is it possible to dynamically allocate a vector without specifying its Type ?
im creating a container class which should support all the numeric types
it must creat a container vector which type will be specified later when the first number is pushed into it .
first of all is this code correct ?
private :
vector<int> stk ;
public :
template <typename Typ>
void push (Typ input)
{
vector<Typ> temp ;
stk = temp ;
}
second : i somehow need to dynamically allocate the "stk" vector without specifying the type .
If this is C++ code, then templates are specialized at compile time. You cannot delay the allocation of a vector -- or any other template class instance -- to runtime.
A workaround would be to customize your own numeric class hierarchy with base class, say CNumeric, and allocate a vector of CNumeric*. Then the vector can accommodate any numeric type in your own class hierarchy. But of course, this workaround can be very inefficient.
You haven't explained the problem correctly or you haven't understood what you really need.
If I understand correctly this is what you are looking for.
template<typename Typ>
class A {
private :
vector<Typ> stk ;
public :
void push (Typ input)
{
stk.push_back(input) ;
}
}
Usually you don't need to change the type of things at runtime (and you can't in C++). Typically you want to change the design of your program.
If you really want to do this, you could use a union type that can hold one of a different number of things like here:
union A {
int i;
float f;
double d;
};
and then store a vector of A.
Related
I've been working on a project for the past few days that involves three linked lists.
Here is an example of the header with the nodes and the lists themselves:
class nodeA
{
int data1;
double data2;
nodeA* next;
}
class listA
{
nodeA* headA;
...
}
class nodeB
{
int data3;
double data4;
nodeB* nextB;
}
class listB
{
nodeB* headB;
...
}
class nodeC
{
int data5;
double data6;
nodeC* nextC;
}
class listC
{
nodeC* headC;
...
}
What i'd like to know is how can i save the lists that i declare in my main so that if i close the program and then open it again i can recover the lists data
So lista_vendas::novaVenda needs to call lista_produto::escolheProduto.
To call lista_produto::escolheProduto you need a lista_produto object. Where are you going to get that lista_produto object from?
There's really only three ways this can be done. I don't know which way is the correct way for you, but I'll list them and you can decide.
1) Have a lista_produto global variable, a global list of products. Then lista_vendas::novaVenda can use the global lista_produto to call lista_produto::escolheProduto. This is the simple solution, but global variables are rightly considered bad style. It also means that you program can only have one list of products, is that a problem? Think carefully before trying this solution.
2) Have a lista_produto as a member variable of lista_vendas or no_vendas. I guessing here but perhaps something like this
class no_vendas
{
public:
unsigned int codigoVenda, dia, mes, ano, numeroItens;
double precoTotal;
lista_produto productList; // list of products
no_vendas* proxi; //referencia para o proximo no
};
Now each vendor has a list of products, which makes sense. So lista_vendas::novaVenda now has access to a lista_produto in each no_vendas and it can use that to call lista_produto::escolheProduto. If this makes sense then this is problably the best solution.
3) Pass a lista_produto as a parameter to lista_vendas::novaVenda. Like this
void novaVenda(unsigned int codigoVenda, lista_produto* productList);
So whatever code calls lista_vendas::novaVenda must also supply the lista_produto that it needs.
As I said I don't know which of these possibilities is correct, because I don't know what you are trying to do (and I don't speak Spanish). But this is a problem in the relationships between your different objects. It's up to you to design your classes so that they can access the different objects that they need to work.
You mentioned inheritance in your title, but this doesn't feel like the right thing to do in this case.
This won't help you with your concrete problem at hand but I think you should use standard containers like std::vector<>. Implementing your own linked list is a nice finger exercise but seldom really necessary. That said, you should use std::vector<no_produto> instead of lista_produto:
#include <vector>
std::vector<no_produto> my_lista_produto;
// fill the vector:
my_lista_produto.push_back(my_no_produto_1);
my_lista_produto.push_back(my_no_produto_2);
// ...
// retrieve one item:
const no_produto &p = my_lista_produto[1];
// clear all items:
my_lista_produto.clear();
A complete list of all available methods can be found here.
Concerning your question: The question title mentions inheritance but there isn't any inheritance used in your example. In order to derive class B from class A you have to write
class A {
public:
void func();
};
class B : public A {
public:
void gunc();
};
This means essentially, B can be treated as an A. B contains the content of A and exposes the public interface of A by itself. Thus we can write:
void B::gunc() {
func();
}
even though B never defines the method func(), it inherited the method from A. I suspect, that you didn't inherit your classes properly from each other.
In addition to my initial thoughts about writing you own linked lists, please consider also composition instead of inheritance. You can find more information about the topic at Wikipedia or on Stack Overflow.
I'm trying to determine what pattern(s) may be used to declare a C++ class in a more "compositional" and less "imperative" way.
I'm trying to write a class that includes multiple MyDescriptor members. The MyDescriptor needs to be initialized by the MyHost classes constructor and it iterates over references to the MyHost members to do this.
Is there a way to declare MyHost implementations that don't require adding class members references to a container separately?
class MyDescriptor {
public:
string name;
string fqn;
MyHost(string n) : name(n) {}
void init(string host) {
fqn = host + ":" + name;
}
void do_thing() {
// subclasses to special things.
}
}
class MyHost {
public:
vector<MyDescriptor*> descriptors;
string name
MyHost(string n, vector<MyDescriptor*> d) : name(n),descriptors(d) {
for (MyDescriptor *d : descriptors) {
d->init(name);
}
}
}
MyHostImpl : public MyHost {
public:
// descriptors must be accessible as members like this
MyDescriptor d_1 = MyDescriptor("abc");
MyDescriptor d_2 = MyDescriptor("123");
MyHostImpl(string n) : MyHost(n, {&d_1, &d_2}) {} // This is the issue
void do_thing_1() {
// UPDATE: This is loose example - but what is important to
// know is that developers need to access / use descriptors
// in methods like this.
d_1.do_thing();
}
}
I'd ideally like a way to stop declaring the descriptors items explicitly; this {&d_1, &d_2} is what I'd like to eliminate. My team uses a similar pattern and are constantly frustrated by accidentally not adding to descriptors to the vector after adding it to the class.
Invert the ctor semantics. Instead of host ctor accepting descriptor pointers, Have descriptor's ctor take a host reference and add itself to to the host vector:
MyDescriptor::MyDescriptor(MyDescriptor const&)=delete;
auto& MyDescriptor::operator=(MyDescriptor const&)=delete;
MyDescriptor::MyDescriptor(string n, MyHost& h): name{n},fqn{n+":"+h.get_name()}
{
h.add(this);
};
MyHost::MyHost(string n):name{n}{};
void MyHost::add(MyDescriptor* d){
descriptors.push_back(d);
};
auto& MyHost::get_name()const{
return name;
};
This way you can not forget to add descriptors to the host or the compiler cries.
MyHostImpl::MyHostImpl(string n):
MyHost{n},
d_1{"abc",*this},/*compiler kills you if you forget this line*/
d_2{"123",*this}/*compiler kills you if you forget this line*/
{};
Yes, there is a a way to do directly what you're asking for, in C++14 at least, but it involves a bunch of dark voodoo. In this Meeting C++ 2018 talk:
Better C++14 reflections - Antony Polukhin
Antony explains how is able to iterate over all members of a struct with access to their types. He uses it to print values on some output stream, but you could use the same method to push back addresses into a std::vector<MyDescriptor*>.
Having said that - I think you should just avoid this pattern. Just create a vector of MyDescriptors to begin with, and work with a reference to that. Why use a vector of pointers that requires so much contortion to produce?
I'm not sure how you'd imagine that would work. C++ has no reflection, so there's no way for you to iterate over it's class members and check their type. So, sorry, not possible for all I know. You could of course use some workarounds, such as simply using the underlying base vector directly instead of declaring the two descriptors as member variables (is there any reason you need that?) and then implicitly pass them in the Base constructor, but what you're aiming for is not possible.
Edit: Apparently it's possible with some dark voodoo magic, refer to the comment below.
I have 2 issues in a template class I'm building. I've included example code below. First question is whether I can coerce the auto type deducted for a templated class. i.e.:
auto p = myvar;
where myvar is T<...>, could I force auto to detect Q<...>? This is simplified. Read on for a more clear explanation.
Edited for clarity: Let me explain what I'm doing. And I'd also like to indicate that this style code is working on a large-scale project perfectly well. I am trying to add some features and functions and in addition to smooth out some of the more awkward behaviors.
The code uses templates to perform work on n-dimensional arrays. The template has a top-level class, and a storage class underneath. Passing the storage class into the top level class allows for a top level class which inherits the storage class. So I start with NDimVar, and I have NDimStor. I end up with
NDimVar<NDimStor>
The class contains NO DATA except for the buffer of data:
class NDimStor<size_t... dimensions> {
int buffer[Size<dimensions...>()]
}
This makes the address of the class == the address of the buffer. This is key to the whole implementation. Is this an incorrect assumption? (I can see this works on my system without any issues, but perhaps this isn't always the case.)
When I create NDimVar<NDimStor<10,10>> I end up with a 10x10 array.
I have functions for getting pieces of the array, for example:
NDimVar<NDimStor<dimensions...>>::RemoveDim & get(int index);
This creates a new 1d array of 10 elements out of the 2d 10x10 array:
NDimVar<NdimStor<10>>
In order to return this as a reference, I use a reinterpret_cast at the location of the data I want. So in this example, get(3) would perform:
return reinterpret_cast<NDimVar≤NDimStor<dimensions...>>::RemoveDim&>(buffer[index * DimensionSumBelow<0>()]);
DimensionSumBelow<0> returns the sum of elements at dimensions 1+, i.e. 10. So &buffer[30] is the address of the referenced 1d NDimVar.
All of this works very well.
The only issue I have is that I would like to add on overlays. For example, be able to return a reference to a new class:
NDimVar<NDimPermute<NDimStor<10,10>,1,0>>
that points to the same original location along with a permutation behavior (swapping dimensions). This also works well. But I would like for:
auto p = myvar.Permute<1,0>()
to create a new copy of myvar with permuted data. This would work if I said:
NDimVar<NDimStor<10,10>> p = myvar.Permute<1,0>().
I feel that there is some auto type deduction stuff I could do in order to coerce the auto type returned, but I'm not sure. I haven't been able to figure it out.
Thanks again,
Nachum
What I want is:
1. Create temporary overlay classes on my storage, e.g. A_top<A_storage> can return a type called A_top<A_overlay<A_storage>> without creating a new object, it just returns a reference to this type. This changes the way the storage is accessed. The problem is upon a call to auto. I don't want this type to be instantiated directly. Can I modify the return to auto to be an original A_top?
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class A_storage {
public:
float arr[10];
A_storage () {
}
float & el (int index) {
return arr[index];
}
};
template <typename T> class A_overlay : T {
private:
A_overlay () {
cout << "A_overlay ()" << endl;
}
A_overlay (const A_overlay &) {
cout << "A_overlay (&)" << endl;
}
public:
using T::arr;
float & el (int index) {
return arr[10 - index];
}
};
template <typename T> class A_top;
template <typename T> class A_top : public T {
public:
A_top () {
}
A_top<A_overlay<A_storage>> & get () {
return reinterpret_cast<A_top<A_overlay<A_storage>>&>(*this);
}
};
using A = A_top<A_storage>;
int main (void) {
A a;
auto c = a.get(); // illegal - can i auto type deduce to A_top<A_storage>?
return 0;
}
If a function accepts (A_top<A_storage> &) as a parameter, how can I create a conversion function that can cast A_top<A_overlay<A_storage>>& to A_top<A_storage>& ?
Thanks,
Nachum
First, your design doesn't look right to me, and I'm not sure if the behaviour is actually well-defined or not. (Probably not.)
In any case, the problem is not with auto. The error is caused by the fact that the copy constructor of A_overlay is private, while you need it to copy A_top<A_overlay<A_storage>> returned by a.get() to auto c.
(Note that the auto in this case obviously gets deduced to A_top<A_overlay<A_storage>>, I assume you made a typo when said that it's A_top<A_storage>.)
Also note that A_storage in A_top::get() should be replaced with T, even if it doesn't change anything in your snippet because you only have T == A_storage.
If a function accepts (A_top &) as a parameter, how can I create a conversion function that can cast A_top> to A_top& ?
Ehm, isn't it just this:
return reinterpret_cast<A_top<A_storage>&>(obj);
reinterpret_cast should almost never be used. It essentially remove any compiler validation that the types are related. And doing unrelated cast is essentially undefined behavior as it essentially assume that derived classes are always at offset 0...
It does not make any sense to write such code. It is not maintainable and hard to understand what you are trying to achieve. It look like you want to pretend that your A_top<A_storage> object is a A_top<A_overlay<A_storage>> object instead. If this is what you want to do, then declare A alias as that type.
In your code, it look like you want to invert the indexing so that item at position 10 is returned when you ask item at position 0 and vice versa. Do you really think, that it is obvious from your obfuscated code? Never write such bad code.
Something like
class A_overlay {
public:
float & el (int index) { return arr[10 - index]; }
private:
A_storage arr;
};
would make much more sense than your current code.
No cast needed.
Easy to understand.
Well defined behavior.
You might keep your job.
And obviously, you would update the following line as appropriate:
using A = A_top<A_storage>;
Also, if A_top has no useful purpose, then why not using A_overlay directly? And why are you using template if A_storage is not a template? Do you really want to reuse such mess elsewhere in your code base.
Obviously, your code inheritance does not respect IS-A relationship if your write such code. So it is clearly a bad design!
I know that has been asked a lot, I googled but couldn't put everything together. Maybe because it is not possible to do, what I want?
I have
struct Universe
{
}
and
struct Atom: Universe
{
}
struct Molecule: Universe
{
}
Universe U;
Atom A;
Molecule M;
_atoms = vector<Universe*>(3);
_atoms.push_back(&U);
_atoms.push_back(dynamic_cast<Universe*>(&A));
_atoms.push_back(dynamic_cast<Universe*>(&M));
auto THIS_IS_ATOM = _atoms[1];
This code is most likely wrong in many ways. But my idea was to store different derived structs like this, and later access them from array or list, without any dataloss or class truncating. I wanted to get some element from array, like _atoms[1], and be able to know what type this struc is (Universe, or Atom) and e.t.c
How should I do it properly in C++?
Your code has several problems.
Universe needs a virtual destructor.
You must create your instances on the heap.
You are using the wrong std::vector constructor.
Here is a solution that should work:
struct Universe {
virtual ~Universe() {} // otherwise Atom and Molecule will not be deleted properly
}
struct Atom : Universe {
}
struct Molecule : Universe {
}
std::vector<Universe*> _atoms; // you don't need to pass anything in the constructor
_atoms.reserve(3); // but if you want to make sure that the vector has exactly a capacity of 3, use this
_atoms.push_back(new Universe());
_atoms.push_back(new Atom());
_atoms.push_back(new Molecule());
auto this_is_atom = _atoms[1]; // will actually be equivalent to
Universe* this_is_atom = _atoms[1];
// finally you must delete all the instances which you created on the heap
while (!_atoms.empty()) delete _atoms.back(), _atoms.pop_back();
Addendum: If you need to treat the objects in the vector non-polymorphically, you can cast them to the appropriate types with a static cast:
Atom* a = static_cast<Atom*>(_atoms[1]);
Edit: Instead of using a vector of raw pointers, it is advisable to use a vector of smart pointers instead, for example std::unique_ptr or std::shared_ptr, depending on the ownership semantics you are trying to model.
I've got way too much information to work with, so for now I'll consider this question answered until I can sort it all out and decide on the final implementation! Thanks a ton gf and Simon Buchan. I wish I could accept both of your answers, since they're both definite possibilities!
Additional / Revised Conceptual Information as suggested:
What I am aiming to do;
I am making a game. In this game every object used is an instance of the DOBJ class. The TUR class extends the DOBJ class. The SHO class extends the TUR class.
Each TUR class has an array of SHO's stored in it's SHOARR array. Each SHO instance needs to be given a set of instructions.
I know for a fact I could make 1000's of different SHO classes that have their instructions set during construction.
However, considering I will have so many different acting SHO instances, I was interested in another way to pass a set of instructions. Through the contruction of the SHO would be the ideal.
The instructions I am attempting to pass to each SHO are simple if statements;
if(frame > 64) { rotation += 4; };
if(state == 0 && frame < 32) { xs = 12; ys = 12; state = 1; };
Original question
Migration from ActionScript3.0 to C++ is proving to be a trial indeed. Thanks to those who have answered my questions thus far and also to those who opened stackoverflow in the first place. Onto the question... (TL;DR near the bottom to get straight to the question)
I'm attempting to apply the same logic that I could apply in AS3.0 to my project in C++ and it's just not going very well.
In AS3.0 I was used to slapping any and every datatype into an Array. It made things pretty simple. Now that I've run into C++ dev, I realized that I can't exactly do that anymore.
So now I'm stuck with this problem of rewriting a little AI system in a new language, where the driving point of the system isn't even compatible!
Here's an example of a piece of the code I was writing in AS3.0;
AI[NUM][1]( OBJ, AI[NUM][2], AI[NUM][3] );
AI being an array, NUM being an integer, OBJ being an instance of a class.
This line obviously called the function in the second element of the first array in the main array with the arguments being a class in which to perform the function on, whatever was in the third element of the first array of the main array, and likewise the fourth element.
In this case;
AI[NUM][1] would be a function
AI[NUM][2] would be a variable
AI[NUM][3] would be a number
Generally, my AI was run on calling a function to change or compare the variable with a number.
An example would be;
CompareST( someObject, "x", 500 );
and return true if someObject's x variable was smaller than (ST) 500.
The AI array itself was just filled with arrays of calls similar to this.
Quite new to C++ I had no idea how to go about this, so I did a bit of searching and reading of many different websites and came to the conclusion that I should look into function pointers.
However, after reading a bit into them, I've come to the conclusion that it won't help me realize my goal. While it did help me call functions like I wanted to call them, it doesn't help me stack different datatypes into one large array of arrays.
TL;DR
EDIT++:
What I need for each object is a set of instructions to be checked every frame. However, for each instance of the class, the instructions have to be different.
I plan on having a LOT of different instances, so making a class for each one is unreasonable.
Thus, I needed a way to pass a set of instructions to each one through it's constructor and read + execute them at any time their think() function is called.
My ultimate goal (aside from finding out about a better way to go about this) would be to be able to have an array of function calls, like;
A[n][0]( O, A[n][1], A[n][2] );
Where;
O is the instance the function is altering
A[n][0] is a function (Equality or Comparison)
A[n][1] is the variable, eg; "x", O["x"] (or a pointer to that variable in the case of C++)
A[n][2] is the value to alter the variable by, or compare it to.
And I'm not sure how I would rewrite this into C++, or alter it to work in another way.
Aftermath / Additional Information
What I'm actually aiming to do is be able to give an object a set of instructions at the time of it's creation, through the constructor. For example upon creation give an object instructions to wait 64 frames, and then rotate in the opposite direction, would have been something like this;
t.AI = [ [ 1, AIF.CompareET, "STATE", 0, AIF.CompareGT, "FRAME", 64, 0, AIF.EqualityAT, "baseRotation", 180, AIF.EqualityET, "STATE", 1 ] ];
In pseudocode;
(The 1 in the array denotes how to read the rest of the array, in this case everything before the odd 0 [ The one that comes after 64 ] is a comparison. If any of those fail, anything after the 0 will not be looked at )
Compare STATE is equal to (ET) 0, if true
Compare FRAME is greather than (GT) 64, if true
Add 180 to (AT) baseRotation, Set STATE equal to 1
Sorry that this turned out really long. I hope it's understandable, and I'm not asking something stupidly difficult to explain.
You can store functions using function pointers or functors. Variant types though are not natively supported by C++, you have to use custom solutions there.
One possibility would be to use Boost.Any (or better, Boost.Variant if you only use a fixed set of types):
typedef void (*Function)(Object*, const std::string&, boost::any&);
std::vector<Function> functions;
Given some function:
void f(Object* obj, const std::string& name, boost::any& value) {
// ...
}
you could store and call it similar to your example:
functions.push_back(&f);
functions[0](obj, "x", boost::any(500));
To utilize a declarative syntax, there are three options that come to my mind:
you use a similar approach and have central "interpreter" function, e.g. based on a switch (don't forget to switch to integers or pointers-to-members instead of strings if you need performance)
you invent your own language and generate C++ code from description files
you compose function objects in a declarative way
To do composition, you could use Boost.Bind or something like custom objects that represent operations:
struct Operation {
virtual ~Operation() {}
virtual bool operator()(Object&) = 0;
};
template<class T>
struct GreaterThen : Operation {
typedef T Object::*Member;
Member member;
const T value;
CompareGT(Member member, const T& value) : member(member), value(value) {}
bool operator()(Object& obj) { return (obj.*member > value); }
};
template<class T>
struct SetTo : Operation {
typedef T Object::*member;
Member member;
const T value;
SetTo(Member member, const T& value) : member(member), value(value) {}
bool operator()(Object& obj) { obj.*member = value; return true; }
};
Now we can build operation lists:
typedef std::vector<Operation*> OpList;
OpList operation;
operations.push_back(new GreaterThen<int>(&Object::Frame, 64));
operations.push_back(new SetTo<int>(&Object::State, 1));
We can use helper functions to avoid having to specify the template types:
template<class T>
Operation* opGreaterThen(T Object::*mem, const T& val) {
return new GreaterThen<T>(mem, val);
}
Assuming a similar helper for SetTo and using Boost.Assign the above becomes:
OpList operations = boost::assign::list_of
(opGreaterThen(&Object::Frame, 64))
(opSetTo (&Object::State, 1));
Executing the operations becomes the following then:
OpList::iterator it = operation.begin();
for( ; it != operations.end(); ++it) {
Operation& op = *it; // just for readability
if(!op(someObject)) break; // stop if operation returns false
}
Wow.
Reading through that slowly suggests what you're trying to end up with is an array of function calls and you can choose a different function with the same parameters (but different implementation) for different actions and choose the correct one for the correct case.
If that is the case, you're looking for function pointers. Try this tutorial.
You should be able to use a function pointer with an argument set and point it to the correct function based on your needs. You won't need an array of function pointers for this either - any function that matches the definition should do. From the tutorial, declare a function pointer like this:
int (TMyClass::*functptr)(classname, int, int) = NULL; // C++
Then assign it later:
this.functptr = &TMyClass::doitthisway;
While it is possible (although a pain) to have an array of arbitrary types, you pretty much never need it, since you have to know something about what is where to do anything interesting with it: for example, your 'TL;DR' example seems to look something like:
struct AIRule {
// Can only handle comparing ints, see later for more general solution.
typedef bool compare_type(AIObject*, AIObject::*int, int);
compare_type* compare;
AIObject* object;
AIObject::int* member;
int comparand;
};
So now you can do something like:
bool ai_equal(AIObject* object, AIObject::int* member, int comparand) {
return object->*member == comparand;
}
...
ai[n].compare = &ai_equal;
ai[n].object = some_object;
ai[n].member = &AIObject::some_member;
ai[n].comparand = 50;
...
if (ai[n].compare(ai[n].object, ai[n].member, ai[n].comparand)) {
...
}
This just moves the any type problem from the rules array to member though. C++ needs to know at least how many bytes a member is, and a string (for example) can be much bigger than an int. You can get around this by using pointers: which essentially is C++'s version of any, but you then need to delete it yourself (or you will leak memory!), at which point the interface method below becomes simpler.
If I was doing what you seem to want, I would use inheritance:
struct Sprite {
int frame;
double rotation;
Sprite() {
frame = 0;
rotation = 0.0;
}
virtual ~Sprite() {}
virtual void think() {
++frame;
}
virtual void draw() {
...
}
};
struct RotatingSprite : public Sprite {
int state;
MyShape() {
state = 0;
}
void think() {
Sprite::think();
if (state == 0 && frame > 64) {
state = 1;
rotation += 180.0;
}
}
};
Or a function pointer:
struct Sprite {
int frame;
double rotation;
void (*think)(Sprite*);
Sprite() {
frame = 0;
rotation = 0.0;
}
};
void rotate_think(Sprite* sprite) {
if (sprite->state == 0 && sprite->frame > 64) {
sprite->state = 1;
sprite->rotation += 180.0;
}
}
...
sprite->think = &rotate_think;
If you really need to do it dynamically I would recommend using the ++ part of C++. For the predicates (a predicate is just something that returns a boolean, like isLowerCase()) create an AIPredicate interface, and the actions an AIAction interface:
struct AIPredicate {
// "When you delete an AIPredicate, delete the full type, not just this interface."
virtual ~AIPredicate() {}
// "You can treat this as a function (operator()) but I'm not providing an implementation here ( = 0)"
virtual bool operator()(AIObject* object) = 0;
};
struct AIAction {
virtual ~AIAction() {}
virtual void operator()(AIObject* object) = 0;
};
struct AIRule {
// std::auto_ptr (or std::unique_ptr if you can use C++0x) will delete predicate for you.
// Add "#include <memory>" to your includes if it complains (most std headers will include it already)
std::auto_ptr<AIPredicate> predicate;
std::auto_ptr<AIAction> action;
};
Now you can make types like:
struct AIFrame : public AIPredicate {
// Implement the operator() member AICondition promises.
bool operator()(AIObject* object) {
return object->foo < 100;
}
};
...
// Use .reset() instead of = if you use std::unique_ptr.
ai[n].predicate = new AIFooIsLow();
If you want to have a very general predicate type, you can use the very powerful (and complicated) templates feature:
// The naming convention I'm using here is 'T'TitleCase for template parameters, TitleCase for types,
// lower_case for arguments and variables and '_'lower_case for members.
template<typename TMemberType, AIObject::TMemberType* TMember>
struct AIMemberEquals : public AIPredicate {
// Constructor: Initializes a new instance after it is created.
AIMemberEquals(TMemberType comparand) {
// Save comparand argument so we can use it in operator().
_comparand = comparand;
}
bool operator()(AIObject* object) {
return object->*TMember == comparand;
}
// Stores the value to compare.
TMemberType _comparand;
};
Unfortunately, creating templates looks a bit crazy:
ai[n].predicate = new AIMemberEquals<int, &AIObject::some_member>(100);
Read it as "create a new instance of (the type that AIMemberEquals applied to int and (the some_member member of AIObject) creates), with the argument 100".
When you have multiple predicates memory management becomes a bit more difficult without C++0x's unique_ptr or shared_ptr, types that will delete the object for you, since std::auto_ptr doesn't work in containers:
#include <vector>
struct AIData {
// vector is fairly close to AS3's Array type, it is a good default for
// arrays of changing or unknown size.
std::vector<AIPredicate*> predicates;
// Destructor: will be run before the memory for this object is freed.
~AIData() {
for (int i = 0; i != predicates.size(); ++i) {
delete predicates[i];
}
}
};
...
ai[n].predicates.push_back(new AIFooIsLow());
...
for (int i = 0; i != ai[n].predicates.size(); ++i) {
(*ai[n].predicates[i])(ai[n].object);
}
In C++0x:
struct AIData {
// unique_ptr will delete it for you, so no ~AIData() needed.
std::vector<unique_ptr<AIPredicate>> predicates;
};
Your final example could in C++ look something like:
std::auto_ptr<Shape> shape(new Shape());
...
std::auto_ptr<AIRule> rule(new AIRule());
rule->predicates.push(new AIMemberEquals<int, &Shape::state>(0));
rule->predicates.push(new AIMemberGreater<int, &Shape::frame>(64));
rule->actions.push(new AIAddMember<double, &Shape::rotation>(180.0));
rule->actions.push(new AISetMember<int, &Shape::state>(1));
shape->ai.push(rule); // .push(std::move(rule)); if you are using unique_ptr
Certainly not as pretty, but it works and is fairly flexible.