I'm learning C++ by programming a game. I'm using SDL to display my objects and a factory structure to keep it all organised.
I separated the first object (a car), the controls (keyboard) and the display (monitor).
In my main class I call the monitor class to display a window where I should draw the images. If a key is pressed, the car should react to that by redrawing the image.
The problem here is that I initialized the monitor in the main class and I can't access it in my car class..
I tried a variety of things, but nothing seems to do the trick.
So here is the main class
Game::Game(GuiFactory* factory) {
bool is_running = true;
Car* car = factory->createCar();
car->drawCar();
// create factory specific window
Monitor* monitor = factory->createMonitor();
// create factory specific keyboard
Keyboard* keyboard = factory->createKeyboard();
while (is_running) {
// keyboard input
string key_input = keyboard->getKeys();
if (key_input == "quit") {
is_running = false;
} else if (key_input != "") {
if(key_input == "right"){
car->turnRight(monitor);
}
}
}
}
I have a main car class and an SDLCar class, which inherits car.
class Car {
public:
Car();
virtual ~Car();
virtual void drawCar() = 0;
virtual void turnRight() = 0;
};
Here is where I'm confused:
class SDLCar : public Car {
public:
SDLCar();
virtual ~SDLCar();
void drawCar();
void turnRight(SDLMonitor& monitor);
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
};
Could someone please explain?
In your base class Car you have declared the method turnRight which takes no parameters.
In your derived class SDLCar you have declared a completely different method with the same name. The reason why it's a different method and not a function override is that its takes a parameter. It should be parameterless to override Car::turnRight.
And because it's not a function override, the rules of polymorphism don't apply. Thus you can't call SDLCar::turnRight(SDLMonitor&) from a Car pointer.
Right now is an excellent time to start using the override keyword. It prevents specifically these kind of programming errors. By marking a function with override:
void turnRight(SDLMonitor& monitor) override;
the compiler will automatically check that it actually overrides a function from the base class.
E.g. with the above declaration, the compiler would give you an error (or a warning at least). This would've helped you find your error right away and prevented more erroneous code such as car->turnRight(monitor).
So now that the error is found, you need to find a way to fix it. Either declare the base class turnRight to take a SDLMonitor& as well, or think of something else if that's not how it should behave.
IMO having to pass the game window to a method like turnRight seems weird. Why would turning a car need a window? I think turnRight should do just what it says on the tin: turn the car right. Nothing else.
I don't know why you're passing a window to the method but if it's for drawing, shouldn't the drawCar method handle that? I don't know your code, so I'll leave it up to you.
Related
So I have this:
//base class
class InterfaceItem
{
public:
//iterates through m_SubItems vector looking for an item with that name and
//returns it
InterfaceItem* GetSubItem(string Name);
private:
vector<InterfaceItem*> m_SubItems;
}
//one of the classes that derive from InterfaceItem
class Window : public InterfaceItem
{
//other functions
}
So if I do something like
Window ThisWindow; //pretend it is already initialized and has sub-items
ThisWindow.GetSubItems();
it will return an object of type InterfaceItem*, so I am not able to access any of the Window specific functions unless I do something like
Window* TempWindow = static_cast<Window*>(ThisWindow.GetSubItems());
What is the best solution for this? Is it to use a function template? If so, would this be the correct syntax?
class InterfaceItem
{
public:
template<class Type*> Type* GetSubItem(string Name);
private:
vector<InterfaceItem*> m_SubItems;
}
I've tried this and I got some WEIRD errors. Files that pretty had nothing to do with this started saying classes that were clearly #included didn't exist and some other weird stuff
Using the static_cast on the calling side is actually a good way to go. You will need to call that static_cast somewhere. If you don't call it on the receiving side, you will need to call it inside the GetSubItem.
Even better way, if you have RTTI enabled and are OK with sacrificing a little bit of performance, is to use dynamic_cast instead. The difference is that dynamic_cast would only succeed if the value the subItem points to is in fact an instance of type Window, otherwise it will return nullptr. This way you can write:
Window* TempWindow = dynamic_cast<Window*>(ThisWindow.GetSubItems());
if (nullptr != TempWindow) {
// process the window
}
else { // that particular subitem is not a Window*
// handle failure somehow
}
I was recently in a job interview and my interviewer gave me a modeling question that involved serialization of different shapes into a file.
The task was to implements shapes like circle or rectangles by first defining an abstract class named Shape and then implements the various shapes (circle, rectangle..) by inheriting from the base class (Shape).
The two abstract methods for each shape were: read_to_file (which was supposed to read the shape from a file) and write_to_file which supposed to write the shape into a file.
All was done by the implementation of that virtual function in the inherited shape (Example: For Circle I was writing the radius, for square I saved the side of the square....).
class Shape {
public:
string Shape_type;
virtual void write_into_file()=0;
virtual void read_into_files()=0;
Shape() {
}
virtual ~Shape() {
}};
class Square: public Shape {
public:
int size;
Square(int size) {
this->size = size;
}
void write_into_file() {
//write this Square into a file
}
void read_into_files() {
//read this Square into a file
}
};
That was done in order to see if I know polymorphism.
But, then I was asked to implement two functions that take a vector of *shape and write/read it into a file.
The writing part was easy and goes something like that:
for (Shape sh : Shapes) {
s.write_into_file();
}
as for the reading part I thought about reading the first word in the text (I implemented the serializable file like a text file that have this line: Shape_type: Circle, Radius: 12; Shape_type:Square...., so the first words said the shape type). and saving it to a string such as:
string shape_type;
shape_type="Circle";
Then I needed to create a new instance of that specific shape and I thought about something like a big switch
<pre><code>
switch(shape_type):
{
case Circle: return new circle;
case Square: return new square
......
}
</pre></code>
And then, the interviewer told me that there is a problem with this implementation
which I thought was the fact that every new shape the we will add in the future we should also update int that big swicht. he try to direct me into a design pattern, I told him that maybe the factory design pattern will help but I couldn't find a way to get rid of that switch. even if I will move the switch from the function into a FactoryClass I will still have to use the switch in order to check the type of the shape (according to the string content i got from the text file).
I had a string that I read from the file, that say the current type of the shape. I wanted to do something like:
string shape_type;
shape_type="Circle";
Shape s = new shape_type; //which will be like: Shape s = new Circle
But I can't do it in c++.
Any idea on what I should have done?
In you factory you could map a std::string to a function<Shape*()>. At startup you register factory methods will the factory:
shapeFactory.add("circle", []{new Circle;});
shapeFactory.add("square", []{new Square;});
shapeFactory.add("triangle", []{new Triangle;});
In your deserialization code you read the name of the type and get its factory method from the factory:
std::string className = // read string from serialization stream
auto factory = shapeFactory.get(className);
Shape *shape = factory();
You've now got a pointer to the concrete shape instance which can be used to deserialize the object.
EDIT: Added more code as requested:
class ShapeFactory
{
private:
std::map<std::string, std::function<Shape*()> > m_Functions;
public:
void add(const std::string &name, std::function<Share*()> creator)
{
m_Functions.insert(name, creator)
}
std::function<Shape*()> get(const std::string &name) const
{
return m_Functions.at(name);
}
};
NOTE: I've left out error checking.
In C++, with
for (Shape sh : Shapes) {
s.write_into_file();
}
you have object slicing. The object sh is a Shape and nothing else, it looses all inheritance information.
You either need to store references (not possible to store in a standard collection) or pointers, and use that when looping.
In C++ you would to read and write some kind of type tag into the file to remember the concrete type.
A virtual method like ShapeType get_type_tag() would do it, where the return type is an enumeration corresponding to one of the concrete classes.
Thinking about it, though, the question was probably just getting at wanting you to add read and write functions to the interface.
You could create a dictionary of factory functions keyed by a shape name or shape id (shape_type).
// prefer std::shared_ptr or std::unique_ptr of course
std::map<std::string, std::function<Shape *()>> Shape_Factory_Map;
// some kind of type registration is now needed
// to build the map of functions
RegisterShape(std::string, std::function<Shape *()>);
// or some kind of
BuildShapeFactoryMap();
// then instead of your switch you would simply
//call the appropriate function in the map
Shape * myShape = Shape_Factory_Map[shape_type]();
In this case though you still have to update the creation of the map with any new shapes you come up with later, so I can't say for sure that it buys you all that much.
All the answers so far still appear to have to use a switch or map somewhere to know which class to use to create the different types of shapes. If you need to add another type, you would have to modify the code and recompile.
Perhaps using the Chain of Responsibility Pattern is a better approach. This way you can dynamically add new creation techniques or add them at compile time without modifying any already existing code:
Your chain will keep a linked list of all the creation types and will traverse the list until it finds the instance that can make the specified type.
class Creator{
Creator*next; // 1. "next" pointer in the base class
public:
Creator()
{
next = 0;
}
void setNext(Creator*n)
{
next = n;
}
void add(Creator*n)
{
if (next)
next->add(n);
else
next = n;
}
// 2. The "chain" method in the Creator class always delegates to the next obj
virtual Shape handle(string type)
{
next->handle(i);
}
);
Each subclass of Creator will check if it can make the type and return it if it can, or delegate to the next in the chain.
I did create a Factory in C++ some time ago in which a class automatically registers itself at compile time when it extends a given template.
Available here: https://gist.github.com/sacko87/3359911.
I am not too sure how people react to links outside of SO but it is a couple of files worth. However once the work is done, using the example within that link, all that you need to do to have a new object included into the factory would be to extend the BaseImpl class and have a static string "Name" field (see main.cpp). The template then registers the string and type into the map automatically. Allowing you to call:
Base *base = BaseFactory::Create("Circle");
You can of course replace Base for Shape.
I am doing an assignment for the university course and me and my partner have a problem. Program we are making is a game.
We have several classes, which all inherit from the base class, called Creature. These are all enemies player needs to deal with and they all run their own AIs. There are 4 different types of child classes, all within namespace Creature(Including parent, Creature), with one class having special functions that only it needs. This class is called Bunny.
Now, my job is to call AI functions as needed. Problem is, I do not always know what class I am calling out, as such, when I ask the game board to tell me what Creature I get.
All enemies are saved as pointers like so, in game board squares:
struct Square
{
// Pointers to Morso class, where the enemy is saved
Creature::Creature* creature;
//Undeeded stuff removed
};
Now, this is all and fine until we need to access to special functions. Pupu will multiply if certain conditions are filled. As such, with in Pupu there are few functions I need to call to make sure it carries out it's act correctly.
However, here comes the problem.
I call our board class to give me the creature that is in the coordinates I give to it.
void GameEngine::GameEngine::runAI()
{
Creature::Creature* creature= NULL;
for(unsigned int y = 0; y < dimY; y++)
{
for(unsigned int x = 0; x < dimX; x++)
{
Coordinate target;
target.setX(x);
target.setY(y);
creature= board_->returnCreature(target);
//If there is a creature in the target, run its AI
if(creature!= NULL)
{
//If it is, check special procedures
if(creature->returnType() == "bunny")
{
bunnyReproduce(creature);
}
creature->ai();
}
}//for x
}//for y
}
Now, :
void GameEngine::GameEngine::bunnyReproduce(Ccreature::Creature* creature)
{
//Checks that it really is a bunny
if( creature->returnType() != "bunny"){ return; }
//Check is there another bunny near
creature->checkForMate();
}
The problem is, creature, at this point, can't call for checkForMate, which is public member of Bunny, but not Creature. Do we need to make virtual function into Creature?
I tried making checkForMate into Creature::Bunny, but since the original value I try to give to it is Creature class, I can't do so. Do we need to to create an empty virtual function in Creature class and then override it it Bunnyclass?
I am running Qt Creator 2.7.0, with QT 5.0.2.
You should add virtual function reproduce to Creature class and implement it in Bunny or any other creature you may later add to the game. So that any creature will reproduce itself in it's own way. You don't even need to check creature type in this case. Since if you have some non reproducible creatures, you may just implement reproduce as empty method that will do nothing.
Ideally, your engine shouldn't need to care at all what kind of creature it's working with.
If you want the bunny to reproduce on each ai() step, why not do it in the bunny's ai()?
After all, shouldn't it be the bunny's responsibility to decide when to reproduce, rather than some almighty external Engine?
void Creature::Bunny::ai()
{
if (niceMateNearby())
reproduce();
else
eatCarrotsAndJumpAround();
}
i'm sorry for the title. I seem to have a problem. I'm just a beginner and i'm sorry if this was asked before.. i couldnt find a straight answer on this one. (when i search class, pointer and child i get results about passing parent or child pointers... i do not want to pass the (this) child or parent pointer, i just want to pass a pointer i initialized on a child class.. to the parent). What i'm trying to do here is better explained by code:
class App
{
public:
virtual void init(void) { window = &BasicWindow(); }
virtual void createWindow(void) { window->create(); }
protected:
Window *window;
};
class Game : public App
{
public:
virtual void init(void) { window = &OpenGLWindow(); }
};
int main ()
{
App *game = &Game();
game->init();
game->createWindow();
return 0;
}
Is this legal?
I have an abstract Window class from which BasicWindow and OpenGLWindow derives.
However, when i create the window i get an Access violation reading location error breaking at window->create() inside the App::createWindow() function.
Thanks
I'm guessing this is because you are pointing to a temporary:
window = &BasicWindow()
Once that function exits, window points to "crap" and bad things will happen.
presumably, what you want to do is to create a new instance of the window - i.e.
window = new BasicWindow();
Don't forget to cleanup!
I'm going to take a punt that you're coming from Objective-C? ;)
I think your problems all stem from not understanding how C++ objects are created.
First up: window = &BasicWindow(); is not how you should be creating a new object. You need to use window = new BasicWindow; This results in space for a BasicWindow being allocated in memory, and the default constructor for BasicWindow will be invoked.
Your have a similar error in your main() method, however in this case you do not need to use new to allocate it, you can just declare an instance and it will be created on the stack.
Your main method would then look like:
int main ()
{
Game game;
game.createWindow();
return 0;
}
The remaining problem is that your init methods are not being called. In C++ constructors are called automatically, and are named the same name as the class. An example default constructor for the game class would be:
Game() { window = new OpenGLWindow(); }
Another thing you need to know is that, unlike objective C, the entire hierarchy of constructors is called automatically when you create an object. That is, when you create an instance of Game, its constructor is called, as well as the constructor of every base class. In fact, the base class constructor is called FIRST. So in your case, if you just change the init methods to constructors, you'll allocate two windows (one of each type) and leak the BasicWindow. Which is not cool.
You should probably just leave them named init, and just make sure you call it immediately after creation.
In summary, try this:
class App
{
public:
virtual void init(void) { window = new BasicWindow; }
virtual void createWindow(void) { window->create(); }
protected:
Window *window;
};
class Game : public App
{
public:
virtual void init(void) { window = new OpenGLWindow; }
};
int main ()
{
Game game;
game.init();
game.createWindow();
return 0;
}
(and don't forget to cleanup the new'd objects!)
EDIT (added example complete with cleanup):
class App
{
public:
App() : window( NULL ) {}
virtual ~App() { delete window; }
virtual void init() { window = new BasicWindow; }
virtual void createWindow() { window->create(); }
protected:
Window *window;
};
class Game : public App
{
public:
virtual void init() { window = new OpenGLWindow; }
};
int main ()
{
Game game;
game.init();
game.createWindow();
return 0;
}
window is an uninitialized pointer of class App. Because, no where you are calling init method. So, window->create() results error, when base class createWindow() is called.
Edit 1:
As far as now, every thing is syntactically correct but amn't sure of what you are trying to achieve. Don't create temporary/nameless objects and assign them. Instead construct them with operator new in window = &BasicWindow(); and window = &OpenGLWindow();. Since the class manages resources, you should follow the principle Rule of Three. Also know that in statement -
App *game = new Game();
The static type of operand ( App* ) is different from the dynamic type( Game*). In such a case, the static type acts as a base class and it's destructor must be virtual or else the behaviour is undefined. So, the App class destructor must be virutal.
The error might be related to the fact that you are using pointers to temporaries.
virtual void init(void) { window = &BasicWindow(); }
This pointer becomes invalid after the ";". Use "new" instead of "&".
You need to call game->init() if you want to use the window pointer too (Even better put in in a constructor, thats what they are for).
Besides that, it is perfectly legal to change protected members of base classes.
I feel like the answer to this question is really simple, but I really am having trouble finding it. So here goes:
Suppose you have the following classes:
class Base;
class Child : public Base;
class Displayer
{
public:
Displayer(Base* element);
Displayer(Child* element);
}
Additionally, I have a Base* object which might point to either an instance of the class Base or an instance of the class Child.
Now I want to create a Displayer based on the element pointed to by object, however, I want to pick the right version of the constructor. As I currently have it, this would accomplish just that (I am being a bit fuzzy with my C++ here, but I think this the clearest way)
object->createDisplayer();
virtual void Base::createDisplayer()
{
new Displayer(this);
}
virtual void Child::createDisplayer()
{
new Displayer(this);
}
This works, however, there is a problem with this:
Base and Child are part of the application system, while Displayer is part of the GUI system. I want to build the GUI system independently of the Application system, so that it is easy to replace the GUI. This means that Base and Child should not know about Displayer. However, I do not know how I can achieve this without letting the Application classes know about the GUI.
Am I missing something very obvious or am I trying something that is not possible?
Edit: I missed a part of the problem in my original question. This is all happening quite deep in the GUI code, providing functionality that is unique to this one GUI. This means that I want the Base and Child classes not to know about the call at all - not just hide from them to what the call is
It seems a classic scenario for double dispatch. The only way to avoid the double dispatch is switching over types (if( typeid(*object) == typeid(base) ) ...) which you should avoid.
What you can do is to make the callback mechanism generic, so that the application doesn't have to know of the GUI:
class app_callback {
public:
// sprinkle const where appropriate...
virtual void call(base&) = 0;
virtual void call(derived&) = 0;
};
class Base {
public:
virtual void call_me_back(app_callback& cb) {cb.call(*this);}
};
class Child : public Base {
public:
virtual void call_me_back(app_callback& cb) {cb.call(*this);}
};
You could then use this machinery like this:
class display_callback : public app_callback {
public:
// sprinkle const where appropriate...
virtual void call(base& obj) { displayer = new Displayer(obj); }
virtual void call(derived& obj) { displayer = new Displayer(obj); }
Displayer* displayer;
};
Displayer* create_displayer(Base& obj)
{
display_callback dcb;
obj.call_me_back(dcb);
return dcb.displayer;
}
You will have to have one app_callback::call() function for each class in the hierarchy and you will have to add one to each callback every time you add a class to the hierarchy.
Since in your case calling with just a base& is possible, too, the compiler won't throw an error when you forget to overload one of these functions in a callback class. It will simply call the one taking a base&. That's bad.
If you want, you could move the identical code of call_me_back() for each class into a privately inherited class template using the CRTP. But if you just have half a dozen classes it doesn't really add all that much clarity and it requires readers to understand the CRTP.
Have the application set a factory interface on the system code. Here's a hacked up way to do this. Obviously, apply this changes to your own preferences and coding standards. In some places, I'm inlining the functions in the class declaration - only for brevity.
// PLATFORM CODE
// platformcode.h - BEGIN
class IDisplayer;
class IDisplayFactory
{
virtual IDisplayer* CreateDisplayer(Base* pBase) = 0;
virtual IDisplayer* CreateDisplayer(Child* pBase) = 0;
};
namespace SystemDisplayerFactory
{
static IDisplayFactory* s_pFactory;
SetFactory(IDisplayFactory* pFactory)
{
s_pFactory = pFactory;
}
IDisplayFactory* GetFactory()
{
return s_pFactory;
}
};
// platformcode.h - end
// Base.cpp and Child.cpp implement the "CreateDisplayer" methods as follows
void Base::CreateDisplayer()
{
IDisplayer* pDisplayer = SystemDisplayerFactory::GetFactory()->CreateDisplayer(this);
}
void Child::CreateDisplayer()
{
IDisplayer* pDisplayer = SystemDisplayerFactory::GetFactory()->CreateDisplayer(this);
}
// In your application code, do this:
#include "platformcode.h"
class CDiplayerFactory : public IDisplayerFactory
{
IDisplayer* CreateDisplayer(Base* pBase)
{
return new Displayer(pBase);
}
IDisplayer* CreateDisplayer(Child* pChild)
{
return new Displayer(pChild);
}
}
Then somewhere early in app initialization (main or WinMain), say the following:
CDisplayerFactory* pFactory = new CDisplayerFactory();
SystemDisplayFactory::SetFactory(pFactory);
This will keep your platform code from having to know the messy details of what a "displayer" is, and you can implement mock versions of IDisplayer later to test Base and Child independently of the rendering system.
Also, IDisplayer (methods not shown) becomes an interface declaration exposed by the platform code. Your implementation of "Displayer" is a class (in your app code) that inherits from IDisplayer.