Basically, I need to set a variable outside of the constructor and make it accessible to the entire class.
It would need to work something like this:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
template <typename MT>
class CallbackFunction
{
void (*func)(MT);
MT *data;
public:
void SetCallbackData (void (*f)(MT), MT *d)
{
func = f;
data = d;
}
void Call()
{
func(data);
}
};
class Callback
{
public:
template <typename T>
void SetCallback(CallbackFunction <T> *func)
{
// Need to make this a class member;
CallbackFunction <T> *CallbackClass = func;
}
void Call()
{
CallbackClass->Call();
}
};
template <typename CT>
Callback *NewCallback(void (*func)(CT), CT *data)
{
Callback *cb;
CallbackFunction <CT> *cf;
cf->SetCallbackData(func, data);
cb->SetCallback <CT> (cf);
return cb;
};
void Call(Callback *CallbackFunc)
{
CallbackFunc->Call();
}
void foo(std::string str)
{
std::cout << str << "\n";
}
int main()
{
std::string *str;
str->append("Hello, World!");
Call( NewCallback(foo, str) );
return 0;
}
More details:
I know it's buggy, and it doesn't compile, I'll sort out those bugs when I find a solution to my problem. Which is:
I need to find a way to declare a template variable inside a member function of the class "Callback". I need to do this because the class "Callback" cannot be a template, it needs to remain a simple class. So because the class "Callback" is not a template, I need to make one of it's member functions a template instead. So that member function can declare a variable of the type defined (with the template) when the function is called, and this variable needs to be accessible to the entire class.
So in a nice list:
class "Callback" cannot be a template,
variable CallbackClass must be accessible to the entire class,
but remain inside of the class.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <memory>
template <typename MT>
class CallbackFunction
{
typedef void (*func_ptr)(MT);
func_ptr f_ptr;
typedef std::shared_ptr<MT> data_ptr;
data_ptr data_p;
public:
void SetCallbackData (func_ptr f_ptr_, MT *d)
{
f_ptr = f_ptr_;
data_p.reset(d);
}
void Call()
{
if ( f_ptr ) f_ptr(data);
}
};
template<class T>
class Callback
{
public:
template <typename T>
void SetCallback(CallbackFunction <T> *func)
{
f_ptr.reset(func);
}
void Call()
{
if ( f_ptr ) f_ptr->Call();
}
typedef std::shared_ptr<CallbackFunction<T>> func_ptr;
static func_ptr f_ptr;
};
I would implement this using polymorphism. Your programming skills seem good so I will just sketch the direction to solution, feel free to ask for more help if needed.
// your callbackobjects inherit from this class, the sole purpose of this
// class is to provide the Call interface. The derived classes implement
// their custom version of Call().
class CallBackObject{
public:
virtual void Call(){};
};
class Callback
{
CallBackObject *callBackObject;
public:
void SetCallback(CallBackObject *o)
{
callBackObject = o;
}
void Call()
{
callBackObject -> Call();
}
};
Create an abstract interface Callback class and have your CallbackFunction<T> inherit from this. Have your Callback class hold a pointer to this abstract interface. Finally, have your Callback::SetCallback assign func to this pointer.
Here's some code to illustrate the idea:
class ICallback
{
public:
virtual ~ICallback() {}
virtual void Call() = 0;
};
template <typename MT>
class CallbackFunction : public ICallback
{
typedef void (*callback)(MT);
callback myfunc;
MT *data;
public:
CallbackFunction (callback f, MT *d) :
myfunc (f),
data (d)
{}
void Call()
{
if(myfunc && data)
{
myfunc(*data);
}
else throw std::logic_error("Callback function or data is null!");
}
};
Then have Callback hold a ICallback*:
class Callback
{
ICallback *mycallback;
public:
template <typename T>
void SetCallback(CallbackFunction <T> *func)
{
// Need to make this a class member;
// CallbackFunction <T> *CallbackClass = func;
mycallback = func;
}
void Call()
{
mycallback->Call();
}
};
The idea is to make all instantiated templates of CallbackFunction <T> a kind-of ICallback. Now the class using ICallback can take any class CallbackFunction <T> without needing to know what T is.
Related
I would like to have the following class setup in a program:
A class that implements a buffer. This buffer, when full, would spawn a thread that makes a callback to handle what to do with the full buffer.
A base class template that includes a buffer object. Implements the callback function, which makes a call to a virtual function defined in a derived class.
A derived class that inherits from base class and implements what to do with the data.
First, the minimal reproducible example:
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
template <typename T>
class CallbackBuffer
{
public:
std::vector<T> buffer;
void (*callback)(std::vector<T>);
std::thread writerThread;
CallbackBuffer(int bufferSize = 10)
{
buffer.resize(bufferSize);
}
void setCallback(void (*cb)(std::vector<T>))
{
callback = cb;
}
void writeCall()
{
writerThread = std::thread(callback, buffer);
}
};
template <typename T>
class Base
{
public:
CallbackBuffer<T> buffer;
Base()
{
buffer.setCallback(bufferHandler);
}
void bufferHandler(std::vector<T> v)
{
for(auto &i : v)
{
write(i);
}
}
virtual void write(T i) = 0;
};
class Derived : public Base<int>
{
public:
Derived()
{
}
void write(int i)
{
std::cout << i << std::endl;
}
};
int main()
{
Derived d;
return 0;
}
I'm getting the following compiler error:
error: invalid use of non-static member function ‘void Base<T>::bufferHandler(std::vector<T>) [with T = int]’
So the compiler needs bufferHandler to be static, but if I did that, then I would not have access to the object's members. Is there a way to sort this, or just a horrible idea?
You are passing the class member function so you need to have in your CallbackBuffer class something like:
void (Base<T>::*callback)(std::vector<T>);
// ...
void setCallback(void (Base<T>::*cb)(std::vector<T>)) {
callback = cb;
}
and in Base class:
Base() {
buffer.setCallback(&Base<T>::bufferHandler);
}
Demo
Member function pointers have different type than regular functions, that's why your code does not work. What you may want is using std::function instead of raw pointers:
#include <functional>
//...
std::function<void(std::vector<T>)> callback;
// ...
void setCallback(const std::function<void(std::vector<T>)>& cb) {
callback = cb;
}
and pass it like that:
Base() {
buffer.setCallback([this](auto& vec){ this->bufferHandler(vec); });
}
IMHO this is much more readable and flexible than passing around member pointers
I'm attempting to remove boost libraries from my code.
I don't have std::function, and i'm working with C++98, not c++11. I still need to store a vector of simple void Funcs() from different classes.
I'm using a simple template to get the Class and the instance of the function.
But i'd like to replace the need for boost::function and boost::bind.
class App
{
public:
App();
template<class T>
static void AddLoopFunc(void (T::*func)(), T* instance)
{
loop_funcs.push_back(boost::bind(func, instance));
}
static std::vector< boost::function<void()> > loop_funcs;
};
adding a function to the loop
App::AddLoopFunc(&MyClass::Loop, this);
Let's make some type-erasing adaptor for a member function of any class with a given signature.
struct dummy
{
void func() {};
};
typedef void (dummy::*dummyfunc)();
template <class Obj>
void adapt_ptr_mem_func_0(void* obj, dummyfunc func)
{
void (Obj::*realfunc)() = reinterpret_cast<void (Obj::*)()>(func);
Obj* realobj = reinterpret_cast<Obj*>(obj);
(realobj->*realfunc)();
}
You can call a pointer-to-member-function of any class with this. Not in a type safe manner but we will hide this behind a type-safe store front in a moment.
class callback
{
void (dummy::*func)();
void* obj;
void (*adaptor)(void*, void (dummy::*)());
public:
template <class Obj>
callback(Obj* obj, void (Obj::*func)(void)) :
obj(obj), func(reinterpret_cast<dummyfunc>(func)),
adaptor(adapt_ptr_mem_func_0<Obj>) {}
void operator()()
{
adaptor(obj, func);
}
};
The callback constructor accepts an object obj_ and a pointer-to-member-function func_, and makes a type-erased function object that, when called, calls (obj->*func)().
Testing:
struct Moo
{
int m;
Moo (int m) : m(m) {};
void doit() { std::cout << m << "\n"; }
};
int main()
{
Moo moo(42);
callback c(&moo, &Moo::doit);
c();
};
boost::function and boost::bind are available in C++98, no need to replace them.
class Foo {
public:
void methodA();
};
class ManagedFoo {
Foo fooInst;
public:
void methodA() { doSomething(); fooInst.methodA();}
};
Now I want to make ManagedFoo as a template, managing any class not only Foo, and before any of Foo's function is called, call doSomething first.
template<typename _TyManaged>
class Manager {
_TyManaged _managedInst;
void doSomething();
public:
/*Forward every function called by _managedInst*/
/*How to write this?*/
};
I want to make it the same, make it replaceable between this two class, like this :
Foo* foo = new Foo();
foo->methodA();
Manager<Foo> managedFoo = new Manager<Foo>();
managedFoo->methodA(); //Hope it call Manager::doSomething() first then call _managedInst.methodA();
Can C++11 template do such thing? if answer is yes, how to?
Solution based on operator-> overloading:
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
class A {
public:
void foo() { std::cout << "foo\n"; }
void bar() { std::cout << "bar\n"; }
};
template <typename T>
class ManagedBase {
std::shared_ptr<T> _inst;
public:
ManagedBase(const std::shared_ptr<T> inst) : _inst(inst) { }
virtual ~ManagedBase() { }
std::shared_ptr<T> operator->() {
before();
return this->_inst;
}
virtual void before() =0;
};
template <typename T>
class ManagedPrint : public ManagedBase<T> {
public:
ManagedPrint(const std::shared_ptr<T> inst) : ManagedBase(inst) { }
virtual void before() {
std::cout << "Said: ";
}
};
int main() {
auto ma = ManagedPrint<A>(std::make_shared<A>());
ma->bar(); // Said: foo
ma->bar(); // Said: bar
}
Something like this?
template<typename _TyManaged>
class Manager {
_TyManaged _managedInst;
void doSomething();
public:
_TyManaged* operator->() {
doSomething();
return &_managedInst;
}
};
This can solve your problem. But I'm still not sure what you want to do with your Manager class.
class Foo {
public:
void methodA();
};
template<typename T>
class ManagedFoo : public T {
public:
// some further extensions
};
And of course in this way you change the semantic of the Foo class by the manager from:
It has a
to
It is a
So I'm not sure if this is true in your case.
I've two classes:
struct A {
template <typename T>
void print(T& t){
// do sth specific for A
}
};
struct B : A {
template <typename T>
void print(T& t){
// do sth specific for B
}
};
In such case, the more general Base class with virtual functions (which A and B both inherit from) cannot be compiled, since there is no virtual for template. As I try to delegate generally all A or B objects under same "interface", does anyone has the idea to resolve such problem? Thank you in advance.
Sincerely,
Jun
You can think about using using CRTP.
template<typename Derived>
struct Base {
template <typename T>
void print(T& t){
static_cast<Derived*>(this)->print(t);
}
};
struct A : Base<A> {
// template print
};
struct B : Base<B> {
// template print
};
Example Usage:
template<typename T, typename ARG>
void foo (Base<T>* p, ARG &a)
{
p->print(a);
}
This method will be called as,
foo(pA, i); // pA is A*, i is int
foo(pB, d); // pB is B*, d is double
Here is another demo code.
Using a proxy class to get B's method
class A {
public:
friend class CProxyB;
virtual CProxyB* GetCProxyB() = 0;
};
class B;
class CProxyB
{
public:
CProxyB(B* b){mb = b;}
template <typename T>
void printB(T& t)
{
mb->print(t);
}
B* mb;
};
class B:public A {
public:
virtual CProxyB* GetCProxyB(){return new CProxyB(this);};
template <typename T>
void print(T& t){
printf("OK!!!!!\n");
}
};
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
A* a = new B;
CProxyB* pb = a->GetCProxyB();
int t = 0;
pb->printB(t);
return 0;
}
Two options:
Option one: Virtualize the method where if the user does not provide an implementation, the Base class' is used.
template <typename T>
struct A {
virtual void print(T& t);
};
template <typename T>
void A::print(T& t) {
// do sth specific for A
}
template <typename T>
struct B : A {
virtual void print(T& t);
};
void B::print(T& t) {
// do sth specific for B
}
Option two: Abstract the method where if the user does not provide an implementation, the code will not compile.
template <typename T>
struct A {
virtual void print(T& t)=0;
};
template <typename T>
struct B : A {
virtual void print(T& t){
// do sth specific for B
}
};
template <typename T>
void B::print(T& t){
// do sth specific for B
}
Other than the above mentioned, if you do not make them virtual, the Derived class will Shadow the Base class method and that is most certainly not what you intended. Hence, impossible.
my question is how to use single pointer to different A or B objects.
You can do this without virtual functions per-se. But all you will really be doing is writing an implementation of a V-table and virtual functions.
If I were going to manually implement virtual functions, I would base it all on a Boost.Variant object. The variant would effectively hold the member data for each class. To call a function, you use a variant visitor functor. Each "virtual function" would have its own visitor functor, which would have different overloads of operator() for each of the possible types within the variant.
So you might have this:
typedef boost::variant<StructA, StructB, StructC> VirtualClass;
You could store any one of those objects in the variant. You would call a "virtual function" on the object like this:
VirtualClass someObject(StructA());
boost::apply_visitor(FunctorA(), someObject);
The class FunctorA is your virtual function implementation. It is a visitor, defined like this:
class FunctorA : public boost::static_visitor<>
{
void operator()(StructA &arg){
//Do something for StructA
}
void operator()(StructB &arg){
//Do something for StructB
}
void operator()(StructC &arg){
//Do something for StructC
}
}
Visitors can have return values, which are returned by apply_visitor. They can take arguments, by storing the arguments as members of the visitor class. And so forth.
Best of all, if you ever change your variant type, to add new "derived classes", you will get compiler errors for any functors that don't have overloads for the new types.
But to be honest, you should just be using virtual functions.
By using CRTP(Curiously recurring template pattern), you can achieve static polymorphsim without virtual.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
#define MSG(msg) cout << msg << endl;
template<class Derived>
class Base{
public:
void print()
{
static_cast<Derived*>(this)->print();
}
};
class Derived1 : public Base<Derived1>
{
public:
void print()
{
MSG("Derived 1::print");
}
};
class Derived2 : public Base<Derived2>
{
public:
void print()
{
MSG("Derived 2::print");
}
};
template<class T>
void callme(Base<T>& p)
{
p.print();
}
int main()
{
Base<Derived1> p1;
Base<Derived2> p2;
callme(p1);
callme(p2);
system("pause");
return 0;
}
//Result :
//Derived 1::print
//Derived 2::print
template <typename T>
class BaseQueue
{
public :
virtual void push_back(T value) = 0;
//other virtual methods
};
template <typename T>
class BaseDeque: public virtual BaseQueue<T>
{
public:
virtual void push_front(T value) = 0;
//other virtual methods
};
//Realisation
template <typename T>
class VectorQueue: public BaseQueue<T>
{
typedef typename std::vector<T> array;
private: array adata;
public:
VectorQueue()
{
adata = array();
}
void push_back(T value)
{
adata.push_back(value);
}
};
template <typename T>
class VectorDeque: virtual public VectorQueue<T>, virtual protected BaseDeque<T>//,
{
void push_front(T value)
{
VectorQueue::adata.push_front(value);
}
};
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
VectorDeque<int> vd = VectorDeque<int>();//here is a error
int i;
std::cin >> i;
return 0;
}
I have such error: "C2259: 'VectorDeque' : cannot instantiate abstract class ...". How can I fix it? Class VectorQueue has realize every virtual method of BaseQueue class already. But the compiler doesn't know it. The only way I see is to write something like this:
template <typename T>
class VectorDeque: virtual public VectorQueue<T>, virtual protected BaseDeque<T>//,
{
void push_front(T value)
{
VectorQueue::adata.push_front(value);
}
void push_back(T value)
{
VectorQueue::push_back(value);
}
//repeat it fo every virtual method of BaseQueue class (interface)
};
But it's awful.
push_back from BaseQueue isn't implemented on the BaseDeque side of the inheritance chain, and thus the childmost class is still abstract.
I think you're trying to force a class relationship here that shouldn't exist. Note how in the standard library deque and vector are distinct container types and things like queue adapt those containers to very precise interfaces rather than trying to inherit.
Even if you solve your diamond issue (or follow #Mark B's advice and keep them separate), you have a few other issues in there:
template <typename T>
class VectorQueue: public BaseQueue<T>
{
typedef typename std::vector<T> array;
private: array adata; // if this is private, VectorDeque can't reach it
public:
// constructors have an initializer section
// member variables should be initialized there, not in the body
VectorQueue()
// : adata() // however, no need to explicitly call default constructor
{
// adata = array();
}
};
template <typename T>
class VectorDeque: virtual public VectorQueue<T>, virtual protected BaseDeque<T>
{
void push_front(T value)
{
// if adata is protected, you can just access it. No need for scoping
/*VectorQueue::*/ adata.push_front(value);
// Error: std::vector doesn't have a method push_front.
// Perhaps you meant to use std::list?
}
};
Multiple inheritance and static polymorphism are of help, for instance:
// Abstract bases
template <typename T, typename Val>
class BaseQueue
{
public :
void push_back(Val val)
{
static_cast<T*>(this)->push_back(val);
}
// ...
};
template <typename T, typename Val>
class BaseDeque
{
public:
void push_front(Val val)
{
static_cast<T*>(this)->push_front(val);
}
// ...
};
// Concrete class
#include <deque>
template <typename Val>
class QueueDeque:
public BaseQueue<QueueDeque<Val>, Val>,
public BaseDeque<QueueDeque<Val>, Val>
{
std::deque<Val> vals;
public:
void push_front(Val val)
{
vals.push_front(val);
}
void push_back(Val val)
{
vals.push_back(val);
}
// etc..
};
int main()
{
QueueDeque<int> vd;// no more error
vd.push_front(5);
vd.push_back(0);
return 0;
}