# include <iostream>
# include <string>
using std::string;
using std::cout;
using std::endl;
string func() {
string abc = "some string";
return abc;
}
void func1(string s) {
cout << "I got this: " << s << endl;
}
int main() {
func1(func());
}
This gives:
$ ./a.out
I got this: some string
How/why does this code work ? I wonder because abc went out of scope and got destroyed as soon as the call to func() completed. So a copy of abc cannot be/should not be available in variable s in function func1 Is this understanding correct ?
The return value is copied from the local variable, effectively creating a new string object.
However, RVO (returned value optimization) should eliminate this step.
Try single stepping your code in a debugger. You should see the std::string copy constructor called for the return line. Be sure to compile with debug enabled and optimizers off.
Your code is essentially asking:
"Call func1, and in order for func1 to work I have to receive a string which we can use by calling the copy constructor on that string. The parameter for func1 we want to come from the return value of func (which we know has to be a string since its explicitly defined".
abc goes out of scope only after the copy constructor is called on the return value of func() which passes the value of the string. In theory you could have written it passed by reference or constant reference:
void func1(string& s) {
cout << "I got this: " << s << endl;
}
Which allows func1 to directly access the string in memory through a pointer (and also change it, if your code was meant to.)
void func1(string const& s) {
cout << "I got this: " << s << endl;
}
Which provides a constant reference to the string from func(). This ensures that you get a pointer to the data and that you won't change its contents. Typically passing data by constant reference (const&) is desirable because it's very fast and keeps your code from accidentally changing data that it shouldn't.
You really only need to pass by value if you're going to manipulate the data once you pass it to the new function, saving you the resources of creating another new container to handle the manipulation:
void func1(string s) {
s += " some extra stuff to add to the end of the string"; //append some new data
cout << "I got this: " << s << endl;
}
With regards to this piece of code:
#include <iostream>
class CClass1
{
public:
void print() {
std::cout << "This should print first" << std::endl;
}
};
class CClass2
{
public:
void print() {
std::cout << "This should print second" << std::endl;
}
};
So someone asked an interesting question about having a "free pointer" (so to speak) which can point to multiple instances of different objects without having to create a new type of that object. The person had the idea that this pointer can be of type void * and since it is void, it can be made to point to any instance of an object and access the object's public properties.
The following solution was submitted:
int main() {
void *pClass(NULL);
((CClass1 *)(pClass))->print();
((CClass2 *)(pClass))->print();
std::cin.ignore();
return 0;
}
My question is why does the above work, but this doesn't:
int main() {
(CClass1 *FG)->print();
(CClass2 *FG)->print();
std::cin.ignore();
return 0;
}
Your first example exhibits undefined behavior, by calling a non-static member function via a pointer that doesn't point to a valid object. It only appears to work by accident, because the function in question just happens not to use this in any way.
Your second example is, quite simply, syntactically incorrect. I'm not even sure what you are trying to do there; the code makes no sense.
Can someone tell why test(2) object is destroyed after test_method() call?
#include<iostream>
#include<string>
using namespace std;
class test
{
int n;
public:
test(int n) : n(n)
{
cout << "test: " << n << endl;
}
~test()
{
cout << "~test: " << n << endl;
}
test & test_method()
{
cout << "test_method: " << n << endl;
return *this;
}
};
int main(int argc, const char *argv[])
{
cout << "main start" << endl;
const test &test1 = test(1);
const test &test2 = test(2).test_method();
cout << "main end" << endl;
}
Output is:
main start
test: 1
test: 2
test_method: 2
~test: 2
main end
~test: 1
test(2).test_method() returns a reference, which is bound to test2, and then the object to which it refers is destroyed at the end of the full expression, since it is a temporary object. That should not be a surprise.
The real surprise is that test1 remains a valid reference, because it is directly bound to a temporary, and binding a temporary to a reference extends the lifetime of the temporary to that of the reference variable.
You only have to note that in the test(2) case, the temporary object isn't bound to anything. It's just used to invoke some member function, and then its job is done. It doesn't "babysit" member functions, or in other words, lifetime extension isn't transitive through all possible future references.
Here's a simple thought experiment why it would be impossible to actually have "arbitrary lifetime extension":
extern T & get_ref(T &);
{
T const & x = get_ref(T());
// stuff
// Is x still valid?
}
We have no idea if x remains valid beyond the first line. get_ref could be doing anything. If it's implemented as T & get_ref(T & x) { return x; }, we might hope for magic, but it could also be this:
namespace { T global; }
T & get_ref(T & unused) { return global; }
It's impossible to decide within the original translation unit whether anything needs to be extended or not. So the way the standard has it at present is that it's an entirely trivial, local decision, just made when looking at the reference declaration expression, what the lifetime of the temporary object in question should be.
Because the C++ standard requires this behavior. Give the object a name if you want it to persist. It will persist as long as the name.
Edit: You your example, test1 is the name that you gave to the first object, whereas the second object has obtained no name at all, and so it does not outlast evaluation of the expression.
I would like to be able to do:
foo(stringstream()<<"number = " << 500);
EDIT: single line solution is crucial since this is for logging purposes. These will be all around the code.
inside foo will print the string to screen or something of the sort.
now since stringstream's operator<< returns ostream&, foo's signature must be:
foo(ostream& o);
but how can I convert ostream& to string? (or char*).
Different approaches to achieving this use case are welcome as well.
The obvious solution is to use dynamic_cast in foo. But the given
code still won't work. (Your example will compile, but it won't do what
you think it should.) The expression std::ostringstream() is a
temporary, you can't initialize a non-const reference with a temporary,
and the first argument of std::operator<<( std::ostream&, char const*)
is a non-const reference. (You can call a member function on a
temporary. Like std::ostream::operator<<( void const* ). So the code
will compile, but it won't do what you expect.
You can work around this problem, using something like:
foo( std::ostringstream().flush() << "number = " << 500 );
std::ostream::flush() returns a non-const reference, so there are no
further problems. And on a freshly created stream, it is a no-op.
Still, I think you'll agree that it isn't the most elegant or intuitive
solution.
What I usually do in such cases is create a wrapper class, which
contains it's own std::ostringstream, and provides a templated
member operator<< which forwards to the contained
std::ostringstream. Your function foo would take a const
reference to this—or what I offen do is have the destructor call
foo directly, so that the client code doesn't even have to worry about
it; it does something like:
log() << "number = " << 500;
The function log() returns an instance of the wrapper class (but see
below), and the (final) destructor of this class calls your function
foo.
There is one slight problem with this. The return value may be copied,
and destructed immediately after the copy. Which will wreck havoc with
what I just explained; in fact, since std::ostringstream isn't
copyable, it won't even compile. The solution here is to put all of the
actual logic, including the instance of std::ostringstream and the
destructor logic calling foo in a separate implementation class, have
the public wrapper have a boost::shared_ptr to it, and forward. Or
just reimplement a bit of the shared pointer logic in your class:
class LogWrapper
{
std::ostringstream* collector;
int* useCount;
public:
LogWrapper()
: collector(new std::ostringstream)
, useCount(new int(1))
{
}
~LogWrapper()
{
-- *useCount;
if ( *useCount == 0 ) {
foo( collector->str() );
delete collector;
delete useCount;
}
}
template<typename T>
LogWrapper& operator<<( T const& value )
{
(*collector) << value;
return *this;
}
};
Note that it's easy to extend this to support optional logging; just
provide a constructor for the LogWrapper which sets collector to
NULL, and test for this in the operator<<.
EDITED:
One other thing occurs to me: you'll probably want to check whether the
destructor is being called as a result of an exception, and not call
foo in that case. Logically, I'd hope that the only exception you
might get is std::bad_alloc, but there will always be a user who
writes something like:
log() << a + b;
where the + is a user defined overload which throws.
I would suggest you to use this utility struct:
struct stringbuilder
{
std::stringstream ss;
template<typename T>
stringbuilder & operator << (const T &data)
{
ss << data;
return *this;
}
operator std::string() { return ss.str(); }
};
And use it as:
void f(const std::string & s );
int main()
{
char const *const pc = "hello";
f(stringbuilder() << '{' << pc << '}' );
//this is my most favorite line
std::string s = stringbuilder() << 25 << " is greater than " << 5 ;
}
Demo (with few more example) : http://ideone.com/J995r
More on my blog : Create string on the fly just in one line
You could use a proxy object for this; this is a bit of framework, but if you want to use this notation in a lot of places then it may be worth it:
#include <iostream>
#include <sstream>
static void foo( std::string const &s )
{
std::cout << s << std::endl;
}
struct StreamProxy
{
std::stringstream stream;
operator std::string() { return stream.str(); }
};
template <typename T>
StreamProxy &operator<<( StreamProxy &s, T v )
{
s.stream << v;
return s;
}
static StreamProxy make_stream()
{
return StreamProxy();
}
int main()
{
foo( make_stream() << "number = " << 500 );
}
This program prints
number = 500
The idea is to have a little wrapper class which can be implicitely converted into a std::string. The << operator is simply forwarded to the contained std::stringstream. The make_stream() function is strictly speaking not necessary (you could also say StreamProxy(), but I thought it looks a bit nicer.
A couple of options other than the nice proxy solution just presented by Frerich Raabe:
Define a static string stream variable in the header that defines the logging function and use the comma operator in your invocation of the logging function so that this variable is passed rather than the ostream& returned by the stream insertion operator. You can use a logging macro to hide this ugliness. The problem with this solution is that it is a bit on the ugly side, but this is a commonly used approach to logging.
Don't use C++ I/O. Use a varargs C-style solution instead. Pass a format string as the first argument, with the remaining arguments being targets for that format string. A problem with this solution is that even if your compiler is smart enough to ensure that printf and its cousins are safe, the compiler probably won't know that this new function is a part of the printf family. Nonetheless, this is also a commonly used approach.
If you don't mind using macros functions, you can make the logging function accept const string&, and use the following macro
#define build_string(expr) \
(static_cast<ostringstream*>(&(ostringstream().flush() << expr))->str())
And suppose you foo has signature void foo(const string&), you only need the one-liner
foo(build_string("number = " << 500))
This was inspired by James Kanze's answer about static_cast and stringstream.flush. Without the .flush() the above method fails with unexpected output.
Please note that this method should not leak memory, as temporary values, whether in the pointer form or not, are still allocated on the stack and hence destroyed upon return.
Since you're converting to string anyways, why not
void foo(const std::string& s)
{
std::cout << "foo: " << s << std::endl;
}
...
std::stringstream ss;
ss << "number = " << 500;
foo(ss.str());
This is not possible. As the name ostream implies, it is used for output, for writing to it. You could change the parameter to stringstream&. This class has the method str() which returns a std::string for your use.
EDIT I did not read the issue with operator << returning ostream&. So I guess you cannot simply write your statements within the functions argument list but have to write it before.
You can create a small wrapper around std::ostringstream that will convert back to std::string on use, and have the function take a std::string const &. The first approach to this solution can be found in this answer to a different question.
On top of that, you can add support for manipulators (std::hex) if needed.
I am trying to understand how explicit constructor call in main works using the following code.
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class Dependency1
{
bool init;
public:
Dependency1() : init(true) {
std::cout << "Dependency1 construction"
<< std::endl;
}
void print() const {
std::cout << "Dependency1 init: "
<< init << std::endl;
}
};
class Dependency2 {
Dependency1 d1;
public:
Dependency2(const Dependency1& dep1): d1(dep1){
std::cout << "Dependency2 construction ";
print();
}
void print() const { d1.print(); }
};
void test( const Dependency1& dd1)
{
cout << " inside Test \n";
dd1.print();
}
int main()
{
test(Dependency1());
Dependency2 D1(Dependency1()); // this line does not work
return 0;
}
Function test is being called where constructor Dependency1() is used as a function call instead of Dependency1::Dependency1( ) and the code runs perfectly fine.
Now if I use similar concept to create an object D1 of Dependency2, it does not work.
Seems I am doing something wrong here based on wrong understanding.
Need to know how the Compiler resolves Dependency1() call in main even if scope resolution is not used and why it does not work when I use it as a parameter in constructor of Dependency2
Thanks,
Anand
test(Dependency1())
This calls a function test and passes a temporary object of class Dependency1. Because the formal parameter in the definition of test is a reference to const and because temporaries can be bound to const references your code works.
Dependency2 D1(Dependency1()); // this line does not work
This is called C++ most vexing parse. D1 is interpreted as a function returning Dependency2 and taking an argument a pointer to function returning Dependency1.
Try Dependency2 D1((Dependency1())); and see the change in output.
Note: Putting an extra pair of parenthesis would make the compiler treat (Dependency1()) as an expression.
Dependency1() creates a temporary object of type Dependency1, that is passed to function test.