I am very new to the boost libraries.
I was trying to accomplish something for a graphical program, by binding the callbacks passed
to glutDisplayFunc(), etc to a single class.
I wanted to accomplish this without having some constant global class object.
To explain in code:
class CallbackHolder {
public:
void dostuff(void) {
// etc.
}
};
void bind() {
glutIdleFunc((new CallbackHolder())->dostuff);
}
I know this is possible through the usage of boost::bind and boost::function.
One issue I did see however was converting the boost::function back to a normal function pointer.
How would you accomplish this?
You can't convert from boost::function to a normal function pointer, and you can't convert from a member function pointer to a normal function pointer. There are workarounds for functions accepting callback where you can provide user data.
Unfortunately the glut interface doesn't let you provide user data. This means you're stuck with the ugliest solution, using a global variable and a normal function.
class CallbackHolder {
public:
void dostuff(void) {
// etc.
}
};
CallbackHolder * g_callbackHolder = NULL;
void call_callback_holder(void) {
if(g_callbackHolder) g_callbackHolder->dostuff();
}
void bind() {
g_callbackHolder = new CallbackHolder();
glutIdleFunc( &call_callback_holder );
}
Related
I'm new to c++ and I'm trying to make a generic switch (i.e. the device, not the C++ statement) that could be used to blink lights, turn beeps on and off, etc, in my Arduino project.
I could create a switchable interface and implement that in the classes that I want to "switch". But since I'm doing it as study purposes and I saw the pointer-to-functions ability in C++ (that is new to me since I come from C# and Java), I tough it would be a good opportunity to give it a try...
The problem is that I can pass the function in my code only if it's a local function but it won't work if I try to pass a function from another object like a led for example.
Some code to illustrate the problem. This is the switch.cpp, it recieves the On and Off functions in it's constructor and it has a update method that is called inside the loop method in the Arduino ino main class:
auto_switch.cpp
using switch_function = void(*)();
auto_switch::auto_switch(const switch_function on_function, const switch_function off_function, const int max_speed_count)
{
//sets all variables...
}
void auto_switch::update(const unsigned long millis)
{
//turn switch on and off...
}
And this is my ino file
ino file
#include <Arduino.h>
#include "led.h"
#include "auto_switch.h"
led* main_led;
auto_switch* led_switch;
int slow_speed;
//ugly code
void turn_led_on()
{
main_led->turn_on();
}
//ugly code
void turn_led_off()
{
main_led->turn_off();
}
void setup() {
main_led = new led(2, 3, 4, true, color::white);
//ugly code
led_switch = new auto_switch(turn_led_on, turn_led_off, 3);
slow_speed = led_switch->add_speed(100, 100, 3, 1000);
led_switch->set_active_speed(slow_speed);
led_switch->turn_on();
}
void loop() {
led_switch->update(millis());
}
It works but I had to make a local function (turn_led_on and turn_led_off) to be able to assign the inner functions as a parameter to the auto_switch constructor, the parts that I've wrote //ugly code
I wanted to do something like this, without the glue code in between:
//doesn't work
led_switch = new auto_switch(main_led->turn_on, main_led->turn_off, 3);
Is it possible? I've read something about static pointer to function and some std functions that help with that, if I get it right the glue code is necessary in this case so that the compiler can know where the functions are coming from I guess (from which object), but since the functions I need to call cannot be static I've discarded this option, and the std functions I believe it can't be used with the Arduino or could but shouldn't for performance limitations...
Anyway, does it make sense, can it be done using pointer to functions or should I create a interface or something different?
Before deciding how to do it, the qquestion is what do you want to do and why. Because, maybe there are better alternatives using simple C++ idioms.
Option 1: specialization with polymorphism
Do you want to specialize some functions of your switch, so instead of calling the function of the auto_switch you'd call dome more specialized ones ?
In this case you wouldn't do:
//doesn't work
led_switch = new auto_switch(main_led->turn_on, main_led->turn_off, 3);
but instead you would rely on polymorphism with virtual functions in the base class:
class auto_switch {
...
virtual void turn_on();
virtual void turn_off();
...
};
and write a specialized class for the leds:
class led_witch : public auto_switch {
...
void turn_on() override;
void turn_off() override;
...
};
In fact, the compiler will generate some function pointers behind the scene, but you don't have to care:
auto_switch s1=new auto_switch(...);
auto_switch s2=new led_switch(...); // no problem !!
s1->turn_on(); // calls auto_switch::turn_on()
s2->turn_on(); // calls led_switch::turn_on() since the real type of s2 is led_switch
But event if each object's behavior is dynamic on the the base of the real class of the object, the objects of the same class share a behavior that was predefined at compile time. If this is not ok, go to the next option.
Option 2: the member function pointer
The functions of another objects can only be invoked with that object at hand. So having a function pointer to a led function is not sufficient: you also need to know on which led it shall be applied.
This is why member function pointers are different and somewhat constraint: you can only invoke functions of class of your member function pointer. If polymorphism is sufficient (i.e. if derived class has a different implementation of a function already foreseen in the base classe) then you are lucky. If you want to use a function that only exists in the derived class and not in the base class, it won't compile.
Here a simplified version of auto_swith: I provide a function, but allso a pointer to the object on which the function has to be invoked:
class auto_switch{
void (led::*action)();
led *ld;
public:
auto_switch(void(led::*a)(), led*l) : action(a), ld(l) {}
void go () { (ld->*action)(); }
};
// usage:
auto_switch s(&led::turn_off, &l1);
s.go();
Online demo
Option 3 : the functional way (may that's what you're looking for ?)
Another variant would be to use the standard functional library to bind a member function and the object on which it shall be executed (as well as any need parameters):
class auto_switch{
std::function<void()> action;
public:
auto_switch(function<void()>a) : action(a) {}
void go () { action(); }
};
Here you can bind anything: any function of any class:
auto_switch s(bind(&led::turn_off, l1));
s.go();
auto_switch s2(bind(&blinking_led::blink, l2));
s2.go();
Online demo
Option 4 : command pattern
Now if you want to perform something on an object when you turn on and off the switch, but you need total flexibility, you can just implement the command pattern : this lets you execute anything on any object. And you don't even need a function pointer.
I'm a newbie to arduino and programming.
I've included a library inside my own library in arduino, but first library contains a function which has a pointer function as a parameter. It is an interrupt service routine(ISR) but I need to call a function in my cpp file when interrupt is occurred. So I need to pass the pointer of that function to the first library code. It works well when I use it in .ino file, I can pass it like,
attachInterrupt(functionISR_name);
but when I use it in .cpp file, I get errors. my function is like,
void velocity::functionISR_name(){
//some code
}
but how can I pass the pointer of this function to the first library function? I tried this way but got errors,
attachInterrupt(velocity::functionISR_name);
You cannot pass a method to a function which expects a function, unless you define it static.
write it static :
static void velocity::functionISR_name()
and
attachInterrupt(&velocity::functionISR_name);
Unfortunately the static method is not bound to a specific instance any more. You should use it only together with a singleton. On Arduino you should write the class like shown below in the code snipped:
class velocity
{
static velocity *pThisSingelton;
public:
velocity()
{
pThisSingelton=this;
}
static void functionISR_name()
{
pThisSingelton->CallWhatEverMethodYouNeeded();
// Do whatever needed.
}
// … Your methods
};
velocity *velocity::pThisSingelton;
velocity YourOneAndOnlyInstanceOfThisClass;
void setup()
{
attachInterrupt(&velocity::functionISR_name);
// …other stuff…
}
This looks ugly, but in my opinion it is totally okay with Arduino as the opportunities are very limited on such a system.
Thinking again over it, I would personal go for the approach Sorin mentioned in his answer above. That would be more like that:
class velocity
{
public:
velocity()
{
}
static void functionISR_name()
{
// Do whatever needed.
}
// … Your methods
};
velocity YourOneAndOnlyInstanceOfThisClass;
void functionISR_name_delegation()
{
YourOneAndOnlyInstanceOfThisClass.functionISR_name();
}
void setup()
{
attachInterrupt(functionISR_name_delegation);
// …other stuff…
}
It would also save you some bytes for the pointer you need in the first example.
As a site note: For the future, please post the exact code (for e.g. attachInterrupt needs more parameter) and copy&paste the error messages. Usually error are exact at a place you do not suspect. This question was an exception. Normally I and other would ask for better specification.
You pass a pointer to the function but the function is a class member. Likely the call will be invalid because the this pointer will be garbage(may compile fine but will throw strange errors at runtime).
You need to define a plain vanilla function, outside of any class, and use that.
If you don't have a very complex project you can get away with having a global pointer to the class instance you should use and just delegate the call in your new function.
If you want to do thing the right way you need some mechanism to get the instance pointer I talked about above. Usually this involves either a singleton or some factory pattern.
Example:
class Foo {
void method() {
x = 5;
}
int x;
}
Having a callback on method will crash because you have an invalid pointer for this so x=5 will write 5 somewhere randomly in memory.
What you need is somehting like:
static Foo* foo_instance; // Initialized somewhere else.
void method_delegator() {
foo_instance->method();
}
Now you can pass method_delegator to the function. It will work because you now also pass foo_instance for this pointer.
I have a c++ function which is expecting a function object (AuthenticateNotifyFunc) to be passed to it thus:
class lc_Authenticate
{
public:
typedef enum {
kAbort,
kContinue
} lc_AuthenticateStatus;
typedef std::tr1::function<lc_AuthenticateStatus (const string &msg)> AuthenticateNotifyFunc;
bool Authenticate(lc_AuthenticateParams ¶ms,
AuthenticateNotifyFunc notifyFunc);
}
Within a managed c++ project, I am attempting to define a parameter to pass to the above function thus:
public ref class Form1 : public System::Windows::Forms::Form
{
public:
lc_Authenticate::lc_AuthenticateStatus UpdateStatus(const string &msg)
{
<<DO SOMETHING>>
return(lc_Authenticate::kContinue);
}
void test()
{
string appKey, appSecret;
appKey = GetString(this->appKeyTextBox->Text);
appSecret = GetString(this->appSecretTextBox->Text);
lc_Authenticate dbauth;
lc_AuthenticateParams params(appKey, appSecret);
// DOESN'T COMPILE won't let me take address of member function
// or know about _1
lc_Authenticate::AuthenticateNotifyFunc func =
std::tr1::bind(&Form1::UpdateStatus, this, _1);
dbauth.Authenticate(params, func);
}
};
So I am trying to implement a generic method of passing a function to a c++ method in such a way that it doesn't care whether the passed function is static or a member function. And I'm not clear how do do this from managed code.
You cannot bind to an instance method of a managed class by design. The garbage collector moves the object around when compacting the heap, causing this to change. You'll need to use a managed delegate. So you can't avoid a native helper class that provides the stable callback you need for your function<>. You can get back to managed code from there with Marshal::GetFunctionPointerForDelegate().
I'm creating a library that needs to allow the user to set a callback function.
The interface of this library is as below:
// Viewer Class Interface Exposed to user
/////////////////////////////
#include "dataType_1.h"
#include "dataType_2.h"
class Viewer
{
void SetCallbackFuntion( dataType_1* (Func) (dataType_2* ) );
private:
dataType_1* (*CallbackFunction) (dataType_2* );
}
In a typical usage, the user needs to access an object of dataType_3 within the callback.
However, this object is only known only to his program, like below.
// User usage
#include "Viewer.h"
#include "dataType_3.h"
// Global Declaration needed
dataType_3* objectDataType3;
dataType_1* aFunction( dataType_2* a)
{
// An operation on object of type dataType_3
objectDataType3->DoSomething();
}
main()
{
Viewer* myViewer;
myViewer->SetCallbackFunction( &aFunction );
}
My Question is as follows:
How do I avoid using an ugly global variable for objectDataType3 ?
(objectDataType3 is part of libraryFoo and all the other objects dataType_1, dataType_2 & Viewer are part of libraryFooBar) Hence I would like them to remain as separate as possible.
Don't use C in C++.
Use an interface to represent the fact you want a notification.
If you want objects of type dataType_3 to be notified of an event that happens in the viewer then just make this type implement the interface then you can register the object directly with the viewer for notification.
// The interface
// Very close to your function pointer definition.
class Listener
{
public: virtual dataType_1* notify(dataType_2* param) = 0;
};
// Updated viewer to use the interface defineition rather than a pointer.
// Note: In the old days of C when you registered a callback you normally
// also registered some data that was passed to the callback
// (see pthread_create for example)
class Viewer
{
// Set (or Add) a listener.
void SetNotifier(Listener* l) { listener = l; }
// Now you can just inform all objects that are listening
// directly via the interface. (remember to check for NULL listener)
void NotifyList(dataType_2* data) { if (listener) { listener->notify(data); }
private:
Listener* listener;
};
int main()
{
dataType_3 objectDataType3; // must implement the Listener interface
Viewer viewer;
viewer.SetNotifier(&objectDataType3);
}
Use Boost.Function:
class Viewer
{
void SetCallbackFuntion(boost::function<datatype_1* (dataType_2*)> func);
private:
boost::function<datatype_1* (dataType_2*)> CallbackFunction;
}
Then use Boost.Bind to pass the member function pointer together with your object as the function.
If you don't want or can't use boost, the typical pattern around callback functions like this is that you can pass a "user data" value (mostly declared as void*) when registering the callback. This value is then passed to the callback function.
The usage then looks like this:
dataType_1* aFunction( dataType_2* a, void* user_ptr )
{
// Cast user_ptr to datatype_3
// We know it works because we passed it during set callback
datatype_3* objectDataType3 = reinterpret_cast<datatype_3*>(user_ptr);
// An operation on object of type dataType_3
objectDataType3->DoSomething();
}
main()
{
Viewer* myViewer;
dataType_3 objectDataType3; // No longer needs to be global
myViewer->SetCallbackFunction( &aFunction, &objectDataType3 );
}
The implementation on the other side only requires to save the void* along with the function pointer:
class Viewer
{
void SetCallbackFuntion( dataType_1* (Func) (dataType_2*, void*), void* user_ptr );
private:
dataType_1* (*CallbackFunction) (dataType_2*, void*);
void* user_ptr;
}
boost::/std:: function is the solution here. You can bind member functions to them, and in addition functors and lambdas, if you have a lambda compiler.
struct local {
datatype3* object;
local(datatype3* ptr)
: object(ptr) {}
void operator()() {
object->func();
}
};
boost::function<void()> func;
func = local(object);
func(); // calls object->func() by magic.
Something like this is simple to do:
class Callback
{
public:
virtual operator()()=0;
};
template<class T>
class ClassCallback
{
T* _classPtr;
typedef void(T::*fncb)();
fncb _cbProc;
public:
ClassCallback(T* classPtr,fncb cbProc):_classPtr(classPtr),_cbProc(cbProc){}
virtual operator()(){
_classPtr->*_cbProc();
}
};
Your Viewer class would take a callback, and call it using the easy syntax:
class Viewer
{
void SetCallbackFuntion( Callback* );
void OnCallCallback(){
m_cb->operator()();
}
}
Some other class would register the callback with the viewer by using the ClassCallback template specialization:
// User usage
#include "Viewer.h"
#include "dataType_3.h"
main()
{
Viewer* myViewer;
dataType_3 objectDataType3;
myViewer->SetCallbackFunction( new ClassCallback<dataType_3>(&objectDataType3,&dataType_3::DoSomething));
}
You're asking several questions mixed up in here and this is going to cause you lots of confusion in your answers.
I'm going to focus on your issue with dataType_3.
You state:
I would like to avoid declaring or
including dataType_3 in my library as
it has huge dependencies.
What you need to do is make an interface class for dataType_3 that gives the operations -- the footprint -- of dataType_3 without defining everything in it. You'll find tips on how to do that in this article (among other places). This will allow you to comfortably include a header that gives the footprint for dataType_3 without bringing in all of its dependencies. (If you've got dependencies in the public API you may have to reuse that trick for all of those as well. This can get tedious, but this is the price of having a poorly-designed API.)
Once you've got that, instead of passing in a function for callback consider having your "callback" instead be a class implementing a known interface. There are several advantages to doing this which you can find in the literature, but for your specific example there's a further advantage. You can inherit that interface complete with an instantiated dataType_3 object in the base class. This means that you only have to #include the dataType_3 interface specification and then use the dataType_3 instance provided for you by the "callback" framework.
If you have the option of forcing some form of constraints on Viewer, I would simply template that, i.e.
template <typename CallBackType>
class Viewer
{
public:
void SetCallbackFunctor(CallBackType& callback) { _callee = callback; }
void OnCallback()
{
if (_callee) (*_callee)(...);
}
private:
// I like references, but you can use pointers
boost::optional<CallBackType&> _callee;
};
Then in your dataType_3 implement the operator() to do as needed, to use.
int main(void)
{
dataType_3 objectDataType3;
// IMHO, I would construct with the objectDataType3, rather than separate method
// if you did that, you can hold a direct reference rather than pointer or boost::optional!
Viewer<dataType_3> viewer;
viewer.SetCallbackFunctor(objectDataType3);
}
No need for other interfaces, void* etc.
I'm trying to code the following situation:
I have a base class providing a framework for handling events. I'm trying to use an array of pointer-to-member-functions for that. It goes as following:
class EH { // EventHandler
virtual void something(); // just to make sure we get RTTI
public:
typedef void (EH::*func_t)();
protected:
func_t funcs_d[10];
protected:
void register_handler(int event_num, func_t f) {
funcs_d[event_num] = f;
}
public:
void handle_event(int event_num) {
(this->*(funcs_d[event_num]))();
}
};
Then the users are supposed to derive other classes from this one and provide handlers:
class DEH : public EH {
public:
typedef void (DEH::*func_t)();
void handle_event_5();
DEH() {
func_t f5 = &DEH::handle_event_5;
register_handler(5, f5); // doesn't compile
........
}
};
This code wouldn't compile, since DEH::func_t cannot be converted to EH::func_t. It makes perfect sense to me. In my case the conversion is safe since the object under this is really DEH. So I'd like to have something like that:
void EH::DEH_handle_event_5_wrapper() {
DEH *p = dynamic_cast<DEH *>(this);
assert(p != NULL);
p->handle_event_5();
}
and then instead of
func_t f5 = &DEH::handle_event_5;
register_handler(5, f5); // doesn't compile
in DEH::DEH()
put
register_handler(5, &EH::DEH_handle_event_5_wrapper);
So, finally the question (took me long enough...):
Is there a way to create those wrappers (like EH::DEH_handle_event_5_wrapper) automatically?
Or to do something similar?
What other solutions to this situation are out there?
Thanks.
Instead of creating a wrapper for each handler in all derived classes (not even remotely a viable approach, of course), you can simply use static_cast to convert DEH::func_t to EH::func_t. Member pointers are contravariant: they convert naturally down the hierarchy and they can be manually converted up the hierarchy using static_cast (opposite of ordinary object pointers, which are covariant).
The situation you are dealing with is exactly the reason the static_cast functionality was extended to allow member pointer upcasts. Moreover, the non-trivial internal structure of a member function pointer is also implemented that way specifically to handle such situations properly.
So, you can simply do
DEH() {
func_t f5 = &DEH::handle_event_5;
register_handler(5, static_cast<EH::func_t>(f5));
........
}
I would say that in this case there's no point in defining a typedef name DEH::func_t - it is pretty useless. If you remove the definition of DEH::func_t the typical registration code will look as follows
DEH() {
func_t f5 = static_cast<func_t>(&DEH::handle_event_5);
// ... where `func_t` is the inherited `EH::func_t`
register_handler(5, f5);
........
}
To make it look more elegant you can provide a wrapper for register_handler in DEH or use some other means (a macro? a template?) to hide the cast.
This method does not provide you with any means to verify the validity of the handler pointer at the moment of the call (as you could do with dynamic_cast in the wrapper-based version). I don't know though how much you care to have this check in place. I would say that in this context it is actually unnecessary and excessive.
Why not just use virtual functions? Something like
class EH {
public:
void handle_event(int event_num) {
// Do any pre-processing...
// Invoke subclass hook
subclass_handle_event( event_num );
// Do any post-processing...
}
private:
virtual void subclass_handle_event( int event_num ) {}
};
class DEH : public EH {
public:
DEH() { }
private:
virtual void subclass_handle_event( int event_num ) {
if ( event_num == 5 ) {
// ...
}
}
};
You really shouldn't be doing it this way. Check out boost::bind
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_43_0/libs/bind/bind.html
Elaboration:
First, I urge you to reconsider your design. Most event handler systems I've seen involve an external registrar object that maintains mappings of events to handler objects. You have the registration embedded in the EventHandler class and are doing the mapping based on function pointers, which is much less desirable. You're running into problems because you're making an end run around the built-in virtual function behavior.
The point of boost::bindand the like is to create objects out of function pointers, allowing you to leverage object oriented language features. So an implementation based on boost::bind with your design as a starting point would look something like this:
struct EventCallback
{
virtual ~EventCallback() { }
virtual void handleEvent() = 0;
};
template <class FuncObj>
struct EventCallbackFuncObj : public IEventCallback
{
EventCallbackT(FuncObj funcObj) :
m_funcObj(funcObj) { }
virtual ~EventCallbackT() { }
virtual void handleEvent()
{
m_funcObj();
}
private:
FuncObj m_funcObj;
};
Then your register_handler function looks something like this:
void register_handler(int event_num, EventCallback* pCallback)
{
m_callbacks[event_num] = pCallback;
}
And your register call would like like:
register_handler(event,
new EventCallbackFuncObj(boost::bind(&DEH::DEH_handle_event_5_wrapper, this)));
Now you can create a callback object from an (object, member function) of any type and save that as the event handler for a given event without writing customized function wrapper objects.