Related
I want to transfer a function pointer in the constructor but get some error Messages...
I my parent class I declared:
class Strip{
public:
typedef void(Strip::*LOG)(const std::string&);
with a function log(const string&)
In my child class I forward declare Strip with class Strip and have somthing like that
class Observable{
public:
Observable(const char &signal,Strip::LOG log,const QCustomPlot *plot);
with a parameter
Strip::LOG log;
When I try to compile I get the error's
Strip::LOG has not been declared
and LOG in class Strip does not name a type
Any Idea how to fix that?
So passing a pointer to a member function presents several issues:
It's a member function as such it will need to have an instance of the class passed into it to work (the implicit this parameter).
It doesn't prevent the class you're passing it to from knowing about the class the function pointer originates so you gain nothing in terms of hiding.
A better way is to declare an Interface and pass that
// ILogger.hpp
// should be completely virtual
struct ILogger{
virtual void log(const ::std::string&) = 0;
};
// Strip.cpp
class Strip : public ILogger{
public:
void log(const ::std::string& data){
// does something
}
};
// Observable.cpp
#include "ILogger.hpp"
class Observable{
public:
Observable(ILogger* logger);
};
// some other file that knows about and constructs both
// has to be a pointer allocated to new to make the Vtables work
::std::unique_ptr<Strip> s(new Strip());
// pass in the pointer to an instance of a class that implements ILogger
Observable observed(s.get());
Using an interface means you can completely abstract the two classes apart and Observable need not know anything about the instance being passed to it other than it implements ILogger. Internally Observable can call the logger by just calling logger->log.
May be this code can be usefull (compiled w/o errors):
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Strip{
public:
typedef void(Strip::*LOG)(const std::string&);
void log(const string& s)
{
cout << "log() called\n";
}
};
class Observable{
public:
Observable( Strip::LOG l )
{
Strip s;
(s.*l)("string");
}
};
int main() {
Strip::LOG log = &Strip::log;
Observable o( log );
return 0;
}
http://ideone.com/RD4K1r
I'm looking for some advice of what would be an appropriate interface for dealing with aspects about classes (that deal with classes), but which are not part of the actual class they are dealing with (meta-aspects). This needs some explanation...
In my specific example I need to implement a custom RTTI system that is a bit more complex than the one offered by C++ (I won't go into why I need that). My base object is FooBase and each child class of this base is associated a FooTypeInfo object.
// Given a base pointer that holds a derived type,
// I need to be able to find the actual type of the
// derived object I'm holding.
FooBase* base = new FooDerived;
// The obvious approach is to use virtual functions...
const FooTypeInfo& info = base->typeinfo();
Using virtual functions to deal with the run-time type of the object doesn't feel right to me. I tend to think of the run-time type of an object as something that goes beyond the scope of the class, and as such it should not be part of its explicit interface. The following interface makes me feel a lot more comfortable...
FooBase* base = new FooDerived;
const FooTypeInfo& info = foo::typeinfo(base);
However, even though the interface is not part of the class, the implementation would still have to use virtual functions, in order for this to work:
class FooBase
{
protected:
virtual const FooTypeInfo& typeinfo() const = 0;
friend const FooTypeInfo& ::foo::typeinfo(const FooBase*);
};
namespace foo
{
const FooTypeInfo& typeinfo(const FooBase* ptr) {
return ptr->typeinfo();
}
}
Do you think I should use this second interface (that feels more appropriate to me) and deal with the slightly more complex implementation, or shoud I just go with the first interface?
#Seth Carnegie
This is a difficult problem if you don't even want derived classes to know about being part of the RTTI ... because you can't really do anything in the FooBase constructor that depends on the runtime type of the class being instantiated (for the same reason you can't call virtual methods in a ctor or dtor).
FooBase is the common base of the hierarchy. I also have a separate CppFoo<> class template that reduces the amount of boilerplate and makes the definition of types easier. There's another PythonFoo class that work with Python derived objects.
template<typename FooClass>
class CppFoo : public FooBase
{
private:
const FooTypeInfo& typeinfo() const {
return ::foo::typeinfo<FooClass>();
}
};
class SpecificFoo : public CppFoo<SpecificFoo>
{
// The class can now be implemented agnostic of the
// RTTI system that works behind the scenes.
};
A few more details about how the system works can be found here:
► https://stackoverflow.com/a/8979111/627005
You can tie dynamic type with static type via typeid keyword and use returned std::type_info objects as means of identification. Furthermore, if you apply typeid on a separate class created specially for the purpose, it will be totally non-intrusive for the classes you are interesed in, althought their names still have to be known in advance. It is important that typeid is applied on a type which supports dynamic polymorphism - it has to have some virtual function.
Here is example:
#include <typeinfo>
#include <cstdio>
class Base;
class Derived;
template <typename T> class sensor { virtual ~sensor(); };
extern const std::type_info& base = typeid(sensor<Base>);
extern const std::type_info& derived = typeid(sensor<Derived>);
template <const std::type_info* Type> struct type
{
static const char* name;
static void stuff();
};
template <const std::type_info* Type> const char* type<Type>::name = Type->name();
template<> void type<&base>::stuff()
{
std::puts("I know about Base");
}
template<> void type<&derived>::stuff()
{
std::puts("I know about Derived");
}
int main()
{
std::puts(type<&base>::name);
type<&base>::stuff();
std::puts(type<&derived>::name);
type<&derived>::stuff();
}
Needless to say, since std::type_info are proper objects and they are unique and ordered, you can manage them in a collection and thus erase type queried from the interface:
template <typename T> struct sensor {virtual ~sensor() {}};
struct type
{
const std::type_info& info;
template <typename T>
explicit type(sensor<T> t) : info(typeid(t))
{};
};
bool operator<(const type& lh, const type& rh)
{
return lh.info.before(rh.info);
}
int main()
{
std::set<type> t;
t.insert(type(sensor<Base>()));
t.insert(type(sensor<Derived>()));
for (std::set<type>::iterator i = t.begin(); i != t.end(); ++i)
std::puts(i->info.name());
}
Of course you can mix and match both, as you see fit.
Two limitations:
there is no actual introspection here . You can add it to template struct sensor via clever metaprogramming, it's very wide subject (and mind bending, sometimes).
names of all types you want to support have to be known in advance.
One possible variation is adding RTTI "framework hook" such as static const sensor<Myclass> rtti_MyClass; to implementation files where class names are already known and let the constructor do the work. They would also have to be complete types at this point to enable introspection in sensor.
Is it possible in C++ to have a member function that is both static and virtual? Apparently, there isn't a straightforward way to do it (static virtual member(); is a compile error), but is there at least a way to achieve the same effect?
I.E:
struct Object
{
struct TypeInformation;
static virtual const TypeInformation &GetTypeInformation() const;
};
struct SomeObject : public Object
{
static virtual const TypeInformation &GetTypeInformation() const;
};
It makes sense to use GetTypeInformation() both on an instance (object->GetTypeInformation()) and on a class (SomeObject::GetTypeInformation()), which can be useful for comparisons and vital for templates.
The only ways I can think of involves writing two functions / a function and a constant, per class, or use macros.
Any other solutions?
No, there's no way to do it, since what would happen when you called Object::GetTypeInformation()? It can't know which derived class version to call since there's no object associated with it.
You'll have to make it a non-static virtual function to work properly; if you also want to be able to call a specific derived class's version non-virtually without an object instance, you'll have to provide a second redunduant static non-virtual version as well.
Many say it is not possible, I would go one step further and say it is not meaningfull.
A static member is something that does not relate to any instance, only to the class.
A virtual member is something that does not relate directly to any class, only to an instance.
So a static virtual member would be something that does not relate to any instance or any class.
I ran into this problem the other day: I had some classes full of static methods but I wanted to use inheritance and virtual methods and reduce code repetition. My solution was:
Instead of using static methods, use a singleton with virtual methods.
In other words, each class should contain a static method that you call to get a pointer to a single, shared instance of the class. You can make the true constructors private or protected so that outside code can't misuse it by creating additional instances.
In practice, using a singleton is a lot like using static methods except that you can take advantage of inheritance and virtual methods.
While Alsk has already given a pretty detailed answer, I'd like to add an alternative, since I think his enhanced implementation is overcomplicated.
We start with an abstract base class, that provides the interface for all the object types:
class Object
{
public:
virtual char* GetClassName() = 0;
};
Now we need an actual implementation. But to avoid having to write both the static and the virtual methods, we will have our actual object classes inherit the virtual methods. This does obviously only work, if the base class knows how to access the static member function. So we need to use a template and pass the actual objects class name to it:
template<class ObjectType>
class ObjectImpl : public Object
{
public:
virtual char* GetClassName()
{
return ObjectType::GetClassNameStatic();
}
};
Finally we need to implement our real object(s). Here we only need to implement the static member function, the virtual member functions will be inherited from the ObjectImpl template class, instantiated with the name of the derived class, so it will access it's static members.
class MyObject : public ObjectImpl<MyObject>
{
public:
static char* GetClassNameStatic()
{
return "MyObject";
}
};
class YourObject : public ObjectImpl<YourObject>
{
public:
static char* GetClassNameStatic()
{
return "YourObject";
}
};
Let's add some code to test:
char* GetObjectClassName(Object* object)
{
return object->GetClassName();
}
int main()
{
MyObject myObject;
YourObject yourObject;
printf("%s\n", MyObject::GetClassNameStatic());
printf("%s\n", myObject.GetClassName());
printf("%s\n", GetObjectClassName(&myObject));
printf("%s\n", YourObject::GetClassNameStatic());
printf("%s\n", yourObject.GetClassName());
printf("%s\n", GetObjectClassName(&yourObject));
return 0;
}
Addendum (Jan 12th 2019):
Instead of using the GetClassNameStatic() function, you can also define the the class name as a static member, even "inline", which IIRC works since C++11 (don't get scared by all the modifiers :)):
class MyObject : public ObjectImpl<MyObject>
{
public:
// Access this from the template class as `ObjectType::s_ClassName`
static inline const char* const s_ClassName = "MyObject";
// ...
};
It is possible!
But what exactly is possible, let's narrow down. People often want some kind of "static virtual function" because of duplication of code needed for being able to call the same function through static call "SomeDerivedClass::myfunction()" and polymorphic call "base_class_pointer->myfunction()". "Legal" method for allowing such functionality is duplication of function definitions:
class Object
{
public:
static string getTypeInformationStatic() { return "base class";}
virtual string getTypeInformation() { return getTypeInformationStatic(); }
};
class Foo: public Object
{
public:
static string getTypeInformationStatic() { return "derived class";}
virtual string getTypeInformation() { return getTypeInformationStatic(); }
};
What if base class has a great number of static functions and derived class has to override every of them and one forgot to provide a duplicating definition for virtual function. Right, we'll get some strange error during runtime which is hard to track down. Cause duplication of code is a bad thing. The following tries to resolve this problem (and I want to tell beforehand that it is completely type-safe and doesn't contain any black magic like typeid's or dynamic_cast's :)
So, we want to provide only one definition of getTypeInformation() per derived class and it is obvious that it has to be a definition of static function because it is not possible to call "SomeDerivedClass::getTypeInformation()" if getTypeInformation() is virtual. How can we call static function of derived class through pointer to base class? It is not possible with vtable because vtable stores pointers only to virtual functions and since we decided not to use virtual functions, we cannot modify vtable for our benefit. Then, to be able to access static function for derived class through pointer to base class we have to store somehow the type of an object within its base class. One approach is to make base class templatized using "curiously recurring template pattern" but it is not appropriate here and we'll use a technique called "type erasure":
class TypeKeeper
{
public:
virtual string getTypeInformation() = 0;
};
template<class T>
class TypeKeeperImpl: public TypeKeeper
{
public:
virtual string getTypeInformation() { return T::getTypeInformationStatic(); }
};
Now we can store the type of an object within base class "Object" with a variable "keeper":
class Object
{
public:
Object(){}
boost::scoped_ptr<TypeKeeper> keeper;
//not virtual
string getTypeInformation() const
{ return keeper? keeper->getTypeInformation(): string("base class"); }
};
In a derived class keeper must be initialized during construction:
class Foo: public Object
{
public:
Foo() { keeper.reset(new TypeKeeperImpl<Foo>()); }
//note the name of the function
static string getTypeInformationStatic()
{ return "class for proving static virtual functions concept"; }
};
Let's add syntactic sugar:
template<class T>
void override_static_functions(T* t)
{ t->keeper.reset(new TypeKeeperImpl<T>()); }
#define OVERRIDE_STATIC_FUNCTIONS override_static_functions(this)
Now declarations of descendants look like:
class Foo: public Object
{
public:
Foo() { OVERRIDE_STATIC_FUNCTIONS; }
static string getTypeInformationStatic()
{ return "class for proving static virtual functions concept"; }
};
class Bar: public Foo
{
public:
Bar() { OVERRIDE_STATIC_FUNCTIONS; }
static string getTypeInformationStatic()
{ return "another class for the same reason"; }
};
usage:
Object* obj = new Foo();
cout << obj->getTypeInformation() << endl; //calls Foo::getTypeInformationStatic()
obj = new Bar();
cout << obj->getTypeInformation() << endl; //calls Bar::getTypeInformationStatic()
Foo* foo = new Bar();
cout << foo->getTypeInformation() << endl; //calls Bar::getTypeInformationStatic()
Foo::getTypeInformation(); //compile-time error
Foo::getTypeInformationStatic(); //calls Foo::getTypeInformationStatic()
Bar::getTypeInformationStatic(); //calls Bar::getTypeInformationStatic()
Advantages:
less duplication of code (but we
have to call
OVERRIDE_STATIC_FUNCTIONS in every
constructor)
Disadvantages:
OVERRIDE_STATIC_FUNCTIONS in every
constructor
memory and performance
overhead
increased complexity
Open issues:
1) there are different names for static and virtual functions
how to solve ambiguity here?
class Foo
{
public:
static void f(bool f=true) { cout << "static";}
virtual void f() { cout << "virtual";}
};
//somewhere
Foo::f(); //calls static f(), no ambiguity
ptr_to_foo->f(); //ambiguity
2) how to implicitly call OVERRIDE_STATIC_FUNCTIONS inside every constructor?
It is possible. Make two functions: static and virtual
struct Object{
struct TypeInformation;
static const TypeInformation &GetTypeInformationStatic() const
{
return GetTypeInformationMain1();
}
virtual const TypeInformation &GetTypeInformation() const
{
return GetTypeInformationMain1();
}
protected:
static const TypeInformation &GetTypeInformationMain1(); // Main function
};
struct SomeObject : public Object {
static const TypeInformation &GetTypeInformationStatic() const
{
return GetTypeInformationMain2();
}
virtual const TypeInformation &GetTypeInformation() const
{
return GetTypeInformationMain2();
}
protected:
static const TypeInformation &GetTypeInformationMain2(); // Main function
};
No, this is not possible, because static member functions lack a this pointer. And static members (both functions and variables) are not really class members per-se. They just happen to be invoked by ClassName::member, and adhere to the class access specifiers. Their storage is defined somewhere outside the class; storage is not created each time you instantiated an object of the class. Pointers to class members are special in semantics and syntax. A pointer to a static member is a normal pointer in all regards.
virtual functions in a class needs the this pointer, and is very coupled to the class, hence they can't be static.
It's not possible, but that's just because an omission. It isn't something that "doesn't make sense" as a lot of people seem to claim. To be clear, I'm talking about something like this:
struct Base {
static virtual void sayMyName() {
cout << "Base\n";
}
};
struct Derived : public Base {
static void sayMyName() override {
cout << "Derived\n";
}
};
void foo(Base *b) {
b->sayMyName();
Derived::sayMyName(); // Also would work.
}
This is 100% something that could be implemented (it just hasn't), and I'd argue something that is useful.
Consider how normal virtual functions work. Remove the statics and add in some other stuff and we have:
struct Base {
virtual void sayMyName() {
cout << "Base\n";
}
virtual void foo() {
}
int somedata;
};
struct Derived : public Base {
void sayMyName() override {
cout << "Derived\n";
}
};
void foo(Base *b) {
b->sayMyName();
}
This works fine and basically what happens is the compiler makes two tables, called VTables, and assigns indices to the virtual functions like this
enum Base_Virtual_Functions {
sayMyName = 0;
foo = 1;
};
using VTable = void*[];
const VTable Base_VTable = {
&Base::sayMyName,
&Base::foo
};
const VTable Derived_VTable = {
&Derived::sayMyName,
&Base::foo
};
Next each class with virtual functions is augmented with another field that points to its VTable, so the compiler basically changes them to be like this:
struct Base {
VTable* vtable;
virtual void sayMyName() {
cout << "Base\n";
}
virtual void foo() {
}
int somedata;
};
struct Derived : public Base {
VTable* vtable;
void sayMyName() override {
cout << "Derived\n";
}
};
Then what actually happens when you call b->sayMyName()? Basically this:
b->vtable[Base_Virtual_Functions::sayMyName](b);
(The first parameter becomes this.)
Ok fine, so how would it work with static virtual functions? Well what's the difference between static and non-static member functions? The only difference is that the latter get a this pointer.
We can do exactly the same with static virtual functions - just remove the this pointer.
b->vtable[Base_Virtual_Functions::sayMyName]();
This could then support both syntaxes:
b->sayMyName(); // Prints "Base" or "Derived"...
Base::sayMyName(); // Always prints "Base".
So ignore all the naysayers. It does make sense. Why isn't it supported then? I think it's because it has very little benefit and could even be a little confusing.
The only technical advantage over a normal virtual function is that you don't need to pass this to the function but I don't think that would make any measurable difference to performance.
It does mean you don't have a separate static and non-static function for cases when you have an instance, and when you don't have an instance, but also it might be confusing that it's only really "virtual" when you use the instance call.
Well , quite a late answer but it is possible using the curiously recurring template pattern. This wikipedia article has the info you need and also the example under static polymorphism is what you are asked for.
This question is over a decade old, but it looks like it gets a good amount of traffic, so I wanted to post an alternative using modern C++ features that I haven't seen anywhere else.
This solution uses CRTP and SFINAE to perform static dispatching. That, in itself, is nothing new, but all such implementations I've found lack strict signature checking for "overrides." This implementation requires that the "overriding" method signature exactly matches that of the "overridden" method. This behavior more closely resembles that of virtual functions, while also allowing us to effectively overload and "override" a static method.
Note that I put override in quotes because, strictly speaking, we're not technically overriding anything. Instead, we're calling a dispatch method X with signature Y that forwards all of its arguments to T::X, where T is to the first type among a list of types such that T::X exists with signature Y. This list of types considered for dispatching can be anything, but generally would include a default implementation class and the derived class.
Implementation
#include <experimental/type_traits>
template <template <class...> class Op, class... Types>
struct dispatcher;
template <template <class...> class Op, class T>
struct dispatcher<Op, T> : std::experimental::detected_t<Op, T> {};
template <template <class...> class Op, class T, class... Types>
struct dispatcher<Op, T, Types...>
: std::experimental::detected_or_t<
typename dispatcher<Op, Types...>::type, Op, T> {};
// Helper to convert a signature to a function pointer
template <class Signature> struct function_ptr;
template <class R, class... Args> struct function_ptr<R(Args...)> {
using type = R (*)(Args...);
};
// Macro to simplify creation of the dispatcher
// NOTE: This macro isn't smart enough to handle creating an overloaded
// dispatcher because both dispatchers will try to use the same
// integral_constant type alias name. If you want to overload, do it
// manually or make a smarter macro that can somehow put the signature in
// the integral_constant type alias name.
#define virtual_static_method(name, signature, ...) \
template <class VSM_T> \
using vsm_##name##_type = std::integral_constant< \
function_ptr<signature>::type, &VSM_T::name>; \
\
template <class... VSM_Args> \
static auto name(VSM_Args&&... args) \
{ \
return dispatcher<vsm_##name##_type, __VA_ARGS__>::value( \
std::forward<VSM_Args>(args)...); \
}
Example Usage
#include <iostream>
template <class T>
struct Base {
// Define the default implementations
struct defaults {
static std::string alpha() { return "Base::alpha"; };
static std::string bravo(int) { return "Base::bravo"; }
};
// Create the dispatchers
virtual_static_method(alpha, std::string(void), T, defaults);
virtual_static_method(bravo, std::string(int), T, defaults);
static void where_are_the_turtles() {
std::cout << alpha() << std::endl; // Derived::alpha
std::cout << bravo(1) << std::endl; // Base::bravo
}
};
struct Derived : Base<Derived> {
// Overrides Base::alpha
static std::string alpha(){ return "Derived::alpha"; }
// Does not override Base::bravo because signatures differ (even though
// int is implicitly convertible to bool)
static std::string bravo(bool){ return "Derived::bravo"; }
};
int main() {
Derived::where_are_the_turtles();
}
I think what you're trying to do can be done through templates. I'm trying to read between the lines here. What you're trying to do is to call a method from some code, where it calls a derived version but the caller doesn't specify which class. Example:
class Foo {
public:
void M() {...}
};
class Bar : public Foo {
public:
void M() {...}
};
void Try()
{
xxx::M();
}
int main()
{
Try();
}
You want Try() to call the Bar version of M without specifying Bar. The way you do that for statics is to use a template. So change it like so:
class Foo {
public:
void M() {...}
};
class Bar : public Foo {
public:
void M() {...}
};
template <class T>
void Try()
{
T::M();
}
int main()
{
Try<Bar>();
}
No, Static member function can't be virtual .since virtual concept is resolved at run time with the help of vptr, and vptr is non static member of a class.due to that static member function can't acess vptr so static member can't be virtual.
No, its not possible, since static members are bound at compile time, while virtual members are bound at runtime.
If your desired use for a virtual static is to be able to define an interface over the static section of a class then there is a solution to your problem using C++20 concept's.
class ExBase { //object properties
public: virtual int do(int) = 0;
};
template <typename T> //type properties
concept ExReq = std::derived_from<T, ExBase> && requires(int i) { //~constexpr bool
{
T::do_static(i) //checks that this compiles
} -> std::same_as<int> //checks the expression type is int
};
class ExImpl : virtual public ExBase { //satisfies ExReq
public: int do(int i) override {return i;} //overrides do in ExBase
public: static int do_static(int i) {return i;} //satisfies ExReq
};
//...
void some_func(ExReq auto o) {o.do(0); decltype(o)::do_static(0);}
(this works the same way on members aswell!)
For more on how concepts work: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/constraints
For the standard concepts added in C++20: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/concepts
First, the replies are correct that what the OP is requesting is a contradiction in terms: virtual methods depend on the run-time type of an instance; static functions specifically don't depend on an instance -- just on a type. That said, it makes sense to have static functions return something specific to a type. For example, I had a family of MouseTool classes for the State pattern and I started having each one have a static function returning the keyboard modifier that went with it; I used those static functions in the factory function that made the correct MouseTool instance. That function checked the mouse state against MouseToolA::keyboardModifier(), MouseToolB::keyboardModifier(), etc. and then instantiated the appropriate one. Of course later I wanted to check if the state was right so I wanted write something like "if (keyboardModifier == dynamic_type(*state)::keyboardModifier())" (not real C++ syntax), which is what this question is asking.
So, if you find yourself wanting this, you may want to rething your solution. Still, I understand the desire to have static methods and then call them dynamically based on the dynamic type of an instance. I think the Visitor Pattern can give you what you want. It gives you what you want. It's a bit of extra code, but it could be useful for other visitors.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visitor_pattern for background.
struct ObjectVisitor;
struct Object
{
struct TypeInformation;
static TypeInformation GetTypeInformation();
virtual void accept(ObjectVisitor& v);
};
struct SomeObject : public Object
{
static TypeInformation GetTypeInformation();
virtual void accept(ObjectVisitor& v) const;
};
struct AnotherObject : public Object
{
static TypeInformation GetTypeInformation();
virtual void accept(ObjectVisitor& v) const;
};
Then for each concrete Object:
void SomeObject::accept(ObjectVisitor& v) const {
v.visit(*this); // The compiler statically picks the visit method based on *this being a const SomeObject&.
}
void AnotherObject::accept(ObjectVisitor& v) const {
v.visit(*this); // Here *this is a const AnotherObject& at compile time.
}
and then define the base visitor:
struct ObjectVisitor {
virtual ~ObjectVisitor() {}
virtual void visit(const SomeObject& o) {} // Or = 0, depending what you feel like.
virtual void visit(const AnotherObject& o) {} // Or = 0, depending what you feel like.
// More virtual void visit() methods for each Object class.
};
Then the concrete visitor that selects the appropriate static function:
struct ObjectVisitorGetTypeInfo {
Object::TypeInformation result;
virtual void visit(const SomeObject& o) {
result = SomeObject::GetTypeInformation();
}
virtual void visit(const AnotherObject& o) {
result = AnotherObject::GetTypeInformation();
}
// Again, an implementation for each concrete Object.
};
finally, use it:
void printInfo(Object& o) {
ObjectVisitorGetTypeInfo getTypeInfo;
Object::TypeInformation info = o.accept(getTypeInfo).result;
std::cout << info << std::endl;
}
Notes:
Constness left as an exercise.
You returned a reference from a static. Unless you have a singleton, that's questionable.
If you want to avoid copy-paste errors where one of your visit methods calls the wrong static function, you could use a templated helper function (which can't itself be virtual) t your visitor with a template like this:
struct ObjectVisitorGetTypeInfo {
Object::TypeInformation result;
virtual void visit(const SomeObject& o) { doVisit(o); }
virtual void visit(const AnotherObject& o) { doVisit(o); }
// Again, an implementation for each concrete Object.
private:
template <typename T>
void doVisit(const T& o) {
result = T::GetTypeInformation();
}
};
With c++ you can use static inheritance with the crt method. For the example, it is used widely on window template atl & wtl.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiously_recurring_template_pattern
To be simple, you have a class that is templated from itself like class myclass : public myancestor. From this point the myancestor class can now call your static T::YourImpl function.
I had a browse through the other answers and none of them seem to mention virtual function tables (vtable), which explains why this is not possible.
A static function inside a C++ class compiles to something which is effectively the same as any other function in a regular namespace.
In other words, when you declare a function static you are using the class name as a namespace rather than an object (which has an instance, with some associated data).
Let's quickly look at this...
// This example is the same as the example below
class ExampleClass
{
static void exampleFunction();
int someData;
};
// This example is the same as the example above
namespace ExampleClass
{
void exampleFunction();
// Doesn't work quite the same. Each instance of a class
// has independent data. Here the data is global.
int someData;
}
With that out of the way, and an understanding of what a static member function really is, we can now consider vtables.
If you declare any virtual function in a class, then the compiler creates a block of data which (usually) precedes other data members. This block of data contains runtime information which tells the program at runtime where in memory it needs to jump to in order to execute the correct (virtual) function for each instance of a class which might be created during runtime.
The important point here is "block of data". In order for that block of data to exist, it has to be stored as part of an instance of an object (class). If your function is static, then we already said it uses the name of the class as a namespace. There is no object associated with that function call.
To add slightly more detail: A static function does not have an implicit this pointer, which points to the memory where the object lives. Because it doesn't have that, you can't jump to a place in memory and find the vtable for that object. So you can't do virtual function dispatch.
I'm not an expert in compiler engineering by any means, but understanding things at least to this level of detail is helpful, and (hopefully?) makes it easy to understand why (at least in C++) static virtual does not make sense, and cannot be translated into something sensible by the compiler.
Maybe you can try my solution below:
class Base {
public:
Base(void);
virtual ~Base(void);
public:
virtual void MyVirtualFun(void) = 0;
static void MyStaticFun(void) { assert( mSelf != NULL); mSelf->MyVirtualFun(); }
private:
static Base* mSelf;
};
Base::mSelf = NULL;
Base::Base(void) {
mSelf = this;
}
Base::~Base(void) {
// please never delete mSelf or reset the Value of mSelf in any deconstructors
}
class DerivedClass : public Base {
public:
DerivedClass(void) : Base() {}
~DerivedClass(void){}
public:
virtual void MyVirtualFun(void) { cout<<"Hello, it is DerivedClass!"<<endl; }
};
int main() {
DerivedClass testCls;
testCls.MyStaticFun(); //correct way to invoke this kind of static fun
DerivedClass::MyStaticFun(); //wrong way
return 0;
}
Like others have said, there are 2 important pieces of information:
there is no this pointer when making a static function call and
the this pointer points to the structure where the virtual table, or thunk, are used to look up which runtime method to call.
A static function is determined at compile time.
I showed this code example in C++ static members in class; it shows that you can call a static method given a null pointer:
struct Foo
{
static int boo() { return 2; }
};
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
Foo* pFoo = NULL;
int b = pFoo->boo(); // b will now have the value 2
return 0;
}
I have this pimpl design where the implementation classes are polymorphic but the interfaces are supposed to just contain a pointer, making them polymorphic somewhat defeats the purpose of the design.
So I create my Impl and Intf base classes to provide reference counting. And then the user can create their implementations. An example:
class Impl {
mutable int _ref;
public:
Impl() : _ref(0) {}
virtual ~Impl() {}
int addRef() const { return ++_ref; }
int decRef() const { return --_ref; }
};
template <typename TImpl>
class Intf {
TImpl* impl;
public:
Intf(TImpl* t = 0) : impl(0) {}
Intf(const Intf& other) : impl(other.impl) { if (impl) impl->addRef(); }
Intf& operator=(const Intf& other) {
if (other.impl) other.impl->addRef();
if (impl && impl->decRef() <= 0) delete impl;
impl = other.impl;
}
~Intf() { if (impl && impl->decRef() <= 0) delete impl; }
protected:
TImpl* GetImpl() const { return impl; }
void SetImpl(... //etc
};
class ShapeImpl : public Impl {
public:
virtual void draw() = 0;
};
class Shape : public Intf<ShapeImpl> {
public:
Shape(ShapeImpl* i) : Intf<ShapeImpl>(i) {}
void draw() {
ShapeImpl* i = GetImpl();
if (i) i->draw();
}
};
class TriangleImpl : public ShapeImpl {
public:
void draw();
};
class PolygonImpl : public ShapeImpl {
public:
void draw();
void addSegment(Point a, Point b);
};
Here is where have the issue. There are two possible declaration for class Polygon:
class Polygon1 : public Intf<PolygonImpl> {
public:
void draw() {
PolygonImpl* i = GetImpl();
if (i) i->draw();
}
void addSegment(Point a, Point b) {
PolygonImpl* i = GetImpl();
if (i) i->addSegment(a,b);
}
};
class Polygon2 : public Shape {
void addSegment(Point a, Point b) {
ShapeImpl* i = GetImpl();
if (i) dynamic_cast<Polygon*>(i)->addSegment(a,b);
}
}
In the Polygon1, I have rewrite the code for draw because I have not inherited it. In Polygon2 I need ugly dynamic casts because GetImpl() doesn't know about PolygonImpl. What I would like to do is something like this:
template <typename TImpl>
struct Shape_Interface {
void draw() {
TImpl* i = GetImpl();
if (i) i->draw();
}
};
template <typename TImpl>
struct Polygon_Interface : public Shape_Interface<Timpl> {
void addSegment(Point a, Point b) { ... }
};
class Shape : public TIntf<ShapeImpl>, public Shape_Interface<ShapeImpl> {...};
class Polygon : public TIntf<PolygonImpl>, public Polygon_Interface<PolygonImpl> {
public:
Polygon(PolygonImpl* i) : TIntf<PolygonImpl>(i) {}
};
But of course there's a problem here. I can't access GetImpl() from the Interface classes unless I derive them from Intf. And if I do that, I need to make Intf virtual everywhere it appears.
template <typename TImpl>
class PolygonInterface : public virtual Intf<TImpl> { ... };
class Polygon : public virtual Intf<PolygonImpl>, public PolygonInterface { ... }
OR I can store a TImpl*& in each Interface and construct them with a reference to the base Intf::impl. But that just means I have a pointer pointing back into myself for every interface included.
template <typename TImpl>
class PolygonInterface {
TImpl*& impl;
public:
PolygonInterface(TImpl*& i) : impl(i) {}
...};
Both of these solutions bloat the Intf class, add an extra dereference, and basically provide no benefit over straight polymorphism.
So, the question is, is there a third way, that I've missed that would solve this issue besides just duplicating the code everywhere (with its maintenance issues)?
TOTALLY SHOULD, BUT DOESN'T WORK: I wish there were base classes unions that just overlaid the class layouts and, for polymorphic classes, required that they have the exact same vtable layout. Then both Intf and ShapeInterface would each declare a single T* element and access it identically:
class Shape : public union Intf<ShapeImpl>, public union ShapeInterface<ShapeImpl> {};
I should note that your Impl class is nothing more than the reimplementation of a shared_ptr without the thread safety and all those cast bonuses.
Pimpl is nothing but a technic to avoid needless compile-time dependencies.
You do not need to actually know how a class is implemented to inherit from it. It would defeat the purpose of encapsulation (though your compiler does...).
So... I think that you are not trying to use Pimpl here. I would rather think this is a kind of Proxy patterns, since apparently:
Polygon1 numberOne;
Polygon2 numberTwo = numberOne;
numberTwo.changeData(); // affects data from numberOne too
// since they point to the same pointer!!
If you want to hide implementation details
Use Pimpl, but the real one, it means copying in depth during copy construction and assignment rather than just passing the pointer around (whether ref-counted or not, though ref-counted is preferable of course :) ).
If you want a proxy class
Just use a plain shared_ptr.
For inheritance
It does not matter, when you inherit from a class, how its private members are implemented. So just inherit from it.
If you want to add some new private members (usual case), then:
struct DerivedImpl;
class Derived: public Base // Base implemented with a Pimpl
{
public:
private:
std::shared_ptr<DerivedImpl> _data;
};
There is not much difference with classic implementation, as you can see, just that there is a pointer in lieu of a bunch of data.
BEWARE
If you forward declare DerivedImpl (which is the goal of Pimpl), then the destructor automatically generated by the compiler is... wrong.
The problem is that in order to generate the code for the destructor, the compiler needs the definition of DerivedImpl (ie: a complete type) in order to know how to destroy it, since a call to delete is hidden in the bowels of shared_ptr. However it may only generate a warning at compilation time (but you'll have a memory leak).
Furthermore, if you want an in-depth copy (rather than a shallow one, which consists in the copy and the original both pointing to the same DerivedImpl instance), you will also have to define manually the copy-constructor AND the assignment operator.
You may decide to create a better class that shared_ptr which will have deep-copy semantics (which could be called member_ptr as in cryptopp, or just Pimpl ;) ). This introduce a subtle bug though: while the code generated for the copy-constructor and the assignement operator could be thought of as correct, they are not, since once again you need a complete type (and thus the definition of DerivedImpl), so you will have to write them manually.
This is painful... and I'm sorry for you.
EDIT: Let's have a Shape discussion.
// Shape.h
namespace detail { class ShapeImpl; }
class Shape
{
public:
virtual void draw(Board& ioBoard) const = 0;
private:
detail::ShapeImpl* m_impl;
}; // class Shape
// Rectangle.h
namespace detail { class RectangleImpl; }
class Rectangle: public Shape
{
public:
virtual void draw(Board& ioBoard) const;
size_t getWidth() const;
size_t getHeight() const;
private:
detail::RectangleImpl* m_impl;
}; // class Rectangle
// Circle.h
namespace detail { class CircleImpl; }
class Circle: public Shape
{
public:
virtual void draw(Board& ioBoard) const;
size_t getDiameter() const;
private:
detail::CircleImpl* m_impl;
}; // class Circle
You see: neither Circle nor Rectangle care if Shape uses Pimpl or not, as its name implies, Pimpl is an implementation detail, something private that is not shared with the descendants of the class.
And as I explained, both Circle and Rectangle use Pimpl too, each with their own 'implementation class' (which can be nothing more than a simple struct with no method by the way).
I think you were right in that I didn't understand your question initially.
I think you're trying to force a square shape into a round hole... it don't quite fit C++.
You can force that your container holds pointers to objects of a given base-layout, and then allow objects of arbitrary composition to be actually pointed to from there, assuming that you as a programmer only actually place objects that in fact have identical memory layouts (member-data - there's no such thing as member-function-layout for a class unless it has virtuals, which you wish to avoid).
std::vector< boost::shared_ptr<IShape> > shapes;
NOTE at the absolute MINIMUM, you must still have a virtual destructor defined in IShape, or object deletion is going to fail miserably
And you could have classes which all take a pointer to a common implementation core, so that all compositions can be initialized with the element that they share (or it could be done statically as a template via pointer - the shared data).
But the thing is, if I try to create an example, I fall flat the second I try to consider: what is the data shared by all shapes? I suppose you could have a vector of Points, which then could be as large or small as any shape required. But even so, Draw() is truly polymorphic, it isn't an implementation that can possibly be shared by multiple types - it has to be customized for various classifications of shapes. i.e. a circle and a polygon cannot possibly share the same Draw(). And without a vtable (or some other dynamic function pointer construct), you cannot vary the function called from some common implementation or client.
Your first set of code is full of confusing constructs. Maybe you can add a new, simplified example that PURELY shows - in a more realistic way - what you're trying to do (and ignore the fact that C++ doesn't have the mechanics you want - just demonstrate what your mechanic should look like).
To my mind, I just don't get the actual practical application, unless you're tyring to do something like the following:
Take a COM class, which inherits from two other COM Interfaces:
class MyShellBrowserDialog : public IShellBrowser, public ICommDlgBrowser
{
...
};
And now I have a diamond inheritence pattern: IShellBrowser inherits ultimately from IUnknown, as does ICommDlgBrowser. But it seems incredibly silly to have to write my own IUnknown:AddRef and IUnknown::Release implementation, which is a highly standard implementation, because there's no way to cause the compiler to let another inherited class supply the missing virtual functions for IShellBrowser and/or ICommDlgBrowser.
i.e., I end up having to:
class MyShellBrowserDialog : public IShellBrowser, public ICommDlgBrowser
{
public:
virtual ULONG STDMETHODCALLTYPE AddRef(void) { return ++m_refcount; }
virtual ULONG STDMETHODCALLTYPE Release(void) { return --m_refcount; }
...
}
because there's no way I know of to "inherit" or "inject" those function implementations into MyShellBrowserDialog from anywhere else which actually fill-in the needed virtual member function for either IShellBrowser or ICommDlgBrowser.
I can, if the implementations were more complex, manually link up the vtable to an inherited implementor if I wished:
class IUnknownMixin
{
ULONG m_refcount;
protected:
IUnknonwMixin() : m_refcount(0) {}
ULONG AddRef(void) { return ++m_refcount; } // NOTE: not virutal
ULONG Release(void) { return --m_refcount; } // NOTE: not virutal
};
class MyShellBrowserDialog : public IShellBrowser, public ICommDlgBrowser, private IUnknownMixin
{
public:
virtual ULONG STDMETHODCALLTYPE AddRef(void) { return IUnknownMixin::AddRef(); }
virtual ULONG STDMETHODCALLTYPE Release(void) { return IUnknownMixin::Release(); }
...
}
And if I needed the mix-in to actually refer to the most-derived class to interact with it, I could add a template parameter to IUnknownMixin, to give it access to myself.
But what common elements could my class have or benefit by that IUnknownMixin couldn't itself supply?
What common elements could any composite class have that various mixins would want to have access to, which they needed to derive from themselves? Just have the mixins take a type parameter and access that. If its instance data in the most derived, then you have something like:
template <class T>
class IUnknownMixin
{
T & const m_outter;
protected:
IUnknonwMixin(T & outter) : m_outter(outter) {}
// note: T must have a member m_refcount
ULONG AddRef(void) { return ++m_outter.m_refcount; } // NOTE: not virtual
ULONG Release(void) { return --m_outter.m_refcount; } // NOTE: not virtual
};
Ultimately your question remains somewhat confusing to me. Perhaps you could create that example that shows your preferred-natural-syntax that accomplishes something clearly, as I just don't see that in your initial post, and I can't seem to sleuth it out from toying with these ideas myself.
I have seen lots of solutions to this basic conundrum: polymorphism + variation in interfaces.
One basic approach is to provide a way to query for extended interfaces - so you have something along the lines of COM programming under Windows:
const unsigned IType_IShape = 1;
class IShape
{
public:
virtual ~IShape() {} // ensure all subclasses are destroyed polymorphically!
virtual bool isa(unsigned type) const { return type == IType_IShape; }
virtual void Draw() = 0;
virtual void Erase() = 0;
virtual void GetBounds(std::pair<Point> & bounds) const = 0;
};
const unsigned IType_ISegmentedShape = 2;
class ISegmentedShape : public IShape
{
public:
virtual bool isa(unsigned type) const { return type == IType_ISegmentedShape || IShape::isa(type); }
virtual void AddSegment(const Point & a, const Point & b) = 0;
virtual unsigned GetSegmentCount() const = 0;
};
class Line : public IShape
{
public:
Line(std::pair<Point> extent) : extent(extent) { }
virtual void Draw();
virtual void Erase();
virtual void GetBounds(std::pair<Point> & bounds);
private:
std::pair<Point> extent;
};
class Polygon : public ISegmentedShape
{
public:
virtual void Draw();
virtual void Erase();
virtual void GetBounds(std::pair<Point> & bounds);
virtual void AddSegment(const Point & a, const Point & b);
virtual unsigned GetSegmentCount() const { return vertices.size(); }
private:
std::vector<Point> vertices;
};
Another option would be to make a single richer base interface class - which has all the interfaces you need, and then to simply define a default, no-op implementation for those in the base class, which returns false or throws to indicate that it isn't supported by the subclass in question (else the subclass would have provided a functional implementation for this member function).
class Shape
{
public:
struct Unsupported
{
Unsupported(const std::string & operation) : bad_op(operation) {}
const std::string & AsString() const { return bad_op; }
std::string bad_op;
};
virtual ~Shape() {} // ensure all subclasses are destroyed polymorphically!
virtual void Draw() = 0;
virtual void Erase() = 0;
virtual void GetBounds(std::pair<Point> & bounds) const = 0;
virtual void AddSegment(const Point & a, const Point & b) { throw Unsupported("AddSegment"); }
virtual unsigned GetSegmentCount() const { throw Unsupported("GetSegmentCount"); }
};
I hope that this helps you to see some possibilities.
Smalltalk had the wonderful attribute of being able to ask the meta-type-system whether a given instance supported a particular method - and it supported having a class-handler that could execute anytime a given instance was told to perform an operation it didn't support - along with what operation that was, so you could forward it as a proxy, or you could throw a different error, or simply quietly ignore that operation as a no-op).
Objective-C supports all of those same modalities as Smalltalk! Very, very cool things can be accomplished by having access to the type-system at runtime. I assume that .NET can pull of some crazy cool stuff along those lines (though I doubt that its nearly as elegant as Smalltalk or Objective-C, from what I've seen).
Anyway, ... good luck :)
Is it possible to make a C++ header file (.h) that declares a class, and its public methods, but does not define the private members in that class? I found a few pages that say you should declare the class and all its members in the header file, then define the methods separately in you cpp file. I ask because I want to have a class that is defined in a Win32 DLL, and I want it to be properly encapsulated: the internal implementation of that class might change, including its members, but these changes should not affect code that uses the class.
I guess that if I had this, then it would make it impossible for the compiler to know the size of my objects ahead of time. But that should be fine, as long as the compiler is smart enough to use the constructor and just pass around pointers to the location in memory where my object is stored, and never let me run "sizeof(MyClass)".
Update: Thanks to everyone who answered! It seems like the pimpl idiom is a good way to achieve what I was talking about. I'm going to do something similar:
My Win32 DLL file will have a bunch of separate functions like this:
void * __stdcall DogCreate();
int __stdcall DogGetWeight(void * this);
void __stdcall DogSetWeight(void * this, int weight);
This is the typical way the Microsoft writes their DLL files so I think there is probably good reason for it.
But I want to take advantage of the nice syntax C++ has for classes, so I'll write a wrapper class to wrap up all of these functions. It will have one member, which will be "void * pimpl". This wrapper class will be so simple that I might as well just declare it AND define it in the header file. But this wrapper class really has no purposes other than making the C++ code look pretty as far as I can tell.
I think what you are looking for is something called the "pimpl idiom". To understand how this works, you need to understand that in C++ you can forward declare something like so.
class CWidget; // Widget will exist sometime in the future
CWidget* aWidget; // An address (integer) to something that
// isn't defined *yet*
// later on define CWidget to be something concrete
class CWidget
{
// methods and such
};
So to forward declare means to promise to fully declare a type later. Its saying "there will be this thing called a CWidget, I promise. I'll tell you more about it later.".
The rules of forward declaration say that you can define a pointer or a reference to something that has been forward declared. This is because pointers and references are really just addresses-a number where this yet-to-be-defined thing will be. Being able to declare a pointer to something without fully declaring it is convenient for a lot of reasons.
Its useful here because you can use this to hide some of the internals of a class using the "pimpl" method. Pimpl means "pointer to implementation". So instead of "widget" you have a class that is the actual implementation. The class you are declaring in your header is just a pass-through to the CImpl class. Here's how it works:
// Thing.h
class CThing
{
public:
// CThings methods and constructors...
CThing();
void DoSomething();
int GetSomething();
~CThing();
private:
// CThing store's a pointer to some implementation class to
// be defined later
class CImpl; // forward declaration to CImpl
CImpl* m_pimpl; // pointer to my implementation
};
Thing.cpp has CThing's methods defined as pass-throughs to the impl:
// Fully define Impl
class CThing::CImpl
{
private:
// all variables
public:
// methods inlined
CImpl()
{
// constructor
}
void DoSomething()
{
// actual code that does something
}
//etc for all methods
};
// CThing methods are just pass-throughs
CThing::CThing() : m_pimpl(new CThing::CImpl());
{
}
CThing::~CThing()
{
delete m_pimpl;
}
int CThing::GetSomething()
{
return m_pimpl->GetSomething();
}
void CThing::DoSomething()
{
m_impl->DoSomething();
}
tada! You've hidden all the details in your cpp and your header file is a very tidy list of methods. Its a great thing. The only thing you might see different from the template above is that people may use boost::shared_ptr<> or other smart pointer for the impl. Something that deletes itself.
Also, keep in mind this method comes with some annoyances. Debugging can be a tad bit annoying (extra level of redirection to step through). Its also a lot of overhead for creating a class. If you do this for every class, you'll get tired of all the typing :).
Use pimpl idiom.
The pimpl idiom adds a void* private data member to your class, and this is a useful technique if you need something quick & dirty. It has its drawbacks however. Main among those is it makes it difficult to use polymorphism on the abstract type. Sometimes you might want an abstract base class and subclasses of that base class, collect pointers to all the different types in a vector and call methods on them. In addition, if the purpose of the pimpl idiom is to hide the implementation details of the class then it only almost succeeds: the pointer itself is an implementation detail. An opaque implementation detail, perhaps. But an implementation detail nonetheless.
An alternative to the pimpl idiom exists which can be used to remove all of the implementation details from the interface while providing a base type that can be used polymorphically, if needed.
In your DLL's header file (the one #included by client code) create an abstract class with only public methods and concepts which dictate how the class is to be instantiated (eg, public factory methods & clone methods):
kennel.h
/****************************************************************
***
*** The declaration of the kennel namespace & its members
*** would typically be in a header file.
***/
// Provide an abstract interface class which clients will have pointers to.
// Do not permit client code to instantiate this class directly.
namespace kennel
{
class Animal
{
public:
// factory method
static Animal* createDog(); // factory method
static Animal* createCat(); // factory method
virtual Animal* clone() const = 0; // creates a duplicate object
virtual string speak() const = 0; // says something this animal might say
virtual unsigned long serialNumber() const = 0; // returns a bit of state data
virtual string name() const = 0; // retuyrns this animal's name
virtual string type() const = 0; // returns the type of animal this is
virtual ~Animal() {}; // ensures the correct subclass' dtor is called when deleteing an Animal*
};
};
...Animal is an abstract base class and so cannot be instantiated; no private ctor needs to be declared. The presence of the virtual dtor ensures that if someone deletes an Animal*, the proper subclass' dtor will also be called.
In order to implement different subclasses of the base type (eg dogs & cats), you would declare implementation-level classes in your DLL. These classes derive ultimately from the abstract base class you declared in your header file, and the factory methods would actually instantiate one of these subclasses.
dll.cpp:
/****************************************************************
***
*** The code that follows implements the interface
*** declared above, and would typically be in a cc
*** file.
***/
// Implementation of the Animal abstract interface
// this implementation includes several features
// found in real code:
// Each animal type has it's own properties/behavior (speak)
// Each instance has it's own member data (name)
// All Animals share some common properties/data (serial number)
//
namespace
{
// AnimalImpl provides properties & data that are shared by
// all Animals (serial number, clone)
class AnimalImpl : public kennel::Animal
{
public:
unsigned long serialNumber() const;
string type() const;
protected:
AnimalImpl();
AnimalImpl(const AnimalImpl& rhs);
virtual ~AnimalImpl();
private:
unsigned long serial_; // each Animal has its own serial number
static unsigned long lastSerial_; // this increments every time an AnimalImpl is created
};
class Dog : public AnimalImpl
{
public:
kennel::Animal* clone() const { Dog* copy = new Dog(*this); return copy;}
std::string speak() const { return "Woof!"; }
std::string name() const { return name_; }
Dog(const char* name) : name_(name) {};
virtual ~Dog() { cout << type() << " #" << serialNumber() << " is napping..." << endl; }
protected:
Dog(const Dog& rhs) : AnimalImpl(rhs), name_(rhs.name_) {};
private:
std::string name_;
};
class Cat : public AnimalImpl
{
public:
kennel::Animal* clone() const { Cat* copy = new Cat(*this); return copy;}
std::string speak() const { return "Meow!"; }
std::string name() const { return name_; }
Cat(const char* name) : name_(name) {};
virtual ~Cat() { cout << type() << " #" << serialNumber() << " escaped!" << endl; }
protected:
Cat(const Cat& rhs) : AnimalImpl(rhs), name_(rhs.name_) {};
private:
std::string name_;
};
};
unsigned long AnimalImpl::lastSerial_ = 0;
// Implementation of interface-level functions
// In this case, just the factory functions.
kennel::Animal* kennel::Animal::createDog()
{
static const char* name [] = {"Kita", "Duffy", "Fido", "Bowser", "Spot", "Snoopy", "Smkoky"};
static const size_t numNames = sizeof(name)/sizeof(name[0]);
size_t ix = rand()/(RAND_MAX/numNames);
Dog* ret = new Dog(name[ix]);
return ret;
}
kennel::Animal* kennel::Animal::createCat()
{
static const char* name [] = {"Murpyhy", "Jasmine", "Spike", "Heathcliff", "Jerry", "Garfield"};
static const size_t numNames = sizeof(name)/sizeof(name[0]);
size_t ix = rand()/(RAND_MAX/numNames);
Cat* ret = new Cat(name[ix]);
return ret;
}
// Implementation of base implementation class
AnimalImpl::AnimalImpl()
: serial_(++lastSerial_)
{
};
AnimalImpl::AnimalImpl(const AnimalImpl& rhs)
: serial_(rhs.serial_)
{
};
AnimalImpl::~AnimalImpl()
{
};
unsigned long AnimalImpl::serialNumber() const
{
return serial_;
}
string AnimalImpl::type() const
{
if( dynamic_cast<const Dog*>(this) )
return "Dog";
if( dynamic_cast<const Cat*>(this) )
return "Cat";
else
return "Alien";
}
Now you have the interface defined in the header & the implementation details completely seperated out where client code can't see it at all. You would use this by calling methods declared in your header file from code that links to your DLL. Here's a sample driver:
main.cpp:
std::string dump(const kennel::Animal* animal)
{
stringstream ss;
ss << animal->type() << " #" << animal->serialNumber() << " says '" << animal->speak() << "'" << endl;
return ss.str();
}
template<class T> void del_ptr(T* p)
{
delete p;
}
int main()
{
srand((unsigned) time(0));
// start up a new farm
typedef vector<kennel::Animal*> Animals;
Animals farm;
// add 20 animals to the farm
for( size_t n = 0; n < 20; ++n )
{
bool makeDog = rand()/(RAND_MAX/2) != 0;
if( makeDog )
farm.push_back(kennel::Animal::createDog());
else
farm.push_back(kennel::Animal::createCat());
}
// list all the animals in the farm to the console
transform(farm.begin(), farm.end(), ostream_iterator<string>(cout, ""), dump);
// deallocate all the animals in the farm
for_each( farm.begin(), farm.end(), del_ptr<kennel::Animal>);
return 0;
}
Google "pimple idiom" or "handle C++".
Yes, this can be a desireable thing to do. One easy way is to make the implementation class derive from the class defined in the header.
The downside is that the compiler won't know how to construct your class, so you'll need some kind of factory method to get instances of the class. It will be impossible to have local instances on the stack.
You have to declare all members in the header so the compiler knows how large is the object and so on.
But you can solve this by using an interface:
ext.h:
class ExtClass
{
public:
virtual void func1(int xy) = 0;
virtual int func2(XYClass ¶m) = 0;
};
int.h:
class ExtClassImpl : public ExtClass
{
public:
void func1(int xy);
int func2(XYClass¶m);
};
int.cpp:
void ExtClassImpl::func1(int xy)
{
...
}
int ExtClassImpl::func2(XYClass¶m)
{
...
}
Is it possible to make a C++ header
file (.h) that declares a class, and
its public methods, but does not
declare the private members in that
class?
The most nearest answer is PIMPL idiom.
Refer this The Fast Pimpl Idiom from Herb Sutter.
IMO Pimpl is really useful during initial stages of development where your header file is going to change many times. Pimpl has its cost due to its allocation\deallocation of internal object on heap.
Check out the class The Handle-Body Idiom in C++