Object needs to let function access all its data - c++

Question

When using encapsulation and "tell, don't ask"-principle properly, there should be no reason for one to ask information from an object.
However, I've ran into a situation (let me know if this design itself is terrible) where I have an object with a member variable pointing to a function outside of the class.
At some point of my application, there's a need for my object to call the function and the function should then act based on my object's status.
Here's an example class:
typedef void(*fptr)(Foo*);
class Foo {
public:
Foo(string name, fptr function);
void activate()
{
m_function(this);
}
private:
string m_name;
fptr m_function;
};
That's the class, now the developer can use the class like so;
void print(Foo *sender)
{
cout << "Print works!" << endl;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
Foo foo("My foo", &print);
foo.activate();
// output: "Print works!"
}
This all works fine, but what if I want to print the name of the sender?
All the functions are defined outside of the class, by other developers, so there's no way to access private variables.
In C#, you can just use the partial keyword to add a method to an existing class.
This is not possible in C++ though.
I could just ignore encapsulation and create a setter and getter for name and all other properties that might be needed by the function in the future.
This is pretty terrible solution, I should basically create setter and getter for everything there is in my class, since the function can do anything to my object.
Besides what's the reason of encapsulation, if I'm just gonna ignore it when I want to?
An other solution would be a struct that holds the required properties inside it:
struct FooBar {
string name;
};
typedef void(*fptr)(FooBar);
void Foo::activate()
{
FooBar fb;
fb.name = m_name;
m_function(fb);
}
But this is not much different from not using encapsulation, and it doesn't seem like a too good solution either.
What would be the best approach for this problem?

Answer 1

I would make activate() an abstract method and all the class' properties protected.
Also, there's no need for the fptr:
class Foo {
public:
Foo(string name);
virtual void activate() = 0;
protected:
string m_name;
};
Now when someone wants to use your class, he just inherits his own from it:
class MyFoo : public Foo {
public:
MyFoo(string name);
virtual void activate()
{
cout << m_name << " says: Hello World!" << endl;
}
};
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
MyFoo foo("My foo");
foo.activate();
// output: "My Foo says: Hello World!"
}
And if you need many different Foo's with different functionality, just inherit multiple classes instead of declaring multiple functions.
Edit: Instead of inheriting a new class for every different Foo instance, you could inherit one class for all of them with all the different methods.
Now all left for activate is to decide which method to call; use enum for this:
enum MyFooFunction {
printName,
printHello
};
class MyFoo : public Foo {
public:
MyFoo(string name, MyFooFunction function);
void printName() { cout << m_name << endl; }
void printHello() { cout << "Hello!" << endl; }
virtual void activate()
{
switch(m_function) {
case printName:
printName();
break;
case printHello:
printHello();
break;
}
}
protected:
MyFooFunction m_function;
};

Answer 2

Seen from the outside, private variables don't exist, so developers cannot possibly "want" to print them.
If they do want then either the class members (or better, queries in the class returning their contents) should be public, the function a member of the class, or in specific cases some friend mechanism may be used.
To summarize, don't set out to break encapsulation - instead, reconsider the abstraction behind your encapsulation and, if needed, create new queries for properties of your class which weren't foreseen as useful back when the class was designed - but now are.

Answer 3

You might want to change your function parameter type to const string & if the function should be able to see the string, but the rest of the outside world shall not see it. Also you might consider to use std::function<void(const string &)> instead of your function type. This has two fundamental advantages: You can pass closures (also called lambdas) to your constructor and you can read it more easily. The edited code would look like this:
class Foo {
public:
template <typename F>
Foo(string name, F && function)
: m_name (std::move(name))
, m_function(std::forward<F>(function))
{
}
void activate()
{
m_function(m_name);
}
private:
string m_name;
std::function<void(const string &)> m_function;
};
The client code would look like
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
Foo foo("My foo", [](const string & s){ cout << s << endl; });
foo.activate();
// output: "My foo"
}
You see that the client does not need to define an extra function, but can simply do it 'inline'.

Answer 4

What you're asking is "How can I keep my members private, but still give callbacks some way of accessing them?"
When you look at it that way, your struct FooBar solution is actually pretty reasonable. The only problem is that it's a bit inefficient. You would be better off passing a const FooBar& instead of passing FooBar by value.
Your struct FooBar solution is even better than partial classes, because you can specify exactly which members the callback should have access to.
Edit: Reading your struct FooBar solution more closely, I see you're thinking of tediously copying the members individually before passing them to the callback. You can skip all that just by putting a FooBar object in your Foo class, like so:
struct FooBar {
string name;
};
typedef void(*fptr)(const FooBar&);
class Foo {
public:
Foo(string name, fptr function);
void activate()
{
m_function(data);
}
private:
FooBar data;
fptr m_function;
};
It's worth pointing out that, with this solution, the callbacks cannot access m_function, unless you decide to put it in FooBar. This is what I meant when I said that you can specify exactly which members the callback should have access to.

Answer 5

Let's face it, C++ access control was designed with some use cases in mind, and are generally usable, but never claimed to cover everything. If you can't solve the situation with just private and friend, and arbitrary functions must be allowed to access the internals, then best way is to make them public and move on.
Setters will not move you forward for sure, just add complexity for nothing. If data is effective public don't try to mask that fact pretending like it wasn't.
Look for the root cause -- why on earth outsides want your members and rearrange that.

Answer 6

I could just ignore encapsulation and create a setter and getter for name and all other properties that might be needed by the function in the future. This is pretty terrible solution, I should basically create setter and getter for everything there is in my class, since the function can do anything to my object.
True - this is basically making implementation details public (and in most cases, not something you should do).
An other solution would be a struct that holds the required properties inside it:
[...] But this is not much different from not using encapsulation, and it doesn't seem like a too good solution either. What would be the best approach for this problem?
Actually it is very different. Consider that you are actually calling an external function with normal parameters:
struct EventData { string name, yadayada; }
class Foo
{
public:
void activate()
{
m_function( EventData(m_name, yadayada) );
}
};
This is not accessing private data (Foo accesses it's own private data, m_function accesses it's own parameter values), but dependency injection.
There are no architecture compromises with this approach.