I would like to log the return value of a function. The problem is that the function might have many exit points and I don't want to add a log call before every one of them.
I thought about having an inner object that's responsible on making the Log call. But still, I would have to notify it about the return value before each return statement.
I also thought about creating a macro that calls the logger before returning from the function. Something like:
#define RETURN(ret) Logger.log(__FUNCTION__, ret); return ret;
But I want to avoid doing that.
Any other thoughts on how I can achieve that nicely and easily?
Thanks
I don't think you can do that more nicely and easily. In this case I think the solution with least impact on the source is to use the preprocessor, but you shouldn't do it the way you do because it has surprices built in. Fx:
if( done )
RETURN(something);
expands to:
if( done )
Logger.log("function_name", something); return something;
which means that something is sent to the log if done is true, then something is returned anyway.
To make the expansion fit into a single statement it's normally wrapped in a do { ... } while(0) which would make that example log and return only if done is true.
But there's still a surprise since the macro argument is expanded twice, consider the case where you write RETURN(something++); then it will expand to Logger.log(__FUNCTION__, something++); return something++; which means unfortunate side effects. This was a real problem in C, but not in C++. Here templates are handy:
template<typename T>
T const& log_and_return(char const* func, const T& value)
{
Logger.log(func, value);
return value;
}
#define RETURN(value) return log_and_return(__func__, value)
Note that it is called __func__ in the standard (an not __FUNCTION__).
Related
I would like to log the return value of a function. The problem is that the function might have many exit points and I don't want to add a log call before every one of them.
I thought about having an inner object that's responsible on making the Log call. But still, I would have to notify it about the return value before each return statement.
I also thought about creating a macro that calls the logger before returning from the function. Something like:
#define RETURN(ret) Logger.log(__FUNCTION__, ret); return ret;
But I want to avoid doing that.
Any other thoughts on how I can achieve that nicely and easily?
Thanks
I don't think you can do that more nicely and easily. In this case I think the solution with least impact on the source is to use the preprocessor, but you shouldn't do it the way you do because it has surprices built in. Fx:
if( done )
RETURN(something);
expands to:
if( done )
Logger.log("function_name", something); return something;
which means that something is sent to the log if done is true, then something is returned anyway.
To make the expansion fit into a single statement it's normally wrapped in a do { ... } while(0) which would make that example log and return only if done is true.
But there's still a surprise since the macro argument is expanded twice, consider the case where you write RETURN(something++); then it will expand to Logger.log(__FUNCTION__, something++); return something++; which means unfortunate side effects. This was a real problem in C, but not in C++. Here templates are handy:
template<typename T>
T const& log_and_return(char const* func, const T& value)
{
Logger.log(func, value);
return value;
}
#define RETURN(value) return log_and_return(__func__, value)
Note that it is called __func__ in the standard (an not __FUNCTION__).
When refactoring some code, I often encounter this :
bool highLevelFunc foo()
{
// ...
bool result = LesserLevelFunc();
if (!result) return false;
// ... Keep having fun if we didn't return
}
Is there any way to make this a little more sexy and less verbose ? Without any overhead or pitfall of course.
I can think of a macro
#define FORWARD_IF_FALSE(r) if (!r) return r;
bool highLevelFunc foo()
{
// ...
FORWARD_IF_FALSE(LesserLevelFunc());
// ...
}
Anything better, i.e without preprocessor macro?
To me, "readable" code is sexy. I find the original code more readable than your proposal, since the original uses standard C++ syntax and the latter uses a macro which I'd have to go and look up.
If you want to be more explicit, you could say if (result == false) (or better yet, if (false == result) to prevent a possible assignment-as-comparison bug) but understanding the ! operator is a fairly reasonable expectation in my opinion.
That said, there is no reason to assign the return value to a temporary variable; you could just as easily say:
if (!LesserLevelFunc()) return false;
This is quite readable to me.
EDIT: You could also consider using exceptions instead of return values to communicate failure. If LesserLevelFunc() threw an exception, you would not need to write any special code in highLevelFunc() to check for success. The exception would propagate up through the caller to the nearest matching catch block.
Because you might be continuing if LesserLevelFunc returns true, I suggest keeping it pretty close to how it is now:
if (!LesserLevelFunc())
return false;
First of all introducing the macro you are making the code unsafe. Moreover your macro is invalid.
The expression after the negation operator shall be enclosed in parentheses.
#define FORWARD_IF_FALSE(r) if (!( r ) ) return r;
Secondly the macro calls r twice. Sometimes two calls of a function is not equivalent to one call of the same function. For example the function can have some side effects or internal flags that are switched on/off in each call of the function.
So I would keep the code as is without introducing the macro because the macro does not equivalent to the symantic of the original code.
So I ran across this (IMHO) very nice idea of using a composite structure of a return value and an exception - Expected<T>. It overcomes many shortcomings of the traditional methods of error handling (exceptions, error codes).
See the Andrei Alexandrescu's talk (Systematic Error Handling in C++) and its slides.
The exceptions and error codes have basically the same usage scenarios with functions that return something and the ones that don't. Expected<T>, on the other hand, seems to be targeted only at functions that return values.
So, my questions are:
Have any of you tried Expected<T> in practice?
How would you apply this idiom to functions returning nothing (that is, void functions)?
Update:
I guess I should clarify my question. The Expected<void> specialization makes sense, but I'm more interested in how it would be used - the consistent usage idiom. The implementation itself is secondary (and easy).
For example, Alexandrescu gives this example (a bit edited):
string s = readline();
auto x = parseInt(s).get(); // throw on error
auto y = parseInt(s); // won’t throw
if (!y.valid()) {
// ...
}
This code is "clean" in a way that it just flows naturally. We need the value - we get it. However, with expected<void> one would have to capture the returned variable and perform some operation on it (like .throwIfError() or something), which is not as elegant. And obviously, .get() doesn't make sense with void.
So, what would your code look like if you had another function, say toUpper(s), which modifies the string in-place and has no return value?
Have any of you tried Expected; in practice?
It's quite natural, I used it even before I saw this talk.
How would you apply this idiom to functions returning nothing (that is, void functions)?
The form presented in the slides has some subtle implications:
The exception is bound to the value.
It's ok to handle the exception as you wish.
If the value ignored for some reasons, the exception is suppressed.
This does not hold if you have expected<void>, because since nobody is interested in the void value the exception is always ignored. I would force this as I would force reading from expected<T> in Alexandrescus class, with assertions and an explicit suppress member function. Rethrowing the exception from the destructor is not allowed for good reasons, so it has to be done with assertions.
template <typename T> struct expected;
#ifdef NDEBUG // no asserts
template <> class expected<void> {
std::exception_ptr spam;
public:
template <typename E>
expected(E const& e) : spam(std::make_exception_ptr(e)) {}
expected(expected&& o) : spam(std::move(o.spam)) {}
expected() : spam() {}
bool valid() const { return !spam; }
void get() const { if (!valid()) std::rethrow_exception(spam); }
void suppress() {}
};
#else // with asserts, check if return value is checked
// if all assertions do succeed, the other code is also correct
// note: do NOT write "assert(expected.valid());"
template <> class expected<void> {
std::exception_ptr spam;
mutable std::atomic_bool read; // threadsafe
public:
template <typename E>
expected(E const& e) : spam(std::make_exception_ptr(e)), read(false) {}
expected(expected&& o) : spam(std::move(o.spam)), read(o.read.load()) {}
expected() : spam(), read(false) {}
bool valid() const { read=true; return !spam; }
void get() const { if (!valid()) std::rethrow_exception(spam); }
void suppress() { read=true; }
~expected() { assert(read); }
};
#endif
expected<void> calculate(int i)
{
if (!i) return std::invalid_argument("i must be non-null");
return {};
}
int main()
{
calculate(0).suppress(); // suppressing must be explicit
if (!calculate(1).valid())
return 1;
calculate(5); // assert fails
}
Even though it might appear new for someone focused solely on C-ish languages, to those of us who had a taste of languages supporting sum-types, it's not.
For example, in Haskell you have:
data Maybe a = Nothing | Just a
data Either a b = Left a | Right b
Where the | reads or and the first element (Nothing, Just, Left, Right) is just a "tag". Essentially sum-types are just discriminating unions.
Here, you would have Expected<T> be something like: Either T Exception with a specialization for Expected<void> which is akin to Maybe Exception.
Like Matthieu M. said, this is something relatively new to C++, but nothing new for many functional languages.
I would like to add my 2 cents here: part of the difficulties and differences are can be found, in my opinion, in the "procedural vs. functional" approach. And I would like to use Scala (because I am familiar both with Scala and C++, and I feel it has a facility (Option) which is closer to Expected<T>) to illustrate this distinction.
In Scala you have Option[T], which is either Some(t) or None.
In particular, it is also possible to have Option[Unit], which is morally equivalent to Expected<void>.
In Scala, the usage pattern is very similar and built around 2 functions: isDefined() and get(). But it also have a "map()" function.
I like to think of "map" as the functional equivalent of "isDefined + get":
if (opt.isDefined)
opt.get.doSomething
becomes
val res = opt.map(t => t.doSomething)
"propagating" the option to the result
I think that here, in this functional style of using and composing options, lies the answer to your question:
So, what would your code look like if you had another function, say toUpper(s), which modifies the string in-place and has no return value?
Personally, I would NOT modify the string in place, or at least I will not return nothing. I see Expected<T> as a "functional" concept, that need a functional pattern to work well: toUpper(s) would need to either return a new string, or return itself after modification:
auto s = toUpper(s);
s.get(); ...
or, with a Scala-like map
val finalS = toUpper(s).map(upperS => upperS.someOtherManipulation)
if you don't want to follow a functional route, you can just use isDefined/valid and write your code in a more procedural way:
auto s = toUpper(s);
if (s.valid())
....
If you follow this route (maybe because you need to), there is a "void vs. unit" point to make: historically, void was not considered a type, but "no type" (void foo() was considered alike a Pascal procedure). Unit (as used in functional languages) is more seen as a type meaning "a computation". So returning a Option[Unit] does make more sense, being see as "a computation that optionally did something". And in Expected<void>, void assumes a similar meaning: a computation that, when it does work as intended (where there are no exceptional cases), just ends (returning nothing). At least, IMO!
So, using Expected or Option[Unit] could be seen as computations that maybe produced a result, or maybe not. Chaining them will prove it difficult:
auto c1 = doSomething(s); //do something on s, either succeed or fail
if (c1.valid()) {
auto c2 = doSomethingElse(s); //do something on s, either succeed or fail
if (c2.valid()) {
...
Not very clean.
Map in Scala makes it a little bit cleaner
doSomething(s) //do something on s, either succeed or fail
.map(_ => doSomethingElse(s) //do something on s, either succeed or fail
.map(_ => ...)
Which is better, but still far from ideal. Here, the Maybe monad clearly wins... but that's another story..
I've been pondering the same question since I've watched this video. And so far I didn't find any convincing argument for having Expected, for me it looks ridiculous and against clarity&cleanness. I have come up with the following so far:
Expected is good since it has either value or exceptions, we not forced to use try{}catch() for every function which is throwable. So use it for every throwing function which has return value
Every function that doesn't throw should be marked with noexcept. Every.
Every function that returns nothing and not marked as noexcept should be wrapped by try{}catch{}
If those statements hold then we have self-documented easy to use interfaces with only one drawback: we don't know what exceptions could be thrown without peeking into implementation details.
Expected impose some overheads to the code since if you have some exception in the guts of your class implementation(e.g. deep inside private methods) then you should catch it in your interface method and return Expected. While I think it is quite tolerable for the methods which have a notion for returning something I believe it brings mess and clutter to the methods which by design have no return value. Besides for me it is quite unnatural to return thing from something that is not supposed to return anything.
It should be handled with compiler diagnostics. Many compilers already emit warning diagnostics based on expected usages of certain standard library constructs. They should issue a warning for ignoring an expected<void>.
I'm working in C++ enviroment and:
a) We are forbidden to use exceptions
b) It is application/data server code that evaluates lot of requests of different kinds
I have simple class encapsulating result of server operation that is also used internally for lot of functions there.
class OpResult
{
.....
bool succeeded();
bool failed(); ....
... data error/result message ...
};
As I try to have all functions small and simple, lot of blocks like this are arising:
....
OpResult result = some_(mostly check)function(....);
if (result.failed())
return result;
...
The question is, is it bad practise to make macro looking like this and use it everywhere?
#define RETURN_IF_FAILED(call) \
{ \
OpResult result = call; \
if (result.failed()) \
return result; \
}
I understand that someone can call it nasty, but is there a better way?
What other way of handling results and avoiding lot of bloat code would you suggest?
It's a trade off. You are trading code size for obfuscation of the logic. I prefer to preserve the logic as visible.
I dislike macros of this type because they break Intellisense (on Windows), and debugging of the program logic. Try putting a breakpoint on all 10 return statements in your function - not the check, just the return. Try stepping through the code that's in the macro.
The worst thing about this is that once you accept this it's hard to argue against the 30-line monster macros that some programmers LOVE to use for commonly-seen mini-tasks because they 'clarify things'. I've seen code where different exception types were handled this way by four cascading macros, resulting in 4 lines in the source file, with the macros actually expanding to > 100 real lines. Now, are you reducing code bloat? No. It's impossible to tell easily with macros.
Another general argument against macros, even if not obviously applicable here, is the ability to nest them with hard to decipher results, or to pass in arguments that result in weird but compilable arguments e.g. the use of ++x in a macros that uses the argument twice. I always know where I stand with the code, and I can't say that about a macro.
EDIT: One comment I should add is that if you really do repeat this error check logic over and over, perhaps there are refactoring opportunities in the code. Not a guarantee but a better way of code bloat reduction if it does apply. Look for repeated sequences of calls and encapsulate common sequences in their own function, rather than addressing how each call is handled in isolation.
Actually, I prefer slightly other solution. The thing is that the result of inner call is not necessarily a valid result of an outer call. For example, inner failure may be "file not found", but the outer one "configuration not available". Therefore my suggestion is to recreate the OpResult (potentially packing the "inner" OpResult into it for better debugging). This all goes to the direction of "InnerException" in .NET.
technically, in my case the macro looks like
#define RETURN_IF_FAILED(call, outerresult) \
{ \
OpResult innerresult = call; \
if (innerresult.failed()) \
{ \
outerresult.setInner(innerresult); \
return outerresult; \
} \
}
This solution requires however some memory management etc.
Some purist argue that having no explicit returns hinders the readability of the code. In my opinion however having explicit RETURN as a part of the macro name is enough to prevent confusion for any skilled and attentive developer.
My opinion is that such macros don't obfuscate the program logic, but on the contrary make it cleaner. With such a macro, you declare your intent in a clear and concise way, while the other way seems to be overly verbose and therefore error-prone. Making the maintainers parse in mind the same construct OpResult r = call(); if (r.failed) return r is wasting of their time.
An alternative approach without early returns is applying to each code line the pattern like CHECKEDCALL(r, call) with #define CHECKEDCALL(r, call) do { if (r.succeeded) r = call; } while(false). This is in my eyes much much worse and definitely error-prone, as people tend to forget about adding CHECKEDCALL() when adding more code.
Having a popular need to do checked returns (or everything) with macros seems to be a slight sign of missing language feature for me.
As long as the macro definition sits in an implementation file and is undefined as soon as unnecessary, I wouldn't be horrified.
// something.cpp
#define RETURN_IF_FAILED() /* ... */
void f1 () { /* ... */ }
void f2 () { /* ... */ }
#undef RETURN_IF_FAILED
However, I would only use this after having ruled out all non-macro solutions.
After 10 years, I'm going to answer my own question to my satisfaction, if only I had a time machine ...
I encountered a similar situation many times in new projects. Even when exceptions were allowed, I don't want to always use them for "normal fails".
I eventually discovered a way to write these kind of statements.
For generic Result that includes message, I use this:
class Result
{
public:
enum class Enum
{
Undefined,
Meaningless,
Success,
Fail,
};
static constexpr Enum Undefined = Enum::Undefined;
static constexpr Enum Meaningless = Enum::Meaningless;
static constexpr Enum Success = Enum::Success;
static constexpr Enum Fail = Enum::Fail;
Result() = default;
Result(Enum result) : result(result) {}
Result(const LocalisedString& message) : result(Fail), message(message) {}
Result(Enum result, const LocalisedString& message) : result(result), message(message) {}
bool isDefined() const { return this->result != Undefined; }
bool succeeded() const { assert(this->result != Undefined); return this->result == Success; }
bool isMeaningless() const { assert(this->result != Undefined); return this->result == Enum::Meaningless; }
bool failed() const { assert(this->result != Undefined); return this->result == Fail; }
const LocalisedString& getMessage() const { return this->message; }
private:
Enum result = Undefined;
LocalisedString message;
};
And then, I have a special helper class in this form, (similar for other return types)
class Failed
{
public:
Failed(Result&& result) : result(std::move(result)) {}
explicit operator bool() const { return this->result.failed(); }
operator Result() { return this->result; }
const LocalisedString& getMessage() const { return this->result.getMessage(); }
Result result;
};
When these are combined, I can write code like this:
if (Failed result = trySomething())
showError(result.getMessage().str());
Isn't it beutiful?
I agree with Steve's POV.
I first thought, at least reduce the macro to
#define RETURN_IF_FAILED(result) if(result.failed()) return result;
but then it occurred to me this already is a one-liner, so there really is little benefit in the macro.
I think, basically, you have to make a trade off between write-ability and readability. The macro is definitely easier to write. It is, however, an open question whether it is also is easier to read. The latter is quite a subjective judgment to make. Still, using macros objectively does obfuscate code.
Ultimately, the underlying problem is that you must not use exceptions. You haven't said what the reasons for that decision are, but I surely hope they are worth the problems this causes.
Could be done with C++0x lambdas.
template<typename F> inline OpResult if_failed(OpResult a, F f) {
if (a.failed())
return a;
else
return f();
};
OpResult something() {
int mah_var = 0;
OpResult x = do_something();
return if_failed(x, [&]() -> OpResult {
std::cout << mah_var;
return f;
});
};
If you're clever and desperate, you could make the same kind of trick work with regular objects.
In my opinion, hiding a return statement in a macro is a bad idea. The 'code obfucation' (I like that term..! ) reaches the highest possible level. My usual solution to such problems is to aggregate the function execution at one place and control the result in the following manner (assuming you have 5 nullary functions):
std::array<std::function<OpResult ()>, 5> tFunctions = {
f1, f2, f3, f4, f5
};
auto tFirstFailed = std::find_if(tFunctions.begin(), tFunctions.end(),
[] (std::function<OpResult ()>& pFunc) -> bool {
return pFunc().failed();
});
if (tFirstFailed != tFunctions.end()) {
// tFirstFailed is the first function which failed...
}
Is there any information in result which is actually useful if the call fails?
If not, then
static const error_result = something;
if ( call().failed() ) return error_result;
would suffice.
I have to return to the previous level of the recursion. is the syntax like below right?
void f()
{
// some code here
//
return;
}
Yes, you can return from a void function.
Interestingly, you can also return void from a void function. For example:
void foo()
{
return void();
}
As expected, this is the same as a plain return;. It may seem esoteric, but the reason is for template consistency:
template<class T>
T default_value()
{
return T();
}
Here, default_value returns a default-constructed object of type T, and because of the ability to return void, it works even when T = void.
Sure. You just shouldn't be returning an actual value.
Yes, you can use that code to return from the function. (I have to be very verbose here to make Stack Overflow not say that my answer is too short)
Yes, that will return from the function to the previous level of recursion. This is going to be very basic explanation, but when you call a function you are creating a new call stack. In a recursive function you are simply adding to that call stack. By returning from a function, whether you return a value or not, you are moving the stack pointer back to the previous function on the stack. It's sort of like a stack of plates. You keep putting plates on it, but than returning moves the top plate.
You could also verify this by using a debugger. Just put a few break points in your code and step through it. You can verify yourself that it works.
The simple answer to this is YES! C++ recognise void method as a function with no return. It basically tells the compiler that whatever happens, once you see the return; break and leave the method....
Yes, sometimes you may wish to return void() instead of just nothing.
Consider a void function that wants to call some pass-through void functions without a bunch of if-else.
return
InputEvent == E_Pressed ? Controller->Grip() :
InputEvent == E_Released ? Controller->Release() :
InputEvent == E_Touched ? Controller->Touch() : void();
You shouldn't have to have the return there, the program will return to the previous function by itself, go into debug mode and step through and you can see it yourself.
On the other hand i don't think having a return there will harm the program at all.
As everyone else said, yes you can. In this example, return is not necessary and questionably serves a purpose. I think what you are referring to is an early return in the middle of a function. You can do that too however it is bad programming practice because it leads to complicated control flow (not single-entry single-exit), along with statements like break. Instead, just skip over the remainder of the function using conditionals like if/else().