Is it possible not to declare another objects for hash generation and key comparasion,but to create member functions in key class for this capabilities?
As noted in the comments you can easily define an operator== for your class. You can also write a free function hash_value that takes a parameter of your class, and this should be used automatically.
Related
Is it possible to add new functions in the class if the implementation of this class is hidden to user.
But still if its required to add a new function to this class.
"Is it possible to add new functions in the class if the implementation of this class is hidden" - In general, No.
To add new functions you have some options:
1) Get hold of the original source code and add your function (best option).
2) Derive from the class (if it is not final) and add your function (only good enough if you can then use the derived type everywhere needed).
3) Write a free function that takes a pointer or reference to an instance of the class and then uses that to access (public) members of the class. Not really like adding a real member, but in some cases good enough.
You cannot dynamically add functions to a class in C++ like you can in some other languages.
Is it possible to add new functions in the class if the implementation of this class is hidden
Yes, you can add new functions to the class declaration. C++ does not demand that all member functions are implemented in the same compilation unit.
Adding virtual functions or member variables could be a problem, if the class is instantiated in code that was compiled with the 'old' class declaration.
I'm fairly new to c++ templates.
I have a class whose constructor takes two arguments. It's a class that keeps a list of data -- it's actually a list of moves in a chess program.
I need to keep my original class as it's used in other places, but I now need to pass extra arguments to the class, and in doing so have a few extra private data members and specialize only one of the private methods -- everything else will stay the same. I don't think a derived class helps me here, as they aren't going to be similar objects, and also the private methods are called by the constructor and it will call the virtual method of the base class -- not the derived method.
So I guess templates are going to be my answer. Just looking for any hints about how might proceed.
Thanks in advance
Your guess is wrong. Templates are no more the answer for your problem than inheritance is.
As jtbandes said in comment below your question, use composition.
Create another class that contains an instance of your existing class as a member. Forward or delegate operations to that contained object as needed (i.e. a member function in your new class calls member functions of the contained object). Add other members as needed, and operations to work with them.
Write your new code to interact with the new class. When your new code needs to interact with your old code, pass the contained object (or a reference or a pointer to it) as needed.
You might choose to implement the container as a template, but that is an implementation choice, and depends on how you wish to reuse your container.
Templates are used when you want to pass at compile time parameter like values,typenames, or classes. Templates are used when you want to use exactly the same class with the same methods, but applying it to different parameters. The case you described is not this I think.
If they aren't goign to be similar objects you may want to create a specialized class (or collections of function) to use from the various other classes.
Moreover you can think of creating a base class and extending it as needed. Using a virtual private method should allow you to select the method implementation of the object at runtime instead of the method of the base class.
We may help you more if you specify what does they need to share, what does your classes have in common?
The bare bones of my present code looks like this:
class move_list{
public:
move_list(const position& pos, unsigned char ply):pos_(pos),ply_(ply){
//Calculates moves and calls add_moves(ply,target_bitboard,flags) for each move
}
//Some access functions etc...
private:
//private variables
void add_moves(char,Bitboard,movflags);
};
Add_moves places the moves on a vector in no particular order as they are generated. My new class however, is exactly the same except it requires extra data:
move_list(const position& pos, unsigned char ply,trans_table& TT,killers& kill,history& hist):pos_(pos),ply_(ply),TT_(TT),kill_(kill),hist_(hist) {
and the function add_moves needs to be changed to use the extra data to place the moves in order as it receives them. Everything else is the same. I guess I could just write an extra method to sort the list after they have all been generated, but from previous experience, sorting the list as it receives it has been quicker.
I need to create a templated class that can hold pointers to elements of type T and then performs functions on them. The functions will come from different places, so I need a container to store them, so I can call them later. I decided to use an std::unordered_set, because it offers speed and restricts duplication due to it being implemented as a hash table. I have a whole class written, but it doesn't compile due to there not being a hash function defined for my std::function that takes a pointer of type T and returns void. It's easy enough to specify it with struct hash<std::function<void(MyCustomType*)>> (and overloading the () operator, too) for each type I use, but how do I actually hash the function?
Here is a watered-down excerpt from my class with the relevant members and methods:
template <typename T>
class Master {
private:
std::unordered_set<std::function<void(T*)>> functions;
protected:
registerFunction(std::function<void(T*)> function) {
this->functions.insert(function);
}
unregisterFunction(std::function<void(T*)> function) {
this->functions.erase(function);
}
};
I'm not completely bound to using an std::unordered_set, but it seems to offer everything that I'd need to get this piece (and the rest of my code) working well.
Am I thinking about this the wrong way? Is it completely impossible to hash a std::function?
A set is mostly something you will check that data is in it.
So I do not see the point of using one here... You'll have your functions and you'll store them in the set, and after that, what ? You just iterate on them ?
For your question, a element of a set should have a way to generate a hash and an operator==(). The second is not provided for std::function and thus you wouldn't be able to check that your function is really in the set.
So even if you find a way to generate an hash from the function, you would be stuck... And I do not see how to meet the hash requirement.
Why not simply use a std::vector ?
I am using an object as a key in an unordered_map, so I need to define a hash function. My question is, where should the hash function be implemented. Should I put it with the class implementation or should I implement it close to where I need it.
UPDATE:
If it makes a difference, all of this is based in a framework
If you anticipate you'll need to reuse it in many unordered_maps, put it somewhere visible, like in the class.
If you just need it for a one-off unordered_map, put it close to where you use it. You can even use a lambda.
I'd put it with the class definition, at least if you're using == as
the equality function in the unordered_map. The implementation of the
hash function depends on the implementation of the equality comparison,
and there is a definite advantage in keeping both together, to reduce
the probability of someone not changing the hash function if they
change ==.
If you're also defining a special equality function for the map, then
the two functions should be defined together, probably close to where
they will be used to instantiate the map.
In my opinion if the hash function is basic as below it should be method of the class and also should be inline.
int hashFunction(long x){
return (int) (x % N);
}
If it is a little more complex hash function it should be a method of this class.Because you will need a "N" which will be spesific to that class .
what is the best way to put a container class or a some other class inside a class as private or a public member?
Requirements:
1.Vector< someclass> inside my class
2.Add and count of vector is needed interface
If the container's state is part of the class's invariant, then it should, if possible, be private.
For example, if the container represents a three dimensional vector then part of the invariant might be that it always contains exactly 3 numbers. Exposing it as a public member would allow code external to the class to change the containers size, which in turn could cause problems for any routine which requires the container's size to be constant. Keeping the container private limits the places in your software where the container's size can be modified to the class's member functions.
Whether a member is declared Private or Public depends entirely on your application. Could you give some more detail?
One important point to remember when declaring your member is that if you provide a "getter" to retrieve it, then you are no longer encapsulating that object. Instead, it can be good to write wrapper methods exposing only the functionality you wish to expose.
For example, with a Vector member, you might write an AddItem and Clear method, if that's all the functionality you wish to expose.
Since you're talking about a class, I think it should be private. If you want it to be public, rather create a struct - to make it obvious that you want the members variables to be used.
A viable alternative to exposing the vector member is creating a visitor function (or an internal iterator). This way you obey the law of Demeter better:
class ContWrapper {
std::vector<int> _ints;
public:
class Action {
public:
virtual void accept( int i ) = 0;
};
void each_int( Action& a );
};
Also be very careful when exporting e.g. an std::vector<T> from a library, too: the client code might not use the same STL implementation as you did, so the layout of these member variables may differ!
Make all members private and use accessor methods, this allows you to change the implementation later. Only in very unusual circumstances would I make any data member public.
Remember that chaning the implementation happens more often than you may imagine, its not just a case of changing the type of the container but maybe you want to change the mechanism. Say you were storing names in a list, after a while you may chose to index this list with a hash and would like to have the hash updated every time you add a new name. If your implementation is suitably encapsulated doing this is easy, if you have just exposed the vector you would need to make changes that will adjust the interface (and so the change will ripple out).
If this is new to new you have a read of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encapsulation_(classes_-_computers)
There is a third way - sometimes it is better to inherit from the container and override it's methods to achieve your goal (for example thread safety). Anyway, making it public almost always isn't a good idea.
Considering that you want to encapsulate the container inside another class implies that it cannot be public, and also the public methods of your class should not expose anything implementation-specific about the container. That way the implementation of your class (i.e. the container) can be changed without changing its interface.