I've got a class with 3 private variables and one public method, that has 2 char parameter variables.
class InitLine
{
private:
char *a;
char b, c;
public:
InitLine(char *inita, char initc);
Init(char *a, char c);
};
Now the definition of the method is simple:
Initline::Init(char *a, char c)
{
for (b=0; b<c; b++)
*(a+c)=0;
}
Now my question is: If I wish to repeat the same actions with different parametertypes (*a and c, or one of them becomes an integer e.g.), is it necessary to create a new class, or can I use the existing one, doing some 'typecasting' or some other trick I don't know yet?
Thanks and regards
Uwe
Use templates, make the Init function a template of your arguments type.
template <typename T>
Init(char*a , T c){}
for instance
You have many places in your code, which should be fixed prior to any further operations.
Naming convention is terrible. What is a, b, c?
You use b as a loop indexer, while a local variable should be used there instead.
You don't show us, what is a. Where is it allocated? What is the size of memory pointed to by a?
I guess, that your code should look like the following:
class InitLine
{
private:
char * data;
int count;
public:
InitLine(char * newData, int newCount)
{
// Possible error checking?
data = newData;
count = newCount;
}
// No parameters needed here, I guess
void Init()
{
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
data[i] = 0;
}
};
As for your question, I'm not really sure, what you are trying to achieve and what do you want to know. If you want to write a generic class holding any type of arrays, you have to use templates:
template <typename T>
class InitLine
{
private:
T * data;
int count;
public:
InitLine(T * newData, int newCount)
{
// Possible error checking?
data = newData;
count = newCount;
}
// No parameters needed here, I guess
void Init()
{
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
data[i] = 0;
}
};
You have to use this class in the following way:
InitLine<char> line(myData, myDataSize);
// where myData is a char * and myDataSize is an int
If you want to write a few methods differing by their parameters, this technique is called method overloading and is available in C++:
void Init(char * a, int b) { /* sth */ }
void Init(int * a, int b) { /* sth */ }
Note, that compiler must be able to clearly distinguish, which method should be called. Eg.
void Test(int a) { }
void Test(char a) { }
Test(0); // Ambiguity: which method should be called?
These are only things coming to my mind, while reading your question. If it is not what you are asking for, consider editing the question to be more specific.
If you just want to have the whole class with different types (not just the Init), e.g. also have int *a; int b,c; then template classes are the other trick you don't know yet.
template <typename ANYTYPE> class InitLine
{
private:
ANYTYPE *a;
ANYTYPE b, c;
public:
void InitLine(ANYTYPE *inita, ANYTYPE initc);
void Init(ANYTYPE *a, ANYTYPE c);
};
template <typename ANYTYPE> void Initline<ANYTYPE>::Init(ANYTYPE *a, ANYTYPE c)
{
for (int b=0; b<c; b++)
*(a+c)=0;
}
... main()
{
Initline<int> iline; // initline class based on type int (ANYTYPE -> int)
int line[20];
Initline<char> cline; // initline class based on type char (ANYTYPE -> char)
char somechars[30];
iline.Init(line, 20);
cline.Init(somechars, 30);
Related
I am writing a C++ class that will contain an array of structures.
typedef struct
{
int a;
int b;
std:string c;
} MyElementType;
class MyClass
{
private:
MyElementType myElement1;
std::vector <MyElementType> myElementVector1;
public:
MyElementType myElement2;
std::vector <MyElementType> myElementVector2;
MyClass();
~MyClass();
void addMyElement1 (int, int, std::string);
// Other methods.
};
I need to insert objects of type MyElementType into the vector From main.
I can insert elements into the vector myElementVector2 like this:
int main ()
{
MyClass myClassObj;
myClassObj.myElement2.a = 2;
myClassObj.myElement2.b = 20;
myClassObj.myElement2.c = "text2";
myClassObj. myElementVector2.push_back(myClassObj.myElement2);
}
To do the same with myElementVector1 I must call the public method defined in the MyClass class:
myClassObj.addMyElement1 (1, 10, "text1");
Having defined the addMyElement1 method like so:
void MyClass::addMyElement1 (int la, int lb, std::string lc)
{
MyElementType lmyElement1;
lmyElement1.a = la;
lmyElement1.b = lb;
lmyElement1.c = lc;
myElementVector1.push_back(lmyElement1);
};
This example is very simple, but in the real program the MyElementType structure has more than twenty fields and some of them are a vector instead of a simple data type. Something similar to this:
typedef struct
{
int ID;
std:string NAME;
} MyElementType2;
typedef struct
{
int a;
int b;
std:string c;
vector <MyElementType2> v;
} MyElementType;
To insert objects into myElementVector2 you would need a public function that receives all these parameters, creates myElement1 and inserts it into myElementVector1
It could be something like this, but I don't know how to pass the parameter with the vector v (which will contain several objects of type MyElementType2) and have all that added to myElementVector1
void MyClass::addMyElement1 (int la, int lb, std::string lc, ¿ VECTOR_PARAM ?)
{
MyElementType myElement1;
myElement1.a = la;
myElement1.b = lb;
myElement1.c = lc;
¿ myElement1.v = VECTOR_PARAM; ?
myElementVector1.push_back(myElement1);
};
Any suggestions or help are appreciated as I haven't found any information on this.
I have a chicken and the egg problem. I want to pass a data struct to a routine which contains a pointer to a routine who needs the struct.
I made a very simple example.
I need to use the CalcDataStruct before it's defined, if I add it after the struct, the FuntctionPrototype is not defined.
The problem i run against is only in the first 2 lines, the rest may contain a few syntax errors because I have not checked this inside the compiler.
typedef void(*FunctionPrototype)(CalcDataStruct *Ptr);
struct CalcDataStruct
{
int A, B, C, D;
int Values;
char SignA, Sign B;
int Result;
FunctionPrototype Routine;
}
struct ScanStruct
{
char Sign;
int Values;
FunctionPrototype Routine;
};
const ScanStruct ExampleList[] =
{
{ '+', 2, AddTwo },
{ '+', 3, AddThree }
};
void AddTwo(CalcDataStruct *Ptr)
{
// use the data and if needed put it back
}
void AddThree(CalcDataStruct *Ptr)
{
// use the data and if needed put it back
}
void GetFunction(CalcDataStuct *Ptr, ScanStruct *List)
{
// Very simple return based on nothing
Ptr->Routine = *List[(1)].Routine;
}
void main()
{
CalcDataStruct A;
// struct is filled
// Fill in the routine pointer based on data
GetFunction(A, ExampleList)
// Execute the routine fetched with all the data
A->Routine(A)
}
You need to add a forward declaration (see below).
struct CalcDataStruct; will just declare that struct CalcDataStruct exists, so the typedef void(*FunctionPrototype)(CalcDataStruct *Ptr); declaration will succeed because now the compiler knows that struct CalcDataStruct exists but without knowing the details of the struct, which doesn't matter because all the FunctionPrototype declaration needs is to know that the parameter is a pointer to struct CalcDataStruct.
struct CalcDataStruct; // <<< add this
typedef void(*FunctionPrototype)(CalcDataStruct *Ptr);
struct CalcDataStruct
{
int A, B, C, D;
int Values;
char SignA, Sign B;
int Result;
FunctionPrototype Routine;
}
I have a class with a multidimensional array:
it is possible to create a one, two, ..., n dimensional array with this class
if the array has n dimensions, i want to use n operator[] to get an object:
example:
A a({2,2,2,2}];
a[0][1][1][0] = 5;
but array is not a vector of pointer which lead to other vectors etc...
so i want the operator[] to return a class object until the last dimension, then return a integer
This is a strongly simplified code, but it shows my problem:
The error i receive: "[Error] cannot convert 'A::B' to 'int' in initialization"
#include <cstddef> // nullptr_t, ptrdiff_t, size_t
#include <iostream> // cin, cout...
class A {
private:
static int* a;
public:
static int dimensions;
A(int i=0) {
dimensions = i;
a = new int[5];
for(int j=0; j<5; j++) a[j]=j;
};
class B{
public:
B operator[](std::ptrdiff_t);
};
class C: public B{
public:
int& operator[](std::ptrdiff_t);
};
B operator[](std::ptrdiff_t);
};
//int A::count = 0;
A::B A::operator[] (std::ptrdiff_t i) {
B res;
if (dimensions <= 1){
res = C();
}
else{
res = B();
}
dimensions--;
return res;
}
A::B A::B::operator[] (std::ptrdiff_t i){
B res;
if (dimensions <=1){
res = B();
}
else{
res = C();
}
dimensions--;
return res;
}
int& A::C::operator[](std::ptrdiff_t i){
return *(a+i);
}
int main(){
A* obj = new A(5);
int res = obj[1][1][1][1][1];
std::cout<< res << std::endl;
}
The operator[] is evaluated from left to right in obj[1][1]...[1], so obj[1] returns a B object. Suppose now you just have int res = obj[1], then you'll assign to a B object (or C object in the case of multiple invocations of []) an int, but there is no conversion from B or C to int. You probably need to write a conversion operator, like
operator int()
{
// convert to int here
}
for A, B and C, as overloaded operators are not inherited.
I got rid of your compiling error just by writing such operators for A and B (of course I have linking errors since there are un-defined functions).
Also, note that if you want to write something like obj[1][1]...[1] = 10, you need to overload operator=, as again there is no implicit conversion from int to A or your proxy objects.
Hope this makes sense.
PS: see also #Oncaphillis' comment!
vsoftco is totally right, you need to implement an overload operator if you want to actually access your elements. This is necessary if you want it to be dynamic, which is how you describe it. I actually thought this was an interesting problem, so I implemented what you described as a template. I think it works, but a few things might be slightly off. Here's the code:
template<typename T>
class nDimArray {
using thisT = nDimArray<T>;
T m_value;
std::vector<thisT*> m_children;
public:
nDimArray(std::vector<T> sizes) {
assert(sizes.size() != 0);
int thisSize = sizes[sizes.size() - 1];
sizes.pop_back();
m_children.resize(thisSize);
if(sizes.size() == 0) {
//initialize elements
for(auto &c : m_children) {
c = new nDimArray(T(0));
}
} else {
//initialize children
for(auto &c : m_children) {
c = new nDimArray(sizes);
}
}
}
~nDimArray() {
for(auto &c : m_children) {
delete c;
}
}
nDimArray<T> &operator[](const unsigned int index) {
assert(!isElement());
assert(index < m_children.size());
return *m_children[index];
}
//icky dynamic cast operators
operator T() {
assert(isElement());
return m_value;
}
T &operator=(T value) {
assert(isElement());
m_value = value;
return m_value;
}
private:
nDimArray(T value) {
m_value = value;
}
bool isElement() const {
return m_children.size() == 0;
}
//no implementation yet
nDimArray(const nDimArray&);
nDimArray&operator=(const nDimArray&);
};
The basic idea is that this class can either act as an array of arrays, or an element. That means that in fact an array of arrays COULD be an array of elements! When you want to get a value, it tries to cast it to an element, and if that doesn't work, it just throws an assertion error.
Hopefully it makes sense, and of course if you have any questions ask away! In fact, I hope you do ask because the scope of the problem you describe is greater than you probably think it is.
It could be fun to use a Russian-doll style template class for this.
// general template where 'd' indicates the number of dimensions of the container
// and 'n' indicates the length of each dimension
// with a bit more template magic, we could probably support each
// dimension being able to have it's own size
template<size_t d, size_t n>
class foo
{
private:
foo<d-1, n> data[n];
public:
foo<d-1, n>& operator[](std::ptrdiff_t x)
{
return data[x];
}
};
// a specialization for one dimension. n can still specify the length
template<size_t n>
class foo<1, n>
{
private:
int data[n];
public:
int& operator[](std::ptrdiff_t x)
{
return data[x];
}
};
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
foo<3, 10> myFoo;
for(int i=0; i<10; ++i)
for(int j=0; j<10; ++j)
for(int k=0; k<10; ++k)
myFoo[i][j][k] = i*10000 + j*100 + k;
return myFoo[9][9][9]; // would be 090909 in this case
}
Each dimension keeps an array of previous-dimension elements. Dimension 1 uses the base specialization that tracks a 1D int array. Dimension 2 would then keep an array of one-dimentional arrays, D3 would have an array of two-dimensional arrays, etc. Then access looks the same as native multi-dimensional arrays. I'm using arrays inside the class in my example. This makes all the memory contiguous for the n-dimensional arrays, and doesn't require dynamic allocations inside the class. However, you could provide the same functionality with dynamic allocation as well.
I need to create a function that has a parameter which is a multi-dimensional array with two dimensions being user-specified, e.g.
int function(int a, int b, int array[a][b])
{
...
}
How would I do that in C++ ?
Are the dimensions known at compile-time? In that case, turn them into template parameters and pass the array by reference:
template<int a, int b>
int function(int(&array)[a][b])
{
...
}
Example client code:
int x[3][7];
function(x);
int y[6][2];
function(y);
Assuming the dimensions are not known at compile time, you emulate a two dimensional array with a one dimensional array:
int& getat(int x, int y, int r, int c, int *array) {return array[y*c+x];}
int function(int a, int b, int *array) {
getat(4, 2, a, b, array) = 32; //array[4,2] = 32
}
or, for safety, wrap it all in a class:
template <class T>
class array2d {
std::vector<T> data;
unsigned cols, rows;
public:
array2d() : data(), cols(0), rows(0) {}
array2d(unsigned c, unsigned r) : data(c*r), cols(c), rows(r) {}
T& operator()(unsigned c, unsigned r) {
assert(c<cols&&r<rows);
return data[r*cols+c];
}
};
or, best yet, use Boost's Multidimensional Array, which will be better than anything mere mortals could write.
I'm not sure if this work, because your question and code are not the same, according to your code the function can have 3 parameters, so this would work:
int function(int a, int b, int** &array)
{
array = new int*[a];
for (int i =0;i<a;i++)
array[i] = new int[b];
// I don't know why you are returning int, probably doing something here....
}
However your question says that your function can take only one parameter, so:
if the dimensions are known at compile time, then Fred's Answer is the best (it charmed me in fact! :) ).
if not, I can't see any possible solution that allows passing more than one user-specified value other than encapsulating all these values in one object.
Like this:
class Foo {
public:
Foo(int d1, int d2)
{ a = d1; b = d2; }
int a,b;
int** array;
};
int function(Foo &f)
{
f.array = new int*[f.a];
for (int i = 0;i<f.a;i++)
f.array[i] = new int[f.b];
// I don't know why you are returning int, probably doing something here....
}
Though I find it a bad idea, in fact the function could be a parameterless method instead:
class Foo {
public:
Foo(int d1, int d2)
{ a = d1; b = d2; }
void Create() // Or could do this right in the Constructor
{
array = new int*[a];
for (int i = 0;i<a;i++)
array[i] = new int[b];
}
private:
int a,b;
int** array;
};
Still this is a bad idea, because you are reinventing the wheel, as there are a perfect class in the STL to do all the work for you:
vector< vector<int> > v; // Now v is a 2D array
I have the following class in C++:
class a {
const int b[2];
// other stuff follows
// and here's the constructor
a(void);
}
The question is, how do I initialize b in the initialization list, given that I can't initialize it inside the body of the function of the constructor, because b is const?
This doesn't work:
a::a(void) :
b([2,3])
{
// other initialization stuff
}
Edit: The case in point is when I can have different values for b for different instances, but the values are known to be constant for the lifetime of the instance.
With C++11 the answer to this question has now changed and you can in fact do:
struct a {
const int b[2];
// other bits follow
// and here's the constructor
a();
};
a::a() :
b{2,3}
{
// other constructor work
}
int main() {
a a;
}
Like the others said, ISO C++ doesn't support that. But you can workaround it. Just use std::vector instead.
int* a = new int[N];
// fill a
class C {
const std::vector<int> v;
public:
C():v(a, a+N) {}
};
It is not possible in the current standard. I believe you'll be able to do this in C++0x using initializer lists (see A Brief Look at C++0x, by Bjarne Stroustrup, for more information about initializer lists and other nice C++0x features).
std::vector uses the heap. Geez, what a waste that would be just for the sake of a const sanity-check. The point of std::vector is dynamic growth at run-time, not any old syntax checking that should be done at compile-time. If you're not going to grow then create a class to wrap a normal array.
#include <stdio.h>
template <class Type, size_t MaxLength>
class ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller {
private:
size_t length;
public:
ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller() : length(0) {
}
virtual ~ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller() {
}
virtual void Fill(Type *array) = 0;
protected:
void add_element(Type *array, const Type & element)
{
if(length >= MaxLength) {
// todo: throw more appropriate out-of-bounds exception
throw 0;
}
array[length] = element;
length++;
}
};
template <class Type, size_t Length>
class ConstFixedSizeArray {
private:
Type array[Length];
public:
explicit ConstFixedSizeArray(
ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller<Type, Length> & filler
) {
filler.Fill(array);
}
const Type *Array() const {
return array;
}
size_t ArrayLength() const {
return Length;
}
};
class a {
private:
class b_filler : public ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller<int, 2> {
public:
virtual ~b_filler() {
}
virtual void Fill(int *array) {
add_element(array, 87);
add_element(array, 96);
}
};
const ConstFixedSizeArray<int, 2> b;
public:
a(void) : b(b_filler()) {
}
void print_items() {
size_t i;
for(i = 0; i < b.ArrayLength(); i++)
{
printf("%d\n", b.Array()[i]);
}
}
};
int main()
{
a x;
x.print_items();
return 0;
}
ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller and ConstFixedSizeArray are reusable.
The first allows run-time bounds checking while initializing the array (same as a vector might), which can later become const after this initialization.
The second allows the array to be allocated inside another object, which could be on the heap or simply the stack if that's where the object is. There's no waste of time allocating from the heap. It also performs compile-time const checking on the array.
b_filler is a tiny private class to provide the initialization values. The size of the array is checked at compile-time with the template arguments, so there's no chance of going out of bounds.
I'm sure there are more exotic ways to modify this. This is an initial stab. I think you can pretty much make up for any of the compiler's shortcoming with classes.
ISO standard C++ doesn't let you do this. If it did, the syntax would probably be:
a::a(void) :
b({2,3})
{
// other initialization stuff
}
Or something along those lines. From your question it actually sounds like what you want is a constant class (aka static) member that is the array. C++ does let you do this. Like so:
#include <iostream>
class A
{
public:
A();
static const int a[2];
};
const int A::a[2] = {0, 1};
A::A()
{
}
int main (int argc, char * const argv[])
{
std::cout << "A::a => " << A::a[0] << ", " << A::a[1] << "\n";
return 0;
}
The output being:
A::a => 0, 1
Now of course since this is a static class member it is the same for every instance of class A. If that is not what you want, ie you want each instance of A to have different element values in the array a then you're making the mistake of trying to make the array const to begin with. You should just be doing this:
#include <iostream>
class A
{
public:
A();
int a[2];
};
A::A()
{
a[0] = 9; // or some calculation
a[1] = 10; // or some calculation
}
int main (int argc, char * const argv[])
{
A v;
std::cout << "v.a => " << v.a[0] << ", " << v.a[1] << "\n";
return 0;
}
Where I've a constant array, it's always been done as static. If you can accept that, this code should compile and run.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
class a {
static const int b[2];
public:
a(void) {
for(int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
printf("b[%d] = [%d]\n", i, b[i]);
}
}
};
const int a::b[2] = { 4, 2 };
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
a foo;
return 0;
}
You can't do that from the initialization list,
Have a look at this:
http://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/initialization-lists-c++.html
:)
A solution without using the heap with std::vector is to use boost::array, though you can't initialize array members directly in the constructor.
#include <boost/array.hpp>
const boost::array<int, 2> aa={ { 2, 3} };
class A {
const boost::array<int, 2> b;
A():b(aa){};
};
How about emulating a const array via an accessor function? It's non-static (as you requested), and it doesn't require stl or any other library:
class a {
int privateB[2];
public:
a(int b0,b1) { privateB[0]=b0; privateB[1]=b1; }
int b(const int idx) { return privateB[idx]; }
}
Because a::privateB is private, it is effectively constant outside a::, and you can access it similar to an array, e.g.
a aobj(2,3); // initialize "constant array" b[]
n = aobj.b(1); // read b[1] (write impossible from here)
If you are willing to use a pair of classes, you could additionally protect privateB from member functions. This could be done by inheriting a; but I think I prefer John Harrison's comp.lang.c++ post using a const class.
interestingly, in C# you have the keyword const that translates to C++'s static const, as opposed to readonly which can be only set at constructors and initializations, even by non-constants, ex:
readonly DateTime a = DateTime.Now;
I agree, if you have a const pre-defined array you might as well make it static.
At that point you can use this interesting syntax:
//in header file
class a{
static const int SIZE;
static const char array[][10];
};
//in cpp file:
const int a::SIZE = 5;
const char array[SIZE][10] = {"hello", "cruel","world","goodbye", "!"};
however, I did not find a way around the constant '10'. The reason is clear though, it needs it to know how to perform accessing to the array. A possible alternative is to use #define, but I dislike that method and I #undef at the end of the header, with a comment to edit there at CPP as well in case if a change.