thing as a function, it does not expand the arguments at runtime and sees the value, but rather processes it at preprocessing stage (which is before compilation, so it doesn't even know the variables dependency).
In this case, you've passed the macro a to stringify, which it did. The preprocessor doesn't care a is also the name of a variable.
I am trying to do something like:
custommacro x;
which would expand into:
declareSomething; int x; declareOtherthing;
Is this even possible?
I already tricked it once with operator= to behave like that, but it can't be done with declarations.
You can elide the parentheses as long as you are willing to accept two additions:
the whole code needs to be wrapped in a block macro
there needs to be something following the echo directive
e.g. thusly:
#define LPAREN (
#define echo ECHO_MACRO LPAREN
#define done )
#define ECHO_MACRO(X) std::cout << (X) << "\n"
#define DSL(X) X
...
DSL(
echo "Look ma, no brains!" done;
)
...
Reasons for this:
There is no way to make a function-like macro expand without parentheses. This is just a basic requirement of the macro language; if you want something else investigate a different macro processor
Therefore, we need to insert the parentheses; in turn we need to have something after the directive, like a done macro, that will expand to a form containinf the necessary close paren
Unfortunately, because the echo ... done form didn't look like a macro invocation to the preprocessor, it wasn't marked for expansion when the preprocessor entered it, and whether we put parens in or not is irrelevant. Just using echo ... done will therefore dump an ECHO_MACRO call in the text
Text is re-scanned, marked for expansion, and expanded again when it is the argument to a function-like macro, so wrapping the entire block with a block macro (here it's DSL) will cause the call to ECHO_MACRO to be expanded on this rescan pass (DSL doesn't do anything with the result: it exists just to force the rescan)
We need to hide the ( in the expansion of echo behind the simple macro LPAREN, because otherwise the unmatched parenthesis in the macro body will confuse the preprocessor
If you wanted to create an entire domain-specific language for such commands, you could also reduce the number of done commands by making the core commands even more unwieldy:
#define LPAREN (
#define begin NO_OP LPAREN 0
#define done );
#define echo ); ECHO_MACRO LPAREN
#define write ); WRITE_MACRO LPAREN
#define add ); ADD_MACRO LPAREN
#define sub ); SUB_MACRO LPAREN
#define NO_OP(X)
#define ECHO_MACRO(X) std::cout << (X) << "\n"
#define WRITE_MACRO(X) std::cout << (X)
#define ADD_MACRO(D, L, R) (D) = (L) + (R)
#define SUB_MACRO(D, L, R) (D) = (L) - (R)
#define DSL(X) DSL_2 X
#define DSL_2(X) X
int main(void) {
int a, b;
DSL((
begin
add a, 42, 47
sub b, 64, 50
write "a is: "
echo a
write "b is: "
echo b
done
))
return 0;
}
In this form, each command is pre-designed to close the preceding command, so that only the last one needs a done; you need a begin line so that there's an open command for the first real operation to close, otherwise the parens will mismatch.
Messing about like this is much easier in C than in C++, as C's preprocessor is more powerful (it supports __VA_ARGS__ which are pretty much essential for complicated macro metaprogramming).
Oh yeah, and one other thing -
...please never do this in real code.
I understand what you're trying to do and it simply can't be done. A macro is only text replacement, it has no knowledge of what comes after it, so trying to do custommacro x will expand to whatever custommacro is, a space, and then x, which just won't work semantically.
Also, about your echo hack: this is actually very simple with the use of operators in C++:
#include <iostream>
#define echo std::cout <<
int main()
{
echo "Hello World!";
}
But you really shouldn't be writing code like this (that is, using macros and a psuedo-echo hack). You should write code that conforms to the syntax of the language and the semantics of what you're trying to do. If you want to write to standard output use std::cout. Moreover, if you want to use echo, make a function called echo that invokes std::cout internally, but don't hack the features of the language to create your own.
You could use for-loop and GnuC statement expression extension.
#define MY_MACRO\
FOR_MACRO(_uniq##__COUNTER__##name,{/*declareSomething*/ },{ /* declareOtherthing */ }) int
#define FOR_MACRO(NAME,FST_BLOCK,SND_BLOCK)\
for(int NAME = ({FST_BLOCK ;0;}); NAME<1 ; NAME++,(SND_BLOCK))
It's "practically hygienic", though this means that whatever you do inside those code blocks wont escape the for-loop scope.
I have a macro defined in C something like this:
#define SOME_FIELD(_A_,_B_,_C_) \
MyObj[ ## _A_ ## ].somePTR = \
(DWORD_PTR) (buff_ ## _C_ ## _C_ ## _ ## _B_ ## );
What i can understand that for index A we are getting some value for "somePTR". My question is, What is ## <name> ## notation for and with this how value of somePTR is calculated??
I am new to such a macro so a descriptive explanation would be very helpful.
That is called token concatenation. It allows you to glue arguments together.
For your example, SOME_FIELD(Param1,Param2,Param3); expands like this:
MyObj[Param1].somePTR = (DWORD_PTR) (buff_Param3Param3_Param2);
It's easy enough to try this out yourself by using your compiler's pre-processor. You don't generally need to go to the trouble of writing a fully-fledged C program—the pre-processor can generally be invoked by itself.
That's preprocessor token pasting
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/09dwwt6y(v=vs.80).aspx
It will copy the actual parameter token as a string literal, so read it like
// preprocessor_token_pasting.cpp
#include <stdio.h>
#define paster( n ) printf_s( "token" #n " = %d", token##n )
int token9 = 9;
int main()
{
paster(9);
}
the ## is concatenation primitive, it's used to create nwe symbols.
It's useful to create names in macro:
#define GENERIC_GETTER(f,g) (g->member_ ## f )
GENERIC_GETTER(a,b) will create (b->member_a) (new symbol created). If you don't use sharp-sharp, it would create (b->member_ a) (not glued together)
Normally, the ## operator concatenates two tokens: it requires a legal
token on the left and a legal token on the right, and results in a new
token. In your case, the first line in the macro
(MyObj[ ## _A_ ## ].somePtr = \) is
illegal, and results in undefined behavior. Most implementations just
concatenate the strings, then retokenize once they've finished all of
the substitutions, so it will work, but it's not guaranteed. And as far
as I can tell here, it's not necessary. In the second line, on the
other hand, you are generating a new token. If you invoke the macro:
SOME_FIELD(x,y,z);
it will expand to:
MyObj[x].somePtr = (DWORD_PTR)(buff_zzy);
(I might add that the use of symbols like _A_, _B_ and _C_ is also
undefined behavior. A symbol starting with an underscore followed by a
capital letter is in the namespace of the implementation.)
#define STR1 "s"
#define STR2 "1"
#define STR3 STR1 ## STR2
Is it possible to concatenate STR1 and STR2, to "s1"?
You can do this by passing args to another Macro function. But is there a direct way?
If they're both strings you can just do:
#define STR3 STR1 STR2
This then expands to:
#define STR3 "s" "1"
and in the C language, separating two strings with space as in "s" "1" is exactly equivalent to having a single string "s1".
You don't need that sort of solution for string literals, since they are concatenated at the language level, and it wouldn't work anyway because "s""1" isn't a valid preprocessor token.
[Edit: In response to the incorrect "Just for the record" comment below that unfortunately received several upvotes, I will reiterate the statement above and observe that the program fragment
#define PPCAT_NX(A, B) A ## B
PPCAT_NX("s", "1")
produces this error message from the preprocessing phase of gcc: error: pasting ""s"" and ""1"" does not give a valid preprocessing token
]
However, for general token pasting, try this:
/*
* Concatenate preprocessor tokens A and B without expanding macro definitions
* (however, if invoked from a macro, macro arguments are expanded).
*/
#define PPCAT_NX(A, B) A ## B
/*
* Concatenate preprocessor tokens A and B after macro-expanding them.
*/
#define PPCAT(A, B) PPCAT_NX(A, B)
Then, e.g., both PPCAT_NX(s, 1) and PPCAT(s, 1) produce the identifier s1, unless s is defined as a macro, in which case PPCAT(s, 1) produces <macro value of s>1.
Continuing on the theme are these macros:
/*
* Turn A into a string literal without expanding macro definitions
* (however, if invoked from a macro, macro arguments are expanded).
*/
#define STRINGIZE_NX(A) #A
/*
* Turn A into a string literal after macro-expanding it.
*/
#define STRINGIZE(A) STRINGIZE_NX(A)
Then,
#define T1 s
#define T2 1
STRINGIZE(PPCAT(T1, T2)) // produces "s1"
By contrast,
STRINGIZE(PPCAT_NX(T1, T2)) // produces "T1T2"
STRINGIZE_NX(PPCAT_NX(T1, T2)) // produces "PPCAT_NX(T1, T2)"
#define T1T2 visit the zoo
STRINGIZE(PPCAT_NX(T1, T2)) // produces "visit the zoo"
STRINGIZE_NX(PPCAT(T1, T2)) // produces "PPCAT(T1, T2)"
Hint: The STRINGIZE macro above is cool, but if you make a mistake and its argument isn't a macro - you had a typo in the name, or forgot to #include the header file - then the compiler will happily put the purported macro name into the string with no error.
If you intend that the argument to STRINGIZE is always a macro with a normal C value, then
#define STRINGIZE(A) ((A),STRINGIZE_NX(A))
will expand it once and check it for validity, discard that, and then expand it again into a string.
It took me a while to figure out why STRINGIZE(ENOENT) was ending up as "ENOENT" instead of "2"... I hadn't included errno.h.