c++ runtime instantiation of member parameter - c++

As the title says I would like to initiate a Store object whose type is determined at runtime only. I initially went for a virtual class, 2 derived classes but quickly faced the need for templates.
The class O has a pointer to an interface BaseStore for these Store objects. Moreover since I also need to call the right functions for the Derived classes Store1 and Store2, I used a dynamic cast in a template function of the interface.
Since I am new to c++, I wonder if this design has flaws and if there is any place for improvements. Thanks for your expertise!
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
struct BaseStore {
virtual ~BaseStore() {}
template<typename S> void test() const;
};
struct Store1 : public BaseStore {
Store1(int j) { this->i = j; }
void test() const { cout << i << endl; }
private:
int i = 1;
};
struct Store2 : public BaseStore {
Store2(string s) { this->i = s; }
void test() const { cout << i << endl; }
private:
string i = "2";
};
template<typename S> void BaseStore::test() const
{
dynamic_cast<const S&>(*this).test();
}
class O {
public:
O(int i) {
this->type = i;
switch (this->type) {
case 1: basestore = new Store1(42); break;
case 2: basestore = new Store2("lol"); break;
}
}
~O() { delete basestore; }
void test() const {
switch (this->type) {
case 1: basestore->test<Store1>(); break;
case 2: basestore->test<Store2>(); break;
}
}
private:
int type;
BaseStore* basestore;
};

I believe virtual functions and the factory pattern will help here, as in:
struct BaseStore
{
virtual ~BaseStore() = default;
virtual void test() const = 0;
BaseStore() = default;
BaseStore(BaseStore const&) = delete;
BaseStore(BaseStore&&) = delete;
BaseStore& operator=(BaseStore&&) = delete;
BaseStore& operator=(BaseStore const&) = delete;
};
struct Store1 : public BaseStore {
Store1(int j) : i(j) {}
void test() const override { std::cout << i << std::endl; }
private:
int i = 1;
};
struct Store2 : public BaseStore {
Store2(std::string s) : i(std::move(s)) {}
void test() const override { std::cout << i << std::endl; }
private:
std::string i = "2";
};
class O {
public:
O(int i) : type(i), basestore(StoreFactory(i)) {}
void test() const { basestore->test(); }
private:
static std::unique_ptr<BaseStore> StoreFactory(int i)
{
switch (i)
{
case 1: return std::unique_ptr<Store1>(new Store1(42));
case 2: return std::unique_ptr<Store2>(new Store2("lol"));
default: throw std::runtime_error("Don't know what kind of Store you want");
}
}
int type;
std::unique_ptr<BaseStore> basestore;
};

Related

How to manage different types of data in the base class?

My goal is to separate data from various implementations. I don't want my things to know what actual subclass it is they are working with, either way around. To make things perform only a single task with minimal information.
I'll throw some code in your eyes first.
// Example program
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <memory>
#include <vector>
#include <functional>
class Model
{
public:
virtual bool set(int p_attrId, int p_value) {return false;};
virtual bool get(int p_attrId, int & p_value) const {return false;};
};
class Derived: public Model
{
static constexpr int c_classId = 1;
int value = 1;
public:
enum EAttrs
{
eAttr1 = c_classId * 1000
};
virtual bool set(int p_attrId, int p_value) override
{
switch(p_attrId)
{
case eAttr1:
value = p_value;
return true;
default:
return Model::set(p_attrId, p_value);
}
}
virtual bool get(int p_attrId, int & p_value) const override
{
switch(p_attrId)
{
case eAttr1:
p_value = value;
return true;
default:
return Model::get(p_attrId, p_value);
}
}
};
// GuiTextBoxComponent.h
// no includes to any class derived from model
class GuiTextBoxComponent
{
std::weak_ptr<Model> m_model;
int m_attrId;
public:
void draw()
{
auto locked = m_model.lock();
if(locked)
{
int value;
bool result = locked->get(m_attrId, value);
if(!result)
{
std::cout << "Failed to get attribute " << m_attrId << "\n";
return;
}
std::cout << "AttrID: " << m_attrId << " Value: " << value << "\n";
}
else
{
std::cout << "Model is dead\n";
}
}
void setSource(std::weak_ptr<Model> p_model, int p_attrId)
{
m_model = p_model;
m_attrId = p_attrId;
}
};
int main()
{
std::shared_ptr<Model> model (new Derived);
GuiTextBoxComponent textbox;
textbox.setSource(model, Derived::eAttr1);
textbox.draw();
}
The motivation behind this is acquisition of all data from a single interface.
I need to be able to add functionality like the GuiTextBoxComponent, without #include "Derived1.h" in its header.
The challenge with this design is that the Model interface needs to implement all types required from anywhere in the program.
How would you extend the types provided?
Is there some other design that could be used to achieve similar results?
Generally, I think this is an XY problem but here is how you can beautify your code a bit. First, I implemented two interfaces: Getter and Setter like:
enum class EAttrs {
eAttr1
};
template <typename GetterImpl>
struct Getter {
bool get(EAttrs const attrId, int& value) {
switch (attrId) {
case EAttrs::eAttr1:
return static_cast<GetterImpl*>(this)->get(value);
default:
return false;
}
}
};
template <typename SetterImpl>
struct Setter {
bool set(EAttrs const attrId, int value) {
switch (attrId) {
case EAttrs::eAttr1:
return static_cast<SetterImpl*>(this)->set(value);
default:
return false;
}
}
};
Here I used CRTP, i.e. static polymorphism. Then implementation of your derived classes is a bit simpler:
class Derived1 : public Getter<Derived1>, Setter<Derived1> {
int value = 1;
public:
bool set(int p_value) {
value = p_value;
return true;
}
bool get(int & p_value) {
p_value = value;
return true;
}
};
class Derived2 : public Getter<Derived1>, Setter<Derived1> {
int value = 2;
public:
bool set(int p_value) {
value = p_value;
return true;
}
bool get(int & p_value) {
p_value = value;
return true;
}
};
Finally, since we were using CRTP, there is no need for creating std::unique_ptr. Code that's using above classes could look like:
template <typename T>
void printInt(Getter<T>& model, EAttrs p_attrId) {
int value;
bool result = model.get(p_attrId, value);
if (!result)
{
std::cout << "Failed to get attribute " << static_cast<int>(p_attrId) << "\n";
return;
}
std::cout << "AttrID: " << static_cast<int>(p_attrId) << " Value: " << value << "\n";
}
int main()
{
Derived1 derived1;
Derived2 derived2;
printInt(derived1, EAttrs::eAttr1);
printInt(derived2, EAttrs::eAttr1);
}
Check out the DEMO.
P.S. Note the usage of enum class instead of plain enum.
Take a look at this CppCon's talk about Solid principles. Your code might be a good example to apply those principles to.

Issue with polymorphism with smart pointers and vectors c++

I am currently trying to learn c++ and I am having an issue when trying to create a vector which iterates through several different objects whom all inherit from the same base class with smart pointers.
I parse a file and create the objects and insert them into the vector depending on the character parsed but I keep getting the error:
Error C2664 'std::unique_ptr<Test *,std::default_delete<_Ty>>::unique_ptr(const std::unique_ptr<_Ty,std::default_delete<_Ty>> &)': cannot convert argument 1 from 'std::unique_ptr<Test2,std::default_delete<_Ty>>' to 'std::nullptr_t'"
Code is as follows:
class Test {
public:
virtual ~Test(){}
virtual int update() {}
};
class Test2 : public Test {
private:
int a;
public:
Test2() {
}
Test2(int n) {
a = n;
}
int update() override {
return a;
}
};
class Test3 : public Test {
private:
int a;
public:
Test3() {
}
Test3(int n) {
a = n;
}
int update() override {
return a;
}
};
class Test4 : public Test {
private:
int a;
public:
Test4() {
}
Test4(int n) {
a = n;
}
int update() override {
return a;
}
};
class manager {
private:
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Test*>> vList;
std::ifstream lvlFile;
public:
std::string tmp;
manager() {
}
~manager() {
}
void init(const char *path) {
lvlFile.open(path, 0);
while (lvlFile.eof() != true) {
std::getline(lvlFile, tmp);
for (char& a : tmp) {
switch (a) {
case 'w':
vList.emplace_back(std::make_unique<Test2>(2));
break;
case 'g':
vList.emplace_back(std::make_unique<Test3>(3));
break;
}
}
}
}
void print() {
for (auto& i : vList) {
std::cout << (*i)->update() << std::endl;
}
}
};
manager *m;
int main() {
m = new manager();
m->init("lvl.txt");
_getch();
}
Maybe I have misunderstood something crucial here but I have been looking around and found no real answers so any pointers to this would be most welcome!
Change std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Test*>> to std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Test>>.
std::unique_ptr<Test*> is a pointer to pointer (Test**).

How to create a specialized and default versions of a function that take base and derived classes?

I have the following class architecture:
class Animal
{
// ...
}
class Cat : public Animal
{
// ...
}
class Dog : public Animal
{
// ...
}
// + Several other derived classes
In another section of my code, I have a function that goes through a list of Animals and needs to perform specialized actions in the case of several of the derived classes and a default action otherwise. How can I handle this situation elegantly, given the following constraints:
I'd like to keep the new code outside of Animal and its derived
classes because of separation of concerns.
I'd like to avoid using a switch statement on types or enums as it feels very smelly.
Here's one way - use the concept-model idiom (my name):
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
struct AnimalConcept {
virtual ~AnimalConcept() = default;
virtual void make_noise() const = 0;
};
// default case
void make_noise_for(const AnimalConcept&)
{
std::cout << "no noise" << std::endl;
}
template<class Model>
struct AnimalModel : AnimalConcept
{
void make_noise() const override {
make_noise_for(static_cast<const Model&>(*this));
}
};
// some models
struct Cat : AnimalModel<Cat>
{
};
struct Dog : AnimalModel<Dog>
{
};
struct Giraffe : AnimalModel<Giraffe>
{
};
// separation of concerns - specific overrides
void make_noise_for(const Cat&) {
std::cout << "meow\n";
}
void make_noise_for(const Dog&) {
std::cout << "woof\n";
}
// test
using namespace std;
int main(){
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<const AnimalConcept>> animals;
animals.emplace_back(new Cat);
animals.emplace_back(new Dog);
animals.emplace_back(new Giraffe);
for (const auto& p : animals) {
p->make_noise();
}
return 0;
}
expected output:
meow
woof
no noise
And here's another way to implement it (this one is nicer since it allows all animals to have unrelated interfaces):
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
struct AnimalConcept {
virtual ~AnimalConcept() = default;
virtual void make_noise() const = 0;
};
// default case
template<class T>
void make_noise_for(const T&)
{
std::cout << "this animal makes no noise" << std::endl;
}
template<class Model>
struct AnimalModel : AnimalConcept
{
template<class...Args>
AnimalModel(Args&&...args)
: _model { std::forward<Args>(args)... }
{}
private:
void make_noise() const override {
make_noise_for(_model);
}
Model _model;
};
// some models
struct Cat
{
Cat(std::string name)
: _name { std::move(name) }
{}
const std::string& name() const {
return _name;
}
private:
std::string _name;
};
struct Dog
{
Dog(std::string name, int age)
: _name { std::move(name) }
, _age { age }
{}
const std::string& name() const {
return _name;
}
int age() const {
return _age;
}
private:
std::string _name;
int _age;
};
struct Giraffe
{
};
// separation of concerns - specific overrides
void make_noise_for(const Cat& c) {
std::cout << c.name() << " says meow\n";
}
void make_noise_for(const Dog& d) {
std::cout << "the dog called " << d.name() << " who is " << d.age() << " years old says woof\n";
}
// test
using namespace std;
int main(){
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<const AnimalConcept>> animals;
animals.emplace_back(new AnimalModel<Cat> { "felix" });
animals.emplace_back(new AnimalModel<Dog> { "fido", 2 });
animals.emplace_back(new AnimalModel<Giraffe>);
for (const auto& p : animals) {
p->make_noise();
}
return 0;
}
expected output:
felix says meow
the dog called fido who is 2 years old says woof
this animal makes no noise
You can use a combination of the following to get type based dispatch.
Provide for every class to return a type ID associated with it.
Provide a virtual function in the base class to get the type ID associated with an object.
Provide a way for registration of functions based on type ID.
When the time comes for execution of the top level function, search for a registered function given an animal's type ID. If a function is registered, call it. Otherwise, use the default function.
// Implement this function in a .cpp file.
int getNextTypeID()
{
static int typeID = 0;
return ++typeID;
}
class Animal
{
virtual int getTypeID();
};
class Cat : public Animal
{
static int getID()
{
static int typeID = getNextTypeID();
}
virtual int getTypeID()
{
return getID();
}
};
class Dog : public Animal
{
static int getID()
{
static int typeID = getNextTypeID();
}
virtual int getTypeID()
{
return getID();
}
};
foo.h:
typedef void (*AnimalFunction)(Animal& a);
int registerAnimalFunctor(int typeID, AnimalFunction f);
void foo(Animal& a);
foo.cpp:
typedef std::map<int, AnimalFunction> AnimalFunctionMap;
AnimalFunctionMap& getAnimalFunctionMap()
{
static AnimalFunctionMap theMap;
return theMap;
}
int registerAnimalFunctor(int typeID, AnimalFunction f)
{
getAnimalFunctionMap()[typeID] = f;
return 0;
}
void defaultAnimalFunction(a)
{
// Default action
}
void foo(Animal& a)
{
AnimalFunctionMap& theMap = getAnimalFunctionMap();
AnimalFunctionMap::iterator iter = theMap.find(a.getTypeID());
if ( iter != theMap.end() )
{
iter->second(a);
}
else
{
defaultAnimalFunction(a);
}
}
cat_foo.cpp:
void CatFunction(Animal& a)
{
// Cat action.
}
int dummy = registerAnimalFunctor(Cat::getID(), CatFunction);
dog_foo.cpp:
void DogFunction(Animal& a)
{
// Dog action.
}
int dummy = registerAnimalFunctor(Dog::getID(), DogFunction);

Return value of virtual functions in interface

One class returns 'int', other returns 'double'. What is the signature of method 'GiveMeTheValue' in the interface of both classes.
I want to compile following code:
class Interface
{
public:
virtual arbitrary_type GimeMeTheValue(void) {};
};
class TakeInt : public Interface
{
public:
arbitrary_type GimeMeTheValue(void) {
return 10;
}
};
class TakeDouble : public Interface
{
public:
arbitrary_type GimeMeTheValue(void) {
return 3.14;
}
};
int main()
{
Interface * obj;
obj = new TakeInt();
cout << obj -> GimeMeTheValue() << endl; // It's 10, thank you
obj = new TakeDouble();
cout << obj -> GimeMeTheValue() << endl; // Oh it's 3.14, I love you c++
}
Of course there is no such an "arbitary_type".
This works ...
class Interface
{
public:
virtual void * GimeMeTheValue(void) {};
};
class TakeInt : public Interface
{
public:
void * GimeMeTheValue(void) {
int value = 10;
int * ptr = &value;
return ptr;
}
};
class TakeDouble : public Interface
{
public:
void * GimeMeTheValue(void) {
double value = 3.14;
double * ptr = &value;
return ptr;
}
};
int main()
{
Interface * obj;
obj = new TakeInt();
cout << *( (int *) (obj -> GimeMeTheValue()) ) << endl;
obj = new TakeDouble();
cout << *( (double *) (obj -> GimeMeTheValue()) ) << endl;
}
It is rather complicated to deal with "void *". Are there any other ideas to implement something simple (like in the first code example)? Thank you.
There is no way the base class Interface could know what distinct data type each descendant wants to return. Using different return types defeats the purpose of polymorphism. So the only way I can think to do this is to have GiveMeTheValue() return an object type that knows what kind of value it holds, and then make that object streamable.
enum VariantType {varNull, varInt, varDouble};
struct Variant
{
VariantType Type;
union {
int intValue;
double dblValue;
};
Variant() : Type(varNull) {}
Variant(int value) : Type(varInt), intValue(value) {}
Variant(double value) : Type(varDouble), dblValue(value) {}
void writeTo(std::ostream &strm)
{
switch (Type)
{
case varNull: strm << "(null)"; break;
case varInt: strm << intValue; break;
case varDouble: strm << dblValue; break;
}
}
};
class Interface
{
public:
virtual ~Interface() {}
virtual Variant GimeMeTheValue(void) = 0;
};
class TakeInt : public Interface
{
public:
Variant GimeMeTheValue(void)
{
return Variant(10);
}
};
class TakeDouble : public Interface
{
public:
Variant GimeMeTheValue(void)
{
return Variant(3.14);
}
};
std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream &strm, const Variant &v)
{
v.writeTo(strm);
return strm;
}
int main()
{
Interface * obj;
obj = new TakeInt();
cout << obj->GimeMeTheValue() << endl; // It's 10, thank you
delete obj;
obj = new TakeDouble();
cout << obj->GimeMeTheValue() << endl; // Oh it's 3.14, I love you c++
delete obj;
}

Dynamic Object in C++?

I realize that I'll most likely get a lot of "you shouldn't do that because..." answers and they are most welcome and I'll probably totally agree with your reasoning, but I'm curious as to whether this is possible (as I envision it).
Is it possible to define a type of dynamic/generic object in C++ where I can dynamically create properties that are stored and retrieved in a key/value type of system? Example:
MyType myObject;
std::string myStr("string1");
myObject.somethingIJustMadeUp = myStr;
Note that obviously, somethingIJustMadeUp is not actually a defined member of MyType but it would be defined dynamically. Then later I could do something like:
if(myObject.somethingIJustMadeUp != NULL);
or
if(myObject["somethingIJustMadeUp"]);
Believe me, I realize just how terrible this is, but I'm still curious as to whether it's possible and if it can be done in a way that minimizes it's terrible-ness.
C++Script is what you want!
Example:
#include <cppscript>
var script_main(var args)
{
var x = object();
x["abc"] = 10;
writeln(x["abc"]);
return 0;
}
and it's a valid C++.
You can do something very similar with std::map:
std::map<std::string, std::string> myObject;
myObject["somethingIJustMadeUp"] = myStr;
Now if you want generic value types, then you can use boost::any as:
std::map<std::string, boost::any> myObject;
myObject["somethingIJustMadeUp"] = myStr;
And you can also check if a value exists or not:
if(myObject.find ("somethingIJustMadeUp") != myObject.end())
std::cout << "Exists" << std::endl;
If you use boost::any, then you can know the actual type of value it holds, by calling .type() as:
if (myObject.find("Xyz") != myObject.end())
{
if(myObject["Xyz"].type() == typeid(std::string))
{
std::string value = boost::any_cast<std::string>(myObject["Xyz"]);
std::cout <<"Stored value is string = " << value << std::endl;
}
}
This also shows how you can use boost::any_cast to get the value stored in object of boost::any type.
This can be a solution, using RTTI polymorphism
#include <map>
#include <memory>
#include <iostream>
#include <stdexcept>
namespace dynamic
{
template<class T, class E>
T& enforce(T& z, const E& e)
{ if(!z) throw e; return z; }
template<class T, class E>
const T& enforce(const T& z, const E& e)
{ if(!z) throw e; return z; }
template<class Derived>
class interface;
class aggregate;
//polymorphic uncopyable unmovable
class property
{
public:
property() :pagg() {}
property(const property&) =delete;
property& operator=(const property&) =delete;
virtual ~property() {} //just make it polymorphic
template<class Interface>
operator Interface*() const
{
if(!pagg) return 0;
return *pagg; //let the aggregate do the magic!
}
aggregate* get_aggregate() const { return pagg; }
private:
template<class Derived>
friend class interface;
friend class aggregate;
static unsigned gen_id()
{
static unsigned x=0;
return enforce(++x,std::overflow_error("too many ids"));
}
template<class T>
static unsigned id_of()
{ static unsigned z = gen_id(); return z; }
aggregate* pagg;
};
template<class Derived>
class interface: public property
{
public:
interface() {}
virtual ~interface() {}
unsigned id() const { return property::id_of<Derived>(); }
};
//sealed movable
class aggregate
{
public:
aggregate() {}
aggregate(const aggregate&) = delete;
aggregate& operator=(const aggregate&) = delete;
aggregate(aggregate&& s) :m(std::move(s.m)) {}
aggregate& operator=(aggregate&& s)
{ if(this!=&s) { m.clear(); std::swap(m, s.m); } return *this; }
template<class Interface>
aggregate& add_interface(interface<Interface>* pi)
{
m[pi->id()] = std::unique_ptr<property>(pi);
static_cast<property*>(pi)->pagg = this;
return *this;
}
template<class Inteface>
aggregate& remove_interface()
{ m.erase[property::id_of<Inteface>()]; return *this; }
void clear() { m.clear(); }
bool empty() const { return m.empty(); }
explicit operator bool() const { return empty(); }
template<class Interface>
operator Interface*() const
{
auto i = m.find(property::id_of<Interface>());
if(i==m.end()) return nullptr;
return dynamic_cast<Interface*>(i->second.get());
}
template<class Interface>
friend aggregate& operator<<(aggregate& s, interface<Interface>* pi)
{ return s.add_interface(pi); }
private:
typedef std::map<unsigned, std::unique_ptr<property> > map_t;
map_t m;
};
}
/// this is a sample on how it can workout
class interface_A: public dynamic::interface<interface_A>
{
public:
virtual void methodA1() =0;
virtual void methodA2() =0;
};
class impl_A1: public interface_A
{
public:
impl_A1() { std::cout<<"creating impl_A1["<<this<<"]"<<std::endl; }
virtual ~impl_A1() { std::cout<<"deleting impl_A1["<<this<<"]"<<std::endl; }
virtual void methodA1() { std::cout<<"interface_A["<<this<<"]::methodA1 on impl_A1 in aggregate "<<get_aggregate()<<std::endl; }
virtual void methodA2() { std::cout<<"interface_A["<<this<<"]::methodA2 on impl_A1 in aggregate "<<get_aggregate()<<std::endl; }
};
class impl_A2: public interface_A
{
public:
impl_A2() { std::cout<<"creating impl_A2["<<this<<"]"<<std::endl; }
virtual ~impl_A2() { std::cout<<"deleting impl_A2["<<this<<"]"<<std::endl; }
virtual void methodA1() { std::cout<<"interface_A["<<this<<"]::methodA1 on impl_A2 in aggregate "<<get_aggregate()<<std::endl; }
virtual void methodA2() { std::cout<<"interface_A["<<this<<"]::methodA2 on impl_A2 in aggregate "<<get_aggregate()<<std::endl; }
};
class interface_B: public dynamic::interface<interface_B>
{
public:
virtual void methodB1() =0;
virtual void methodB2() =0;
};
class impl_B1: public interface_B
{
public:
impl_B1() { std::cout<<"creating impl_B1["<<this<<"]"<<std::endl; }
virtual ~impl_B1() { std::cout<<"deleting impl_B1["<<this<<"]"<<std::endl; }
virtual void methodB1() { std::cout<<"interface_B["<<this<<"]::methodB1 on impl_B1 in aggregate "<<get_aggregate()<<std::endl; }
virtual void methodB2() { std::cout<<"interface_B["<<this<<"]::methodB2 on impl_B1 in aggregate "<<get_aggregate()<<std::endl; }
};
class impl_B2: public interface_B
{
public:
impl_B2() { std::cout<<"creating impl_B2["<<this<<"]"<<std::endl; }
virtual ~impl_B2() { std::cout<<"deleting impl_B2["<<this<<"]"<<std::endl; }
virtual void methodB1() { std::cout<<"interface_B["<<this<<"]::methodB1 on impl_B2 in aggregate "<<get_aggregate()<<std::endl; }
virtual void methodB2() { std::cout<<"interface_B["<<this<<"]::methodB2 on impl_B2 in aggregate "<<get_aggregate()<<std::endl; }
};
int main()
{
dynamic::aggregate agg1;
agg1 << new impl_A1 << new impl_B1;
dynamic::aggregate agg2;
agg2 << new impl_A2 << new impl_B2;
interface_A* pa = 0;
interface_B* pb = 0;
pa = agg1; if(pa) { pa->methodA1(); pa->methodA2(); }
pb = *pa; if(pb) { pb->methodB1(); pb->methodB2(); }
pa = agg2; if(pa) { pa->methodA1(); pa->methodA2(); }
pb = *pa; if(pb) { pb->methodB1(); pb->methodB2(); }
agg2 = std::move(agg1);
pa = agg2; if(pa) { pa->methodA1(); pa->methodA2(); }
pb = *pa; if(pb) { pb->methodB1(); pb->methodB2(); }
return 0;
}
tested with MINGW4.6 on WinXPsp3
Yes it is terrible. :D
It had been done numerous times to different extents and success levels.
QT has Qobject from which everything related to them decends.
MFC has CObject from which eveything decends as does C++.net
I don't know if there is a way to make it less bad, I guess if you avoid multiple inheritance like the plague (which is otherwise a useful language feature) and reimplement the stdlib it would be better. But really if that is what you are after you are probably using the wrong language for the task.
Java and C# are much better suited to this style of programming.
#note if I have read your question wrong just delete this answer.
Check out Dynamic C++