I have a C++ class using Core Audio structs on OS X.
My initial implementation was like this:
class MyClass
{
private:
AUNode _converterNode;
AURenderCallbackStruct _renderCBStruct;
public:
MyClass();
~MyClass();
inline AUNode* getConverterNode() { return &_converterNode; }
inline AURenderCallbackStruct* AURenderCallbackStruct() { return &_renderCBStruct; }
};
After reading the Poco style guides, I wanted to change the order of the private/public blocks. It then looked like this:
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass();
~MyClass();
inline AUNode* getConverterNode() { return &_converterNode; }
inline AURenderCallbackStruct* AURenderCallbackStruct() { return &_renderCBStruct; }
private:
AUNode _converterNode;
AURenderCallbackStruct _renderCBStruct;
};
The compiler now tells me that the type AURenderCallbackStruct is unknown and tells me to replace the type name with ::AURenderCallbackStruct. When I do that, there are no compiler errors.
Weirdly, this only appears for the `AURenderCallbackStruct and not the AUNode.
The AURenderCallbackStruct is defined like this:
typedef struct AURenderCallbackStruct {
AURenderCallback inputProc;
void * inputProcRefCon;
} AURenderCallbackStruct;
and AUNode is defined like this:
typedef SInt32 AUNode;
Can anyone explain why the change of order of private/public block produces a compiler error and why the error disappears when adding a ::in front of the type?
First of all it is not clear why you named the member function as AURenderCallbackStruct that coincides with the corresponding structure's name and looks like the structure constructor.
The problem is this stupid name.
in the first case the compiler thinks that you indeed define the member function that hides the corresponding name of the structure.
In the second case the compiler thinks that you trying to call the constructor of the structure.
Simply rename the function that there would not be an ambiguity.
Related
I am working with a project that is largely not of my creation, but am tasked with adding in some functionality to it. Currently, there is a device class that has a member variable that is responsible for storing information about a storage location, setup like this:
device.hpp
class device {
public:
// Stuff
private:
// Stuff
StorageInfo storage_info_;
// Even more stuff
}
StorageInfo.hpp
class StorageInfo {
public:
void initializeStorage();
void updateStorageInfo();
int popLocation();
int peakLocation();
uint16_t totalSize();
uint16_t remainingSize();
// More declarations here
private:
//Even more stuff here
}
I am tasked with implementing a different storage option so that the two can be switched between. The information functions that this new storage option has would be the same as the initial storage option, but the implementation in retrieving that information is vastly different. In order to keep things clean and make it easier to maintain this application for years to come, they really need to be defined in two different files. However, this creates an issue inside of device.cpp, and in every single other file that calls the StorageInfo class. If I create two separate member variables, one for each type of storage, then not only will I need to insert a million different ifelse statements, but I have the potential to run into initialization issues in the constructors. What I would instead like to do is have one member variable that has the potential to hold either storage option class. Something like this:
StorageInfoA.hpp
class StorageInfoA: StorageInfo {
public:
void initializeStorage();
void updateStorageInfo();
int popLocation();
int peakLocation();
uint16_t totalSize();
uint16_t remainingSize();
// More declarations here
private:
//Even more stuff here
}
StorageInfoB.hpp
class StorageInfoB: StorageInfo {
public:
void initializeStorage();
void updateStorageInfo();
int popLocation();
int peakLocation();
uint16_t totalSize();
uint16_t remainingSize();
// More declarations here
private:
//Even more stuff here
}
device.hpp
class device {
public:
// Stuff
private:
// Stuff
StorageInfo storage_info_;
// Even more stuff
}
device.cpp
//Somewhere in the constructor of device.cpp
if(save_to_cache){
storage_info_ = StorageInfoA();
} else {
storage_info_ = StorageInfoB();
}
// Then, these types of calls would return the correct implementation without further ifelse calls
storage_info_.updateStorageInfo();
However, I know that cpp absolutely hates anything with dynamic typing, so I don't really know how to implement this. Is this kind of thing even possible? If not, does anyone know of a similar way to implement this that does work with cpp's typing rules?
You are on the right track, but you have to learn how to use polymorphism. In your example, you need the following fixes:
In the base class, make all functions virtual, and add a virtual
destructor:
class StorageInfo {
public:
virtual ~StorageInfo(){}
virtual void initializeStorage();
//...
};
Make your inheritance public:
class StorageInfoA: public StorageInfo {
Instead of holding StorageInfo by value, hold it in a smart pointer:
class device {
private:
std::unique_ptr<StorageInfo> storage_info_;
};
device constructor will look like
//Somewhere in the constructor of device.cpp
if(save_to_cache){
storage_info_ = std::make_unique<StorageInfoA>();
} else {
storage_info_ = std::make_unique<StorageInfoB>();
}
Finally, you will use it like an ordinary pointer:
storage_info_->updateStorageInfo();
I have a very simple class definition as follows:
#include "../bshttp/controllers.h"
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
class DerivedController : public BS_Controllers
{
public:
DerivedController():BS_Controllers(this)
{
m_urlRules["print"] = REG_NAME &DerivedController::print;
//regController(REG_NAME &DerivedController::print,"print");
regController(REG_NAME &DerivedController::printView,"printView");
}
void * print()
{
return NULL;
}
void * printView()
{
cout<<"Print view!"<<endl;
return NULL;
}
};
where either
m_urlRules["print"] = REG_NAME &DerivedController::print;
or
regController(REG_NAME &DerivedController::printView,"printView");
has to be called for all of the member functions. What it does it that it takes the member function pointer of the class and maps with a string, so later on the function can be identified with a string.
Everything is all well and working, but when the class structure gets bigger, the programmer will have to repetitively call this function for every single member function. Is there anyway to use the preprocessor, or any preprocessing library such as the boost-wave, so that the programmer doesn't have to do these repetitive calling?
EDIT:
Sorry for the confusion, I clearly did not describe the problem well enough here.
I am mapping strings to member function pointer;
m_urlRules is a std::map with string as the key, and member function pointer as value
regController is basically a setter function for m_urlRules, so both statements effectively does the same thing, which maps a string to a member function.
REG_NAME is a macro to replace a very ugly typecast.
what I am trying to do is that, if the class where to have the following structure,
class DerivedController : public BS_Controllers
{
public:
DerivedController():BS_Controllers(this);
void * print();
void * print2();
void * print3();
void * print4();
};
I dont have to do the following in the constructor:
m_urlRules["print"] = REG_NAME &DerivedController::print;
m_urlRules["print1"] = REG_NAME &DerivedController::print1;
m_urlRules["print2"] = REG_NAME &DerivedController::print2;
m_urlRules["print3"] = REG_NAME &DerivedController::print3;
m_urlRules["print4"] = REG_NAME &DerivedController::print4;
Well, you're trying to build the runtime type information (RTTI) on your own, so no there is no preprocessor macro for this. Mainly because preprocessor macros expand to a single place, and the place where you declare, and the place, where you register your functions are different.
Qt and qmake, does something like this, it finds the functions marked signals/slots, and builds a moc object for RTTI. That's about the best you can get with c++. Other languages like java, and delphi, has more RTTI, than c++, and makes it possible to query functions at runtime.
I am not exactly sure I understood completely your problem, but why don't use the built-in data structure, such as map, in which you can map it to a key (your string).
Here some examples
I would first work on removing the ugly typecast (even in macro form). This can be done by moving the m_urlRules out of BS_Controllers and into an intermediate (or proxy) template class. The template is used to resolve the map to the right derived type. (I didn't know how you defined BS_Controllers, so I made one up.)
class BS_Controllers {
protected:
virtual ~BS_Controllers () {}
public:
virtual void * invokeRule (const std::string &) = 0;
};
template <typename D>
class BS_Proxy : public BS_Controllers {
typedef std::map<std::string, void *(D::*)()> UrlRuleMap;
static UrlRuleMap & urlRules () {
static UrlRuleMap urlRules_;
return urlRules_;
}
void * invokeRule (const std::string &s) {
typename UrlRuleMap::iterator i = urlRules().find(s);
if (i == urlRules().end()) return 0;
return (dynamic_cast<D *>(this)->*(i->second))();
}
protected:
static void regController (void *(D::*m)(), const std::string &s) {
urlRules()[s] = m;
}
};
Now, the DerivedController can be initialized fairly easily, by invoking the regController method of the proxy class.
#define REG_RULE(D, x) BS_Proxy<D>::regController(&D::x, #x)
class DerivedController : public BS_Proxy<DerivedController> {
struct Populate {
Populate () {
REG_RULE(DerivedController, print);
REG_RULE(DerivedController, printView);
}
};
public:
DerivedController() {
static Populate populate_;
}
void * print() { return NULL; }
void * printView() {
std::cout<<"Print view!"<<std::endl;
return NULL;
}
};
You can view a demo of the above code.
If you want to make the population semi-automatic, you still have to define the list of methods somewhere. You could list them out in a file.
// DerivedController rules
DERIVED_RULE_INC(print)
DERIVED_RULE_INC(printView)
//...
And then change your DerivedController class to use this file:
class DerivedController : public BS_Proxy<DerivedController> {
struct Populate {
Populate () {
#define DERIVED_RULE_INC(x) REG_RULE(DerivedController, x);
#include "derived_controller_rules.inc"
#undef DERIVED_RULE_INC
}
};
public:
DerivedController() {
static Populate populate_;
}
#define DERIVED_RULE_INC(x) void * x ();
#include "derived_controller_rules.inc"
#undef DERIVED_RULE_INC
};
void * DerivedController::print() { return NULL; }
void * DerivedController::printView() {
std::cout<<"Print view!"<<std::endl;
return NULL;
}
Now, if you add another rule to the file, the registration code and the method declaration is automatic. But the definition of the method needs to be implemented, or a linker error will be generated about the missing method definition.
I believe you want to use this feature for logging reasons, to see where problems appear.
I think you're searching for something like:
urlRules ("<function name>");
regController("<function name>");
Instead of
m_urlRules["<function name>"] = REG_NAME &DerivedController::print;
regController(REG_NAME &DerivedController::printView,"<function name>");
You can define such makros like so:
#define urlRules(x) { m_urlRules[(x)] = REG_NAME &DerivedController::print; }
#define regController(x) { regController(REG_NAME &DerivedController::printView,(x)); }
Attention: I have not tested it, it might not work but in my understanding it should.
EDIT:
Ah now I understand, you want calls for every function within the constructor.
Actually, the constructor is the wrong place, because it gets called for every object you create, but you only have to assign this pointers once. (on startup for example)
See, the functions of a class only exist once in memory, and the thing that is connected to the pointer is the yield data, so all member variables.
There is no simple way to get all class members by name and then run over them, sorry.
At least not as I know of.
But you should keep in mind that the function pointers won't change for any given object.
An external function which does the work would be more intelligent. Called on startup.
I'm trying to define a public struct inside a C++ class, and can't figure out how to make it compile. In my header, I have the following:
class AtomUtility
{
public:
struct BoundingBox;
void doWork(struct AtomUtility::BoundingBox bounds);
};
And in the source:
#include"AtomUtility.h"
struct AtomUtility::BoundingBox
{
double xMin, xMax;
};
int main()
{
AtomUtility::BoundingBox *myBox = new AtomUtility::BoundingBox;
myBox->xMin = 0;
myBox->xMax = 10;
AtomUtility *myUtility = new AtomUtility;
myUtility->doWork(*myBox);
delete myUtility;
}
void AtomUtility::doWork(struct AtomUtilty::BoundingBox bounds)
{
//do things...
}
When I attempt to compile this, I get an error: "class "AtomUtility" has no tag member named "BoundingBox".
You've missed the semi-colon after the definition of AtomUtility::BoundingBox and your compiler is getting confused and giving a poor diagnostic.
You're also trying to pass a AtomUtility::BoundingBox* to a function expecting a AtomUtility::BoundingBox
If your compiler gives poor diagnostics it's often useful to try your code on a different compiler. Several are available online, e.g. Comeau, Clang, or a pastebin that compiles, such as http://codepad.org
Quoting https://stackoverflow.com/a/6368118/1483826:
you can only declare pointer or reference to the later class (...). You cannot have objects of later class.
To fix this, you'd need to declare the struct before the class using it as a field.
I've read all the suggestions I've found in the following links
c++ typedef another class's enum?
http://forums.devarticles.com/c-c-help-52/how-to-use-enum-when-it-is-in-another-class-17773.html
http://forums.codeguru.com/showthread.php?t=435215
How do I use the Enum value from a class in another part of code?
but still wasn't able to find a solution to my problem:
I need to construct an object of class A (whose constructor expects as an input
parameter an enumerative type of that class) from inside a function of an object of class B
Here are the code snippets:
File A.h:
Class A{
public:
enum FileType{TEXT, BIN};
/*! This constructor initializes the data from a given file
* (binary, text, image).
*/
A(const std::string& filename, FileType type);
}
File A.cpp:
A::A(const std::string& filename, FileType type){
...
}
File B.h:
Class B{
private:
A objectOfClassA;
public:
enum FileType{TEXT = A::FileType::TEXT, BIN = A::FileType::BIN}; //<----THIS IS NOT WORKING!
foo_func(const std::string& filename, FileType type);
}
File B.cpp:
void B::foo_func(const std::string& filename, FileType type){
this->objectOfClassA(filename, type); //should construct an object of class A
... //do stuff with objectOfClassA
}
File main.cpp:
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
B objectOfClassB;
objectOfClassB.foo_func("file_path", foo_func.TEXT);
}
By trying to run main program I get this error from compiler in the B.cpp file at line of function foo_func:
no match for call to ‘(A)
(std::basic_string, B::FileType&)’
which means that I'm not using the correct enum type to call A class constructor, but how can I fix this?
What am I doing wrong?
B::FileType and A::FileType are different types. You need to typedef A::FileType FileType inside B to alias the types correctly so they are interchangeable. Otherwise B::FileType is an enum which is structurally the same as A::FileType, but unrelated in the type system. This answers your primary question.
Fixing this still won't permit your code to compile, however, and this is not what the error is complaining about.
objectOfClassA is already constructed inside foo_func. Calling this->objectOfClassA(filename, type) is an attempt to use the overloaded () operator on the object; this operator does not exist so the code cannot compile. You can only construct objectOfClassA via B's constructor using initializer notation, e.g.
B::B(const std::string& filename, FileType type) : objectOfClassA(filename, type)
{
...
}
Then in main you would do this:
B objectOfClassB("file_path", B::TEXT);
Step through in the debugger to see the control flow.
There are two classes defined..
class Dictionary
{
public:
Dictionary();
Dictionary(int i);
// ...
};
and
class Equation
{
static Dictionary operator_list(1);
// ...
};
but the problem is, whenever I compile this, I get a weird error message
error C2059: syntax error : 'constant'
But it compiles well when I use the default constructor on operator_list.
In C++ you cannot combine declaration and initialization. When you do not specify constructor parameters of operator_list, you do not call its default constructor: you simply declare it. You need to also initialize it in the corresponding C++ file, like this:
Equation.h
class Equation {
static Dictionary operator_list;
};
Equation.cpp:
Dictionary Equation::operator_list(1);
Note the absence of static in the CPP file: it is not there by design. The compiler already knows from the declaration that operator_list is static.
Edit: You have a choice with static constant members of integral and enumerated types: you can initialize them in the CPP file as in the example above, or you can give them a value in the header. You still need to define that member in your C++ file, but you must not give it a value at the definition time.
static Dictionary operator_list(); is a function signature declaring a function returning a Dictionary and taking no arguments, that's why your compiler let you do it.
The reasons static Dictionary operator_list(1); fails is because you can't set a value of an complex type in the declaration of your classes. You need to do this elsewhere (e.g. in the .cpp )
For more information, see this post : https://stackoverflow.com/a/3792427/103916
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Dictionary
{
public:
Dictionary() {}
Dictionary(int i):page(i) {}
void display() { cout << "page is " << page << endl; }
private:
int page;
};
class Equation
{
public:
static Dictionary operator_list;
};
Dictionary Equation::operator_list(1); // static members must be initialized this way...
int main()
{
Equation::operator_list.display();
}
Output is:
page is 1