How to let an integer maps to a class definition in C++? - c++

Question

I have some classes:
class Base
{
public:
virtual void Something() = 0;
}
class A : public Base
{
public:
virtual void Something() { /*...*/ }
void SpecialActionForA();
}
class B : public Base
{
public:
virtual void Something() { /*...*/ }
void SpecialActionForB();
}
and an array:
Base* MyMembers[2];
MyMembers[0] = new A;
MyMembers[1] = new B;
and I want to do:
A* pointer_to_a = Get(0);
B* pointer_to_b = Get(1);
Is there any good way to implement this Get() function?
My solution is:
template <typename T>
T* Get(int index)
{
return dynamic_cast<T*>(MyMembers[index]);
}
But first thing is that I have to write
A* pointer_to_a = Get<A>(0)
Which requires an additional <A>;
Second thing is that if somehow the new is screwed up like:
MyMembers[0] = new B;
Then the Get() is failed.
What I want is something like an automatic mechanism which can maps index 0 to A.
Extra details:
Actually I have 80 different classes derived from Base (They are my User Interfaces),
and my need is to get the real classes (the real UIs) to do things.
The functions I need to use are the above SpecialActionForA()...etc.
The Something() is also used, but is in the initialization stage of these UIs, or something managed by the UI manager system.

Answer 1

You cannot do unknown* Get(int) in principle as it will require two or more functions having the same name but differing only by return value. C++ explicitly prohibits this.
The closest function that you can get is this:
template <typename T> T* Get() {
static T* instance = new T;
return instance;
}
so you will be able to use it as:
A *a = Get<A>();
B *b = Get<B>();

Answer 2

Overloading of function works by looking up the argument list. It is not possible to understand what kind of the value you want by judging only the return type. Thus compiler forces you to give extra detail to instantiate the template. So your options are:
Base *Get(int N) {
return MyMembers[N];
}
or
A *GetA(int N) {
return MyMembers[N];
}
B *GetB(int N) {
return MyMembers[N];
}
or
template <typename T> void Get(int N, T *&item) {
item = (T*)MyMembers[N];
}
A* pointer_to_a;
B* pointer_to_b;
Get(0, pointer_to_a);
Get(1, pointer_to_b);
or your own
template <typename T>
T* Get(int index)
{
return dynamic_cast<T*>(MyMembers[index]);
}

Answer 3

Without knowing your usage scenario, it'll be a bit hard to provide a useful answer, but I actually do believe what you want is type matching. So what you do is that you pass your variables around as Base pointers until I you actually need to know the concrete underlying type, at this point you do a matching on the underlying type of your base pointer. This is works pretty much alike a switch statement mixed with lambdas, I'll try to provide an example.
...
Base* ptr = some_argument;
// Here we need the underlying type, so we'll do a match
Match(ptr)
{
Case(A* a)
{
// this is invoked if ptr happened to hold an A, now do something A specific.
}
Case(B* b)
{
// this is invoked if ptr happened to hold a B, now do something B specific
}
Otherwise()
{
// this is invoked whenever none of the above are
}
}
EndMatch;
...
This is an alternative to the usual solution, which is virtual pointers in the base class, and overriding. Note that type matching is commonly used in functional languages. For C++ there's a cleaver solution to achieving this, by Yuriy Solodkyy one of Bjarne Stroustrup's PhD students.
The short introductury paper can be found here;
https://parasol.tamu.edu/~yuriys/papers/OPM13EA.pdf
For a more information, check out hvis paper, which was presented to the ISO comitee; Open and Efficient Type Switch for C++ by Stroustup, Dos Reis and Solodkyy
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3449.pdf
For the source code behind these papers goto Yuriys homepage at;
https://parasol.tamu.edu/~yuriys/pm/
If the number of classes you've got is truly closed, then consider using closed algebraic data types, as with boost::variant.These are have a few advantages over the unrestricted open algebraic data types, in that the compiler can usually ensure exhaustive matching, and in that the closed nature allows for more optimized pattern matching implementations, though at the cost of flexibility.
Also do note that boost::variant works nicely on C++03!
Do however please consider if you really need pattern matching or polymorphic dispatching. Both approaches are advantages and downsides, the main advance of the pattern matching approach, is that you aren't required to change your classes, and that you avoid polluting your base class with ultra specific virtual methods, which may only be called in a single location.