I am looking for an elegant solution for my case. I tried to find a design pattern that specified and offers solution for this case but i failed to find one.
I have a base class that uses to store general object and later Invoke it.
I want the execution will be separated into two parts:
A must have part which will always take place (do1st()).
User defined code (do2nd()).
For example:
class InvokeBase
{
public:
InvokeBase(void *ptr) : context_(ptr) {}
virtual ~InvokeBase () {}
void operator()() = 0;
protected:
void do1st() {//Mandatory code to execute for every InvokeBase type when calling operator()};
void * context_;
};
class InvokeDerived : public InvokeBase
{
public:
InvokeDerived(void *ptr) : base(ptr){}
virtual ~InvokeDerived();
void do2nd() {//User defined code}
void operator()()
{
do1st(); // << How to force this execution?
do2nd();
}
};
void main()
{
InvokeBase *t = new InvokeDerived();
t(); // << here i want the execution order will be do1st and then do2nd.
}
The trick is that i want do1st will execute always, that i will not have to call it from InvokeDerived. I want to allow the user to inherit from InvokeBase with the guarantee that do1st will always be called when invoking the operator().
This is the template method pattern: split a function with semi-flexible behavior accross the class hierarchy into multiple parts, and make virtual only the ones that change:
class InvokeBase
{
public:
InvokeBase(void *ptr) : context_(ptr) {}
virtual ~InvokeBase () {}
void operator()() // this is non-virtual (this is the template method)
{
do1st();
do2nd(); // this resolves to virtual call
}
protected:
void do1st() { /* fixed code here */ };
virtual void do2nd() = 0; // variable part here
void * context_;
};
class InvokeDerived : public InvokeBase
{
public:
InvokeDerived(void *ptr) : base(ptr){}
virtual ~InvokeDerived() = default;
protected:
void do2nd() override
{
// code speciffic to InvokeDerived here
}
};
Related
This code demonstrates the problem:
class Base
{
public:
explicit Base(std::function<void()> const& printFunc) :
_printFunc(printFunc)
{
}
void print()
{
_printFunc();
}
private:
std::function<void()> _printFunc{};
private:
virtual void _print() = 0; // If this line is commented out, then
// `Subclass1::_print()` can be called.
};
class Subclass1 : public Base
{
public:
explicit Subclass1() :
Base([this]() { _print(); })
{
}
private:
void _print() /*override*/
{
std::cout << "Subclass1\n";
}
};
class Subclass2 : public Base, public Subclass1
{
public:
using fromLowestSubclass = Base;
public:
explicit Subclass2() :
Base([this]() { _print(); }), Subclass1()
{
}
private:
void _print() /*override*/
{
// Here is the problem:
Subclass1::print(); // or: static_cast<Subclass1*>(this)->print();
std::cout << "Subclass2\n";
}
};
int main()
{
Subclass2 sc2{};
sc2.fromLowestSubclass::print();
return 0;
}
In the Subclass2::_print method, the overriding _print method of Subclass1 should be called, but instead the Subclass1::print(); statement calls the current method again. This problem can be prevented if the statement virtual void _print() = 0; is commented out.
Why use of the virtual _print method prevents me from invoking the overloaded virtual method Subclass1::_print and what solution is there so that I do not have to do without virtual methods?
class Base
{
....
private:
virtual void _print() = 0;
}
This means: you can override _print, but you can't call it, only Base has right to call it.
Now:
class Base
{
public:
void print()
{
_printFunc();
}
does that, it calls _printFunc as a virtual function, which matches current object instantiation. It doesn't meter how print() was invoked.
Adding Subclass1:: as a prefix just changes name scope and doesn't have impact how method behaves. It has only have impact on name scope.
Now if virtual method has such prefix, then selecting name scope instruct compiler that you abandoning abstraction and you need to call specific method. In such case method is called without referring to a virtual table.
Double inheritance has no impact on this issue.
You can provide a helper method which you will be able to call from ancestor:
class Subclass1 : public Base
{
....
protected:
void sub1_print() // not virtual
{
std::cout << "Subclass1\n";
}
private:
void _print() /*override*/
{
sub1_print();
}
};
class Subclass2 : public Base, public Subclass1
{
....
private:
void _print() /*override*/
{
sub1_print();
std::cout << "Subclass2\n";
}
};
I've been trying to find an answer to this question but I couldn't (I don't even know how to properly formulate this) so I decided to write my first post ever on StackOverflow =).
The context is the following:
I have this parent class:
class Parent
{
public:
Parent(){};
void foo(void)
{
//Do some common things
bar();
//Do some more common things
};
protected:
virtual void bar(void) = 0;
};
And I want to create an indefinite amount of derived Childs:
class Child1 : public Parent
{
public:
Child1() : Parent(), child1Variable(0) {};
protected:
virtual void bar(void) = 0;
private:
uint32_t child1Variable;
};
class Child2 : public Parent
{
public:
Child2() : Parent(), child2Variable(0) {};
protected:
virtual void bar(void) = 0;
private:
uint32_t child2Variable;
};
.
.
.
class ChildN : public Parent
{
public:
ChildN() : Parent(), childNVariable(0) {};
protected:
virtual void bar(void) = 0;
private:
uint32_t childNVariable;
};
The reason being mainly not repeating the code in Parent's foo()
Then I would like to create my final instantiable classes as, for instance:
class ExampleFinal : public Child1, public Child3, public Child27
{
//How to define Child1::bar(), Child3::bar() and Child27::bar() ??
private:
void bar(void); //????
};
So the questions are:
How can I define the method for (abusing notation) ExampleFinal::Child1::bar, ExampleFinal::Child3::bar, ...
Am I so stuck on this that I'm overlooking a much simpler solution?
The final goal is being able to do something like:
ExampleFinal test;
test.Child1::foo(); //should end up on "ExampleFinal::Child1::bar"
test.Child3::foo(); //should end up on "ExampleFinal::Child3::bar"
Thanks!
Implementing ExampleFinal::bar() (side-note: bar(void) is a C-ism which has no use in C++) will override all of the bars you have declared at once. If you want to have different versions, you'll need to interpose another layer of classes:
struct GrandChild1 : Child1 {
void bar() override { /*...*/ }
};
// And so on...
struct ExampleFinal : GrandChild1, GrandChild3, GrandChild27 {
// Nothing needed here.
};
Then the behaviour you described will work. Be aware, though, that your inheritance graph means that an ExampleFinal has one Parent subobject per Child. This is not an issue in itself but might not model what you want -- maybe you need virtual inheritance here, but beware of the rabbit hole.
If you want to keep the overrides for all ChildN::bars inside ExampleFinal, you can add tag-dispatching to discern them, at the cost of one more virtual call:
struct Parent {
void foo() {
bar();
};
protected:
template <class Child>
struct tag { };
virtual void bar() = 0;
};
struct Child1 : Parent {
protected:
virtual void bar(tag<Child1>) = 0;
void bar() final override {
return bar(tag<Child1>{});
}
int child1Var;
};
struct Child2 : Parent {
protected:
virtual void bar(tag<Child2>) = 0;
void bar() final override {
return bar(tag<Child2>{});
}
int child2Var;
};
struct ExampleFinal : Child1, Child2 {
protected:
using Parent::tag;
void bar(tag<Child1>) final override {
std::cout << "Child1::bar\n";
}
void bar(tag<Child2>) final override {
std::cout << "Child2::bar\n";
}
};
Note that the bar() to bar(tag<ChildN>) bridge can easily be hidden behind a macro. If you want to avoid the cost of the second virtual call, a CRTP can also be applied here.
The content
The question
Example
Why do I need it
Hi.
The question
I am facing a problem. I have a class A that has a base B (is polymorphic). In B class is method Print(), wich is virtual. In A class is also Print(). virtual.
Lets say I am given an A type object (or pointer), stored in B variable
B * object = new A();
And by calling
object->Print();
It calls the method in A class, but I also want it to call method in B class.
Technically
I want to call the method for each child until i reach class that has no child
This can be done as follows:
Example
class A
{
public:
virtual void Print() const override
{
cout << "A" << endl;
}
};
class B : public A
{
public:
virtual void Print() const override
{
cout << "B" << endl;
A::Print(); // i do not want to call it here...
}
};
The problem is that I do want not to be forced to call the
A::Print();
Why
Yes, you might be asking, what is the deal...
I have very long inheritance chain. (lets say that there are like 15 - 20 classes in the inheritance chain).
In a game, each one does some little thing.
Lets say
class GameObject
{
public:
virtual void Update() const
{
//updates position, recounts it towards screen
}
};
class Character : public GameObject
{
public:
virtual void Update() const override
{
// Updates lives, movement
}
};
class Warrior : public Character
{
public:
virtual void Update() const override
{
// Updates armor, specific stuff
}
};
Now this example is very simplified. Problem is, that if i forget to add a call base::Update() Then I am worndering why does it not work. Looking for such a misstake is hard. I mean, if there any way around it?
Thank you very much indeed for any responses.
Have a nice day
If indeed every class must call the base function, one way to ensure the functionality is enforced is to use the template pattern.
class GameObject
{
public:
void Updater()
{
Update(); // this is a virtual call
GameObject::Update(); // now call base
}
virtual void Update() const
{
}
};
class Character : public GameObject
{
public:
virtual void Update() const override
{
// Updates lives, movement
}
};
class Warrior : public Character
{
public:
virtual void Update() const override
{
// Updates armor, specific stuff
}
};
class Character : public GameObject
{
public:
virtual void Update() const override
{
// Updates lives, movement
}
};
class Warrior : public Character
{
public:
virtual void Update() const override
{
// Updates armor, specific stuff
}
};
Then always call YourObject::Updater(); instead of YourObject::Update(). The Updater function will call your object's Update function, and then return and call the base class Update.
There was once a proposal to get all the bases of a given type (N2965) which gcc actually implemented in <tr2/type_traits>. So, if portability is not a concern and you happen to be using gcc, you can write a catch-all like so:
struct A {
virtual ~A() = default;
virtual void print() { print_all(*this); }
void print_one() { std::cout << "A\n"; }
protected:
template <class T>
void print_all(T& object) {
object.print_one();
print_all(object, typename std::tr2::bases<T>::type{});
}
template <class T, class... Bases>
void print_all(T& object, std::tr2::__reflection_typelist<Bases...> ) {
using swallow = int[];
(void)swallow{0,
(static_cast<Bases&>(object).print_one(), 0)...
};
}
};
This splits up print(), which prints everything, and print_one() which just prints the one specific type. You just have your print() call print_all() with itself:
struct B : A {
void print() override { print_all(*this); }
void print_one() { std::cout << "B\n"; }
};
struct C : B {
void print() override { print_all(*this); }
void print_one() { std::cout << "C\n"; }
};
Otherwise, you'll have to wait for one of the reflection proposals to get adopted.
A case where 'problem' should not be a problem in the title.
I want to implement a solver (class Solver) for a collection of problems (all children of class Problem), which more or less share the same set of methods. My current design is like this:
In solver.h:
template<class P>
class Solver{
public:
P* p;
Solver(P* problem) : p(problem) {}
void justDoIt(){
p->step1();
p->step2();
p->step3();
p->step4();
p->step5();
}
}
In main.cpp:
#include "solver.h"
class A {
public:
void step1() {}
void step2() {}
void step3() {}
void step4() {}
void step5() {}
};
class B: public A {
public:
void step2() {}
void step4() {}
};
class C: public A {
public:
void step3() {}
void step4() {}
void step5() {}
};
int main(){
B b;
C c;
Solver<B> sb(&b);
Solver<C> sc(&c);
sb.justDoIt();
sc.justDoIt();
return 0;
}
If I want to extend Solver for a new problem type, say C, and it
does nothing in step1();
does step2.5() between step2() and step3()
Now calling C c; Solver<C> sc(&c); c.justDoIt(), I need to modify A, B and Solver::justDoIt() first.
Is there a scalable to design the interface that adding new problem types (all childern of A) for Solver?
PS: The current codebase I am about to modify has 47 types of problems all using the same Solver class. Minimal change is preferred.
How can I do it better?
At least to me this design seems like a (pardon the technical jargon) mess.
Right now, Solver has intimate knowledge of the internals of Problem. Further, it appears there's no way for Solver to do its job without intimate knowledge of the internals of Problem either.
At least in my estimation, what you've called Solver::justDoIt() should really be Problem::operator(). If many of the Problems use step1() through step5() as you've shown in Solver, you can provide that implementation by default in Problem itself, then those that need to override that will provide their own implementations:
class Problem {
protected:
virtual void step1() {}
// ...
virtual void step5() {}
public:
virtual void operator()() {
step1();
step2();
step3();
step4();
step5();
}
};
class B : public Problem {
protected:
void step2() {}
void step4() {}
};
class C : public Problem {
protected:
virtual void step3() {}
virtual void step4() {}
virtual void step5() {}
};
Then the main looks something like this:
int main() {
B b;
C c;
b();
c();
}
Or, if you prefer shorter code:
int main() {
B()();
C()();
}
This creates a temporary object of each type, then invokes the operator() on that temporary object. I'm not particularly fond of it, but some people think it's great.
Virtual Functions:
The first option that should come into mind is to use virtual functions:
Redefine your Problem-class to contain a pure virtual function (that means: every child needs to reimplement it):
class Problem{
public:
virtual void allSteps()=0;
};
Redefine your Solver to call this special function:
class Solver{
public:
Problem* p;
Solver(Problem* prob):p(prob){}
void solve(){
p->allSteps();
}
};
And add an implementation in every child-class:
class MyProblem: public Problem{
public:
void step1(){
std::cout << "step1\n";
}
void step2(){
std::cout << "step1\n";
}
void stepx(int x){
std::cout << "step"<<x<<"\n";
}
void allSteps(){
step1();
step2();
stepx(3);
stepx(4);
}
};
And use your main-function as you did before:
int main() {
MyProblem myP;
Solver s(&myP);
s.solve();
return 0;
}
Try it here: http://ideone.com/NOZlI6
Function-Pointers/Objects
This is a slightly more complex solution, but depending on your needs (e.g. executing only a single step and then do something else) it might better fit your needs.
Whenever you see something like "foo1","foo2","foo3",... you should think of an array or a vector. And the same can be applied to your Problem:
First of all, redefine your "Problem" class to take an arbitrary amount of function pointers - or using c++, function objects:
class Problem{
public:
std::vector<std::function<void(void)>> functions;
};
Then all your Solver needs to do is to iterate over the function objects inside your Problems class:
class Solver{
public:
Problem* p;
Solver(Problem* prob):p(prob){}
void solve(){
for(auto func : p->functions)
func();
}
};
In order to register your classes functions properly, you need to remember that member-functions have an additional "hidden" parameter "this" that is a pointer to the class itself. But we can use std::bind to make a void(void) function out of any function we have. An alternative would be to use static functions, but since this should be easy to figure out, i will use the more complex way here:
class MyProblem: public Problem{
public:
void step1(){
std::cout << "step1\n";
}
void step2(){
std::cout << "step1\n";
}
void stepx(int x){
std::cout << "step"<<x<<"\n";
}
MyProblem(){
functions.push_back(std::bind(&MyProblem::step1,this));
functions.push_back(std::bind(&MyProblem::step2,this));
functions.push_back(std::bind(&MyProblem::stepx,this,3));
functions.push_back(std::bind(&MyProblem::stepx,this,4));
}
};
Your main-function will then be unaffected:
int main() {
MyProblem myP;
Solver s(&myP);
s.solve();
return 0;
}
Try it here: http://ideone.com/BmIYVa
I need to count how many times constructors(default/copy/move) and destructor have been called. I use gmock. How can i check it?
EDIT: Thanks to Marko Popovic suggestion i will explain that i have for now. I have a class like this, and i want to mock it with gmock. How can i do this?
class A
{
public:
static int m_calls_to_cons;
public:
A( ) { m_calls_to_cons++; }
};
int A::m_calls_to_cons;
I use this class to check behavior of my container.
First, you must specify what you need. The way to do this is by defining interface class:
class SpecialFunctionsNotifier
{
public:
virtual ~SpecialFunctionsNotifier() {}
virtual void construct() = 0;
virtual void destruct() = 0;
virtual void copyConstruct() = 0;
virtual void copyAssign() = 0;
};
So, you can make "default" null (meaning empty) object implemention:
class SpecialFunctionsNullNotifier : public SpecialFunctionsNotifier
{
public:
virtual void construct() override {}
virtual void destruct() override {}
virtual void copyConstruct() override {}
virtual void copyAssign() override {}
};
And, have A use of it:
class A
{
public:
static SpecialFunctionsNullNotifier m_calls_to_cons_default;
static SpecialFunctionsNotifier* m_calls_to_cons;
public:
A( ) { m_calls_to_cons->construct(); }
};
SpecialFunctionsNullNotifier A::m_calls_to_cons_default;
SpecialFunctionsNotifier* A::m_calls_to_cons = &A::m_calls_to_cons_default;
Then, mocking this notifies is easy task:
class SpecialFunctionsNotifierMock : public SpecialFunctionsNotifier
{
public:
MOCK_METHOD0(construct, void());
// ..
};
And in your tests, use in this way:
TEST(ACase, AConstructCount)
{
SpecialFunctionsNotifierMock callToConsMock;
A::m_calls_to_cons = &callToConsMock;
EXPECT_CALL(callToConsMock, construct()).Times(100);
A a[100];
// remember to cleanup
A::m_calls_to_cons = &A::m_calls_to_cons_default;
}