I'm fairly new to c++ templates.
I have a class whose constructor takes two arguments. It's a class that keeps a list of data -- it's actually a list of moves in a chess program.
I need to keep my original class as it's used in other places, but I now need to pass extra arguments to the class, and in doing so have a few extra private data members and specialize only one of the private methods -- everything else will stay the same. I don't think a derived class helps me here, as they aren't going to be similar objects, and also the private methods are called by the constructor and it will call the virtual method of the base class -- not the derived method.
So I guess templates are going to be my answer. Just looking for any hints about how might proceed.
Thanks in advance
Your guess is wrong. Templates are no more the answer for your problem than inheritance is.
As jtbandes said in comment below your question, use composition.
Create another class that contains an instance of your existing class as a member. Forward or delegate operations to that contained object as needed (i.e. a member function in your new class calls member functions of the contained object). Add other members as needed, and operations to work with them.
Write your new code to interact with the new class. When your new code needs to interact with your old code, pass the contained object (or a reference or a pointer to it) as needed.
You might choose to implement the container as a template, but that is an implementation choice, and depends on how you wish to reuse your container.
Templates are used when you want to pass at compile time parameter like values,typenames, or classes. Templates are used when you want to use exactly the same class with the same methods, but applying it to different parameters. The case you described is not this I think.
If they aren't goign to be similar objects you may want to create a specialized class (or collections of function) to use from the various other classes.
Moreover you can think of creating a base class and extending it as needed. Using a virtual private method should allow you to select the method implementation of the object at runtime instead of the method of the base class.
We may help you more if you specify what does they need to share, what does your classes have in common?
The bare bones of my present code looks like this:
class move_list{
public:
move_list(const position& pos, unsigned char ply):pos_(pos),ply_(ply){
//Calculates moves and calls add_moves(ply,target_bitboard,flags) for each move
}
//Some access functions etc...
private:
//private variables
void add_moves(char,Bitboard,movflags);
};
Add_moves places the moves on a vector in no particular order as they are generated. My new class however, is exactly the same except it requires extra data:
move_list(const position& pos, unsigned char ply,trans_table& TT,killers& kill,history& hist):pos_(pos),ply_(ply),TT_(TT),kill_(kill),hist_(hist) {
and the function add_moves needs to be changed to use the extra data to place the moves in order as it receives them. Everything else is the same. I guess I could just write an extra method to sort the list after they have all been generated, but from previous experience, sorting the list as it receives it has been quicker.
Related
This is for a "game engine" as a bit of programming practice. All of my GameObjects are component based, where each component adds a functionality to its parent GameObject and all of these components descend from a base Component class which has virtual methods making it polymorphic.
When I read in these gameobject definitions from an XML file some components need to know about others for example a physics component needs to be aware of the transform component for the physics calculations. However if these components aren't present in the XML file then occasionally it throws up nasty null-pointers and endless rabbit hole call stack chasing to find the XML typo I fudged while half asleep.
My solution was to have a node in the XML file as an assertion that a component of this type should exist and possibly throw an exception or another appropriate action if it doesnt.
Eg.
<ComponentRequirement type="ComponentTransform">myTransformComponent</ComponentRequirement>
So I need a way of representing this in C++. The first idea, template classes to change according to what type of component it's the proxy of since this class needs to act like their unproxied component. I've solved that with some operator overloading so long as the class is a template class.
template <class T>
class ComponentRequirement {
public:
T* operator->() { (I chose the arrow operator because the CompReq class will never be referenced as a pointer)
return this->component;
}
//Other unrelated functions . . .
private:
T* component;
};
And this is all fine and dandy at compile time because I can just say
ComponentRequirement<ComponentTransform> req = ComponentRequirement("myComponentTransform");
But I need to be able to specify what that template type in place of the will be from a string when I read the XML in. I thought a hashmap could do it but I dont think the type name even "is" anything other than a human readable compiler hint so I couldn't use it as a hashmap value.
Can this be done and how could I go about implementing it? Inserting some string literal into a "black-box of magic" and get something that can be used as a template argument. And if it helps, everything that will be the value of "T" is polymorphic.
Or is there a better solution to my problem. It needs to be able to act as any Component I put into it and it needs to be discernable at runtime.
EDIT 1:
In my components I have a read and write function. If I read the component requirement in there I can make sure the template has the right value because each component is seperate.
I can then evaluate the requirements with a virtual function and a few functions in the gameobject class to check it's a valid configuration. This could solve the problem.
At a first glance I would use the factory pattern for your problem. That way you can create classes to create your objects given a different string without specifying the exact class you need at compile time unlike with normal typed constructors. The analogy I see people use are Virtual Constructors.
http://www.oodesign.com/factory-pattern.html
In essence you would have a map of factories (creator objects).
Define some top level interface for your components, such as IComponent.
Define a factory class for every component you want to generate that has a Create Instance method. I recommend the Create Instance method should be part of an interface like IFactory.
During setup of your program create your map and assign factories to particular keys. ActorCreator["MyComponent"] = new MyComponentFactory();
When you want to create an object read from an XML node you can just call the create instance method on the returned factory for the key. auto myComponent = ActorCreator[readXML]->CreateInstance();
You now have an actor/components whose concrete type has been decided at runtime instead of compile time.
I have run into an annoying problem lately, and I am not satisfied with my own workaround: I have a program that maintains a vector of pointers to a base class, and I am storing there all kind of children object-pointers. Now, each child class has methods of their own, and the main program may or not may call these methods, depending on the type of object (note though that they all heavily use common methods of the base class, so this justify inheritance).
I have found useful to have an "object identifier" to check the class type (and then either call the method or not), which is already not very beautiful, but this is not the main inconvenience. The main inconvenience is that, if I want to actually be able to call a derived class method using the base class pointer (or even just store the pointer in the pointer array), then one need to declare the derived methods as virtual in the base class.
Make sense from the C++ coding point of view.. but this is not practical in my case (from the development point of view), because I am planning to create many different children classes in different files, perhaps made by different people, and I don't want to tweak/maintain the base class each time, to add virtual methods!
How to do this? Essentially, what I am asking (I guess) is how to implement something like Objective-C NSArrays - if you send a message to an object that does not implement the method, well, nothing happens.
regards
Instead of this:
// variant A: declare everything in the base class
void DoStuff_A(Base* b) {
if (b->TypeId() == DERIVED_1)
b->DoDerived1Stuff();
else if if (b->TypeId() == DERIVED_2)
b->DoDerived12Stuff();
}
or this:
// variant B: declare nothing in the base class
void DoStuff_B(Base* b) {
if (b->TypeId() == DERIVED_1)
(dynamic_cast<Derived1*>(b))->DoDerived1Stuff();
else if if (b->TypeId() == DERIVED_2)
(dynamic_cast<Derived2*>(b))->DoDerived12Stuff();
}
do this:
// variant C: declare the right thing in the base class
b->DoStuff();
Note there's a single virtual function in the base per stuff that has to be done.
If you find yourself in a situation where you are more comfortable with variants A or B then with variant C, stop and rethink your design. You are coupling components too tightly and in the end it will backfire.
I am planning to create many different children classes in different
files, perhaps made by different people, and I don't want to
tweak/maintain the base class each time, to add virtual methods!
You are OK with tweaking DoStuff each time a derived class is added, but tweaking Base is a no-no. May I ask why?
If your design does not fit in either A, B or C pattern, show what you have, for clairvoyance is a rare feat these days.
You can do what you describe in C++, but not using functions. It is, by the way, kind of horrible but I suppose there might be cases in which it's a legitimate approach.
First way of doing this:
Define a function with a signature something like boost::variant parseMessage(std::string, std::vector<boost::variant>); and perhaps a string of convenience functions with common signatures on the base class and include a message lookup table on the base class which takes functors. In each class constructor add its messages to the message table and the parseMessage function then parcels off each message to the right function on the class.
It's ugly and slow but it should work.
Second way of doing this:
Define the virtual functions further down the hierarchy so if you want to add int foo(bar*); you first add a class that defines it as virtual and then ensure every class that wants to define int foo(bar*); inherit from it. You can then use dynamic_cast to ensure that the pointer you are looking at inherits from this class before trying to call int foo(bar*);. Possible these interface adding classes could be pure virtual so they can be mixed in to various points using multiple inheritance, but that may have its own problems.
This is less flexible than the first way and requires the classes that implement a function to be linked to each other. Oh, and it's still ugly.
But mostly I suggest you try and write C++ code like C++ code not Objective-C code.
This can be solved by adding some sort of introspection capabilities and meta object system. This talk Metadata and reflection in C++ — Jeff Tucker demonstrates how to do this using c++'s template meta programming.
If you don't want to go to the trouble of implementing one yourself, then it would be easier to use an existing one such as Qt's meta object system. Note that this solution does not work with multiple inheritance due to limitations in the meta object compiler: QObject Multiple Inheritance.
With that installed, you can query for the presence of methods and call them. This is quite tedious to do by hand, so the easiest way to call such a methods is using the signal and slot mechanism.
There is also GObject which is quite simmilar and there are others.
If you are planning to create many different children classes in different files, perhaps made by different people, and also I would guess you don't want to change your main code for every child class. Then I think what you need to do in your base class is to define several (not to many) virtual functions (with empty implementation) BUT those functions should be used to mark a time in the logic where they are called like "AfterInseart" or "BeforeSorting", Etc.
Usually there are not to many places in the logic you wish a derived classes to perform there own logic.
I have three classes which each store their own array of double values. To populate the arrays I use a fairly complex function, lets say foo(), which takes in several parameters and calculates the appropriate values for the array.
Each of my three classes uses the same function with only minor adjustments (i.e. the input parameters vary slightly). Each of the classes is actually quite similar although they each perform separate logic when retrieving the values of the array.
So I am wondering how should I 'share' the function so that all classes can use it, without having to duplicate the code?
I was thinking of creating a base class which contained the function foo() and a virtual get() method. My three classes could then inherit this base class. Alternatively, I was also thinking perhaps a global function was the way to go? maybe putting the function into a namespace?
If the classes have nothing in common besides this foo() function, it is silly to put it in a base class; make it a free function instead. C++ is not Java.
Declaring of a function in base class sounds the most appropriate solution. Not sure if you need virtual "get" though, instead just declare the array in the base class and provide access method(s) for descendants.
More complex part is "the input parameters vary slightly". If parameters differ by type only then you may write a template function. If difference is more significant than the only solution I see is splitting main function into several logic blocks and using these blocks in descendant classes to perform final result.
If your classes are quite similar, you could create a template class with three different implementations that has the function foo<T>()
Implement that function in base class. If these classes are similar as you say, they should be derived from one base class anyway! If there are several functions like foo(), it might be reasonable in some cases to combine them into another class which is utilized by/with your classes.
If the underlying data of the class is the same (Array of doubles), considering using a single class and overloading the constructor, or just use 3 different functions:
void PopulateFromString(const string&)
void PopulateFromXml(...)
void PopulateFromInteger(...)
If the data or the behavior is different in each class type, then your solution of base class is good.
You can also define a function in the same namespace as your classes as utility function, if it has nothing to do with specific class behavior (Polymorphism). Bjarne StroupStroup recommends this method by the way.
For the purpose of this answer, I am assuming the classes you have are not common in any other outwards way; they may load the same data, but they are providing different interfaces.
There are two possible situations here, and you haven't told us which one it is. It could be more like
void foo(double* arr, size_t size) {
// Some specific code (that probably just does some preparation)
// Lots of generic code
// ...
// Some more specific code (cleanup?)
}
or something similar to
void foo(double* arr, size_t size) {
// generic_code();
// ...
// specific_code();
// generic_code();
// ...
}
In the first case, the generic code may very well be easy to put into a separate function, and then making a base class doesn't make much sense: you'll probably be inheriting from it privately, and you should prefer composition over private inheritance unless you have a good reason to. You could put the new function in its own class if it benefits from it, but it's not strictly necessary. Whether you put it in a namespace or not depends on how you're organising your code.
The second case is trickier, and in that case I would advise polymorphism. However, you don't seem to need runtime polymorphism for this, and so you could just as well do it compile-time. Using the fact that this is C++, you can use CRTP:
template<typename IMPL>
class MyBase {
void foo(double* arr, size_t size) {
// generic code
// ...
double importantResult = IMPL::DoALittleWork(/* args */);
// more generic code
// ...
}
};
class Derived : MyBase<Derived> {
static double DoALittleWork(/* params */) {
// My specific stuff
return result;
}
};
This gives you the benefit of code organisation and saves you some virtual functions. On the other hand, it does make it slightly less clear what functions need to be implemented (although the error messages are not that bad).
I would only go with the second route if making a new function (possibly within a new class) would clearly be uglier. If you're parsing different formats as Andrey says, then having a parser object (that would be polymorphic) passed in would be even nicer as it would allow you to mock things with less trouble, but you haven't given enough details to say for sure.
This is not a question about how they work and declared, this I think is pretty much clear to me. The question is about why to implement this?
I suppose the practical reason is to simplify bunch of other code to relate and declare their variables of base type, to handle objects and their specific methods from many other subclasses?
Could this be done by templating and typechecking, like I do it in Objective C? If so, what is more efficient? I find it confusing to declare object as one class and instantiate it as another, even if it is its child.
SOrry for stupid questions, but I havent done any real projects in C++ yet and since I am active Objective C developer (it is much smaller language thus relying heavily on SDK's functionalities, like OSX, iOS) I need to have clear view on any parallel ways of both cousins.
Yes, this can be done with templates, but then the caller must know what the actual type of the object is (the concrete class) and this increases coupling.
With virtual functions the caller doesn't need to know the actual class - it operates through a pointer to a base class, so you can compile the client once and the implementor can change the actual implementation as much as it wants and the client doesn't have to know about that as long as the interface is unchanged.
Virtual functions implement polymorphism. I don't know Obj-C, so I cannot compare both, but the motivating use case is that you can use derived objects in place of base objects and the code will work. If you have a compiled and working function foo that operates on a reference to base you need not modify it to have it work with an instance of derived.
You could do that (assuming that you had runtime type information) by obtaining the real type of the argument and then dispatching directly to the appropriate function with a switch of shorts, but that would require either manually modifying the switch for each new type (high maintenance cost) or having reflection (unavailable in C++) to obtain the method pointer. Even then, after obtaining a method pointer you would have to call it, which is as expensive as the virtual call.
As to the cost associated to a virtual call, basically (in all implementations with a virtual method table) a call to a virtual function foo applied on object o: o.foo() is translated to o.vptr[ 3 ](), where 3 is the position of foo in the virtual table, and that is a compile time constant. This basically is a double indirection:
From the object o obtain the pointer to the vtable, index that table to obtain the pointer to the function and then call. The extra cost compared with a direct non-polymorphic call is just the table lookup. (In fact there can be other hidden costs when using multiple inheritance, as the implicit this pointer might have to be shifted), but the cost of the virtual dispatch is very small.
I don't know the first thing about Objective-C, but here's why you want to "declare an object as one class and instantiate it as another": the Liskov Substitution Principle.
Since a PDF is a document, and an OpenOffice.org document is a document, and a Word Document is a document, it's quite natural to write
Document *d;
if (ends_with(filename, ".pdf"))
d = new PdfDocument(filename);
else if (ends_with(filename, ".doc"))
d = new WordDocument(filename);
else
// you get the point
d->print();
Now, for this to work, print would have to be virtual, or be implemented using virtual functions, or be implemented using a crude hack that reinvents the virtual wheel. The program need to know at runtime which of various print methods to apply.
Templating solves a different problem, where you determine at compile time which of the various containers you're going to use (for example) when you want to store a bunch of elements. If you operate on those containers with template functions, then you don't need to rewrite them when you switch containers, or add another container to your program.
A virtual function is important in inheritance. Think of an example where you have a CMonster class and then a CRaidBoss and CBoss class that inherit from CMonster.
Both need to be drawn. A CMonster has a Draw() function, but the way a CRaidBoss and a CBoss are drawn is different. Thus, the implementation is left to them by utilizing the virtual function Draw.
Well, the idea is simply to allow the compiler to perform checks for you.
It's like a lot of features : ways to hide what you don't want to have to do yourself. That's abstraction.
Inheritance, interfaces, etc. allow you to provide an interface to the compiler for the implementation code to match.
If you didn't have the virtual function mecanism, you would have to write :
class A
{
void do_something();
};
class B : public A
{
void do_something(); // this one "hide" the A::do_something(), it replace it.
};
void DoSomething( A* object )
{
// calling object->do_something will ALWAYS call A::do_something()
// that's not what you want if object is B...
// so we have to check manually:
B* b_object = dynamic_cast<B*>( object );
if( b_object != NULL ) // ok it's a b object, call B::do_something();
{
b_object->do_something()
}
else
{
object->do_something(); // that's a A, call A::do_something();
}
}
Here there are several problems :
you have to write this for each function redefined in a class hierarchy.
you have one additional if for each child class.
you have to touch this function again each time you add a definition to the whole hierarcy.
it's visible code, you can get it wrong easily, each time
So, marking functions virtual does this correctly in an implicit way, rerouting automatically, in a dynamic way, the function call to the correct implementation, depending on the final type of the object.
You dont' have to write any logic so you can't get errors in this code and have an additional thing to worry about.
It's the kind of thing you don't want to bother with as it can be done by the compiler/runtime.
The use of templates is also technically known as polymorphism from theorists. Yep, both are valid approach to the problem. The implementation technics employed will explain better or worse performance for them.
For example, Java implements templates, but through template erasure. This means that it is only apparently using templates, under the surface is plain old polymorphism.
C++ has very powerful templates. The use of templates makes code quicker, though each use of a template instantiates it for the given type. This means that, if you use an std::vector for ints, doubles and strings, you'll have three different vector classes: this means that the size of the executable will suffer.
what is the best way to put a container class or a some other class inside a class as private or a public member?
Requirements:
1.Vector< someclass> inside my class
2.Add and count of vector is needed interface
If the container's state is part of the class's invariant, then it should, if possible, be private.
For example, if the container represents a three dimensional vector then part of the invariant might be that it always contains exactly 3 numbers. Exposing it as a public member would allow code external to the class to change the containers size, which in turn could cause problems for any routine which requires the container's size to be constant. Keeping the container private limits the places in your software where the container's size can be modified to the class's member functions.
Whether a member is declared Private or Public depends entirely on your application. Could you give some more detail?
One important point to remember when declaring your member is that if you provide a "getter" to retrieve it, then you are no longer encapsulating that object. Instead, it can be good to write wrapper methods exposing only the functionality you wish to expose.
For example, with a Vector member, you might write an AddItem and Clear method, if that's all the functionality you wish to expose.
Since you're talking about a class, I think it should be private. If you want it to be public, rather create a struct - to make it obvious that you want the members variables to be used.
A viable alternative to exposing the vector member is creating a visitor function (or an internal iterator). This way you obey the law of Demeter better:
class ContWrapper {
std::vector<int> _ints;
public:
class Action {
public:
virtual void accept( int i ) = 0;
};
void each_int( Action& a );
};
Also be very careful when exporting e.g. an std::vector<T> from a library, too: the client code might not use the same STL implementation as you did, so the layout of these member variables may differ!
Make all members private and use accessor methods, this allows you to change the implementation later. Only in very unusual circumstances would I make any data member public.
Remember that chaning the implementation happens more often than you may imagine, its not just a case of changing the type of the container but maybe you want to change the mechanism. Say you were storing names in a list, after a while you may chose to index this list with a hash and would like to have the hash updated every time you add a new name. If your implementation is suitably encapsulated doing this is easy, if you have just exposed the vector you would need to make changes that will adjust the interface (and so the change will ripple out).
If this is new to new you have a read of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encapsulation_(classes_-_computers)
There is a third way - sometimes it is better to inherit from the container and override it's methods to achieve your goal (for example thread safety). Anyway, making it public almost always isn't a good idea.
Considering that you want to encapsulate the container inside another class implies that it cannot be public, and also the public methods of your class should not expose anything implementation-specific about the container. That way the implementation of your class (i.e. the container) can be changed without changing its interface.