I am trying to generalize a callback mechanism.
I need two things for that:
Calling it in a general matter: void call() - that I was able to manage
I mean that everyone can get a void call() function, and I can even (easily) store them in an array. They are all of the same type.
class Function{
public:
virtual void call()=0;
};
template<typename T>
class TemplatedFunction : public Function{
public:
int (T::*m_fkt)();
T* m_obj;
TemplatedFunction(T* obj, int (T::*fkt)()):m_fkt(fkt),m_obj(obj){}
// Can also set here a [&](){ f(Args...args) } that will capture the callback arguments, and call it via call(). f being the std::function created for the callback.
void call(){
(m_obj->*m_fkt)();
}
};
Set (register callback) in a general matter: here I got lost...
My callbacks are statically allocated.
I saw this great option, but my only option is using a capturing lambda.
( no bind, or tuple.. )
This option is great as I can store an array of EventHandler that basically will differ by the ID of a message I will get. Unfortunately I can't use new. (I use an in place static allocation for lambda)
class EventHandler{
public:
Function* m_func=nullptr;
template<class T>
void SetCallbackFunction(T* obj, void (T::*mem_fkt)()){
if(m_func != nullptr)
delete m_func;
m_func = new TemplatedFunction<T>(obj,mem_fkt); // can't use it.
}
void TestCallback(){
if(m_func != nullptr)
m_func->call();
}
~EventHandler(){
if(m_func != nullptr)
delete m_func;
}
};
As of my callbacks are statically allocated in advanced, containing the option to call, but not to set.
I know that there are many designs available, but I am limited to using a capturing lambda only with an std::function replacement to store it.
My goal is to pass a single type EventHandler to all my messages, without the need to template the messages, so I will be able to store them in a std::array<Msg_t>
here how I want it to look in the end:
// Statically allocated callbacks that have general `void call()`
//Function* m_func_to_run_callback1 = TemplatedFunction<> Callback1();
// Function* m_func_to_run_callback2 = TemplatedFunction<> Callback2();
int main()
{
EventHandler eh, eh1;
Foo foo; // some class
Foo2 foo2; // some other class
eh.SetCallbackFunction(&foo, &Foo::bar, m_func_to_run_callback1 ) ;
eh1.SetCallbackFunction(&foo2, &Foo2::bar2, m_func_to_run_callback1) ;
return 0;
}
I think that what I am missing is :
class Function{
public:
virtual void call()=0;
virtual void set(void*) = 0; // void* being the callback function
};
I'm having a great deal of problems trying to make a callback system. I want to pass a function to another class's function to receive data.
I want ExampleClass to call SeperateThread::operate, and I want SeperateThread::operate to be able to call ExampleClass::updateNumber(int) to return a value. I've been trying for hours with various function pointers etc but can't seem to get it to work.
SeperateThread is another thread so it doesn't block the main thread that ExampleClass is running in, but when SeperateThread has done it's calculations, I need to return the value to ExampleClass.
If that makes sense? Here's a run down of what I'm trying to do. In this example, I want SeperateThread::operate to call ExampleClass::updatenumber(15);...
class ExampleClass
{
public:
ExampleClass()
{
int numberToPass = 10;
// call SeperateThread::operate and pass value and updatenumber function as pointer
thread.operate(numberToPass, *updatenumber(int number));
}
~ExampleClass();
void updatenumber(int number)
{
// Do some stuff to the number passed to this function
}
private:
SeperateThread thread;
}
class SeperateThread
{
public:
SeperateThread();
~SeperateThread();
void operate(int number, &FunctionToCallBack)
{
// Do some calculations (result 5 for example purposes)
int result = numberToPass + 5;
// Call the callback function and pass result int
FunctionToCallBack(result);
}
}
There are two issues here:
1. A Callback Function Is Not Enough
You'll need both an address for the code to call back, and the identity of the object on which the code should operate. The idiomatic C++ way to do this is to encapsulate this in an object:
class SeparateThread {
public:
class Callback {
public:
virtual void ThreadDone(int result) const = 0;
virtual ~Callback() {}
};
void operate(int number, const Callback & callback)
{
// Calculate result
callback.ThreadDone(result);
}
};
ExampleClass can then either inherit privately from SeparateThread::Callback and implement ThreadDone() or define a separate callback class:
class ExampleClassThreadCallback : public SeparateThread::Callback {
public:
ExampleClassThreadCallback(ExampleClass * obj) : fObj(obj) {}
void ThreadDone(int result) const override {
fObj.updatenumber(result);
private:
ExampleClass * fObj;
}
};
You then simply call the thread as:
thread.operate(number, ExampleClassThreadCallback(this));
2. Concurrency
In a design like this, where your class gets updated from a separate thread, you are likely to run into concurrency issues, so you'll have to design appropriate mechanisms to make sure that this updating does not cause problems.
There is something important about pointing to a class member function, you have to keep in mind that a function pointer is just a regular pointer but instead of a value it points to a function, but in a class there is a special hidden variable this which makes it tricky.
One of the main problems here is that there is no pointer to the object since that would mean that you point to a function that exists within a specific object but it doesn't it just a plain function that contains this as a parameter.
thread.operate(numberToPass, *updatenumber(int number));
Here you call a function that is in another class and overall you never pass a pointer like this, it should be just the function's name since C will recognize that you want to pass it as a pointer. Generally the workaround would be to make the function static to avoid the problem with the this pointer.
One possible workaround would be to hold onto the class object and somehow hackishly call that function where you manually pass the this of the original object ( ExampleClass ).
You didn't say much about your design, but the fact that you put the source into the same field means that these classes "know" each other so why don't you just pass the class object and call the function that way like:
class BaseClass
{
public:
BaseClass() {}
~BaseClass() {}
virtual void updatenumber(int number)=0; // pure virutal method, you MUST implement this in the subclasses!
}
class ExampleClass : public BaseClass
{
public:
ExampleClass()
{
int numberToPass = 10;
// call SeperateThread::operate and pass value and updatenumber function as pointer
thread.operate(numberToPass, this);
}
~ExampleClass();
// this is now a virtual method
void updatenumber(int number)
{
// Do some stuff to the number passed to this function
}
private:
SeperateThread thread;
}
class SeperateThread
{
public:
SeperateThread();
~SeperateThread();
void operate(int number,BaseClass* ObjectToCallBack)
{
// Do some calculations (result 5 for example purposes)
int result = numberToPass + 5;
// Call the callback function and pass result int
// Note that here that this points to the BaseClass pointer but it can be a subclass of it effectively hiding it's "unneded members" at this specific point
ObjectToCallBack->updatenumber(result);
}
}
In case you want to hide the implementation you can just use a pure virtual class and pass that type of pointer to the SeperateThread class.
Edit : updated my example to use a base class.
There is a way to pass a member of a specific class instance to another function whether in a thread or not. If the callback is a member you need to wrap it together with the class instance you want the callback to affect.
template<typename T, typename F, typename R>
struct callback
{
callback(T cthis, F func) : _this(cthis), _func(func) { }
void operator()(R result)
{
(_this->*_func)(result);
}
T _this;
F _func;
};
class SeperateThread
{
public:
SeperateThread() { }
~SeperateThread() { }
template<typename T, typename F, typename R>
void operate(int number, callback<T,F,R> cb)
{
// Do some calculations (result 5 for example purposes)
int result = number + 5;
// Call the callback function and pass result int
cb(result);
}
};
class ExampleClass
{
public:
ExampleClass()
{
int numberToPass = 10;
// call SeperateThread::operate and pass value and updatenumber function as pointer
thread.operate(numberToPass, callback<ExampleClass * const, void (ExampleClass::*)(int), int>(this, &ExampleClass::updatenumber) );
}
~ExampleClass() { }
void updatenumber(int number)
{
// Do some stuff to the number passed to this function
printf("Result is %d\n", number);
}
private:
SeperateThread thread;
};
void test()
{
ExampleClass a;
}
The above will print: Result is 15.
Please note that I did not address the synchronization issues due to multithreading.
If 'updatenumber' is called by more than one thread, and your code inside it accesses other data members, then you need to serialize it by adding a mutex lock at the beginning and unlock it before returning. Best is to use std::mutex if you have C++11 compiler, or do this within a small struct, locking in the constructor and unlocking in the destructor. Then you just create one such instance immediately on updatenumber() entry.
I want to be able to add commands to the manager instance and associate those commands with invoking public methods from both class A and class B when they're executed. I know that in order to achieve this the class Command should have a pointer to a class member function instead of a regular function (void (T::*Handler)() instead of void(*Handler)() ), but I found myself lost in how exactly I can achieve this. I have the following code:
typedef void (*Handler)();
class Command {
public:
Command(char*, Handler);
private:
char* name;
Handler handler;
};
class CommandManager {
public:
CommandManager();
void addCommand(Command*);
void execute(char* commandName);
private:
Command** commands;
}
// implementation, copy constructor and destructor should be ignored at this point since they do
// not affect directly the question I'm trying to find an answer for.
I have another two classes. Let's say they're class A and class B, both having methods with return type void
and with no params. I also have class C which contains member variables of type pointers to A and B:
class C {
public:
// some public stuff here
private:
A* a;
B* b;
CommandManager* manager;
}
Note: It might be easier to introduce inheritance and abstract class but this is something I am limitted not to use(do not ask why :) ), so is there any way to do what I want?
The "best" solution:
typedef std::function<void()> Handler;
//std::function<void()> is the magic bit you were asking about
class Command {
public:
Command(const std::string& name, Handler) {}
private:
std::string name;
Handler handler;
};
class CommandManager {
public:
CommandManager();
void addCommand(std::unique_ptr<Command>);
void execute(const std::string& commandName);
private:
std::vector<Command> commands;
};
and then functionoids go like this
struct A {
void operator()() {std::cout << "A";}
};
Command ACommand = {"A", A()};
//constructs a temporary A,
//then a temporary std::function<void()> is constructed which stores the A
//then the Command stores this function.
struct B {
void named_function() {std::cout << "B";}
};
B bobj;
Command BCommand = {"B", std::bind(&B::named_function, &bobj)};
//bind constructs a functionoid binding the bobj as the "this" of the member function
//then a temporary std::function<void()> is constructed which stores the functionoid
//then the Command stores this function.
The problem is the this pointer passed implicitly to every member function. This makes the signature of the functions of A different from those of B.
Without using templates and inheritance, the easiest way would be to declare the functions of A and B as static. Then, there is no this pointer, and the functions can be assigned to the function pointer handler.
Because it's not likely to be powerful enough, here another way, but I must say it's a kludge, it would really be better to use inheritance.
Define
typedef Handler void (*Handler)(void *);
and implement the static command handlers as follows
void A::doit(void *arg)
{
A *newthis = (A*)arg;
newthis->UseMembersOfA();
}
I am working on an event daemon in C++ that I would like to use member function callbacks. Basically an event queue would collect events which the daemon continuously services. There is a base class Event struct with an ID and all events would derive from it. I would like the methods registered for each event to use the derived event type in their signature.
struct Event
{
unsigned int eventId;
};
struct EventA : public Event
{
unsigned int x;
unsigned int y;
};
// and struct EventB, EventC (use your imagination...)
const unsigned int EVENT_A = 1;
const unsigned int EVENT_B = 2;
const unsigned int EVENT_C = 3;
class Foo
{
public:
void handlerMethod_A(const EventA& e);
void handlerMethod_B(const EventB& e);
};
class Bar
{
public:
void handlerMethod_C(const EventC& e);
};
Then the Daemon would allow these classes to subscribe their member functions using their 'this' pointer.
class EventDaemon
{
public:
void serviceEvents();
template <class CallbackClass, class EventType>
void subscribe(
const unsigned int eventId,
CallbackClass* classInstancePtr,
void (CallbackClass::*funcPtr)(EventType));
private:
Queue<Event*> eventQueue_;
};
So outside this class you could do something like:
EventDaemon* ed = new EventDaemon();
Foo* foo = new Foo();
Bar* bar = new Bar();
ed->subscribe(EVENT_A, foo, Foo::handlerMethod_A);
ed->subscribe(EVENT_B, foo, Foo::handlerMethod_B);
ed->subscribe(EVENT_C, bar, Bar::handlerMethod_C);
And the EventDaemon loop would be along the lines of
void EventDaemon::serviceEvents()
{
while (true)
{
if (eventQueue_.empty())
{
// yield to other threads
}
else
{
// pop an event out of the FIFO queue
Event e* = eventQueue_.pop();
// somehow look up the callback info and use it
classInstancePtr->*funcPtr(reinterpret_cast<?*>(e));
}
}
}
So my question is how I can store the 'this' pointers and member function pointers in some sort of array by event ID. That way I could look up the 'classInstancePtr' and 'funcPtr' by using e->eventId and the event type as well for the reinterpret cast.
You are working too hard. Use boost functions:
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_47_0/doc/html/function.html
These work whether you have a object or not. They will increase your compile time.
Note, whenever you come across these types of questions where you know many people must have had the same problem, there is probably a simple option and, if it is not in the standard library, it is probably in boost.
In response to Nick, I'm constantly throwing boost function objects into vectors and whatnot.
I've found that, while boost function objects can hold object references, having them do so can lead to bugs with object lifetimes and it is better to have them hold copies of the class objects (you run into the same bugs however you try to hold a reference to a object instance that you don't necessarily control the lifetime of). The pattern:
class Foo
{
struct Member
{
// member variable definitions
};
shared_ptr<Member> m_; // the only real member variable
public:
// etc. including the all-important copy
// constructor and assignment operator and
// don't forget the member function that gets stuck into
// the boost function as a callback!
};
where all the member variables get held in a shared_ptr allows for good performance and you don't have to worry about lifetimes of objects held by function objects because you can copy them by value. Threaded code (what I always seem to be writing nowadays) needs additional things like at least one boost mutex element in Member or some other way to assure values don't get stomped on.
boost::function [or, if your system supports it, std::function] will take care of holding the this pointer quite well, with the added benefit of not requiring an actual object if it isn't necessary. So instead of void (SomeType::*)(EventA) you have std::function<void(EventA)>, and you call std::bind as appropriate.
subscribe(EVENT_A, std::bind(&foo::handleEventA, &foo, std::placeholders::_1));
A trivial wrapper function can be used to provide the same signature as you originally proposed and hide the nasty placeholders.
You do, of course, still have the issue of each event type having its own signature, and the need to ensure you use the correct Event ID code. In both cases, your base Event type can help out. Your callback need not accept an EventA&; it can accept an Event&, and dynamic_cast it to an EventA at runtime. For the ID, query the type directly.
struct Event {
virtual void ~Event() { }
virtual int ID() =0;
};
template<typename E>
struct EventHelper : Event {
virtual int ID() { return E::EventID; }
};
struct EventA : EventHelper<EventA> {
static const int EventID = 89;
};
Now, if you have an Event* object [when you go to dispatch your events], you can do p->ID() to get the appropriate ID, and if you have a EventA type [when you register your callbacks] you can do EventA::EventID.
So now, all you have to store is a std::function<void(const Event&)> and an associated int value for each of your callbacks, no matter what the actual type of event you have.
void subscribe(int id, std::function<void(const Event&)> f) {
callbacks.insert(std::make_pair(id, f));
}
template<typename E>
void subscribe(std::function<void(const Event&)> f) {
subscribe(E::EventID, f);
}
template<typename O, typename E>
void subscribe(O* p, void (O::*f)(const Event&)) {
subscribe<E>(std::bind(f, p, std::placeholders::_1));
}
You still have the issue that user error when subscribing can result in a function being called incorrectly. If you've used dynamic_cast correctly within the callback, this will get caught at runtime, but a compile time check would be nice. So what if we automate that dynamic_cast? For this step, I'm going to use c++11 lambdas, but it can be implemented in C++03 as well using a variety of methods.
template <class CallbackClass, class EventType>
void subscribe(CallbackClass* classInstancePtr, void (CallbackClass::*funcPtr)(EventType)) {
subscribe<EventType::EventID>([&](const Event& e) {
(classInstancePtr->*funcPtr)(dynamic_cast<const EventType&>(e));
});
}
So now we've gone full circle back to your original interface where your callbacks accept the actual type they are going to be working on, but internally you've squeezed them all into a common signature.
Okay, so I finished an implementation of my original desired interface. I was looking through Dennis' answer but eventually got lead to functors and I realized what I was looking for was a simple polymorphic solution. I failed to grasp before that I could create a non-templated base class with which to use for storing templated classes in vectors/arrays. I think this is what mheyman was trying to tell me... so I apologize I didn't get it right away. Just to clarify though I was really looking for the implementation solution for my own benefit and knowledge, not just a 3rd party library to get the job done. So I guess I would be looking for how Boost functions work, not just that they exist and are awesome.
If anyone is still interested here are the important parts of what I ended up with (minus some extraneous stuff and error checking):
EventFunctor is basically a pointer to member function template class
EventFunctorBase is the non-templated base class used to store them in a vector
The Event is dynamic cast using the templated type before being used to invoke the callback
class EventDaemon
{
public:
template <class CallbackClass, class EventType>
void subscribe(
const EventId eventId,
CallbackClass* callbackClassInstancePtr,
void (CallbackClass::*funcPtr)(const EventType&));
private:
EventFunctorBase* callbacks_[MAX_NUM_EVENTS];
};
template <class CallbackClass, class EventType>
void EventDaemon::subscribe(
const EventId eventId,
CallbackClass* callbackClassInstancePtr,
void (CallbackClass::*funcPtr)(const EventType&))
{
callbacks_[eventId] = new EventFunctor<CallbackClass,EventType>(callbackClassInstancePtr,funcPtr);
}
class EventFunctorBase
{
public:
EventFunctorBase();
virtual ~EventFunctorBase();
virtual void operator()(const Event& e)=0;
};
template <class CallbackClass, class EventType>
class EventFunctor : public EventFunctorBase
{
public:
EventFunctor(
CallbackClass* callbackClassInstancePtr,
void (CallbackClass::*funcPtr)(const EventType&));
virtual void operator()(const Event& e);
private:
CallbackClass* callbackClassInstancePtr_;
void (CallbackClass::*funcPtr_)(const EventType&);
};
template <class CallbackClass, class EventType>
EventFunctor<CallbackClass,EventType>::EventFunctor(
CallbackClass* callbackClassInstancePtr,
void (CallbackClass::*funcPtr)(const EventType&))
:
callbackClassInstancePtr_(callbackClassInstancePtr),
funcPtr_(funcPtr)
{
}
template <class CallbackClass, class EventType>
/*virtual*/ void EventFunctor<CallbackClass,EventType>::operator()(const Event& e)
{
(callbackClassInstancePtr_->*funcPtr_)(dynamic_cast<const EventType&>(e));
}
EventDaemon loop
while (true_)
{
if (eventQueue_->empty())
{
// yield to other threads
}
else
{
Event* e = eventQueue_.pop();
(*(callbacks_[e->ID]))(*e);
}
}
My final steps here will be to try and remove the need to have the developer define an ID for each event... of course this might end up a new post later this week.
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;
}