I'm pretty new to C++ and am having trouble making a pointer point from one class to another. This is what I have, it compiles without error, but doesn't work the way I want it to.
JungleMap *Map;
class JungleMap
{
public:
void goNorth()
{
cout << "You are going north towards the river.\n";
delete[] Map;
RiverMap *Map;
}
}
class RiverMap
{
public:
void goNorth()
{
cout << "You are going north away from the river.\n";
delete[] Map;
JungleMap *Map;
}
}
int main()
{
Map->goNorth();
Map->goNorth();
}
This is what the output is:
You are going north towards the river.
You are going north towards the river.
And this is what I would like the output to be:
You are going north towards the river.
You are going north away from the river.
How do I achieve this? It's really bugging me, especially since it compiles without problems.
Just creating a JungleMap* doesn't create a JungleMap. You formed a pointer, but didn't point it anywhere!
This is particularly dangerous since you then dereference it, and later attempt to delete through it. Yes, this compiles, because a compiler cannot diagnose this in the general case (and is never required to try), but you'll get everything at runtime from silent nothingness, to a crash, to a nuclear explosion.
You are also trying to invoke different functions in two different classes, through changing the type of a pointer (without any inheritance, at that), which is simply not possible and will prevent your code from compiling, even though you've tried to get around it by redeclaring variables locally. I could list a ream of misunderstandings but suffice it to say it's time to read a good introductory C++ book.
I would suggest a combination of inheritance and dynamic allocation, if I knew what you were trying to achieve. A common mistake on SO is to provide nonsense code, then expect us to know what your goal is from that nonsense code; unfortunately we have about as much idea what you really meant to do as the C++ compiler does!
You could make this work (to at least a minimal degree) by creating a base class from which both JungleMap and RiverMap derive. You'd then have a pointer to the base class, which you'd point at an instance of one of the derived classes. You'll also need to rearrange the code somewhat to get it to compile.
class Map {
public:
virtual void goNorth() { cout<<"Sorry, you can't go that way"; }
virtual void goSouth() { cout<<"Sorry, you can't go that way"; }
};
Map *map;
class RiverMap;
class JungleMap : public Map {
public:
void goNorth();
};
class RiverMap : public Map {
public:
void goSouth();
};
void JungleMap::goNorth() {
cout<<"You are going north towards the river.\n";
delete map;
map=new RiverMap;
}
void RiverMap::goSouth() {
cout<<"You are going south towards the jungle.\n";
delete map;
map=new JungleMap;
}
Note: here I'm just trying to say as close to your original design as possible and still have some code that might at least sort of work. I'm certainly not holding it up as an exemplary design, or even close to it (because, frankly, it's not).
What you should do is to sit down and think about the problem you are trying to solve, and make a proper design. In your case you have two "locations", and the "player" should be able to move between these locations. Starting from that we have identified two possible classes (Location and Player) and one behavior (the player can move from location to location).
With the above information, you could do something like this:
class Location
{
public:
void setNorth(Location* loc)
{
north_ = loc;
}
Location* getNorth() const
{
return north_;
}
void setSouth(Location* loc)
{
south_ = loc;
}
Location* getSouth() const
{
return south_;
}
void setDescription(const std::string& descr)
{
description_ = descr;
}
const std::string& getDescription() const
{
return description_;
}
protected:
Location() {} // Made protected to prevent direct creation of Location instances
private:
Location* north_;
Location* south_;
std::string description_;
};
class Jungle : public Location
{
public:
Jungle() : Location()
{
setDescription("You are in a jungle.");
}
};
class River : public Location
{
public:
River() : Location()
{
setDescription("You are close to a river.");
}
};
// The actual "map"
std::vector<Location*> map
void createMap()
{
map.push_back(new Jungle);
map.push_back(new River);
map[0]->setNorth(map[1]);
map[1]->setSouth(map[0]);
}
class Player
{
public:
Player(Location* initialLocation)
: currentLocation_(initialLocation)
{
std::cout << currentLocation_->getDescription() << '\n';
}
...
// Other methods and members needed for a "player"
void goNorth()
{
if (currentLocation_ && currentLocation_->getNorth())
{
currentLocation_ = currentLocation_->getNorth();
std::cout << currentLocation_->getDescription() << '\n';
}
}
void goSouth()
{
if (currentLocation_ && currentLocation_->getSouth())
{
currentLocation_ = currentLocation_->getSouth();
std::cout << currentLocation_->getDescription() << '\n';
}
}
private:
Location* currentLocation_; // The players current location
};
int main()
{
createMap(); // Create the "map"
Player player(map[0]); // Create a player and place "him" in the jungle
// Move the player around a little
player.goNorth();
player.goSouth();
}
In the code above, you have a single player object, which have a "current location". When you move the player around, you simply change the current location for that player. The current location of the player acts as the global Map variable you have.
Note: I'm not saying that this is a good design or code, just that it's simple.
However, if you're truly new to C++, you should probably start with some simpler problems, including tutorials on pointers and inheritance.
You appear to be confusing declaration with assignment.
The following line of code is called a declaration, it tells the compiler the properties and attributes of a thing.
JungleMap *Map;
After this line of code, the compiler knows that "Map" is a symbol (a name) referring to a pointer to a JungleMap.
The compiler doesn't have to do anything with a declaration, unless it would have a side effect, at which point it becomes a definition, which means that the declaration invokes a non-trivial constructor or provides an assignment:
struct Foo {};
struct Baz { Baz() { std::cout << "Baz is here\n"; } };
These are declarations - they don't create instances of objects, they describe the layout and functions for instances. At some point you have to create a concrete instance of them with a definition or a call to new.
struct Foo {};
struct Bar { Bar() { std::cout << "Bar is here\n"; } };
struct Baz {};
int main() {
int i; // no side effects, i is trivial.
char* p; // no side effects, p is a pointer (trivial) type
std::string* sp; // trivial, pointer
Foo f; // trivial
Bar b; // non-trivial, baz has a user-defined ctor that has side-effects.
Bar* bar; // trivial, unassigned pointer type.
Bar* bar2 = new Bar(); // side effects.
Bar bar(); // syntax error, "the most vexing parse"
}
In the above code, we never use "Baz" and we never declare an object of type Baz so the compiler essentially throws it away. Because so many of the variables are trivial and have no side effect, the result of compiling the above will be functionally equivalent to if we had written:
struct Foo {};
struct Bar { Bar() { std::cout << "Bar is here\n"; } };
int main() {
Bar* bar2 = new Bar(); // side effects.
Bar bar(); // syntax error, "the most vexing parse"
}
All of the rest does nothing.
C++ also allows you to re-use names as long as they are in different scopes, but this creates a new, hidden ("shadow") thing:
#include <iostream>
int main() {
int i = 1;
if (i == 1) {
float i = 3.141;
std::cout << "inner i = " << i << '\n';
}
std::cout << "outer i = " << i << '\n';
return 0;
}
The code you wrote will therefore compile, because it is declaring a new and private "Map" inside each of the go functions and then simply never using them.
Note that above I was able to declare i differently inside the inner scope than the outer.
C++ does not allow you to change the type of a variable - in the above code there are two variables called i. When we created the second i, it is a second variable called i the original variable didn't change.
In order to do what you are trying to do, you're going to need to learn about "polymorphism" and "inheritance", C++ concepts that will allow you to describe a "Room" or "Location" and then base JungleMap and RiverMap on that base definition such that you can take a pointer to the core concept, the Room, and write generic code that deals with rooms while moving the specifics of Jungle, River or BridgeMap into specialized functions. But I think that's beyond the scope of a reply here.
Related
I have nested structs, where the base has a pure virtual function.
(The following examples are a bit pseudo-ish, but describe the purpose)
struct Base {
int id=0;
virtual std::wstring toString() = 0;
}
struct Top1 : public Base {
id=1;
int val = 5;
std::wstring toString() { return L"need to use string stream. id="+id+" val="+val; }
}
struct Top2 : public Base {
id=2;
std::string val = "Hello!";
std::wstring toString() { return L"need to use string stream. id="+id+" val="+val; }
}
I wish to have a single table for all the different types, so I created this:
struct BaseFootprint{
union{
Top1 top1;
Top2 top2;
}
std::vector<BaseFootprint> data;
Calling the function in the following way does not work:
for(int i=0;i<data.size;i++){
std::cwout <<data[i].toString()<< std::endl;;
}
I have tried:
std::cwout << ((base)data[i]).toString() << std::endl;
And:
std::cwout << (Top1)data[i].toString() << std::endl;
But it always says data[i]-> empty.
So, to my disappointment, and not unexpected, the pure virtual function does not point to the correct top function depending on how the struct data is viewed via the union.
As my end product will hold 100s of different top types, I am hoping for a dynamic solution as opposed to making a hard-written selection. A dynamic solution will allow me to add new types without altering the base code, and this is what I hope for.
It would be awesome if there is a way to achieve this as described.
Union is not the right tool.
Ignoring the other compiler errors, you need to access particular member of union (e.g. data[i].top1) and you cannot access any member except the one that was last written to (which means you would need to somehow remember which one is which in the vector). std::variant is a typesafe union, but you would still need a lot of boilerplate code to access correct member.
The normal way to use polymorphism in C++ is through pointers:
int main()
{
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Base>> data;
data.push_back(std::make_unique<Top1>());
data.push_back(std::make_unique<Top2>());
for (auto& ptr : data)
{
std::wcout << ptr->toString();
}
}
The problem I was having is that I was not calling the constructor for the union objects.
For example...
If the union object needs to be Top1 then its constructor should be called...
new (&data[i]->top1) Top1();
At the other end the polymorophic methods worked for me with the following changes...
Remove the pure from the base method, like so...
virtual std::wstring toString() { return L"Base"; };
Add Base to the union, like so...
union{
Base base;
Top1 top1;
Top2 top2;
}
The continuous chunk of memory of objects can now be processed, by calling the polymorphic method...
for (std::vector<BaseFootprint>::iterator bfi = data.begin(); bfi != data.end(); bfi++) {
std::wcout << (*bfi).base->toString() << std::endl;
};
If you have never pushed a continuous chunk of memory of objects to the L1 cache before, you're welcome!
I've began making a program in linux with c++ and I'm trying to make it work on windows. It compiles fine, but when run I get this error: "1 [main] Trails of Cold Steel Simulator 8748 cygwin_exception::open_stackdumpfile: Dumping stack trace to Trails of Cold Steel Simulator.exe.stackdump". In the stack trace this exception occurs: "Exception: STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION". Here's some code;
#include "Tachi.h"
#include "AutumnLeafCutter.h"
#include <iostream>
#include "Weapon.h"
#include "Armour.h"
#include "Shoes.h"
int main() {
int stats[12] = {15,110,10,4,2,1,2,4,4,3,7,1};
Tachi* Tachi1 = new Tachi(stats, "Tachi");
Tachi1->addEquipment(new PracticeSword());
Tachi1->addEquipment(new LeatherJacket());
Tachi1->addEquipment(new WorkBoots());
Tachi1->addMasterQuartz(new Forcelvl1());
std::string input;
std::cout << "\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n";
while(input != "q") {
std::cout << "Your current stats are:" << std::endl;
std::cout << "\n";
std::cout << "HP EP STR DEF ATS ADF SPD DEX AGL MOV RNG" << std::endl;
for(int i = 0; i < 12; i += 1) {
std::cout << Tachi1->getBaseStats()[i] << " ";
}
std::cout << "\n\n";
std::cout << "Select a Craft by typing its name:" << std::endl;
std::cout << std::endl;
for(int i = 0; i < Tachi1->getCrafts().size(); i++) {
std::cout << Tachi1->getCrafts()[i]->getName() << std::endl;
}
std::cout << std::endl;
getline(std::cin, input);
if(Tachi1->findCraft(input) != NULL) {
Tachi1->useCraft(input);
} else {
std::cout << "You do not have this craft." << std::endl;
}
std::cout << "\n\n\n";
}
}
Im extremely sorry for any formatting, I've never posted here. The error comes from lines 14,15,16 and 18. When I replaced all the "new xxx()" with NULL and comment out the body of the function with them, the program works. It does this for both addEquipment() and addMasterQuartz(). This is the functions;
void Character::addEquipment(Equipment* e) {
equipment.push_back(e);
std::cin.get();
for(int i = 0; i < 12; i++) {
baseStats[i] += equipment[equipment.size()]->getStatsModifier()[i];
}
}
and
void Character::addMasterQuartz(MasterQuartz* mq) {
masterQuartz = mq;
for(int i = 0; i < 12; i++) {
baseStats[i] += masterQuartz->getStatsModifier()[i];
}
}
Im guessing its a problem with the baseStats[i] += xxx stuff as its the only thing that occurs in both, but I have no idea how to fix that. It could also occur when the stuff is made using new xxx().
I can provide whatever else is needed. Thanks!!!!
EDIT:
I kept testing and the problem seems to lie in the creating of the objects. It worked on linux. Here is one of the object codes, they are all similiar and all crash the program;
#include "Armour.h"
Armour::Armour(int* sm, std::string n):Equipment(sm, n) {}
LeatherJacket::LeatherJacket():Armour(stats, armourName) {}
with header file;
#ifndef ARMOUR_H
#define ARMOUR_H
#include "Equipment.h"
class Armour:public Equipment {
public:
Armour(int* sm, std::string n);
};
class LeatherJacket:public Armour {
int stats[12] = {0,0,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0};
std::string armourName = "Leather Jacket";
public:
LeatherJacket();
};
#endif
As soon as I remembered I did this I tried compiling (I think) with -std=c++11, it didnt help.
This is your error
baseStats[i] += equipment[equipment.size()]->getStatsModifier()[i];
By definition this is an out of bounds access on your vector, if a vector has a certain size, then the valid indexes are 0 to size - 1, not 0 to size.
It's fairly obvious that you wanted to access the last item in the vector. You can do that like this
baseStats[i] += equipment[equipment.size() - 1]->getStatsModifier()[i];
but even clearer is to use the back method.
baseStats[i] += equipment.back()->getStatsModifier()[i];
Another way would be to use the e variable you've just pushed onto the vector.
baseStats[i] += e->getStatsModifier()[i];
Adding some detail to the problem spotted by Useless, this code is incorrect.
class LeatherJacket : public Armour {
int stats[12] = {0,0,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0};
std::string armourName = "Leather Jacket";
public:
LeatherJacket();
};
LeatherJacket::LeatherJacket() : Armour(stats, armourName) {}
The problem is the order in which things happen. First the Armour constructor is called, then the stats and armourName variables are initialised. So the call to the Armour constructor is using uninitiialised variables and will likely crash.
Several solutions possible, the best is probably to use virtual functions.
Making a couple of assumptions about Equipment (which isn't specified the question) it seems you should do something like this.
// header file
class Equipment
{
public:
virtual ~Equipment() {}
virtual std::string getName() const = 0;
virtual const int* getStatsModifier() const = 0;
};
class Armour : public Equipment
{
};
class LeatherJacket : public Armour
{
static const int stats[12];
public:
virtual std::string getName() const { return "Leather Jacket"; }
virtual const int* getStatsModifier() const { return stats; }
};
// source file
const int LeatherJacket::stats[12] = {0,0,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0};
This answer adds pure virtual functions to the base class Equipment (which has become an interface), and implements those functions in LeatherJacket. Because the functions are virtual the appropriate function will always be called and there no need to pass the information down to Equipment. Also since it seems to be per-class constant data, stats has been made static const. Until you get to C++17 static const arrays must be defined in a source file, not the header file, as shown above.
Firstly, I'm going to replace the int[12] arrays with a proper type. Partly so the magic number 12 isn't littered all over the code and hard to change later, and partly because it will behave better (ie, not decay to a pointer in some contexts). This needs C++11.
#include <array>
using Stats = std::array<int, 12>;
To me it looks like Armour should have stats and a name, initialized from the arguments passed to its constructor (which you currently ignore).
Like so:
class Armour: public Equipment {
public:
Stats m_stats;
std::string m_name;
Armour(Stats const& s, std::string const &n) : m_stats(s), m_name(n) {}
};
You were already passing those two arguments to the constructor - you just weren't doing anything with them. Now you are.
This means that when we later have leather, scale, chain and plate subclasses, I can have a pointer of type Armour* and not need to worry about which subclass I'm looking at: the stats are available right there in the base class.
I made the members public, which is generally bad style, to save space. It might not matter for your use. I named the members with the m_ prefix so they can't accidentally get confused with similarly-named non-members. It's broadly good style but not essential.
LeatherArmour doesn't need an additional copy per instance, it just needs one of each for the whole class - so they should be const static members.
class LeatherJacket: public Armour {
static const Stats stats {0,0,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0};
static const std::string name{"Leather Jacket"};
public:
LeatherJacket() : Armour(stats, name) {}
};
I made the LeatherJacket-specific stat values static const by writing static const in front of them.
The static means that every LeatherJacket has the same base stats, so you don't need a copy per instance, just one copy for the whole class. It's const because the base stats for leather jackets never change over time. You still have the base class member Armour::m_stats which can change as your individual leather jacket gets damaged, repaired, buffed or whatever.
Again, the LeatherJacket constructor was already passing (the equivalent of) these members to the base class constructor, but now they already exist (see the link above about static storage duration). The original instance variables didn't exist when you used them, because the derived (LeatherJacket) object and its data members aren't really constructed until after the base class subobject.
So I started a small little project to work on while I am learning. Basically, what I'm trying to do is a small "game" which I plan to build on as I learn new things.
Here is a brief description and my problem.
Basically, I want to assign various Hero types to a player based on their choice.
I made a base class "Hero" with only a HP parameter so far. After that, I made 2 derived classes from Hero, HeroType1, HeroType2 which will have specific abilities and so on.
I decided on storing various hero types in std::vector<Hero*> Heroes. Basically, I start my "game" by calling initializeHeroes function which, depending on the player choice creates a new object of type NewHero1 or NewHero2 and stores it an the vector mentioned before. The thing is, no matter what I tried so far, I can't access derived member functions when I want to use them later, only those of the Hero class.
What feels like a good solution: declare global variables player1, player2 and assign to them after players choose the HeroType. However, I can't do that because the data type has to be known before compiling. Sorry if this is a stupid and basic question, my knowledge is still very limited and that is why I am asking for some hints here.
I'd kindly like to ask on how would you approach this, I know it is a very simple issue, but I'm still a beginner and I'm trying to figure out the best way to solve this. Thanks in advance.
If you would like to call a member function from a element from std::vector<Hero*> Heroes and you know somehow that this element points to a Hero2-type, then you could create a new temporary variable Hero2 * tmpPtr and set this variable to the element whose memberfunction you want to call (tmpPtr = Heroes[i]). Then you should be able to call a memberfunction like this: tmpPtr->hero2Memberfuncion().
Full code:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
class SomeClass
{
public:
void a() {
std::cout << "a" << std::endl;
}
};
class AnotherClass : public SomeClass
{
public:
void b() {
std::cout << "b" << std::endl;
}
};
void main() {
std::vector<SomeClass *> vec;
AnotherClass v;
vec.push_back(&v);
AnotherClass * tmpPtr = (AnotherClass *)vec[0];
tmpPtr->b(); //Output: "b"
}
However if you want for example loop through the whole vector and for every element run a memberfunction that has the same name but the body of that function differs depending on to what Hero-type the element points, then you may want to use virtual functions. Example:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
class SomeClass
{
public:
virtual void a() {
std::cout << "from SomeClass" << std::endl;
}
};
class AnotherClass : public SomeClass
{
public:
void a() {
std::cout << "from AnotherClass" << std::endl;
}
};
void main() {
std::vector<SomeClass *> vec;
AnotherClass v1;
vec.push_back(&v1);
vec[0]->a(); //Output: "from AnotherClass"
SomeClass v2;
vec.push_back(&v2);
vec[1]->a(); //Output: "from SomeClass"
}
Please tear this code apart, make it complex and scarcely readable, I'd rather learn the hard way once than learn the same thing many times the wrong way.
The base class is as follows:
class baseMob{
private:
int _healthMax;
int _healthCurrent;
int _manaMax;
int _manaCurrent;
int _experiencePoints;
public:
//Set max Hp
void setHealthMax(int);
//Get max Hp
int getHealthMax();
//Set Current Hp
void setCurrentHealth(int);
//Get Current Health
int getCurrentHealth();
//Set Max Mana
void setMaxMana(int);
//Get Max Mana
int getMaxMana();
//Set Current Mana
void setCurrentMana(int);
//Get Current Mana
int getCurrentMana();
//getMob Exp on kill
int getExperiencePoints();
//Set mob Exp points
void setExperiencePoints(int);
//leaving out the member functions for space conservation
};
The individual mob that I'm trying to create is a green slime, which I'm trying to create via the default constructor I've made...
class greenSlime: private baseMob{
public:
greenSlime(){
setHealthMax(100);
setMaxMana(100);
setCurrentHealth(100);
setCurrentMana(100);
setExperiencePoints(150);
}
};
My main function looks like this right now:
greenSlime slime();
for(; slime.getCurrentHealth() >= 0; slime.setCurrentHealth(-1)){
cout << "The current health of the slime is: " << slime.getCurrentHealth() << endl;
if (slime.getCurrentHealth() <= 0 ){
cout << "Player is awarded with: " << slime.getExperiencePoints() << " Experience. ";
}
}
If anyone wants to tear this up and make me look like a jackass, I'd really appreciate the help.
The error that I'm presently getting is:
Project1.cpp:107: error: request for member getCurrentHealth' inslime', which is of non-class type `greenSlime ()()'
Along with other errors of the same type.
Tl;Dr: Class implementation isn't working, posted all my source when I probably could've posted about 1/10th of this and still made sense, and would love to have someone tell me why it's not working and how bad I am.
The problem is that the compiler thinks that the slime declaration line is another type of predeclaration since greenSlime doesn't have a ctor with parameters.
You can fix it by not putting the parenthesis after slime.
// greenSlime slime();
greenSlime slime;
Here is the absolute best advice I can give regarding weird errors that you don't understand. Make a smaller example of the problem makes it easier to uncover what is actually wrong.
Here is what I wrote to test.
struct Foo {
Foo() {}
void bar() {}
};
int main(int argc, char ** argv) {
Foo foo;
foo.bar();
return 0;
}
Others have pointed out problems in terms of why your code doesn't work. I'll make a recommendation about program design.
When explaining inheritance, tutorials and programming classes frequently use toy examples that are very similar to your code. These examples show what inheritance is, but really aren't very good at showing what inheritance is useful for.
I wouldn't use inheritance in this case. I think a better design is to have a class that represents the mob type and holds all the data that is static for all that mob of that type, such as the mob name, starting/max HP, attack types, etc. And then have another class where each instance represents a specific mob and holds data that changes for that mob, such as current hp.
class Mob_type {
string name;
int max_hp;
vector<shared_ptr<Attack_type>> attacks;
public:
Mob_type(string name,int max_hp,vector<shared_ptr<Attack_type>> attacks)
: name(name),max_hp(max_hp),attacks(attacks) {}
int get_max_hp() const { return max_hp; }
};
class Mob {
Mob_type const &type;
int hp;
public:
Mob(Mob_type const &type) : type(type), hp(type.get_max_hp()) {}
Mob_type const &get_type() const { return type; }
int get_hp() const { return hp; }
};
void print_health(Mob const &m) {
cout << m.get_hp() << '/' << m.get_type().get_max_hp() << '\n';
}
int main() {
vector<shared_ptr<Attack_type>> attacks; // ...
Mob_type green_slime("Green Slime",50,attacks);
Mob green_slime_A(green_slime), green_slime_B(green_slime);
fight(green_slime_A,green_slime_B);
cout << "A: ";
print_health(green_slime_A);
cout << "B: ";
print_health(green_slime_B);
}
This way you can have a data file that contains the mob types and all you have to do to add a type is to update the data file.
class greenSlime: private baseMob{
should be:
class greenSlime: public baseMob{
Since the class that you're inheriting from is private, you can't see any of the inherited methods.
Also, what Tom Kerr said, you don't want the parentheses after you declare your object. Basically, if you don't want any parameters, don't use the parentheses when making an object.
Also, very next thing I imagine you'll encounter: you almost never want private inheritance, at least not unless you know you really want it. I'm guessing you meant for the class declaration of greenSlime to be
class greenSlime: public baseMob
First of all if you make private inheritance you won't be able to access any of base class' functions. Public inheritance allows you access base class' public and protected functions and members.
Second if you want to make a pointer of greenSlime class, you must do:
//greenSlime() with parentheses
greenSlime *slime = new greenSlime();
But if you want to make an object of greenSlime with non parameter constructor (default constructor) you must do:
//without parentheses
greenSlime slime;
I have a series of classes A, B, ... which have many derived classes which are created inside a module I do not wish to change.
Additionally, I have at least one class Z, which has to be informed whenever an object of type A (or derived classes) is created or destroyed. In the future, there may be more classes, Y, X that want to observe different objects.
I am looking for a convenient way to solve this.
At first glance, the problem seemed trivial, but I'm kind of stuck right now.
What I came up with, is two base classes SpawnObserver and SpawnObservable which are supposed to do the job, but I am very unhappy with them for several reasons (see attached simplification of these classes).
When Z is notified, the actual object is either not yet or not anymore existent, due to the order in which base classes are created/destroyed. Although the pointers can be compared when destroying an object (to remove them from some data-structures in Z) this does not work when it is created and it surely does not work when you have multiple inheritance.
If you want to observe only one class, say A, you are always notified of all (A, B, ...).
You have to explicitly if/else through all classes, so you have to know all classes that inherit from SpawnObservable, which is pretty bad.
Here are the classes, which I tried to trim down to the most basic functionality, which you need to know to understand my problem. In a nutshell: You simply inherit from SpawnObservable and the ctor/dtor does the job of notifying the observers (well, at least, this is what I want to have).
#include <list>
#include <iostream>
class SpawnObservable;
class SpawnObserver {
public:
virtual void ctord(SpawnObservable*) = 0;
virtual void dtord(SpawnObservable*) = 0;
};
class SpawnObservable {
public:
static std::list<SpawnObserver*> obs;
SpawnObservable() {
for (std::list<SpawnObserver*>::iterator it = obs.begin(), end = obs.end(); it != end; ++it) {
(*it)->ctord(this);
}
}
~SpawnObservable() {
for (std::list<SpawnObserver*>::iterator it = obs.begin(), end = obs.end(); it != end; ++it) {
(*it)->dtord(this);
}
}
virtual void foo() {} // XXX: very nasty dummy virtual function
};
std::list<SpawnObserver*> SpawnObservable::obs;
struct Dummy {
int i;
Dummy() : i(13) {}
};
class A : public SpawnObservable {
public:
Dummy d;
A() : SpawnObservable() {
d.i = 23;
}
A(int i) : SpawnObservable() {
d.i = i;
}
};
class B : public SpawnObservable {
public:
B() { std::cout << "making B" << std::endl;}
~B() { std::cout << "killing B" << std::endl;}
};
class PrintSO : public SpawnObserver { // <-- Z
void print(std::string prefix, SpawnObservable* so) {
if (dynamic_cast<A*>(so)) {
std::cout << prefix << so << " " << "A: " << (dynamic_cast<A*>(so))->d.i << std::endl;
} else if (dynamic_cast<B*>(so)) {
std::cout << prefix << so << " " << "B: " << std::endl;
} else {
std::cout << prefix << so << " " << "unknown" << std::endl;
}
}
virtual void ctord(SpawnObservable* so) {
print(std::string("[ctord] "),so);
}
virtual void dtord(SpawnObservable* so) {
print(std::string("[dtord] "),so);
}
};
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
PrintSO pso;
A::obs.push_back(&pso);
B* pb;
{
std::cout << "entering scope 1" << std::endl;
A a(33);
A a2(34);
B b;
std::cout << "adresses: " << &a << ", " << &a2 << ", " << &b << std::endl;
std::cout << "leaving scope 1" << std::endl;
}
{
std::cout << "entering scope 1" << std::endl;
A a;
A a2(35);
std::cout << "adresses: " << &a << ", " << &a2 << std::endl;
std::cout << "leaving scope 1" << std::endl;
}
return 1;
}
The output is:
entering scope 1
[ctord] 0x7fff1113c640 unknown
[ctord] 0x7fff1113c650 unknown
[ctord] 0x7fff1113c660 unknown
making B
adresses: 0x7fff1113c640, 0x7fff1113c650, 0x7fff1113c660
leaving scope 1
killing B
[dtord] 0x7fff1113c660 unknown
[dtord] 0x7fff1113c650 unknown
[dtord] 0x7fff1113c640 unknown
entering scope 1
[ctord] 0x7fff1113c650 unknown
[ctord] 0x7fff1113c640 unknown
adresses: 0x7fff1113c650, 0x7fff1113c640
leaving scope 1
[dtord] 0x7fff1113c640 unknown
[dtord] 0x7fff1113c650 unknown
I want to stress, that I am perfectly aware why my solution behaves the way it does. My question is whether you have a better approach of doing this.
EDIT
As an extension to this question (and inspired by the comments below), I'd like to know:
Why do you think this is a terrible approach?
As an additional note: What I an trying to accomplish by this is to install a normal Observer in each and every created object.
EDIT 2
I will accept an answer that solves problem 1 (bold one in the enumeration above) or describes why the whole thing is a very bad idea.
Use the curiously recurring template pattern.
template<typename T> class watcher {
typename std::list<T>::iterator it;
watcher();
~watcher();
void ctord(T*);
void dtord(T*);
};
template<typename T> class Observer {
public:
typedef std::list<T*> ptr_list;
static ptr_list ptrlist;
typedef typename ptr_list::iterator it_type;
it_type it;
typedef std::list<watcher<T>*> watcher_list;
static watcher_list watcherlist;
typedef typename watcher_list::iterator watcher_it_type;
Observer() {
ptrlist.push_back(this);
it_type end = ptrlist.end();
end--;
it = end;
for(watcher_it_type w_it = watcherlist.begin(); w_it != watcherlist.end(); w_it++)
w_it->ctord(this);
}
~Observer() {
ptrlist.erase(it);
for(watcher_it_type w_it = watcherlist.begin(); w_it != watcherlist.end(); w_it++)
w_it->ctord(this);
}
};
class A : public Observer<A> {
};
class B : public Observer<B> {
};
class C : public A, public B, public Observer<C> {
// No virtual inheritance required - all the Observers are a different type.
};
template<typename T> watcher<T>::watcher<T>() {
Observer<T>::watcherlist.push_back(this);
it = watcherlist.end();
it--;
}
template<typename T> watcher<T>::~watcher<T>() {
Observer<T>::watcherlist.erase(it);
}
template<typename T> void watcher<T>::ctord(T* ptr) {
// ptr points to an instance of T that just got constructed
}
template<typename T> void watcher<T>::dtord(T* ptr) {
// ptr points to an instance of T that is just about to get destructed.
}
Not just that, but you can inherit from Observer multiple times using this technique, as two Observer<X> and Observer<Y> are different types and thus doesn't require diamond inheritance or anything like that. Plus, if you need different functionality for Observer<X> and Observer<Y>, you can specialize.
Edit # Comments:
class C DOES inherit from Observer<A> and Observer<B> through A and B, respectively. It doesn't need to know or care whether or not they're being observed. A C instance will end up on all three lists.
As for ctord and dtord, I don't actually see what function they perform. You can obtain a list of any specific type using Observer::ptrlist.
Edit again: Oooooh, I see. Excuse me a moment while I edit some more. Man, this is some of the most hideous code I've ever written. You should seriously consider not needing it. Why not just have the objects that need to be informed about the others do their creation?
Issue 1 isn't easily solved (in fact I think it's impossible to fix). The curiously recurring template idea comes closest to solving it, because the base class encodes the derived type, but you'll have to add a base to every derived class, if you really insist on knowing the derived type when the base is being constructed.
If you don't mind performing your actual operations (other than the bookkeeping, I mean) or examining the list outside the constructor or destructor of each object, you could have it (re)build the minimal list only when the operation is about to be performed. This gives you a chance to use the fully-constructed object, and makes it easier to solve issue 2.
You'd do this by first having a list of objects that have been constructed, but aren't on the 'full' list. And the 'full' list would contain two pointers per constructed object. One is the pointer to the base class, which you'll store from the Observable constructor, possibly multiple times during the construction of a single object. The other is a void *, pointing to the most derived part of the object -- use dynamic_cast<void *> to retrieve this -- and is used to make sure that each object only appears once in the list.
When an object is destroyed, if it has multiple Observable bases, each will try to remove itself from the lists, and when it comes to the full list, only one will succeed -- but that's fine, because each is equally good as an arbitrary base of that object.
Some code follows.
Your full list of objects, iterable in as straightforward a fashion as std::map will allow. (Each void * and each Observable * is unique, but this uses the Observable * as the key, so that it's easy to remove the entry in the Observable destructor.)
typedef std::map<Observable *, void *> AllObjects;
AllObjects allObjects;
And your list of objects that have been constructed, but aren't yet added to allObjects:
std::set<Observable *> recentlyConstructedObjects;
In the Observable constructor, add the new object to the list of pending objects:
recentlyConstructedObjects.insert(this);
In the Observable destructor, remove the object:
// 'this' may not be a valid key, if the object is in 'allObjects'.
recentlyConstructedObjects.erase(this);
// 'this' may not be a valid key, if the object is in 'recentlyConstructedObjects',
// or this object has another Observable base object and that one got used instead.
allObjects.erase(this);
Before you're about to do your thing, update allObjects, if there've been any objects constructed since last time it was updated:
if(!recentlyConstructedObjects.empty()) {
std::map<void *, Observable *> newObjects;
for(std::set<Observable *>::const_iterator it = recentlyConstructedObjects.begin(); it != recentlyConstructedObjects.end(); ++it)
allObjectsRev[dynamic_cast<void *>(*it)] = *it;
for(std::map<void *, Observable *>::const_iterator it = newObjects.begin(); it != newObjects.end(); ++it)
allObjects[it->second] = it->first;
recentlyConstructedObjects.clear();
}
And now you can visit each object the once:
for(std::map<Observable *,void *>::const_iterator it = allObjects.begin(); it != allObjects.end(); ++it) {
// you can dynamic_cast<whatever *>(it->first) to see what type of thing it is
//
// it->second is good as a key, uniquely identifying the object
}
Well... now that I've written all that, I'm not sure whether this solves your problem. It was interesting to consider nonetheless.
(This idea would solve one of the problems with the curiously recurring template, namely that you have lots of base objects per derived object and it's harder to disentangle because of that. (Unfortunately, no solution to the large number of base classes, sorry.) Due to the use of dynamic_cast, of course, it's not much use if you call it during an object's construction, which is of course the advantage of the curiously recurring thing: you know the derived type during the base's construction.
(So, if your'e going with that style of solution, AND you are OK with performing your operations outside the construction/destruction stage, AND you don't mind the (multiple) base classes taking up space, you could perhaps have each base's constructor store some class-specific info -- using typeid, perhaps, or traits -- and merge these together when you build the larger list. This should be straightforward, since you'll know which base objects correspond to the same derived object. Depending on what you're trying to do, this might help you with issue 3.)
Take a look at Signals and Slots especially Boost Signals and Slots