'if' with templates in C++ - c++

I need to do something like this:
template <typename Matrix_xx>
bool ProcessMatrix<Matrix_xx>::function1(Matrix_xx a) {
int x, y;
// ... some code here ... //
if (Matrix_xx == Matrix_1D) {
a->readFromFile(x);
} else if (Matrix_xx == Matrix_2D) {
a->readFromFile(x, y);
} // ...
}
i.e., to call different functions depends on the template argument. The code above wouldn't compile because there are only Matrix_1D::readFromFile(int x) and Matrix_2D::readFromFile(int x, int y). I don't want to split function1 into two different functions only because there would be a lot of doubled code. Is there another way?

Wrap the type-specific code in either overloaded function or explicitly specialized template:
void doReadFromFile(Matrix_1D &a, int x, int y)
{
a->readFromFile(x);
}
void doReadFromFile(Matrix_2D &a, int x, int y)
{
a->readFromFile(x, y);
}
template <typename Matrix_xx>
bool ProcessMatrix<Matrix_xx>::function1(Matrix_xx a) {
int x, y;
// ... some code here ... //
doReadFromFile(a, x, y);
}
If Matrix_xx is Matrix_1D, overloading will select the first overload, if it is Matrix_2D, overloading will select the second overload and if it's anything else, it won't compile. But if somebody provides new type of matrix, they can make it compile by defining the doReadFromFile for it.
This is generally useful trick and reason why standard library uses "traits"—they can be defined for class somebody gives you and they can be defined for non-class types. The "traits" can be either in the form of explicitly specialized templates or free functions, usually looked up with argument-dependent lookup (placed in the namespace of their argument, not the template).
For completeness, the explicit specialization would look like:
template <typename Matrix_xx>
struct doReadFromFile {};
template <>
struct<Matrix_1D> struct doReadFromFile {
void operator()(Matrix_1D &a, int x, int y) {
a->readFromFile(x);
}
}
template <>
struct<Matrix_1D> struct doReadFromFile {
void operator()(Matrix_1D &a, int x, int y) {
a->readFromFile(x, y);
}
}

Couldn't you make the argument to readFromFile a reference to a vector and let the Matrix_xx instance decide how many indices to fill in? That would eliminate the need for a conditional check.

You can get around that using the typeid operator.
Using it, your code would become:
template <typename Matrix_xx>
bool ProcessMatrix<Matrix_xx>::function1(Matrix_xx a) {
int x, y;
// ... some code here ... //
if (typeid(Matrix_xx) == typeid(Matrix_1D)) {
a->readFromFile(x);
} else if (typeid(Matrix_xx) == typeid(Matrix_2D)) {
a->readFromFile(x, y);
} // ...
}
or you could do it with a switch:
switch(typeid(Matrix_xx))
{
case typeid(Matrix_1D):
a->readFromFile(x);
break;
case typeid(Matrix_2D):
a->readFromFile(x,y);
break;
// etc, etc
}
[EDIT:] For those that say it won't compile, I'd be most interested in knowing what the functional difference between the code I left above and the code below, which is taken from a working project:
pdfArray.h
#ifndef PDFARRAY_H
#define PDFARRAY_H
#include "pdfObj.h"
#include "pdfTypes.h"
class pdfArray : public pdfObj
{
public:
pdfArray();
pdfArray(const pdfArray &src);
size_t size()
{
return(mArray->size());
}
void clear();
~pdfArray();
template <typename T> void addItem(const T *newItem)
{
//cout << typeid(T).name() << endl;
pdfObj *item = new T(*newItem);
mArray->push_back(item);
}
pdfObj *getItem(unsigned int itemIndex);
const bstring& toString();
pdfArray &operator=(const pdfArray &src);
private:
vecObjPtr *mArray;
};
#endif // PDFARRAY_H
excerpt from pdfArray.cpp
pdfArray::pdfArray(const pdfArray &src)
{
vecObjPtrIter iter;
pdfObj *ptr;
mArray = new vecObjPtr;
for (iter=src.mArray->begin(); iter!=src.mArray->end(); iter++)
{
ptr = *iter;
if (typeid(*ptr) == typeid(pdfString))
addItem( (pdfString*)ptr );
if (typeid(*ptr) == typeid(pdfInt))
addItem( (pdfInt*)ptr );
if (typeid(*ptr) == typeid(pdfFloat))
addItem( (pdfFloat*)ptr );
if (typeid(*ptr) == typeid(pdfArray))
addItem( (pdfArray*)ptr );
}
}

Related

C++ Pass Template class definition to a Macro in compile time

I have to use a function in library with variable parameters (createObject), the general usage is:
Class Point
{
public:
Point() {};
int x;
int y;
const char* name;
}
int main()
{
Point p;
createObject("%d",p.x,"%f",p.y,"%d",1,"%s",p.name);
}
Now i want to generalize usage of this function with Macro and Template, like this:
#define PARAM_Matrix(obj) "%d",obj.m,"%d",obj.n,"%d %d",obj[0][0],"%d %d",obj[0][1],"%d %d",obj[0][2]
#define PARAM_Person(obj) "%d",obj.age,"%s",obj.name
#define PARAM_Point(obj) "%d",obj.x,"%f",obj.y,"%d",1,"%s",obj.name
#define MAKE_PARAM(className,obj) PARAM_##className(obj)
class Person;
class Matrix;
class Point
{
public:
Point() {};
int x;
int y;
const char* name;
}
template<typename T> createGeneralize(T t)
{
return createObject(MAKE_PARAM(T,t));
}
int main()
{
Person per;
Matrix m;
Point p;
createGeneralize<Person>(per);
createGeneralize<Matrix>(m);
createGeneralize<Point>(p);
}
I expected that in createGeneralize() the C++ compiler expanding the macro to MAKE_PARAM(Point,t) (or MAKE_PARAM(Matrix,t)...). However, it is not the case, it always expands to MAKE_PARAM(T).
Your idea is not feasible because the preprocessor macros are converted to text before actual compiling. while the template arguments are substituted during compilation. so you get something like:
doMore (Point p)
{
T u, v; u = v;
}
i suggest just use templates.
Instead of macro, you may use template:
auto as_tuple(const Person& obj) { return std::make_tuple("%d", obj.age, "%s", obj.name); }
auto as_tuple(const Matrix& obj) { return std::make_tuple("%d", obj.m,"%d",obj.n,"%d %d",obj.obj[0][0],"%d %d",obj.obj[0][1],"%d %d",obj.obj[0][2]); }
auto as_tuple(const Point& obj) { return std::make_tuple("%d", obj.x,"%f",obj.y,"%d",1,"%s",obj.name); }
template<typename Tuple, std::size_t...Is>
void createGeneralize(const Tuple& t, std::index_sequence<Is...>)
{
return createObject(std::get<Is>(t)...);
}
template<typename T> void createGeneralize(const T& t)
{
const auto& tuple = as_tuple(t);
return createGeneralize(tuple, std::make_index_sequence<std::tuple_size<std::decay_t<decltype(tuple)>>::value>());
}
Live example

Mapping functions with variable arguments and calling by string c++

I would like to have some fair idea how to map functions with variable arguments,return type of int and call it by a string..
Just for an example...
int func1(int a, int b);
int func2(int a1, int b1 , int* c1);
int func3(char* dummy);
int func4(double x, long y, int z, char** table);
int func5(double d1, double b1);
int func6(int* p, double* q, int i);
I just need a common function called
int CallFunction("funcname", param1, param2, ...);
for example
CallFunction("func1", 10, 20); /* calling function func1 and return func1 result*/
I know how to map functions using functions pointers having constant arguments but variable arguments seems to be complicated.. could anyone shower some idea how to do it.
I even explored Variadic templates.. But seems to complicated calling functions using strings..
I had exact the same problem.
Solved it with this solution:
#include <iostream>
#include <map>
#include <string>
int func0(int x)
{
std::cout << x << std::endl;
}
int func1(int x, int y)
{
std::cout << (x + y) << std::endl;
}
template <class... Args>
struct MapHolder{
static std::map<std::string, int (*)(Args...)> CallbackMap;
};
template <class... Args>
std::map<std::string, int (*)(Args...)> MapHolder<Args...>::CallbackMap;
class Callback {
public:
template <class ...Args>
void RegisterFunction(std::string name, int (*func)(Args...)) {
MapHolder<Args...>::CallbackMap[name] = func;
}
template <class ...Args>
int ExecuteFunction(std::string name, Args &&... args) {
return MapHolder<Args...>::CallbackMap[name](std::forward<Args>(args)...);
};
};
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
Callback cb;
cb.RegisterFunction("func0", &func0);
cb.RegisterFunction("func1", &func1);
cb.ExecuteFunction("func0", 42);
cb.ExecuteFunction("func1", 42, 42);
return 0;
}
This snippet is based on this answer. I only use other class/function names.
I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but anyway...
1. Creating a generic value holder
boost.any didn't make it into the standard, and, in case you don't know what it is, it allows you to store any C++ value in a single type (any) and get it back if you know the type. The following is a toy implementation of it:
struct TypeHandler {
void* (*copyFrom)(void *src);
void (*destroy)(void *p);
};
template<typename T>
TypeHandler *thandler() {
struct THandler {
static void *copyFrom(void *p) { return new T(*(T *)p); }
static void destroy(void *p) { delete (T *)p; }
};
static TypeHandler th = { &THandler::copyFrom, &THandler::destroy };
return &th;
}
TypeHandler contains two pointer to functions that know how to copy and how to destroy a specific C++ type. A Value can hold any type because it's composed of a void * and a pointer to a TypeHandler. When copying or destroying is required on the instance it asks to the specific type handler function...
struct Value {
TypeHandler *th;
void *p;
Value(const Value& other) : th(other.th), p(th->copyFrom(other.p)) { }
template<typename T> Value(const T& x) : th(thandler<T>()), p(new T(x)) { }
~Value() { th->destroy(p); }
Value& operator=(const Value& other) {
if (this != &other) {
th->destroy(p);
th = other.th;
p = th->copyFrom(other.p);
}
return *this;
}
template<typename T>
Value& operator=(const T& other) {
th->destroy(p);
th = thandler<T>();
p = new T(other);
return *this;
}
template<typename T>
T& to() const {
if (th != thandler<T>()) throw Error("type mismatch");
return *(T*)p;
}
};
Note that Value is copyable and can be passed by value and can be returned by functions.
Any copyable object is implicitly convertible into a Value and I can also convert it back to the original type with to<T>().
2. Creating the name->function maps
std::map<std::string, Value (*)(const Value&)> map1;
std::map<std::string, Value (*)(const Value&, const Value&)> map2;
Value call(const std::string& name, const Value& x1) {
return map1.at(name)(x1);
}
Value call(const std::string& name, const Value& x1, const Value& x2) {
return map2.at(name)(x1, x2);
}
Here I've created explicit maps for 1 and 2 arguments. May be this can be done using C++11 variadic templates, I didn't try. In C++03 libraries it's common to see this kind of stuff copy-n-pasted up to say n=20 to cover reasonable cases.
3. Macrology
To simplify registration of functions I wrote two ugly macros. May be this can be done also using variadic macros or templates (I'm not so sure about it, especially the automatic registration of the wrapper in the map).
#define regfunc1(name, t1) \
Value name(const Value& x1) { \
return name(x1.to<t1>()); \
} \
struct name##_ { \
name##_() { map1[#name]=&name; } \
} name##_instance
#define regfunc2(name, t1, t2) \
Value name(const Value& x1, const Value& x2) { \
return name(x1.to<t1>(), x2.to<t2>()); \
} \
struct name##_ { \
name##_() { map2[#name]=&name; } \
} name##_instance
4. Use
double square(double x) {
return x*x;
}
double hyp2(double x, double y) {
return x*x+y*y;
}
int mylen(const std::string& s) {
return s.size();
}
regfunc1(square, double);
regfunc2(hyp2, double, double);
regfunc1(mylen, std::string);
int main() {
Value x = 42;
Value y = std::string("This is a test");
Value z = 3.14;
printf("%0.3f\n", call("square", z).to<double>());
printf("%0.3f\n", call("hyp2", z, z).to<double>());
printf("mylen(\"%s\") = %i\n",
y.to<std::string>().c_str(),
call("mylen", y).to<int>());
return 0;
}

Passing a functor as C++ template parameter

As an exercise for my personal enlightenment, I implement vector math with expression templates. I want to implement some operations that apply the same unary function to all elements to a vector expression. So far, I do this.
My base vector expression template is implemented like this
template <typename E>
class VectorExpr {
public:
int size() const { return static_cast<E const&>(*this).size(); }
float operator[](int i) const { return static_cast<E const&>(*this)[i]; }
operator E& () { return static_cast<E&>(*this); }
operator E const& () const { return static_cast<const E&>(*this); }
}; // class VectorExpr
Then, an object supposed to be a vector will look like this
class Vector2 : public VectorExpr<Vector2> {
public:
inline size_t size() const { return 2; }
template <typename E>
inline Vector2(VectorExpr<E> const& inExpr) {
E const& u = inExpr;
for(int i = 0; i < size(); ++i)
mTuple[i] = u[i];
}
private:
float mTuple[2];
};
Let's say I want to apply std::sin to all elements of an expression
template <typename E>
class VectorSin : public VectorExpr<VectorSin<E> > {
E const& mV;
public:
VectorSin(VectorExpr<E> const& inV) : mV(inV) {}
int size() const { return mV.size(); }
float operator [] (int i) const { return std::sin(mV[i]); }
};
Question => If I want to add more functions, I copy-paste what I do for the sin function, for every single function (like cos, sqrt, fabs, and so on). How I can avoid this kind of copy-pasting ? I tried things and figured out I'm still low in template-fu. No boost allowed ^^
template <typename F, typename E>
class VectorFunc : public VectorExpr<VectorFunc<F, E> > {
E const& mV;
public:
VectorSin(VectorExpr<E> const& inV) : mV(inV) {}
int size() const { return mV.size(); }
float operator [] (int i) const { return f(mV[i]); }
// this assumes the Functor f is default constructible, this is
// already not true for &std::sin. Adding the constructor that
// takes f, is left as an exercise ;)
F f;
};
In addition to the answer by pmr, The standard <cmath> functions aren't functors, so you couldn't use them directly to specify unique specialisations of your class - i.e. you wouldn't have a separate template instantiation for std::sin versus std::cos (which is what I gather you're aiming for? correct me if I've misunderstood you on that).
You could create a wrapper in order to map a function pointer to a distinct type, e.g.
#include <iostream>
template< void (*FuncPtr)() > struct Func2Type
{
void operator() () { FuncPtr(); }
};
void Hello() { std::cout << "Hello" << std::endl; }
void World() { std::cout << "world" << std::endl; }
int main()
{
Func2Type<Hello> test1;
Func2Type<World> test2;
test1();
test2();
}
That way you could use them as template arguments in the same way as a normal functor class

Is it possible to implement events in C++?

I wanted to implement a C# event in C++ just to see if I could do it. I got stuck, I know the bottom is wrong but what I realize my biggest problem is...
How do I overload the () operator to be whatever is in T, in this case int func(float)? I can't? Can I? Can I implement a good alternative?
#include <deque>
using namespace std;
typedef int(*MyFunc)(float);
template<class T>
class MyEvent
{
deque<T> ls;
public:
MyEvent& operator +=(T t)
{
ls.push_back(t);
return *this;
}
};
static int test(float f){return (int)f; }
int main(){
MyEvent<MyFunc> e;
e += test;
}
If you can use Boost, consider using Boost.Signals2, which provides signals-slots/events/observers functionality. It's straightforward and easy to use and is quite flexible. Boost.Signals2 also allows you to register arbitrary callable objects (like functors or bound member functions), so it's more flexible, and it has a lot of functionality to help you manage object lifetimes correctly.
If you are trying to implement it yourself, you are on the right track. You have a problem, though: what, exactly, do you want to do with the values returned from each of the registered functions? You can only return one value from operator(), so you have to decide whether you want to return nothing, or one of the results, or somehow aggregate the results.
Assuming we want to ignore the results, it's quite straightforward to implement this, but it's a bit easier if you take each of the parameter types as a separate template type parameter (alternatively, you could use something like Boost.TypeTraits, which allows you to easily dissect a function type):
template <typename TArg0>
class MyEvent
{
typedef void(*FuncPtr)(TArg0);
typedef std::deque<FuncPtr> FuncPtrSeq;
FuncPtrSeq ls;
public:
MyEvent& operator +=(FuncPtr f)
{
ls.push_back(f);
return *this;
}
void operator()(TArg0 x)
{
for (typename FuncPtrSeq::iterator it(ls.begin()); it != ls.end(); ++it)
(*it)(x);
}
};
This requires the registered function to have a void return type. To be able to accept functions with any return type, you can change FuncPtr to be
typedef std::function<void(TArg0)> FuncPtr;
(or use boost::function or std::tr1::function if you don't have the C++0x version available). If you do want to do something with the return values, you can take the return type as another template parameter to MyEvent. That should be relatively straightforward to do.
With the above implementation, the following should work:
void test(float) { }
int main()
{
MyEvent<float> e;
e += test;
e(42);
}
Another approach, which allows you to support different arities of events, would be to use a single type parameter for the function type and have several overloaded operator() overloads, each taking a different number of arguments. These overloads have to be templates, otherwise you'll get compilation errors for any overload not matching the actual arity of the event. Here's a workable example:
template <typename TFunc>
class MyEvent
{
typedef typename std::add_pointer<TFunc>::type FuncPtr;
typedef std::deque<FuncPtr> FuncPtrSeq;
FuncPtrSeq ls;
public:
MyEvent& operator +=(FuncPtr f)
{
ls.push_back(f);
return *this;
}
template <typename TArg0>
void operator()(TArg0 a1)
{
for (typename FuncPtrSeq::iterator it(ls.begin()); it != ls.end(); ++it)
(*it)(a1);
}
template <typename TArg0, typename TArg1>
void operator()(const TArg0& a1, const TArg1& a2)
{
for (typename FuncPtrSeq::iterator it(ls.begin()); it != ls.end(); ++it)
(*it)(a1, a2);
}
};
(I've used std::add_pointer from C++0x here, but this type modifier can also be found in Boost and C++ TR1; it just makes it a little cleaner to use the function template since you can use a function type directly; you don't have to use a function pointer type.) Here's a usage example:
void test1(float) { }
void test2(float, float) { }
int main()
{
MyEvent<void(float)> e1;
e1 += test1;
e1(42);
MyEvent<void(float, float)> e2;
e2 += test2;
e2(42, 42);
}
You absolutely can. James McNellis has already linked to a complete solution, but for your toy example we can do the following:
#include <deque>
using namespace std;
typedef int(*MyFunc)(float);
template<typename F>
class MyEvent;
template<class R, class Arg>
class MyEvent<R(*)(Arg)>
{
typedef R (*FuncType)(Arg);
deque<FuncType> ls;
public:
MyEvent<FuncType>& operator+=(FuncType t)
{
ls.push_back(t);
return *this;
}
void operator()(Arg arg)
{
typename deque<FuncType>::iterator i = ls.begin();
typename deque<FuncType>::iterator e = ls.end();
for(; i != e; ++i) {
(*i)(arg);
}
}
};
static int test(float f){return (int)f; }
int main(){
MyEvent<MyFunc> e;
e += test;
e(2.0);
}
Here I've made use of partial specialization to tease apart the components of the function pointer type to discover the argument type. boost.signals does this and more, leveraging features such as type erasure, and traits to determine this information for non-function pointer typed callable objects.
For N arguments there are two approaches. The "easy' way, that was added for C++0x, is leveraging variadic templates and a few other features. However, we've been doing this since before that features was added, and I don't know which compilers if any, support variadic templates yet. So we can do it the hard way, which is, specialize again:
template<typename R, typename Arg0, typename Arg1>
class MyEvent<R(*)(Arg0, Arg1)>
{
typedef R (*FuncType)(Arg0, Arg1);
deque<FuncType> ls;
...
void operatror()(Arg0 a, Arg1)
{ ... }
MyEvent<FuncType>& operator+=(FuncType f)
{ ls.push_back(f); }
...
};
THis gets tedious of course which is why have libraries like boost.signals that have already banged it out (and those use macros, etc. to relieve some of the tedium).
To allow for a MyEvent<int, int> style syntax you can use a technique like the following
struct NullEvent;
template<typename A = NullEvent, typename B = NullEvent, typename C = NullEvent>
class HisEvent;
template<>
struct HisEvent<NullEvent,NullEvent,NullEvent>
{ void operator()() {} };
template<typename A>
struct HisEvent<A,NullEvent,NullEvent>
{ void operator()(A a) {} };
template<typename A, typename B>
struct HisEvent<A, B, NullEvent>
{
void operator()(A a, B b) {}
};
template<typename A, typename B, typename C>
struct HisEvent
{
void operator()(A a, B b, C c)
{}
};
static int test(float f){return (int)f; }
int main(){
MyEvent<MyFunc> e;
e += test;
e(2.0);
HisEvent<int> h;
HisEvent<int, int> h2;
}
The NullEvent type is used as a placeholder and we again use partial specialization to figure out the arity.
EDIT: Added thread safe implementation, based on this answer. Many fixes and performance improvements
This is my version, improving James McNellis' one by adding: operator-=, variadic template to support any ariety of the stored callable objects, convenience Bind(func, object) and Unbind(func, object) methods to easily bind objects and instance member functions, assignment operators and comparison with nullptr. I moved away from using std::add_pointer to just use std::function which in my attempts it's more flexible (accepts both lambdas and std::function). Also I moved to use std::vector for faster iteration and removed returning *this in the operators, since it doesn't look to be very safe/useful anyway. Still missing from C# semantics: C# events can't be cleared from outside the class where they are declared (would be easy to add this by state friendship to a templatized type).
It follows the code, feedback is welcome:
#pragma once
#include <typeinfo>
#include <functional>
#include <stdexcept>
#include <memory>
#include <atomic>
#include <cstring>
template <typename TFunc>
class Event;
template <class RetType, class... Args>
class Event<RetType(Args ...)> final
{
private:
typedef typename std::function<RetType(Args ...)> Closure;
struct ComparableClosure
{
Closure Callable;
void *Object;
uint8_t *Functor;
int FunctorSize;
ComparableClosure(const ComparableClosure &) = delete;
ComparableClosure() : Object(nullptr), Functor(nullptr), FunctorSize(0) { }
ComparableClosure(Closure &&closure) : Callable(std::move(closure)), Object(nullptr), Functor(nullptr), FunctorSize(0) { }
~ComparableClosure()
{
if (Functor != nullptr)
delete[] Functor;
}
ComparableClosure & operator=(const ComparableClosure &closure)
{
Callable = closure.Callable;
Object = closure.Object;
FunctorSize = closure.FunctorSize;
if (closure.FunctorSize == 0)
{
Functor = nullptr;
}
else
{
Functor = new uint8_t[closure.FunctorSize];
std::memcpy(Functor, closure.Functor, closure.FunctorSize);
}
return *this;
}
bool operator==(const ComparableClosure &closure)
{
if (Object == nullptr && closure.Object == nullptr)
{
return Callable.target_type() == closure.Callable.target_type();
}
else
{
return Object == closure.Object && FunctorSize == closure.FunctorSize
&& std::memcmp(Functor, closure.Functor, FunctorSize) == 0;
}
}
};
struct ClosureList
{
ComparableClosure *Closures;
int Count;
ClosureList(ComparableClosure *closures, int count)
{
Closures = closures;
Count = count;
}
~ClosureList()
{
delete[] Closures;
}
};
typedef std::shared_ptr<ClosureList> ClosureListPtr;
private:
ClosureListPtr m_events;
private:
bool addClosure(const ComparableClosure &closure)
{
auto events = std::atomic_load(&m_events);
int count;
ComparableClosure *closures;
if (events == nullptr)
{
count = 0;
closures = nullptr;
}
else
{
count = events->Count;
closures = events->Closures;
}
auto newCount = count + 1;
auto newClosures = new ComparableClosure[newCount];
if (count != 0)
{
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
newClosures[i] = closures[i];
}
newClosures[count] = closure;
auto newEvents = ClosureListPtr(new ClosureList(newClosures, newCount));
if (std::atomic_compare_exchange_weak(&m_events, &events, newEvents))
return true;
return false;
}
bool removeClosure(const ComparableClosure &closure)
{
auto events = std::atomic_load(&m_events);
if (events == nullptr)
return true;
int index = -1;
auto count = events->Count;
auto closures = events->Closures;
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
if (closures[i] == closure)
{
index = i;
break;
}
}
if (index == -1)
return true;
auto newCount = count - 1;
ClosureListPtr newEvents;
if (newCount == 0)
{
newEvents = nullptr;
}
else
{
auto newClosures = new ComparableClosure[newCount];
for (int i = 0; i < index; i++)
newClosures[i] = closures[i];
for (int i = index + 1; i < count; i++)
newClosures[i - 1] = closures[i];
newEvents = ClosureListPtr(new ClosureList(newClosures, newCount));
}
if (std::atomic_compare_exchange_weak(&m_events, &events, newEvents))
return true;
return false;
}
public:
Event()
{
std::atomic_store(&m_events, ClosureListPtr());
}
Event(const Event &event)
{
std::atomic_store(&m_events, std::atomic_load(&event.m_events));
}
~Event()
{
(*this) = nullptr;
}
void operator =(const Event &event)
{
std::atomic_store(&m_events, std::atomic_load(&event.m_events));
}
void operator=(nullptr_t nullpointer)
{
while (true)
{
auto events = std::atomic_load(&m_events);
if (!std::atomic_compare_exchange_weak(&m_events, &events, ClosureListPtr()))
continue;
break;
}
}
bool operator==(nullptr_t nullpointer)
{
auto events = std::atomic_load(&m_events);
return events == nullptr;
}
bool operator!=(nullptr_t nullpointer)
{
auto events = std::atomic_load(&m_events);
return events != nullptr;
}
void operator +=(Closure f)
{
ComparableClosure closure(std::move(f));
while (true)
{
if (addClosure(closure))
break;
}
}
void operator -=(Closure f)
{
ComparableClosure closure(std::move(f));
while (true)
{
if (removeClosure(closure))
break;
}
}
template <typename TObject>
void Bind(RetType(TObject::*function)(Args...), TObject *object)
{
ComparableClosure closure;
closure.Callable = [object, function](Args&&...args)
{
return (object->*function)(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
};
closure.FunctorSize = sizeof(function);
closure.Functor = new uint8_t[closure.FunctorSize];
std::memcpy(closure.Functor, (void*)&function, sizeof(function));
closure.Object = object;
while (true)
{
if (addClosure(closure))
break;
}
}
template <typename TObject>
void Unbind(RetType(TObject::*function)(Args...), TObject *object)
{
ComparableClosure closure;
closure.FunctorSize = sizeof(function);
closure.Functor = new uint8_t[closure.FunctorSize];
std::memcpy(closure.Functor, (void*)&function, sizeof(function));
closure.Object = object;
while (true)
{
if (removeClosure(closure))
break;
}
}
void operator()()
{
auto events = std::atomic_load(&m_events);
if (events == nullptr)
return;
auto count = events->Count;
auto closures = events->Closures;
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
closures[i].Callable();
}
template <typename TArg0, typename ...Args2>
void operator()(TArg0 a1, Args2... tail)
{
auto events = std::atomic_load(&m_events);
if (events == nullptr)
return;
auto count = events->Count;
auto closures = events->Closures;
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
closures[i].Callable(a1, tail...);
}
};
I tested it with this:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Test
{
public:
void foo() { cout << "Test::foo()" << endl; }
void foo1(int arg1, double arg2) { cout << "Test::foo1(" << arg1 << ", " << arg2 << ") " << endl; }
};
class Test2
{
public:
Event<void()> Event1;
Event<void(int, double)> Event2;
void foo() { cout << "Test2::foo()" << endl; }
Test2()
{
Event1.Bind(&Test2::foo, this);
}
void foo2()
{
Event1();
Event2(1, 2.2);
}
~Test2()
{
Event1.Unbind(&Test2::foo, this);
}
};
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
(void)argc;
(void)argv;
Test2 t2;
Test t1;
t2.Event1.Bind(&Test::foo, &t1);
t2.Event2 += [](int arg1, double arg2) { cout << "Lambda(" << arg1 << ", " << arg2 << ") " << endl; };
t2.Event2.Bind(&Test::foo1, &t1);
t2.Event2.Unbind(&Test::foo1, &t1);
function<void(int, double)> stdfunction = [](int arg1, double arg2) { cout << "stdfunction(" << arg1 << ", " << arg2 << ") " << endl; };
t2.Event2 += stdfunction;
t2.Event2 -= stdfunction;
t2.foo2();
t2.Event2 = nullptr;
}
That is possible, but not with your current design. The problem lies with the fact that the callback function signature is locked into your template argument. I don't think you should try to support this anyways, all callbacks in the same list should have the same signature, don't you think?

C++ refactor common code with one different statement

I have two methods f(vector<int>& x, ....) and g(DBConn& x, ....)
where the (....) parameters are all identical.
The code inside the two methods are completely identical except for one statement
where we do different actions based on the type of x:
in f(): we do x.push_back(i)
in g(): we do x.DeleteRow(i)
What is the simplest way to extract the common code into one method and yet
have the two different statements?
I am thinking of having a templated functor that overloads operator () (int a) but that seems overkill.
common_function(....)
{
}
f(vector<int>x,... )
{
x.push_back(i);
common_f(...);
}
g(DBConn& x, ....)
{
x.DeleteRow(i);
common_f(...);
}
You could write a simple adapter with two implementations, each calling the desired method of a different class.
class MyInterface {
public:
virtual doIt(int i) = 0;
}
class VectorImp : public MyInterface {
public:
vector<int>& v;
VectorImp(vector<int>& theVector) : v(theVector) {}
doIt(int i) { x.push_back(i); }
}
class DbImp : public MyInterface {
public:
DBConn& c;
VectorImp(DBConn& conn) : c(conn) {}
doIt(int i) { c.DeleteRow(i); }
}
template<class T>
struct Adapter;
template<>
struct Adapter<vector<int> >
{
static void execute(vector<int> &x, int i)
{
x.push_back(i);
}
};
template<>
struct Adapter<DBConn>
{
static void execute(DBConn &x, int i)
{
v.DeleteRow(i);
}
};
template<class T>
void f(T &t, ...)
{
...
Adapter<T>::execute(t, i);
...
}
OR:
template<class T>
struct adapter_traits;
template<>
struct adapter_traits<vector<int> >
{
typedef void (vector<int>::*PMF)(int);
static const PMF pmf = &vector<int>::push_back;
}
template<>
struct adapter_traits<DBConn>
{
typedef void (DBConn::*PMF)(int);
static const PMF pmf = &DBConn::DeleteRow;
}
template<class T>
void f(T &t, ...)
{
...
(t.*adapter_traits<T>::pmf)(i);
...
}
NOTE: I might have some syntax wrong but you get the idea.
Yet another idea:
template<class T>
void f(T &t, void (T::*p)(int), ...)
{
...
(t.*p)(i);
}
void g()
{
DBConn x;
vector<int> y;
f(x, &DBConn::DeleteRow, ...);
f(y, &vector<int>::push_back, ...);
}
Classic case for a functor:
#include <vector>
#include <DBConn.h>
// T: The type of the object that is to be manipulated.
// A: The type of the object that will do the manipulating
// This may be a functor object or a function pointer.
//
// As this is a template function the template parameters will
// be deduced by the compiler at compile time.
template<typename T,typename A>
void action(T& obj,A const& action/*,....*/)
{
// Do Stuff
action(obj,5);
// Do more Stuff
}
// Functor object
struct MyVectorAction
{
// Just defines the operator()
// Make sure it is a const method.
// This does the unique bit of code. The parameters should be what you pass into action
void operator()(std::vector<int>& data,int val) const {data.push_back(val);}
};
void f(std::vector<int>& x)
{
action(x,MyVectorAction()/*.... Params ....*/);
}
struct MyDBConnAction
{ void operator()(DBConn& data,int val) const {data.DeleteRow(val);} };
void g(DBConn& x)
{
action(x, MyDBConnAction());
}
int main()
{
std::vector<int> x;
f(x);
}
You could make a function that has the parameters of what you call (...), and this function can implement the logic that is the same in f() and g(). You could then change the implementation of f() and g() to call this new function instead of duplicating the logic. Be careful though if you're doing something duplicated before and after your unique lines. You may need two functions in that case. At any rate I think this would be preferable to having duplicated blocks of code.