How to create a lookup table - c++

Basically i've only realised that the way i've coded my project i need to implement some form of lookup table, now i have never done this before and therefore don't know how to do it and googling doesn't really give a clear set of instructions
I need the lookup table so that a user can input a function into the command line and then pass in parameters to that function, but no idea where to start

You could do something like this in order to create a lookup (dispatch) table:
(Notice: This is how to implement a dispatch table and it is both C and C++ compartible. There are other-and maybe easier ways to do this in C++ without reinventing the wheel, like using some containers etc).
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
// Arrays start from 0.
// This is used for code
// readability reasons.
#define CASE(X) X-1
typedef void (*chooseCase)();
// Functions to execute each case.
// Here, I am just printing
// different strings.
void case1(){
cout<< "case1" << endl;
}
void case2(){
cout<< "case2" << endl;
}
void case3(){
cout<< "case3" << endl;
}
void case4(){
cout<< "case4" << endl;
}
//Put all the cases in an array.
chooseCase cases[] = {
case1, case2, case3, case4
};
int main()
{
//You can call each scenario
//by hand easily this way:
cases[CASE(1)]();
cout << endl;
//Idea: You can even set in another
// array a sequence of function executions desired.
int casesSequence[] = {
CASE(1), CASE(2), CASE(3), CASE(4),CASE(3),CASE(2),CASE(1)
};
//Execute the functions in the sequence set.
for(int i = 0; i < (sizeof(casesSequence)/sizeof(int)); ++i){
cases[casesSequence[i]]();
}
return 0;
}
(Based on: Adding split-screen multiplayer to c++ game)
Now about the program input, you could map the name of your function to get the index for example and you could apply the example above to parameterized functions and you can also use this in situations that functions are parameterized.
In this case,please take into consideration that all functions should obey to the function pointer signature in order to use it in this example. Otherwise, you have to do more tricky things (like using a void* argument and passing an arguments struct "instance" pointer to each function).

I don't know exactly your requirements, but I could imagine sth like this:
You might want to have a look into C++ function pointers. You could make an own struct that holds:
name of a function
pointer to that function
vector of variants (for example from boost or write yourown) to hold the arguments
validate function to see if the arguments and function pointer fit
Create for each function that the user can call a an instance of this struct. Display those to the user and let him choose. In the second step, let him enter the values for the arguments.

You can use std::map<std::string, functype> where functype is a typedef'd function pointer, or even a boost::function<> type.
std::map<std::string, functype> funcs;
void call_user_func(const std::string &user_input, const std::string &arg1, const std::string & arg2)
{
functype f = funcs.at(user_input);
f(arg1, arg2);
}

I give you and example on Arduino that is almost the same C/C++ code analogy
float cosLUT[(int) (360.0 * 1 / 0.5)] ;
const float DEG2RAD = 180 / PI ;
const float cosinePrecision = 0.5;
const int cosinePeriod = (int) (360.0 * 1 / cosinePrecision);
void setup()
{
initCosineLUT();
}
void loop()
{
// nothing for now!
}
void initCosineLUT(){
for (int i = 0 ; i < cosinePeriod ; i++)
{
cosLUT[i] = (float) cos(i * DEG2RAD * cosinePrecision);
}
}
Lookup tables are one of the most powerful tricks in the programming universe.
They are arrays containing precalculated values and thus replace heavy runtime
calculations by a simpler array index operation. For instance, imagine you want to
track positions of something by reading distances coming from a bunch of distance
sensors. You'll have trigonometric and probably power calculations to perform.
Because they can be time consuming for your processor, it would be smarter and
cheaper to use array content reading instead of those calculations. This is the usual
illustration for the use of lookup tables.

Related

C++ method for array of objects

I have created a class in C++. Each object corresponds with an I/O pin on a microcontroller. I can create an array of the objects and then set each pin to an output with a for loop. I would like to be able to set multiple pins to an output at the exact same time. This can be done with the hardware.
I am trying to create a method that works on an array of objects. You would use it like this:
Pin myPins[] = {0,1,2};
myPins.setOuput();
Basically I want to create a method that works on an array of objects. Is it possible to create a setOuput method like this? If yes, how? Thanks.
Update 1
New non-member method
void setOutput(Pin pins[], int size) {
volatile uint8_t* _DDR = pins[0].getDDR();
uint8_t _offset = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
_offset |= pins[i].getOffset();
}
DDR_HIGH;
}
I am using the _ in the names so that my existing macro works. Not great but less code.
Nope, you cannot add a method to a classic array the way you intend to. However, you could create a class that inherits from, say, a std::vector<Pin>, and add methods to it, like this:
class Pins : public std::vector<Pin>
{
public:
void setOutput() { /* your code here */ }
};
That way, using C++11's uniform initialization, you could use a similar syntax:
Pins myPins = {0, 1, 2};
myPins.setOutput();
Edit: as per the comments, subclass a STL container is a quick and dirty solution and not the best idea. You could, however, create your own wrapper class very simply:
class Pins
{
std::vector<Pin> mPins;
public:
Pins (std::initializer_list<Pin> pins) : mPins(pins)
{ }
void setOutput()
{
cout << "Pins in this pinset:" << endl;
for (Pin & p : mPins)
{
cout << "\t" << p << endl;
}
}
};
That works exactly the same:
Pins myPins = {0, 1, 2};
myPins.setOutput();
Most probably your setOutput member function is reading some possibly multi byte value, changing a bit depending on the pin, and writing it back.
C++ arrays can't have member functions.
To achieve a similar effect, you should split the work your original setOutput is doing:
Read some hardware config
Do the bit twiddling
Apply the changes
Then you can let multiple pins do their bit twiddling before applying the final output.
Example:
Pin::Config cfg = Pin::read_config();
// the following could also happen in a loop over an array.
cfg = pin1.enableOutput(cfg);
cfg = pin4.enableOutput(cfg);
// or pass by reference and mutate, if you
// want a less functional style
// e.g. pinN.enableOutput(cfg)!
Pin::write_config(cfg);
This way you still have good encapsulation, but better control. Then you can write a free function to operate on arrays, vectors or whatever collection of pins, if needed:
template<typename It>
void setOutputPins(It start, It end) {
Pin::Config cfg = Pin::read_config();
for (; start != end; ++start) {
cfg = (*start).enableOutput(cfg);
}
Pin::write_config(cfg);
};
Using it with C arrays:
Pin array[5]; // or a pointer for dynamic arrays
// ...
setOutputPins(array, array + size);
Don't make everything OO. It'll make your life harder.
[...] a function that returns the offset value for each Pin [...]. Then I bitwise or them all together.
So you don't even need that reading step. And since you bitwise or them, you could even do something like this:
Pin::write_config(pin1.output_mask() | pin4.output_mask());
You can make the function generic, too: Or pass a member function pointer:
template<typename It>
void setPins(It start, It end, Pin::Config (Pin::*fn)(void)) {
Pin::Config cfg = 0; // identity for bitwise or
for (; start != end; ++start) {
cfg |= ((*start).*fn)();
}
Pin::write_config(cfg);
};
And the pass a pointer to the member function you want to invoke:
setPins(array, array + size, &Pin::asInput);
Example here.

How to switch between 2 function sets in C++?

Is there a way, I can switch between 2 similar function sets (C/C++) in an effective way?
To explain better what I mean, lets say I have 2 sets of global functions like:
void a_someCoolFunction();
void a_anotherCoolFunction(int withParameters);
…
void b_someCoolFunction();
void b_anotherCoolFunction(int withParameters);
…
And I want to able to "switch" in my program at runtime which one is used. BUT: I dont want to have one if condition at every function, like:
void inline someCoolFunction(){
if(someState = A_STATE){
a_someCoolFunction();
}else{
b_someCoolFunction();
}
}
Because, I expect that every function is called a lot in my mainloop - so It would be preferable if I could do something like this (at start of my mainloop or when someState is changed):
if(someState = A_STATE){
useFunctionsOfType = a;
}else{
useFunctionsOfType = b;
}
and then simply call
useFunctionsOfType _someCoolFunction();
I hope its understandable what I mean… My Background: Im writing an App, that should be able to handle OpenGL ES 1.1 and OpenGL ES 2.0 both properly - but I dont want to write every render Method 2 times (like: renderOpenGL1() and renderOpenGL2() I would rather to write only render()). I already have similiar Methods like: glLoadIdentity(); myLoadIdentity(); … But need a way to switch between these two somehow.
Is there any way to accomplish this in an efficent way?
Several options, including (but not limited to):
Use function pointers.
Wrap them in classes, and use polymorphism.
Have two separate copies of the loop.
But please profile to ensure this is actually a problem, before you make any large changes to your code.
As the question seems to be interested in a C++ solution and no-one has spelt out the polymorphic solution (too obvious?), here goes.
Define an abstract base class with the API you require, and then implement a derived class for each supported implementation:
class OpenGLAbstract
{
public:
virtual ~OpenGLAbstract() {}
virtual void loadIdentity() = 0;
virtual void someFunction() = 0;
};
class OpenGLEs11 : public OpenGLAbstract
{
public:
virtual void loadIdentity()
{
// Call 1.1 API
}
virtual void someFunction()
{
// Call 1.1 API
}
};
class OpenGLEs20 : public OpenGLAbstract
{
public:
virtual void loadIdentity()
{
// Call 2.0 API
}
virtual void someFunction()
{
// Call 2.0 API
}
};
int main()
{
// Select the API to use:
bool want11 = true;
OpenGLAbstract* gl = 0;
if (want11)
gl = new OpenGLEs11;
else
gl = new OpenGLEs20;
// In the main loop.
gl->loadIdentity();
delete gl;
}
Note that this is exactly the sort of thing that C++ was intended for, so if can use C++ here, this is the simplest way to go.
Now a more subtle issue you might face is if your 2.0 version requires the process to load a dynamic linked library at run time with the 2.0 platform implementation. In that case just supporting the API switch is not enough (whatever the solution). Instead put each OpenGL concrete class in its own linked library and in each provide a factory function to create that class:
OpenGlAbstract* create();
Then load the desired library at run time and call the create() method to access the API.
In C (since it seems you want both C and C++) this is done with pointer to functions.
// Globals. Default to the a_ functions
void(*theCoolFunction)() = a_someCoolFunction;
void(*theOtherCoolFunction)(int) = a_anotherCoolFunction;
// In the code ...
{
...
// use the other functions
theCoolFunction = b_someCoolFunction;
theOtherCoolFunction = b_anotherCoolFunction;
...
}
You might probably want to switch those functions in groups, so you better set a array of pointers to functions and pass that array around. If you decide to do so, you might probably want to also define some macro to ease the reading:
void (*functions_a[2])();
void (*functions_b[2])();
void (**functions)() = functions_a;
....
#define theCoolFunction() functions[0]()
#define theOtherCoolFunction(x) functions[1](x)
....
// switch grooup:
functions = functions_b;
but in this case you'll lose the static check on argument types (and you have to initialize the array, of course).
I guess in C++ you will have instatiate two different objects with the same parent class and different implementation for their methods (but I'm no C++ prograammer!)
You could use functions pointers. You can read a lot about them if you google it, but briefly a function pointer stores a pointer to a function's memory address.
Function pointers can be used the same way as a funcion, but can be assigned the address of different functions, making it a somehow "dynamic" function. As an example:
typedef int (*func_t)(int);
int divide(int x) {
return x / 2;
}
int multiply(int x) {
return x * 2;
}
int main() {
func_t f = ÷
f(2); //returns 1
f = &multiply;
f(2); //returns 4
}
Something like boost::function (std::function) would fit the bill. Using your example:
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/function.hpp> //requires boost installation
#include <functional> //c++0x header
void a_coolFunction() {
std::cout << "Calling a_coolFunction()" << std::endl;
}
void a_coolFunction(int param) {
std::cout << "Calling a_coolFunction(" << param << ")" << std::endl;
}
void b_coolFunction() {
std::cout << "Calling b_coolFunction()" << std::endl;
}
void b_coolFunction(int param) {
std::cout << "Calling b_coolFunction(" << param << ")" << std::endl;
}
float mul_ints(int x, int y) {return ((float)x)*y;}
int main() {
std::function<void()> f1; //included in c++0x
boost::function<void(int)> f2; //boost, works with current c++
boost::function<float(int,int)> f3;
//casts are necessary to resolve overloaded functions
//otherwise you don't need them
f1 = static_cast<void(*)()>(a_coolFunction);
f2 = static_cast<void(*)(int)>(a_coolFunction);
f1();
f2(5);
//switching
f1 = static_cast<void(*)()>(b_coolFunction);
f2 = static_cast<void(*)(int)>(b_coolFunction);
f1();
f2(7);
//example from boost::function documentation. No cast required.
f3 = mul_ints;
std::cout << f3(5,3) << std::endl;
}
Compiled with g++-4.4.4, this outputs:
Calling a_coolFunction()
Calling a_coolFunction(5)
Calling b_coolFunction()
Calling b_coolFunction(7)
15
The biggest limitation is that the types of f1,f2, etc cannot change, so any function you assign to them must have the same signature (i.e. void(int) in the case of f2).
The simple way could be storing pointers to functions, and change them od demand.
But the better way is to use something similar to abstract factory design pattern. The nice generic implementation can be found in Loki library.
In C you would typically do this with a struct containing function pointers:
struct functiontable {
void (*someCoolFunction)(void);
void (*anotherCoolFunction)(int);
};
const struct functiontable table_a = { &a_someCoolFunction, &a_anotherCoolFunction };
const struct functiontable table_b = { &b_someCoolFunction, &b_anotherCoolFunction };
const struct functiontable *ftable = NULL;
To switch the active function table, you'd use:
ftable = &table_a;
To call the functions, you'd use:
ftable->someCoolFunction();

Bin packing implementation in C++ with STL

This is my first time using this site so sorry for any bad formatting or weird formulations, I'll try my best to conform to the rules on this site but I might do some misstakes in the beginning.
I'm right now working on an implementation of some different bin packing algorithms in C++ using the STL containers. In the current code I still have some logical faults that needs to be fixed but this question is more about the structure of the program. I would wan't some second opinion on how you should structure the program to minimize the number of logical faults and make it as easy to read as possible. In it's current state I just feel that this isn't the best way to do it but I don't really see any other way to write my code right now.
The problem is a dynamic online bin packing problem. It is dynamic in the sense that items have an arbitrary time before they will leave the bin they've been assigned to.
In short my questions are:
How would the structure of a Bin packing algorithm look in C++?
Is STL containers a good tool to make the implementation be able to handle inputs of arbitrary lenght?
How should I handle the containers in a good, easy to read and implement way?
Some thoughts about my own code:
Using classes to make a good distinction between handling the list of the different bins and the list of items in those bins.
Getting the implementation as effective as possible.
Being easy to run with a lot of different data lengths and files for benchmarking.
#include <iostream>
#include <fstream>
#include <list>
#include <queue>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
struct type_item {
int size;
int life;
bool operator < (const type_item& input)
{
return size < input.size;
}
};
class Class_bin {
double load;
list<type_item> contents;
list<type_item>::iterator i;
public:
Class_bin ();
bool operator < (Class_bin);
bool full (type_item);
void push_bin (type_item);
double check_load ();
void check_dead ();
void print_bin ();
};
Class_bin::Class_bin () {
load=0.0;
}
bool Class_bin::operator < (Class_bin input){
return load < input.load;
}
bool Class_bin::full (type_item input) {
if (load+(1.0/(double) input.size)>1) {
return false;
}
else {
return true;
}
}
void Class_bin::push_bin (type_item input) {
int sum=0;
contents.push_back(input);
for (i=contents.begin(); i!=contents.end(); ++i) {
sum+=i->size;
}
load+=1.0/(double) sum;
}
double Class_bin::check_load () {
return load;
}
void Class_bin::check_dead () {
for (i=contents.begin(); i!=contents.end(); ++i) {
i->life--;
if (i->life==0) {
contents.erase(i);
}
}
}
void Class_bin::print_bin () {
for (i=contents.begin (); i!=contents.end (); ++i) {
cout << i->size << " ";
}
}
class Class_list_of_bins {
list<Class_bin> list_of_bins;
list<Class_bin>::iterator i;
public:
void push_list (type_item);
void sort_list ();
void check_dead ();
void print_list ();
private:
Class_bin new_bin (type_item);
bool comparator (type_item, type_item);
};
Class_bin Class_list_of_bins::new_bin (type_item input) {
Class_bin temp;
temp.push_bin (input);
return temp;
}
void Class_list_of_bins::push_list (type_item input) {
if (list_of_bins.empty ()) {
list_of_bins.push_front (new_bin(input));
return;
}
for (i=list_of_bins.begin (); i!=list_of_bins.end (); ++i) {
if (!i->full (input)) {
i->push_bin (input);
return;
}
}
list_of_bins.push_front (new_bin(input));
}
void Class_list_of_bins::sort_list () {
list_of_bins.sort();
}
void Class_list_of_bins::check_dead () {
for (i=list_of_bins.begin (); i !=list_of_bins.end (); ++i) {
i->check_dead ();
}
}
void Class_list_of_bins::print_list () {
for (i=list_of_bins.begin (); i!=list_of_bins.end (); ++i) {
i->print_bin ();
cout << "\n";
}
}
int main () {
int i, number_of_items;
type_item buffer;
Class_list_of_bins bins;
queue<type_item> input;
string filename;
fstream file;
cout << "Input file name: ";
cin >> filename;
cout << endl;
file.open (filename.c_str(), ios::in);
file >> number_of_items;
for (i=0; i<number_of_items; ++i) {
file >> buffer.size;
file >> buffer.life;
input.push (buffer);
}
file.close ();
while (!input.empty ()) {
buffer=input.front ();
input.pop ();
bins.push_list (buffer);
}
bins.print_list ();
return 0;
}
Note that this is just a snapshot of my code and is not yet running properly
Don't wan't to clutter this with unrelated chatter just want to thank the people who contributed, I will review my code and hopefully be able to structure my programming a bit better
How would the structure of a Bin packing algorithm look in C++?
Well, ideally you would have several bin-packing algorithms, separated into different functions, which differ only by the logic of the algorithm. That algorithm should be largely independent from the representation of your data, so you can change your algorithm with only a single function call.
You can look at what the STL Algorithms have in common. Mainly, they operate on iterators instead of containers, but as I detail below, I wouldn't suggest this for you initially. You should get a feel for what algorithms are available and leverage them in your implementation.
Is STL containers a good tool to make the implementation be able to handle inputs of arbitrary length?
It usually works like this: create a container, fill the container, apply an algorithm to the container.
Judging from the description of your requirements, that is how you'll use this, so I think it'll be fine. There's one important difference between your bin packing algorithm and most STL algorithms.
The STL algorithms are either non-modifying or are inserting elements to a destination. bin-packing, on the other hand, is "here's a list of bins, use them or add a new bin". It's not impossible to do this with iterators, but probably not worth the effort. I'd start by operating on the container, get a working program, back it up, then see if you can make it work for only iterators.
How should I handle the containers in a good, easy to read and implement way?
I'd take this approach, characterize your inputs and outputs:
Input: Collection of items, arbitrary length, arbitrary order.
Output: Collection of bins determined by algorithm. Each bin contains a collection of items.
Then I'd worry about "what does my algorithm need to do?"
Constantly check bins for "does this item fit?"
Your Class_bin is a good encapsulation of what is needed.
Avoid cluttering your code with unrelated stuff like "print()" - use non-member help functions.
type_item
struct type_item {
int size;
int life;
bool operator < (const type_item& input)
{
return size < input.size;
}
};
It's unclear what life (or death) is used for. I can't imagine that concept being relevant to implementing a bin-packing algorithm. Maybe it should be left out?
This is personal preference, but I don't like giving operator< to my objects. Objects are usually non-trivial and have many meanings of less-than. For example, one algorithm might want all the alive items sorted before the dead items. I typically wrap that in another struct for clarity:
struct type_item {
int size;
int life;
struct SizeIsLess {
// Note this becomes a function object, which makes it easy to use with
// STL algorithms.
bool operator() (const type_item& lhs, const type_item& rhs)
{
return lhs.size < rhs.size;
}
}
};
vector<type_item> items;
std::sort(items.begin, items.end(), type_item::SizeIsLess);
Class_bin
class Class_bin {
double load;
list<type_item> contents;
list<type_item>::iterator i;
public:
Class_bin ();
bool operator < (Class_bin);
bool full (type_item);
void push_bin (type_item);
double check_load ();
void check_dead ();
void print_bin ();
};
I would skip the Class_ prefix on all your types - it's just a bit excessive, and it should be clear from the code. (This is a variant of hungarian notation. Programmers tend to be hostile towards it.)
You should not have a class member i (the iterator). It's not part of class state. If you need it in all the members, that's ok, just redeclare it there. If it's too long to type, use a typedef.
It's difficult to quantify "bin1 is less than bin2", so I'd suggest removing the operator<.
bool full(type_item) is a little misleading. I'd probably use bool can_hold(type_item). To me, bool full() would return true if there is zero space remaining.
check_load() would seem more clearly named load().
Again, it's unclear what check_dead() is supposed to accomplish.
I think you can remove print_bin and write that as a non-member function, to keep your objects cleaner.
Some people on StackOverflow would shoot me, but I'd consider just making this a struct, and leaving load and item list public. It doesn't seem like you care much about encapsulation here (you're only need to create this object so you don't need do recalculate load each time).
Class_list_of_bins
class Class_list_of_bins {
list<Class_bin> list_of_bins;
list<Class_bin>::iterator i;
public:
void push_list (type_item);
void sort_list ();
void check_dead ();
void print_list ();
private:
Class_bin new_bin (type_item);
bool comparator (type_item, type_item);
};
I think you can do without this class entirely.
Conceptually, it represents a container, so just use an STL container. You can implement the methods as non-member functions. Note that sort_list can be replaced with std::sort.
comparator is too generic a name, it gives no indication of what it compares or why, so consider being more clear.
Overall Comments
Overall, I think the classes you've picked adequately model the space you're trying to represent, so you'll be fine.
I might structure my project like this:
struct bin {
double load; // sum of item sizes.
std::list<type_item> items;
bin() : load(0) { }
};
// Returns true if the bin can fit the item passed to the constructor.
struct bin_can_fit {
bin_can_fit(type_item &item) : item_(item) { }
bool operator()(const bin &b) {
return item_.size < b.free_space;
}
private:
type_item item_;
};
// ItemIter is an iterator over the items.
// BinOutputIter is an output iterator we can use to put bins.
template <ItemIter, BinOutputIter>
void bin_pack_first_fit(ItemIter curr, ItemIter end, BinOutputIter output_bins) {
std::vector<bin> bins; // Create a local bin container, to simplify life.
for (; curr != end; ++curr) {
// Use a helper predicate to check whether the bin can fit this item.
// This is untested, but just for an idea.
std::vector<bin>::iterator bin_it =
std::find_if(bins.begin(), bins.end(), bin_can_fit(*curr));
if (bin_it == bins.end()) {
// Did not find a bin with enough space, add a new bin.
bins.push_back(bin);
// push_back invalidates iterators, so reassign bin_it to the last item.
bin_it = std::advance(bins.begin(), bins.size() - 1);
}
// bin_it now points to the bin to put the item in.
bin_it->items.push_back(*curr);
bin_it->load += curr.size();
}
std::copy(bins.begin(), bins.end(), output_bins); // Apply our bins to the destination.
}
void main(int argc, char** argv) {
std::vector<type_item> items;
// ... fill items
std::vector<bin> bins;
bin_pack_first_fit(items.begin(), items.end(), std::back_inserter(bins));
}
Some thoughts:
Your names are kinda messed up in places.
You have a lot of parameters named input, thats just meaningless
I'd expect full() to check whether it is full, not whether it can fit something else
I don't think push_bin pushes a bin
check_dead modifies the object (I'd expect something named check_*, to just tell me something about the object)
Don't put things like Class and type in the names of classes and types.
class_list_of_bins seems to describe what's inside rather then what the object is.
push_list doesn't push a list
Don't append stuff like _list to every method in a list class, if its a list object, we already know its a list method
I'm confused given the parameters of life and load as to what you are doing. The bin packing problem I'm familiar with just has sizes. I'm guessing that overtime some of the objects are taken out of bins and thus go away?
Some further thoughts on your classes
Class_list_of_bins is exposing too much of itself to the outside world. Why would the outside world want to check_dead or sort_list? That's nobodies business but the object itself. The public method you should have on that class really should be something like
* Add an item to the collection of bins
* Print solution
* Step one timestep into the future
list<Class_bin>::iterator i;
Bad, bad, bad! Don't put member variables on your unless they are actually member states. You should define that iterator where it is used. If you want to save some typing add this: typedef list::iterator bin_iterator and then you use bin_iterator as the type instead.
EXPANDED ANSWER
Here is my psuedocode:
class Item
{
Item(Istream & input)
{
read input description of item
}
double size_needed() { return actual size required (out of 1) for this item)
bool alive() { return true if object is still alive}
void do_timestep() { decrement life }
void print() { print something }
}
class Bin
{
vector of Items
double remaining_space
bool can_add(Item item) { return true if we have enough space}
void add(Item item) {add item to vector of items, update remaining space}
void do_timestep() {call do_timestep() and all Items, remove all items which indicate they are dead, updating remaining_space as you go}
void print { print all the contents }
}
class BinCollection
{
void do_timestep { call do_timestep on all of the bins }
void add(item item) { find first bin for which can_add return true, then add it, create a new bin if neccessary }
void print() { print all the bins }
}
Some quick notes:
In your code, you converted the int size to a float repeatedly, that's not a good idea. In my design that is localized to one place
You'll note that the logic relating to a single item is now contained inside the item itself. Other objects only can see whats important to them, size_required and whether the object is still alive
I've not included anything about sorting stuff because I'm not clear what that is for in a first-fit algorithm.
This interview gives some great insight into the rationale behind the STL. This may give you some inspiration on how to implement your algorithms the STL-way.

generic non-invasive cache wrapper

I'm trying create a class which adds functionality to a generic class, without directly interfacing with the wrapped class. A good example of this would be a smart pointer. Specifically, I'd like to create a wrapper which caches all the i/o for one (or any?) method invoked through the wrapper. Ideally, the cache wrapper have the following properties:
it would not require the wrapping class to be changed in any way (i.e. generic)
it would not require the wrapped class to be changed in any way (i.e. generic)
it would not change the interface or syntax for using the object significantly
For example, it would be really nice to use it like this:
CacheWrapper<NumberCruncher> crunchy;
...
// do some long and ugly calculation, caching method input/output
result = crunchy->calculate(input);
...
// no calculation, use cached result
result = crunchy->calculate(input);
although something goofy like this would be ok:
result = crunchy.dispatch (&NumberCruncher::calculate, input);
I feel like this should be possible in C++, although possibly with some syntactic gymnastics somewhere along the line.
Any ideas?
I think I have the answer you are seeking, or, at least, I almost do. It uses the dispatch style you suggested was goofy, but I think it meets the first two criteria you set forth, and more or less meets the third.
The wrapping class does not have to be modified at all.
It doesn't modify the wrapped class at all.
It only changes the syntax by introducing a dispatch function.
The basic idea is to create a template class, whose parameter is the class of the object to be wrapped, with a template dispatch method, whose parameters are the argument and return types of a member function. The dispatch method looks up the passed in member function pointer to see if it has been called before. If so, it retrieves the record of previous method arguments and calculated results to return the previously calculated value for the argument given to dispatch, or to calculate it if it is new.
Since what this wrapping class does is also called memoization, I've elected to call the template Memo because that is shorter to type than CacheWrapper and I'm starting to prefer shorter names in my old age.
#include <algorithm>
#include <map>
#include <utility>
#include <vector>
// An anonymous namespace to hold a search predicate definition. Users of
// Memo don't need to know this implementation detail, so I keep it
// anonymous. I use a predicate to search a vector of pairs instead of a
// simple map because a map requires that operator< be defined for its key
// type, and operator< isn't defined for member function pointers, but
// operator== is.
namespace {
template <typename Type1, typename Type2>
class FirstEq {
FirstType value;
public:
typedef std::pair<Type1, Type2> ArgType;
FirstEq(Type1 t) : value(t) {}
bool operator()(const ArgType& rhs) const {
return value == rhs.first;
}
};
};
template <typename T>
class Memo {
// Typedef for a member function of T. The C++ standard allows casting a
// member function of a class with one signature to a type of another
// member function of the class with a possibly different signature. You
// aren't guaranteed to be able to call the member function after
// casting, but you can use the pointer for comparisons, which is all we
// need to do.
typedef void (T::*TMemFun)(void);
typedef std::vector< std::pair<TMemFun, void*> > FuncRecords;
T memoized;
FuncRecords funcCalls;
public:
Memo(T t) : memoized(t) {}
template <typename ReturnType, typename ArgType>
ReturnType dispatch(ReturnType (T::* memFun)(ArgType), ArgType arg) {
typedef std::map<ArgType, ReturnType> Record;
// Look up memFun in the record of previously invoked member
// functions. If this is the first invocation, create a new record.
typename FuncRecords::iterator recIter =
find_if(funcCalls.begin(),
funcCalls.end(),
FirstEq<TMemFun, void*>(
reinterpret_cast<TMemFun>(memFun)));
if (recIter == funcCalls.end()) {
funcCalls.push_back(
std::make_pair(reinterpret_cast<TMemFun>(memFun),
static_cast<void*>(new Record)));
recIter = --funcCalls.end();
}
// Get the record of previous arguments and return values.
// Find the previously calculated value, or calculate it if
// necessary.
Record* rec = static_cast<Record*>(
recIter->second);
typename Record::iterator callIter = rec->lower_bound(arg);
if (callIter == rec->end() || callIter->first != arg) {
callIter = rec->insert(callIter,
std::make_pair(arg,
(memoized.*memFun)(arg)));
}
return callIter->second;
}
};
Here is a simple test showing its use:
#include <iostream>
#include <sstream>
#include "Memo.h"
using namespace std;
struct C {
int three(int x) {
cout << "Called three(" << x << ")" << endl;
return 3;
}
double square(float x) {
cout << "Called square(" << x << ")" << endl;
return x * x;
}
};
int main(void) {
C c;
Memo<C> m(c);
cout << m.dispatch(&C::three, 1) << endl;
cout << m.dispatch(&C::three, 2) << endl;
cout << m.dispatch(&C::three, 1) << endl;
cout << m.dispatch(&C::three, 2) << endl;
cout << m.dispatch(&C::square, 2.3f) << endl;
cout << m.dispatch(&C::square, 2.3f) << endl;
return 0;
}
Which produces the following output on my system (MacOS 10.4.11 using g++ 4.0.1):
Called three(1)
3
Called three(2)
3
3
3
Called square(2.3)
5.29
5.29
NOTES
This only works for methods which take 1 argument and return a result. It doesn't work for methods which take 0 arguments, or 2, or 3, or more arguments. This shouldn't be a big problem, though. You can implement overloaded versions of dispatch which take different numbers of arguments up to some reasonable max. This is what the Boost Tuple library does. They implement tuples of up to 10 elements and assume most programmers don't need more than that.
The possibility of implementing multiple overloads for dispatch is why I used the FirstEq predicate template with the find_if algorithm instead of a simple for loop search. It is a little more code for a single use, but if you are going to do a similar search multiple times, it ends up being less code overall and less chance to get one of the loops subtlely wrong.
It doesn't work for methods returning nothing, i.e. void, but if the method doesn't return anything, then you don't need to cache the result!
It doesn't work for template member functions of the wrapped class because you need to pass an actual member function pointer to dispatch, and an un-instantiated template function doesn't have a pointer (yet). There may be a way around this, but I haven't tried much yet.
I haven't done much testing of this yet, so it may have some subtle (or not-so-subtle) problems.
I don't think a completely seamless solution which satisfies all your requirements with no change in syntax at all is possible in C++. (though I'd love to be proven wrong!) Hopefully this is close enough.
When I researched this answer, I got a lot of help from this very extensive write up on implementing member function delegates in C++. Anyone who wants to learn way more than they realized was possible to know about member function pointers should give that article a good read.
I don't think this can be easily done using just a wrapper as you'll have to intercept the IO calls, so wrapping a class would put the code at the wrong layer. In essence, you want to substitute the IO code underneath the object, but you're trying to do it from the top layer. If you're thinking of the code as an onion, you're trying to modify the outer skin in order to affect something two or three layers in; IMHO that suggests the design might need a rethink.
If the class that you're trying to wrap/modify this way does allow you to pass in the stream (or whatever IO mechanism you use), then substituting that one for a caching one would be the right thing to do; in essence that would be what you'd be trying to achieve with your wrapper as well.
It looks like a simple task, assuming the "NumberCruncher" has a known interface, let's say int operator(int).
Note that you'll need to make it more complicated to support other interfaces. In order to do so, i'm adding another template parameter, an Adaptor. Adaptor should convert some interface to a known interface. Here's simple and dumb implementation with static method, which is one way to do it. Also look what Functor is.
struct Adaptor1 {
static int invoke(Cached1 & c, int input) {
return(c.foo1(input));
}
};
struct Adaptor2 {
static int invoke(Cached2 & c, int input) {
return(c.foo2(input));
}
};
template class CacheWrapper<typename T, typeneame Adaptor>
{
private:
T m_cachedObj;
std::map<int, int> m_cache;
public:
// add c'tor here
int calculate(int input) {
std::map<int, int>::const_iterator it = m_cache.find(input);
if (it != m_cache.end()) {
return(it->second);
}
int res = Adaptor::invoke(m_cachedObj, input);
m_cache[input] = res;
return(res);
}
};
I think what you need is something like a proxy / decorator (design patterns). You can use templates if you don't need the dynamic part of those patterns. The point is that you need to well define the interface that you will need.
I haven't figured out the case for handling object methods, but I think I've got a good fix for regular functions
template <typename input_t, typename output_t>
class CacheWrapper
{
public:
CacheWrapper (boost::function<output_t (input_t)> f)
: _func(f)
{}
output_t operator() (const input_t& in)
{
if (in != input_)
{
input_ = in;
output_ = _func(in);
}
return output_;
}
private:
boost::function<output_t (input_t)> _func;
input_t input_;
output_t output_;
};
Which would be used as follows:
#include <iostream>
#include "CacheWrapper.h"
double squareit(double x)
{
std::cout << "computing" << std::endl;
return x*x;
}
int main (int argc, char** argv)
{
CacheWrapper<double,double> cached_squareit(squareit);
for (int i=0; i<10; i++)
{
std::cout << cached_squareit (10) << std::endl;
}
}
Any tips on how to get this to work for objects?

C++ Function List

I'm working on a fairly complex project, a custom encryption routine if you will (just for fun) and I've run into this issue in designing my code layout.
I have a number of functions that I want to be able to call by index. Specifically, I need to be able to call one randomly for the encrypt process, but then address that by a specific index in the decrypt process.
I was considering a classic function array, but my main concern is that a function array would be tricky to maintain, and a little ugly. (The goal is to get each function pair in a separate file, to reduce compile times and make the code easier to manage.) Does anyone have a more elegant C++ solution as an alternative to a function array? Speed isn't really an issue, I'm more worried about maintainability.
-Nicholas
What's wrong with function array?
You need to call functions by index. So they must be put into some "indexable by index" structure somehow. Array is probably the simplest structure that suits this need.
Example (typing out of my head, might not compile):
struct FunctionPair {
EncodeFunction encode;
DecodeFunction decode;
};
FunctionPair g_Functions[] = {
{ MyEncode1, MyDecode1 },
{ MySuperEncode, MySuperDecode },
{ MyTurboEncode, MyTurboDecode },
};
What is "ugly" or "hard to maintain" in the approach above?
You could write something like:
class EncryptionFunction
{
public:
virtual Foo Run(Bar input) = 0;
virtual ~MyFunction() {}
};
class SomeSpecificEncryptionFunction : public EncryptionFunction
{
// override the Run function
};
// ...
std::vector<EncryptionFunction*> functions;
// ...
functions[2]->Run(data);
You could use operator() instead of Run as the function name, if you prefer.
An object with an operator() method defined can act a lot like a function but be generally nicer to work with.
Polymorphism could do the trick: you couldf follow the strategy pattern, considering each strategy to implement one of your functions (or a pair of them).
Then create a vector of strategies, and use this one instead of the function list.
But frankly, I don't see the problem with the function array; you can easily create a typedef to ease the readability. Effectifely, you will end up with exactly the same file structure when using the strategy pattern.
// functiontype.h
typedef bool (*forwardfunction)( double*, double* );
// f1.h
#include "functiontype.h"
bool f1( double*, double* );
// f1.c
#include "functiontype.h"
#include "f1.h"
bool f1( double* p1, double* p2 ) { return false; }
// functioncontainer.c
#include "functiontype.h"
#include "f1.h"
#include "f2.h"
#include "f3.h"
forwardfunction my_functions[] = { f1, f2, f3 };
The function declaration and definitions are in separate files - compile time is ok.
The function grouping is in a separate file, having a dependency to the declarations only
You could take a look at the Boost.Signals library. I believe it has the ability to call its registered functions using an index.
Try Loki::Functor class. More info at CodeProject.com
You need to use an array of function pointers. The only catch is that all the functions have to have basically the same prototype, only the name of the function and passed argument names can vary. The return type and argument types (as well as the number of arguments and order) must be identical.
int Proto1( void );
int Proto2( void );
int Proto3( void );
int (*functinPointer[3])( void ) =
{
Proto1,
Proto2,
Proto3
};
Then you can do something like this:
int iFuncIdx = 0;
int iRetCode = functinPointer[iFuncIdx++]();
If you looked in boost::signals library, you'll see an example very nice, that is very elegant:
Suppose you have 4 functions like:
void print_sum(float x, float y)
{
std::cout << "The sum is " << x+y << std::endl;
}
void print_product(float x, float y)
{
std::cout << "The product is " << x*y << std::endl;
}
void print_difference(float x, float y)
{
std::cout << "The difference is " << x-y << std::endl;
}
void print_quotient(float x, float y)
{
std::cout << "The quotient is " << x/y << std::endl;
}
Then if you want to call them in a elegant way try:
boost::signal<void (float, float)> sig;
sig.connect(&print_sum);
sig.connect(&print_product);
sig.connect(&print_difference);
sig.connect(&print_quotient);
sig(5, 3);
And the output is:
The sum is 8
The product is 15
The difference is 2
The quotient is 1.66667