I have an interface which multiple classes inheritance.
class someInterface
{
virtual void someMethod() = 0;
}
class A : public someInterface
{
public:
void someMethod()
{
//Do something
}
}
class B : public someInterface
{
public:
void someMethod()
{
//Do something
}
}
class C : public someInterface
{
public:
void someMethod()
{
//Do something
}
}
For each of the classes A, B, C i have created an array with different sizes of their actual type inside a container class.
class AContainer
{
public:
A As[10];
}
class BContainer
{
public:
B Bs[5];
}
etc...
Furthermore i have an array of pointers to "SomeInterface", where i want to have a pointer to each of the actual arrays like this.
#define SOMEINTERRFACE_SIZE 3
someInterface *array[SOMEINTERRFACE_SIZE];
array[0] = AContainer.As; //Could also just be &AContainer.As[0]
array[1] = BContainer.Bs;
array[2] = CContainer.Cs;
for (int i = 0; i < SOMEINTERRFACE_SIZE; ++i)
{
int elements = //Here i need a solution to get the size
//So i can iterate through the array, which the pointer points to.
for (int i = 0; i < elements; ++i)
{
//Call the interface method on each element.
}
}
The problem occurs, when i have to use the someInterface array, since it isn't possible to get the size of the actual array through the someInterface pointer..
What is a good solution to this problem? I really need some help to solve this.
Also don't want to use dynamic allocation, so no solution with vector<> or malloc etc. because I'm writing to an Arduino.
It won't work. In C++ you have to know the size of the elements in an array. A, B, and C might be different sizes, so you can't treat arrays of them the same.
&AContainer.As[i] == &AContainer.As + i * sizeof(A)
but
&BContainer.Bs[i] == &BContainer.Bs + i * sizeof(B)
So it's impossible for the same machine code to iterate over arrays of A and of B. If you want to iterate over an array of objects, you need to know the exact type.
Remember in C++, if you want to get a polymorphic virtual call, you need to go through pointer or reference. The solution is to copy pointers to the elements in each array into one "master" array.
SomeInterface *ptrs[NUM_A + NUM_B + NUM_C];
SomeInterface **dest = ptrs;
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_A; ++i) {
*dest++ = &AContainer.As[i];
}
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_B; ++i) {
*dest++ = &BContainer.Bs[i];
}
// et cetera...
This only uses a little bit of extra space because you're storing pointers, not actual objects.
EDIT: I guess you could do something like this if you really want to save the space:
someInterface *arrays[] = { AContainer.As, BContainer.Bs, CContainer.Cs };
int objSizes[] = { sizeof(A), sizeof(B), sizeof(C) };
int arrLengths[] = { NUM_A, NUM_B, NUM_C };
for (int j = 0; j < sizeof(arrays)/sizeof(arrays[0]); ++j)
{
void *ptr = arrays[j];
for (int i = 0; i < arrLengths[j]; ++i) {
someInterface *iptr = (someInterface *)ptr;
iptr->method();
ptr += objSizes[j];
}
}
(this is untested, you might need to tweak a little.)
In theory since all those arrays are full of compile-time constants, it should optimize out to something fast. If it doesn't, the code will run slower because it will be incrementing pointers by a value only known at runtime instead of compile time. You should check the assembly output if you really care about speed.
Difficult to answer without knowing more details of your application - but here a a few ideas that might help.
Given:
class someInterface { public: virtual char someMethod() = 0; };
class A : public someInterface { public: char someMethod() { return 'A'; } };
class B : public someInterface { public: char someMethod() { return 'B'; } };
class C : public someInterface { public: char someMethod() { return 'C'; } };
You could hand-roll something like this:
class Array {
public:
void forEach( void(*function)(someInterface&) ) {
for (size_t i = 0 ; i < countA ; ++i) function(As[i]);
for (size_t i = 0 ; i < countB ; ++i) function(Bs[i]);
for (size_t i = 0 ; i < countC ; ++i) function(Cs[i]);
}
private:
enum {countA = 10, countB = 5, countC = 3};
A As[countA];
B Bs[countB];
C Cs[countC];
};
void doSomeMethod(someInterface& element) {
std::cout << element.someMethod();
}
int main(int, char**) {
Array array;
array.forEach(doSomeMethod);
return 0;
}
Note that by using the "callback" function doSomeMethod, we get around a typical problem of dispatching in polymorphic collections.
Of course, you don't want to keep hand-rolling things like that. Fortuanately the Arduino C++ compiler I checked out has template support, so you could do something like:
template <class T, size_t _size, class NextArray = void>
struct Array {
public:
typedef T value_type;
enum {size = _size};
void forEach( void(*function)(someInterface&) ) {
for (size_t i = 0 ; i < _size ; ++i)
function(elements[i]);
nextArray.forEach(function);
}
private:
T elements[_size];
NextArray nextArray;
};
template <class T, size_t _size>
struct Array<T, _size, void> {
public:
typedef T value_type;
enum {size = _size};
void forEach( void(*function)(someInterface&) ) {
for (size_t i = 0 ; i < _size ; ++i)
function(elements[i]);
}
private:
T elements[_size];
};
void doSomeMethod(someInterface& element) {
std::cout << element.someMethod();
}
int main(int, char**) {
Array<A, 10, Array<B, 5, Array<C, 3> > > array;
array.forEach(doSomeMethod);
return 0;
}
Which gets the compiler to write it for you for different combinations of types and sizes. A few things worth noting:
All the magic is done at compile time. Check out the assembly generated by an optimising compiler to see how small and fast this can be.
Read up on c++ "functors" if your callback function needs some state.
If your compiler supports variadic templates and/or lambdas, this becomes simpler (I'm assuming the Arduido compiler doesn't yet)
If you can't use the callback approach (and your compiler doesn't support lambdas yet), then you could try this next option, which incurs some small run-time cost over the option given above:
template <class Interface>
class ArrayInterface {
public:
virtual size_t getSize() = 0;
virtual Interface& getElement(size_t index) = 0;
};
template <class T, class Interface, size_t size>
class Array : public ArrayInterface<Interface> {
public:
size_t getSize() { return size; }
Interface& getElement(size_t index) { return element[index]; }
private:
T element[size];
};
int main(int, char**) {
Array<A, SomeInterface, 10> As;
Array<B, SomeInterface, 5> Bs;
Array<C, SomeInterface, 3> Cs;
const int SOMEINTERRFACE_SIZE = 3;
ArrayInterface<SomeInterface>* array[SOMEINTERRFACE_SIZE] = {&As, &Bs, &Cs};
for (size_t i = 0 ; i < SOMEINTERRFACE_SIZE ; ++i) {
ArrayInterface<SomeInterface>& innerArray = *array[i];
for (size_t j = 0 ; j < innerArray.getSize() ; ++j)
std::cout << innerArray.getElement(j).someMethod();
}
return 0;
}
(This last one uses an outer array of pointers, as per your question)
This post is already too long, so I haven't gone into much detail, or delved into options such as a single, flat array of member function pointers. If you have any questions, just shout.
Is it what you are trying to achive?
Iterate over a list of objects and call a reimplemented method of a common interface?
Put this piece of code anywhere in global C++ scope for testing.
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
int TestSomewhereInCppGlobalScopeCode()
{
class someInterface
{
public:
virtual void someMethod() = 0;
};
class A : public someInterface
{
public:
void someMethod()
{
std::cout << "A::someMethod()";
}
};
class B : public someInterface
{
public:
void someMethod()
{
std::cout << "B::someMethod()";
}
};
class C : public someInterface
{
public:
void someMethod()
{
std::cout << "C::someMethod()";
}
};
std::vector<someInterface*> ListOfObjectsHavingCommonInterface;
ListOfObjectsHavingCommonInterface.push_back( new A );
ListOfObjectsHavingCommonInterface.push_back( new B );
ListOfObjectsHavingCommonInterface.push_back( new C );
for ( std::vector<someInterface*>::iterator it = ListOfObjectsHavingCommonInterface.begin();
it != ListOfObjectsHavingCommonInterface.end();
++it )
{
(*it)->someMethod();
}
return 0;
}
static int TestSomewhereInCppGlobalScopeCode_Caller = TestSomewhereInCppGlobalScopeCode();
Related
I have a class A with a member vector<class B>. I would like to loop through this vector from outside class A in a clean way. I need to do operations on B using its public functions.
To do so, I thought of having a function int get_next_element(B * in_B), where I can return 0 if I have correctly loaded the next element and -1 otherwise.
I thought of doing this by using an iterator, but I found two issues with this. First of all, I wasn't able to find a neat way to convert an iterator to a pointer (it seems I could use an iterator just like a pointer, but I'm unsure that's a good solution). Secondly, I would need to check if there's a value referenced by my iterator, and since the closest thing to a "null iterator" is the .end() element I can't figure out how I would then initialise it. If I initialise it (empty) and have the reference .end(), it wont refer to anything comparable if I add something to it.
I could have an extra int that keeps track of which element I'm at, but then I'd have to manage that int whenever I add elements, etc.
I considered placing the iteration code outside of class A, but I may need to change or access individual elements during the loop, so that would make a complex/big iteration block.
How would I solve this problem in a clean way (such as int get_next_element(B * in_b))?
EDIT:
Here's some code:
Header:
class B {
public:
B();
void set_size(int in_size);
int get_size();
protected:
int mSize;
};
class A {
public:
A();
void add_B(B in_B);
int get_next_element(B * in_B);
protected:
std::vector<B> mObjects;
};
cpp file:
B::B() {
// Stuff
}
void B::set_size(int in_size) {
mSize = in_size;
}
int B::get_size() {
return mSize;
}
A::A() {
// Stuff
}
void A::add_B(B in_B) {
mObjects.push_back(in_B);
}
int A::get_next_element(B * in_B) {
// ToDo : handle elements
}
And main:
int main() {
A test_a;
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
B tmp_b;
tmp_b.set_size(i);
test_a.add_B(tmp_b);
}
B iterator_b;
while (0 == get_next_element(& iterator_b)) {
if (iterator_b.get_size > 2) {
B tmp_b;
tmp_b.set_size(iterator_b.get_size - 2);
test_a.add_B(tmp_b);
iterator_b.set_size(2);
}
}
}
So, basically A holds a bunch of Bs and can help the main iterate through them and (in this example) cut them into smaller pieces while not having too much code in the main. There's quite a few dimensions/ways this will be done, which is partially why I'd like to "hide" as much of the code in A.
(This is a bit simplified, like the Bs may have to have internal relations, but basically that's the idea)
Consider using a range-base for loop (C++1x).
class A {
private:
std::vector<class B> vec;
public:
std::vector<class B>& get_vec() { return vec; }
};
A a_instance;
for (B &b : a_instance.get_vec()) {
b.print();
std::cout << "b = " << b << std::endl;
std::cout << "&b = " << &b << std::endl;
}
This, unfortunately, does not allow looking ahead, unless you keep track of index yourself.
this is what I mean...
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
class B {
public:
B(int in) :mSize(in) {}
size_t mSize;
void set_size(int in_size) { mSize = in_size;}
int get_size() {return mSize;}
};
class A {
using container = std::vector<B>;
using iterator = container::iterator;
container mObjects;
public:
void add_B(B in_B) { mObjects.push_back(in_B); }
iterator begin() { return mObjects.begin(); }
iterator end() { return mObjects.end(); }
};
int main() {
A test_a;
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
test_a.add_B(B(i));
}
for( auto& item : test_a)
if (item.get_size() > 2) {
B tmp_b(item.get_size() - 2);
item.set_size(2);
test_a.add_B(tmp_b);
break;//if using a vector, must break as vector can change/reallocate on 'add_B()'
}
}
Given a class Foo which has some value-initializing default constructor:
class Foo {
private:
uint32_t x;
public:
constexpr Foo()
: x { 3 }
{}
// ... and some other constructors
};
I need to allocate an array of these Foo's. I don't want the array's elements' default constructors to run, because later I'm going to initialize each element explicitly anyway. Something like this:
Foo foos[20000];
for (int i = 0; i < 20000; ++i) {
foos[i] = init(i);
}
Is there a way to obtain such an uninitialized array of Foo's given that we're not allowed to change the default constructor of Foo into a non-initializing one?
By the way, this is how you'd create an uninitialized array in D:
Foo[20000] foos = void;
...and here's the same in Rust:
let mut foos: [Foo; 20000] = unsafe { std::mem::uninitialized() };
If you using C++11, you can use std::vector and emplace_back()
vector<Foo> foos;
for(int i = 0; i < 20000; ++i)
foos.emplace_back( /* arguments here */);
Perhaps this answers the question at hand more accurately?
#include <type_traits>
class Foo {
private:
uint32_t x;
public:
constexpr Foo()
: x { 3 }
{}
constexpr Foo(uint32_t n)
: x { n * n }
{}
};
// ...and then in some function:
typename std::aligned_storage<sizeof(Foo), alignof(Foo)>::type foos[20000];
for (int i = 0; i < 20000; ++i) {
new (foos + i) Foo(i);
}
The drawback seems to be that you can use only a constructor to initialize those elements, and not a free function or anything else.
Question: Can I then access those Foo's like this:
Foo* ptr = reinterpret_cast<Foo*>(foos);
ptr[50] = Foo();
What you might be looking for is std::get_temporary_buffer:
int main()
{
size_t n = 20000;
auto buf = std::get_temporary_buffer<Foo>(n);
if (buf.second<n) {
std::cerr << "Couldn't allocate enough memory\n";
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
// ...
std::raw_storage_iterator<Foo*,Foo> iter(buf.first);
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
*iter++ = Foo();
}
// ...
std::return_temporary_buffer(buf.first);
}
I have a class with a multidimensional array:
it is possible to create a one, two, ..., n dimensional array with this class
if the array has n dimensions, i want to use n operator[] to get an object:
example:
A a({2,2,2,2}];
a[0][1][1][0] = 5;
but array is not a vector of pointer which lead to other vectors etc...
so i want the operator[] to return a class object until the last dimension, then return a integer
This is a strongly simplified code, but it shows my problem:
The error i receive: "[Error] cannot convert 'A::B' to 'int' in initialization"
#include <cstddef> // nullptr_t, ptrdiff_t, size_t
#include <iostream> // cin, cout...
class A {
private:
static int* a;
public:
static int dimensions;
A(int i=0) {
dimensions = i;
a = new int[5];
for(int j=0; j<5; j++) a[j]=j;
};
class B{
public:
B operator[](std::ptrdiff_t);
};
class C: public B{
public:
int& operator[](std::ptrdiff_t);
};
B operator[](std::ptrdiff_t);
};
//int A::count = 0;
A::B A::operator[] (std::ptrdiff_t i) {
B res;
if (dimensions <= 1){
res = C();
}
else{
res = B();
}
dimensions--;
return res;
}
A::B A::B::operator[] (std::ptrdiff_t i){
B res;
if (dimensions <=1){
res = B();
}
else{
res = C();
}
dimensions--;
return res;
}
int& A::C::operator[](std::ptrdiff_t i){
return *(a+i);
}
int main(){
A* obj = new A(5);
int res = obj[1][1][1][1][1];
std::cout<< res << std::endl;
}
The operator[] is evaluated from left to right in obj[1][1]...[1], so obj[1] returns a B object. Suppose now you just have int res = obj[1], then you'll assign to a B object (or C object in the case of multiple invocations of []) an int, but there is no conversion from B or C to int. You probably need to write a conversion operator, like
operator int()
{
// convert to int here
}
for A, B and C, as overloaded operators are not inherited.
I got rid of your compiling error just by writing such operators for A and B (of course I have linking errors since there are un-defined functions).
Also, note that if you want to write something like obj[1][1]...[1] = 10, you need to overload operator=, as again there is no implicit conversion from int to A or your proxy objects.
Hope this makes sense.
PS: see also #Oncaphillis' comment!
vsoftco is totally right, you need to implement an overload operator if you want to actually access your elements. This is necessary if you want it to be dynamic, which is how you describe it. I actually thought this was an interesting problem, so I implemented what you described as a template. I think it works, but a few things might be slightly off. Here's the code:
template<typename T>
class nDimArray {
using thisT = nDimArray<T>;
T m_value;
std::vector<thisT*> m_children;
public:
nDimArray(std::vector<T> sizes) {
assert(sizes.size() != 0);
int thisSize = sizes[sizes.size() - 1];
sizes.pop_back();
m_children.resize(thisSize);
if(sizes.size() == 0) {
//initialize elements
for(auto &c : m_children) {
c = new nDimArray(T(0));
}
} else {
//initialize children
for(auto &c : m_children) {
c = new nDimArray(sizes);
}
}
}
~nDimArray() {
for(auto &c : m_children) {
delete c;
}
}
nDimArray<T> &operator[](const unsigned int index) {
assert(!isElement());
assert(index < m_children.size());
return *m_children[index];
}
//icky dynamic cast operators
operator T() {
assert(isElement());
return m_value;
}
T &operator=(T value) {
assert(isElement());
m_value = value;
return m_value;
}
private:
nDimArray(T value) {
m_value = value;
}
bool isElement() const {
return m_children.size() == 0;
}
//no implementation yet
nDimArray(const nDimArray&);
nDimArray&operator=(const nDimArray&);
};
The basic idea is that this class can either act as an array of arrays, or an element. That means that in fact an array of arrays COULD be an array of elements! When you want to get a value, it tries to cast it to an element, and if that doesn't work, it just throws an assertion error.
Hopefully it makes sense, and of course if you have any questions ask away! In fact, I hope you do ask because the scope of the problem you describe is greater than you probably think it is.
It could be fun to use a Russian-doll style template class for this.
// general template where 'd' indicates the number of dimensions of the container
// and 'n' indicates the length of each dimension
// with a bit more template magic, we could probably support each
// dimension being able to have it's own size
template<size_t d, size_t n>
class foo
{
private:
foo<d-1, n> data[n];
public:
foo<d-1, n>& operator[](std::ptrdiff_t x)
{
return data[x];
}
};
// a specialization for one dimension. n can still specify the length
template<size_t n>
class foo<1, n>
{
private:
int data[n];
public:
int& operator[](std::ptrdiff_t x)
{
return data[x];
}
};
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
foo<3, 10> myFoo;
for(int i=0; i<10; ++i)
for(int j=0; j<10; ++j)
for(int k=0; k<10; ++k)
myFoo[i][j][k] = i*10000 + j*100 + k;
return myFoo[9][9][9]; // would be 090909 in this case
}
Each dimension keeps an array of previous-dimension elements. Dimension 1 uses the base specialization that tracks a 1D int array. Dimension 2 would then keep an array of one-dimentional arrays, D3 would have an array of two-dimensional arrays, etc. Then access looks the same as native multi-dimensional arrays. I'm using arrays inside the class in my example. This makes all the memory contiguous for the n-dimensional arrays, and doesn't require dynamic allocations inside the class. However, you could provide the same functionality with dynamic allocation as well.
I need to pass an array of pointers to a function,
In the example below, there is a class called base and an array of pointers called pool.
How can I pass the array pool to a function called function?
1) in case that I want to be able to change the original array of pointers.
2) in case that I only want to pass a copy of the array of pointers.
Thanks,
class base
{
};
void function (base * pool)
{
}
int main
{
base *pool[40];
function (pool[0]);
return 0;
}
class base
{
public:
int a;
};
void function (base ** pool)
{
for (int i = 0 ; i < 40; ++i)
cout<<pool[i]->a<<' ';
}
int main()
{
base *pool[40];
// Allocate 40 base objects and the 40 base pointers
// point to them respectively
for(int i = 0; i < 40; ++i)
{
pool[i] = new base;
pool[i]->a = i;
}
function (pool);
// free the 40 objects
for(int i = 0; i < 40; ++i)
delete pool[i];
return 0;
}
I added the a member just as an example.
Even better would be
void function (base ** pool, int n)
{
for (int i = 0 ; i < n; ++i)
cout<<pool[i]->a<<' ';
}
and
function (pool, n);
It's not so easy to pass a copy of the array - especially in the case where the objects itself are dynamically allocated.
To pass an array to a function, and maintain the type information about the array, you can use a template:
template <unsigned N>
void function (base *(&pool)[N]) {
}
There is no way to pass a copy of an array, unless it is inside a struct or class. In C++11, you have such a class in STL, called array:
#include <array>
template <unsigned N>
void function (std::array<base *, N> pool) {
pool[0] = 0;
}
base b;
std::array<base *, 40> p;
p[0] = &b;
function(p);
assert(p[0] == &b);
I have a C++ class template that makes an Array of pointers. This also gets typedefed to make Arrays of Arrays and so on:
typedef Array<Elem> ElemArray;
typedef Array<ElemArray> ElemArrayArray;
typedef Array<ElemArrayArray> ElemArrayArrayArray;
I would like to be able to set one leaf node from another by copying the pointer so they both refer to the same Elem.
But I also want to be able to set one Array (or Array of Arrays etc) from another. In this case I don't want to copy the pointers, I want to keep the arrays seperate and descend into each one until I get to the leaf node, at where I finally copy the pointers.
I have code that does this (below). When you set something in an Array it calls a CopyIn method to do the copying.
But because this is templated it also has to call the CopyIn method on the leaf class, which means I have to add a dummy method to every leaf class that just returns false.
I have also tried adding a flag to the template to tell it whether it contains Arrays or not, and so whether to call the CopyIn method. This works fine - the CopyIn method of the leaf nodes never gets called, but it still has to be there for the compile to work!
Is there a better way to do this?
#include <stdio.h>
class Elem {
public:
Elem(int v) : mI(v) {}
void Print() { printf("%d\n",mI); }
bool CopyIn(Elem *v) { return false; }
int mI;
};
template < typename T > class Array {
public:
Array(int size) : mB(0), mN(size) {
mB = new T* [size];
for (int i=0; i<mN; i++)
mB[i] = new T(mN);
}
~Array() {
for (int i=0; i<mN; i++)
delete mB[i];
delete [] mB;
}
T* Get(int i) { return mB[i]; }
void Set(int i, T* v) {
if (! mB[i]->CopyIn(v) ) {
// its not an array, so copy the pointer
mB[i] = v;
}
}
bool CopyIn(Array<T>* v) {
for (int i=0; i<mN; i++) {
if (v && i < v->mN ) {
if ( ! mB[i]->CopyIn( v->mB[i] )) {
// its not an array, so copy the pointer
mB[i] = v->mB[i];
}
}
else {
mB[i] = 0;
}
}
return true; // we did the copy, no need to copy pointer
}
void Print() {
for (int i=0; i<mN; i++) {
printf("[%d] ",i);
mB[i]->Print();
}
}
private:
T **mB;
int mN;
};
typedef Array<Elem> ElemArray;
typedef Array<ElemArray> ElemArrayArray;
typedef Array<ElemArrayArray> ElemArrayArrayArray;
int main () {
ElemArrayArrayArray* a = new ElemArrayArrayArray(2);
ElemArrayArrayArray* b = new ElemArrayArrayArray(3);
// In this case I need to copy the pointer to the Elem into the ElemArrayArray
a->Get(0)->Get(0)->Set(0, b->Get(0)->Get(0)->Get(0));
// in this case I need go down through a and b until I get the to Elems
// so I can copy the pointers
a->Set(1,b->Get(2));
b->Get(0)->Get(0)->Get(0)->mI = 42; // this will also set a[0,0,0]
b->Get(2)->Get(1)->Get(1)->mI = 96; // this will also set a[1,1,1]
// should be 42,2, 2,2, 3,3, 3,96
a->Print();
}
You could use template specialization to do something different with the leaf class:
template <> class Array<Elem> {
// Define how Array<Elem> should behave
}
As others mentioned in the comments, you should really consider using operator [] instead of Get and Set methods for array indexes.
I rearranged the code a bit to use template specialization, now the normal Set does a deep copy like this:
void Set(int i, T* v) { mB[i]->CopyIn(v); }
but for the array that contains the leaves you have to add the specialization:
template <> void Array<Elem>::Set(int i, Elem* v) { SetPtr(i,v); }
Of course you have to add a new one of these for every different leaf class. At least if you forget to do this you get a compiler error because it can't find CopyIn in the Elem class.
I thought about replacing CopyIn with an overloaded assignment operator, but this would loose the compile warning if you forgot to add the specialization.
I also thought about doing operator[] instead of Get and Set (just for this example), but it seems a bit dangerous with all these pointers flying around - it's easy to write a[0] instead of (*a)[0]. Also I couldn't work out the magic needed to convert the pointer in the Array into the correct sort of reference for [] to return (anyone know how to do that?).
#include <stdio.h>
class Elem {
public:
Elem(int v) : mI(v) {}
void Print() { printf("%d\n",mI); }
int mI;
};
template < typename T > class Array {
public:
Array(int size) : mB(0), mN(size) {
mB = new T* [size];
for (int i=0; i<mN; i++)
mB[i] = new T(mN);
}
~Array() {
for (int i=0; i<mN; i++)
delete mB[i];
delete [] mB;
}
T* Get(int i) { return (i<mN) ? mB[i] : 0; }
void Set(int i, T* v) { mB[i]->CopyIn(v); }
void SetPtr(int i, Elem* v) { mB[i] = v; }
bool CopyIn(Array<T>* v) {
for (int i=0; i<mN; i++) {
if (v && i < v->mN ) {
Set( i, v->Get(i) );
}
else {
mB[i] = 0;
}
}
}
void Print() {
for (int i=0; i<mN; i++) {
printf("[%d] ",i);
mB[i]->Print();
}
}
private:
T** mB;
int mN;
};
typedef Array<Elem> ElemArray;
typedef Array<ElemArray> ElemArrayArray;
typedef Array<ElemArrayArray> ElemArrayArrayArray;
template <> void Array<Elem>::Set(int i, Elem* v) { SetPtr(i,v); }
int main () {
ElemArrayArrayArray* a = new ElemArrayArrayArray(2);
ElemArrayArrayArray* b = new ElemArrayArrayArray(3);
// In this case I need to copy the pointer to the Elem into the ElemArrayArray
a->Get(0)->Get(0)->Set(0, b->Get(0)->Get(0)->Get(0));
// in this case I need go down through a and b until I get the to Elems
// so I can copy the pointers
a->Set(1,b->Get(2));
b->Get(0)->Get(0)->Get(0)->mI = 42; // this will also set a[0,0,0]
b->Get(2)->Get(1)->Get(1)->mI = 96; // this will also set a[1,1,1]
// should be 42,2, 2,2, 3,3, 3,96
a->Print();
}