Is it possible to pass different objects as argument for 1 function, not making 3 functions
i.e
void someFunction(Object o) {
//working with object, all that objects have same fields to work with
// i.e. all objects have x, y fields and this function is working with it
}
Player pl;
Item itm;
Block bl;
someFunction(pl);
someFunction(itm);
someFunction(bl);
Maybe it can be done using templates or what?
I dont want to make 3 functions with same code for different objects
Yes, using templates:
template<class Type> void someFunction(const Type& o) {
//working with object, all that objects have same fields to work with
// i.e. all objects have x, y fields and this function is working with it
}
Note that you probably will prefer to pass o by const reference, not by value. I have done this here.
Yes, a template should work:
template <typename T>
void someFunction(T & o)
{
// use o.x, o.y, o.z
}
You can pass by reference or const-reference, depending on whether you want to modify the original object or not.
Templates can be used as an alias for a class of types. The following will allow any type to pass through the parameters of f.
template <typename T> void f(T & t) {
// ...
}
A template should work, but without taking SFINAE into account, you cannot assure that all the given objects have some fields.
Another solution could be inheritance here some sample code:
struct Foo
{
int x;
int y;
};
struct Bar: public Foo
{
int another_x;
};
struct Baz: public Foo
{
int another_y;
};
void someFunction(const Foo &foo)
{
std::cout << foo.x << '\n';
std::cout << foo.y << '\n';
};
With this approach, you can assure that all the given objects have the required members.
You can do this with templates or polymorphism (probably a parent interface with virtual methods to get and set relevant fields).
Templates will work and probably be well optimized, but will not allow new objects to be passed in later, regardless of whether they have the same fields. You will be able to compile new code and new objects to use the template functions, but existing calls will be stuck with a single type.
Using a parent interface and virtual methods, then making your function call those methods (presumably getters and setters) to handle the field manipulation will provide more freedom later, at the expense of slightly higher runtime and having to inherit from that interface (it will, however, allow new objects to be passed to the function at any time, so long as they implement the interface).
Related
I am working with an existing C library (that I can't modify) where some structures have opaque fields that must be accessed through specific setters and getters, like in the following crude example (imagining x is private, even though it's written in C).
struct CObject {
int x;
};
void setCObjectX(CObject* o, int x) {
o->x = x;
}
int getCObjectX(CObject* o) {
return o->x;
}
I am writing classes that privately own these types of structures, kind of like wrappers, albeit more complex. I want to expose the relevant fields in a convenient way. At first, I was simply writing setters and getters wherever necessary. However, I thought of something else, and I wanted to know if there are any downsides to the method. It uses function pointers (std::function) to store the C setter-getter pairs and present them as if directly accessing a field instead of functions.
Here is the generic class I wrote to help define such "fake" fields:
template<typename T>
struct IndirectField {
void operator=(const T& value) {
setter(value);
}
auto operator()() const -> T {
return *this;
}
operator T() const {
return getter();
}
std::function<void(const T&)> setter;
std::function<T()> getter;
};
It is used by defining an instance in the C++ class and setting up setter and getter with the corresponding C functions:
IndirectField<int> x;
// ...
x.setter = [=](int x) {
setCObjectX(innerObject.get(), x);
};
x.getter = [=]() {
return getCObjectX(innerObject.get());
};
Here is a complete, working code for testing.
Are there any disadvantages to using this method? Could it lead to eventual dangerous behaviors or something?
The biggest problem I see with your solution is that std::function objects take space inside each instance of IndirectField inside CPPObject, even when CObject type is the same.
You can fix this problem by making function pointers into template parameters:
template<typename T,typename R,void setter(R*,T),T getter(R*)>
struct IndirectField {
IndirectField(R *obj) : obj(obj) {
}
void operator=(const T& value) {
setter(obj, value);
}
auto operator()() const -> T {
return *this;
}
operator T() const {
return getter(obj);
}
private:
R *obj;
};
Here is how to use this implementation:
class CPPObject {
std::unique_ptr<CObject,decltype(&freeCObject)> obj;
public:
CPPObject()
: obj(createCObject(), freeCObject)
, x(obj.get())
, y(obj.get()) {
}
IndirectField<int,CObject,setCObjectX,getCObjectX> x;
IndirectField<double,CObject,setCObjectY,getCObjectY> y;
};
This approach trades two std::function objects for one CObject* pointer per IndirectField. Unfortunately, storing this pointer is required, because you cannot get it from the context inside the template.
Your modified demo.
Are there any disadvantages to using this method?
There's a few things to highlight in your code:
Your getters & setters, being not part of the class, break encapsulation. (Do you really want to tie yourself permanently to this library?)
Your example shows a massive amount of copying being done; which will be slower than it needs to be. (auto operator()(), operator T() to name but 2).
It's taking up more memory than you need to and adds more compexity than just passing around a Cobject. If you don't want things to know that it's a CObject, then create an abstract class and pass that abstract class around (see below for example).
Could it lead to eventual dangerous behaviors or something?
The breaking of encapsulation will result in x changing from any number of routes; and force other things to know about how it's stored in the object. Which is bad.
The creation of IndirectField Means that every object will have to have getters and setters in this way; which is going to be a maintenance nightmare.
Really I think what you're looking for is something like:
struct xProvider {
virtual int getX() const = 0;
virtual void setX() = 0;
};
struct MyCObject : xProvider {
private:
CObject obj;
public:
int getX() const override {return obj.x;}
CObject& getRawObj() {return obj;}
// etc ...
}
And then you just pass a reference / pointer to an xProvider around.
This will remove the dependence on this external C library; allowing you to replace it with your own test struct or a whole new library if you see fit; without having to re-write all your code using it
in a struct by default (as you post) all the fields are public, so they are accessible by client software. I you want to make them accessible to derived classes (you don't need to reimplement anything if you know the field contract and want to access it in a well defined way) they are made protected. And if you want them to be accessed by nobody, then mark them as private.
If the author of such a software doesn't want the fields to be touched by you, he will mark them as private, and then you'll have nothing to do, but to adapt to this behaviour. Failing to do will give you bad consequences.
Suppose you make a field that is modified with a set_myField() method, that calls a list of listeners anytime you make a change. If you bypass the method accessing function, all the listeners (many of them of unknown origin) will be bypassed and won't be notified of the field change. This is quite common in object programming, so you must obey the rules the authors impose to you.
I have a template function that I want to store a pointer to inside a std::vector.
The function looks like this:
template<typename T> void funcName(T& aT, std::vector<std::string>& fileName){...}
Now I want to store multiple pointers to functions of this kind inside a std::vector. For non-template functions I would do it like this:
typedef std::vector<std::string> string_vt;
typedef void func_t(T&, string_vt&);
typedef func_t* funcPointer;
typedef std::vector<funcPointer> funcPointer_vt;
But what is the correct syntax for template functions? How can I store them?
EDIT: First of all, thank you for your fast response. This was my first Question on Stack Overflow, so I am sorry for not providing enough information.
The set of T is finite, it can either be of type ClassA or type classB. In these function templates I want to do changes to T (so either ClassA or ClassB) with some hard coded data. I have 8 of these functions, which basically initiate a default constructed T with data specific to the function. In my program, I want to initiate 2*8 default constructed T's (8 ClassA and 8 ClassB). Therefore I run a for loop, calling one function after the other, to initiate my T objects with the function's body data.
for(int i = 0; i < initT.size(); ++i){
init_T[i]<T>(someT, fileName);
}
The for loop has as much iterations as there are function pointers inside the vector. At every iteration the function is called with some previously default constructed T and some other parameter. At the end the goal is to have 8 initiated T's with data specific to the function.
EDIT2: In case it helps, here is some actual source code. Inside the following function template I want to access my vector of function pointers in order to call the respective function.
template<typename T_Relation, typename T_Relation_Vec, bool row>
void bulk_load(initRelation_vt& aInitFunctions, T_Relation_Vec& aRel_Vec, const bool aMeasure, const uint aRuns, const char* aPath)
{
for(size_t i = 0; i < aRuns; ++i)
{
MemoryManager::freeAll();
aRel_Vec.clear();
string_vt fileNames;
for(size_t j = 0; j < aInitFunctions.size(); ++j)
{
aRel_Vec.emplace_back(T_Relation());
aInitFunctions[j]<T_Relation>(aRel_Vec[j], fileNames);
BulkLoader bl(fileNames[j].c_str(), tuples, aRel_Vec[j], delimiter, seperator);
Measure lMeasure;
if(aMeasure)
{
lMeasure.start();
}
try
{
bl.bulk_load();
if(row)
{
BulkInsertSP bi;
bi.bulk_insert(bl, aRel_Vec[j]);
}
else
{
BulkInsertPAX bi;
bi.bulk_insert(bl, aRel_Vec[j]);
}
}
catch(std::exception& ex)
{
std::cerr << "ERROR: " << ex.what() << std::endl;
}
lMeasure.stop();
if(aMeasure)
{
std::ofstream file;
file.open (aPath, std::ios::out | std::ios::app);
//print_result(file, flag, lMeasure.mTotalTime());
file.close();
}
}
}
}
This line is where the vector of function template pointers is accessed.
aInitFunctions[j]<T_Relation>(aRel_Vec[j], fileNames);
Templates are an advanced technique for static polymorphism. In a typed language, like C++, without static polymorphism you would have to separately define every entity used and precisely indicate every entity referred to.
Mechanisms of static polymorphism in C++ allow to automate indication of function or method and defer it until build via overloading. It allows you to define multiple entities sharing some characteristics at once via templates and defer definition of particular specializations until build, inferred from use.
(Notice that in various scenarios, static polymorphism allows separate code, so that changes to use and to definition are independent, which is very useful.)
The important implication of this mechanism is that every specialization of your template may be of different type. It is unclear, as of when I'm responding, whether you want to store pointers to a single or multiple types of specialization in one type of container. The possibilities depend also on parameter and result types of the function template.
A function in C++ has a type that is a combination of list of its parameter types and its return type. In other words, two functions that take and return the same types are of the same type. If your function template neither took or returned template parameter type (ie. T) nor templated type (eg. std::vector<T>), every specialization of this function template would be taking and returning the same types and would therefore be a function of the same type.
template <typename T>
int func() { ... }
This (arguably useless) function template takes no arguments and returns int, whatever T is used to specialize the template. Therefore a pointer to it could be used wherever the parameter is defined as int (*f)(). In this case you could keep pointer to any specialization in one vector.
typedef std::vector<std::string> string_vt;
typedef int func_t();
typedef func_t* funcPointer;
typedef std::vector<funcPointer> funcPointer_vt;
funcPointer x = &func<int>;
funcPointer y = &func<float>;
As can be seen, every specialization of your function template is of the same type and both pointers fit in the same container.
Next case - what if function header depends on a template parameter? Every specialization would have a different signature, that is a different function type. The pointers to all of them would be of different types - so it wouldn't be possible to even typedef this pointer once.
template <typename T>
void func(std::vector<T> param) { ... }
In this case function template specialization is of different type depending on T used to specialize.
typedef int func_t_int(std::vector<int>);
typedef func_t_int* funcPointerInt;
typedef std::vector<funcPointerInt> funcPointerInt_vt;
typedef float func_t_float(std::vector<float>);
typedef func_t_float* funcPointerFloat;
typedef std::vector<funcPointerFloat> funcPointerFloat_vt;
funcPointerInt x = &func<int>;
funcPointerFloat x = &func<float>;
Specializations are of different types, because they take different type of vectors. Pointers do not fit in the same container.
It's mention-worthy at this point, that in this case it's not necessary to define every pointer type separately. They could be a template type:
template <typename T>
using funcPointer = void (*)(std::vector<T>);
Which now allows funcPointer<int> to be used as a type qualifier, in place of earlier funcPointerInt.
funcPointer<float> y = &func<float>;
In more complicated situations a template could be created, whose every specialization is of a different type, and then would use a single instance of concrete vector to store various pointers to functions of type of only one of the specializations of your template. Although a simple template like in the example can only produce a single function per type, because every specialization yields one type of function and one function of that type, it's not impossible to conceive a scenario where various pointers to functions are obtained, both to specializations and usual functions, perhaps from various sources. So the technique could be useful.
But yet another scenario is that despite every specialization of the template being of different type, there's a need to store pointers to various specializations in single std::vector. In this case dynamic polymorphism will be helpful. To store values of different types, fe. pointers to functions of different types, in one type of variable, requires inheritance. It is possible to store any subclass in a field defined as superclass. Note however, that this is unlikely to accomplish anything really and probably not what you're really looking for.
I see two general possibilities now. Either use a class template with a method, which inherits from a non-template class.
template <typename T>
class MyClass : BaseClass
{
public:
T operator()(const T& param, int value);
}
MyClass<int> a;
MyClass<float> b;
BaseClass* ptr = &a;
ptr = &b;
While every specialization of this class may be of a different type, they all share superclass BaseClass, so a pointer to a BaseClass can actually point to any of them, and a std::vector<funcPointerBase> can be used to store them. By overloading operator() we have create an object that mimics a function. The interesting property of such a class is that it can have multiple instances created with parameter constructors. So effectively class template produces specializations of multiple types, and in turn every specialized class can produce instances of varying parametrization.
template <typename T>
class MyClass : BaseClass
{
int functor_param;
public:
MyClass(int functor_param);
T operator()(const T& param, int value);
}
This version allows creation of instances that work differently:
MyClass<int> a(1);
MyClass<int> b(2);
MyClass<float> c(4);
MyClass<int>* ptr = &a;
ptr = &b;
ptr = &c;
I am no expert on functors, just wanted to present the general idea. If it seems interesting, I suggest researching it now.
But technically we're not storing function pointers, just regular object pointers. Well, as stated before, we need inheritance to use one type of variable to store values of various types. So if we're not using inheritance to exchange our procedural functions for something dynamically polymorphic, we must do the same to pointers.
template <typename T>
T func(std::pair < T, char>) {}
template <typename T>
using funcPointer = T(*)(std::pair<T, char>);
template <typename T>
class MyPointer : BasePointer
{
funcPointer<T> ptr;
public:
MyPointer(funcPointer<T> ptr);
T()(std::pair <T, char>) operator*(std::pair <T, char> pair)
{
*ptr(pair);
}
};
This, again, allows creation of single std::vector<BasePointer> to store all possible pseudo-function-pointers.
Now the very important bit. How would You go about calling those, in either scenario? Since in both cases they are stored in a single std::vector<>, they are treated as if they were of the base type. A specific function call needs parameters of specific type and returns a specific type. If there was anything that all subclasses can do in the same way, it could be exposed by defining such a method in base class (in either scenario using functors or pointer..ors?), but a specific specialized function call is not that kind of thing. Every function call that You would want to perform in the end, after all this struggle, would be of a different type, requiring different type of parameters and/or returning different type of value. So they could never all fit into the same place in usual, not templated code, the same circumstances in execution. If they did, then dynamic polymorphism wouldn't be necessary to solve this problem in the first place.
One thing that could be done - which is greatly discouraged and probably defeats the purpose of dynamic polymorphism - is to detect subclass type at runtime and proceed accordingly. Research that, if you're convinced you have a good case for using this. Most likely though, it's probably a big anti-pattern.
But technically, anything you may want to do is possible somehow.
If I have correctly understood you, I may have a really simple and efficient solution:
template<class...Ts>
struct functor{
//something like a dynamic vtable
std::tuple<void(*)(Ts&,std::vector<std::string>&)...> instantiated_func_ptr;
template<class T>
void operator ()(T& aT,std::vector<std::string>& fileName){
get<void(*)(T&,std::vector<std::string>&)>(instantiated_func_ptr)
(aT,fileName);
}
};
Voilà!!
Until c++17, get<typename> is not defined so we have to define it (before the definition of the template functor above):
template<class T,class...Ts>
struct find_type{
//always fail if instantiated
static_assert(sizeof...(Ts)==0,"type not found");
};
template<class T,class U,class...Ts>
struct find_type<T,U,Ts...>:std::integral_constant<size_t,
find_type<T,Ts...>::value+1>{};
template<class T,class...Ts>
struct find_type<T,T,Ts...>:std::integral_constant<size_t,0>{};
template<class T,class...Ts>
constexpr decltype(auto) get(const std::tuple<Ts...>& t){
return get<find_type<T,Ts...>::value>(t);
}
And an example to show how to use it:
struct A{
void show() const{
std::cout << "A" << "\n";
}
};
struct B{
void show() const{
std::cout << "B" << "\n";
}
};
template<class T>
void func1(T& aT,std::vector<std::string>& fileName){
std::cout << "func1: ";
aT.show();
}
template<class T>
void func2(T& aT,std::vector<std::string>& fileName){
std::cout << "func2: ";
aT.show();
}
template<class T>
void func3(T& aT,std::vector<std::string>& fileName){
std::cout << "func3: ";
aT.show();
}
using functorAB = functor<A,B>;
int main(){
auto functor1=functorAB{{func1,func1}};//equivalent to functorAB{{func1<A>,func1<B>}}
auto functor2=functorAB{{func2,func2}};
auto functor3=functorAB{{func3,func3}};
auto v=std::vector<functorAB>{functor1,functor2,functor3};
auto a=A{};
auto b=B{};
auto fileNames = std::vector<std::string>{"file1","file2"};
for(auto& tf:v)
tf(a,fileNames);
for(auto& tf:v)
tf(b,fileNames);
}
In practice it is just a reproduction of the virtual call mechanism,
the tuple in functor is kind of virtual table. This code is not
more efficient than if you had written an abstract functor with virtual
operator() for each of your class A and B and then implemented it for each of
your functions... but it is much more concise, easier to maintain and may produce less binary code.
I am trying to write a class that I can store and use type information in without the need for a template parameter.
I want to write something like this:
class Example
{
public:
template<typename T>
Example(T* ptr)
: ptr(ptr)
{
// typedef T EnclosedType; I want this be a avaialable at the class level.
}
void operator()()
{
if(ptr == NULL)
return;
(*(EnclosedType*)ptr)(); // so i can cast the pointer and call the () operator if the class has one.
}
private:
void* ptr;
}
I am not asking how to write an is_functor() class.
I want to know how to get type information in a constructor and store it at the class level. If that is impossible, a different solution to this would be appreciated.
I consider this as a good and valid question, however, there is no general solution beside using a template parameter at the class level. What you tried to achieve in your question -- using a typedef inside a function and then access this in the whole class -- is not possible.
Type erasure
Only if you impose certain restrictions onto your constructor parameters, there are some alternatives. In this respect, here is an example of type erasure where the operator() of some given object is stored inside a std::function<void()> variable.
struct A
{
template<typename T>
A(T const& t) : f (std::bind(&T::operator(), t)) {}
void operator()() const
{
f();
}
std::function<void()> f;
};
struct B
{
void operator()() const
{
std::cout<<"hello"<<std::endl;
}
};
int main()
{
A(B{}).operator()(); //prints "hello"
}
DEMO
Note, however, the assumptions underlying this approach: one assumes that all passed objects have an operator of a given signature (here void operator()) which is stored inside a std::function<void()> (with respect to storing the member-function, see here).
Inheritance
In a sense, type erasure is thus like "inheriting without a base class" -- one could instead use a common base class for all constructor parameter classes with a virtual bracket operator, and then pass a base class pointer to your constructor.
struct A_parameter_base
{
void operator()() const = 0;
};
struct B : public A_parameter_base
{
void operator()() const { std::cout<<"hello"<<std::endl; }
};
struct A
{
A(std::shared_ptr<A_parameter_base> _p) : p(_p) {}
void operator()()
{
p->operator();
}
std::shared_ptr<A_parameter_base> p;
}
That is similar to the code in your question, only that it does not use a void-pointer but a pointer to a specific base class.
Both approaches, type erasure and inheritance, are similar in their applications, but type erasure might be more convenient as one gets rid of a common base class. However, the inheritance approach has the further advantage that you can restore the original object via multiple dispatch
This also shows the limitations of both approaches. If your operator would not be void but instead would return some unknown varying type, you cannot use the above approach but have to use templates. The inheritance parallel is: you cannot have a virtual function template.
The practical answer is to store either a copy of your class, or a std::ref wrapped pseudo-reference to your class, in a std::function<void()>.
std::function type erases things it stores down to 3 concepts: copy, destroy and invoke with a fixed signature. (also, cast-back-to-original-type and typeid, more obscurely)
What it does is it remembers, at construction, how to do these operations to the passed in type, and stores a copy in a way it can perform those operations on it, then forgets everything else about the type.
You cannot remember everything about a type this way. But almost any operation with a fixed signature, or which can be intermediaried via a fixed signature operation, can be type erased down to.
The first typical way to do this are to create a private pure interface with those operations, then create a template implementation (templated on the type passed to the ctor) that implements each operation for that particular type. The class that does the type erasure then stores a (smart) pointer to the private interface, and forwards its public operations to it.
A second typical way is to store a void*, or a buffer of char, and a set of pointers to functions that implement the operations. The pointers to functions can be either stored locally in the type erasing class, or stored in a helper struct that is created statically for each type erased, and a pointer to the helper struct is stored in the type erasing class. The first way to store the function pointers is like C-style object properties: the second is like a manual vtable.
In any case, the function pointers usually take one (or more) void* and know how to cast them back to the right type. They are created in the ctor that knows the type, either as instances of a template function, or as local stateless lambdas, or the same indirectly.
You could even do a hybrid of the two: static pimpl instance pointers taking a void* or whatever.
Often using std::function is enough, manually writing type erasure is hard to get right compared to using std::function.
Another version to the first two answers we have here - that's closer to your current code:
class A{
public:
virtual void operator()=0;
};
template<class T>
class B: public A{
public:
B(T*t):ptr(t){}
virtual void operator(){(*ptr)();}
T*ptr;
};
class Example
{
public:
template<typename T>
Example(T* ptr)
: a(new B<T>(ptr))
{
// typedef T EnclosedType; I want this be a avaialable at the class level.
}
void operator()()
{
if(!a)
return;
(*a)();
}
private:
std::unique_ptr<A> a;
}
I need to store multiple types of a template class in a single vector.
Eg, for:
template <typename T>
class templateClass{
bool someFunction();
};
I need one vector that will store all of:
templateClass<int> t1;
templateClass<char> t2;
templateClass<std::string> t3;
etc
As far as I know this is not possible, if it is could someone say how?
If it isn't possible could someone explain how to make the following work?
As a work around I tried to use a base, non template class and inherit the template class from it.
class templateInterface{
virtual bool someFunction() = 0;
};
template <typename T>
class templateClass : public templateInterface{
bool someFunction();
};
I then created a vector to store the base "templateInterface" class:
std::vector<templateInterface> v;
templateClass<int> t;
v.push_back(t);
This produced the following error:
error: cannot allocate an object of abstract type 'templateInterface'
note: because the following virtual functions are pure within 'templateInterface'
note: virtual bool templateInterface::someFunction()
To fix this error I made the function in templateInterface not a pure virtual by providing a function body, this compiled but when calling the function the overide is not used, but instead the body in the virtual function.
Eg:
class templateInterface{
virtual bool someFunction() {return true;}
};
template <typename T>
class templateClass : public templateInterface{
bool someFunction() {return false;}
};
std::vector<templateInterface> v;
templateClass<int> i;
v.push_back(i);
v[0].someFunction(); //This returns true, and does not use the code in the 'templateClass' function body
Is there any way to fix this so that the overridden function is used, or is there another workaround to store multiple template types in a single vector?
Why your code doesn't work:
Calling a virtual function on a value doesn't use polymorphism. It calls the function which is defined for the type of this exact symbol as seen by the compiler, not the runtime type. When you insert sub types into a vector of the base type, your values will be converted into the base type ("type slicing"), which is not what you want. Calling functions on them will now call the function as defined for the base type, since not it is of that type.
How to fix this?
The same problem can be reproduced with this code snippet:
templateInterface x = templateClass<int>(); // Type slicing takes place!
x.someFunction(); // -> templateInterface::someFunction() is called!
Polymorphism only works on a pointer or reference type. It will then use the runtime type of the object behind the pointer / reference to decide which implementation to call (by using it's vtable).
Converting pointers is totally "safe" with regard to type slicing. Your actual values won't be converted at all and polymorphism will work as expected.
Example, analogous to the code snippet above:
templateInterface *x = new templateClass<int>(); // No type slicing takes place
x->someFunction(); // -> templateClass<int>::someFunction() is called!
delete x; // Don't forget to destroy your objects.
What about vectors?
So you have to adopt these changes in your code. You can simply store pointers to actual types in the vector, instead of storing the values directly.
When working with pointers you also have to care about deleting your allocated objects. For this you can use smart pointers which care about deletion automatically. unique_ptr is one such smart pointer type. It deletes the pointee whenever it goes out of scope ("unique ownership" - the scope being the owner). Assuming the lifetime of your objects is bound to the scope this is what you should use:
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<templateInterface>> v;
templateClass<int> *i = new templateClass<int>(); // create new object
v.push_back(std::unique_ptr<templateInterface>(i)); // put it in the vector
v.emplace_back(new templateClass<int>()); // "direct" alternative
Then, call a virtual function on one of these elements with the following syntax:
v[0]->someFunction();
Make sure you make all functions virtual which should be possible to be overridden by subclasses. Otherwise their overridden version will not be called. But since you already introduced an "interface", I'm sure you are working with abstract functions.
Alternative approaches:
Alternative ways to do what you want is to use a variant type in the vector. There are some implementations of variant types, the Boost.Variant being a very popular one. This approach is especially nice if you don't have a type hierarchy (for example when you store primitive types). You would then use a vector type like std::vector<boost::variant<int, char, bool>>
Polymorphism only works through pointers or references. You'll
need the non-template base. Beyond that, you'll need to decide
where the actual objects in container will live. If they're all
static objects (with sufficient lifetime), just using
a std::vector<TemplateInterface*>, and inserting with
v.push_back(&t1);, etc., should do the trick. Otherwise,
you'll probably want to support cloning, and keep clones in the
vector: preferably with Boost pointer containers, but
std::shared_ptr can be used as well.
The solutions given so far are fine though be aware that in case you were returning the template type other than bool in your example , none of these would help as the vtable slots would not be able to be measured before hand. There are actually limits , from a design point of view , for using a template oriented polymorphic solution.
Solution nr. 1
This solution inspired by Sean Parent's C++ Seasoning talk. I highly recommend to check it out on youtube. My solution simplified a bit and the key is to store object in method itself.
One method only
Create a class that will invoke method of stored object.
struct object {
template <class T>
object(T t)
: someFunction([t = std::move(t)]() { return t.someFunction(); })
{ }
std::function<bool()> someFunction;
};
Then use it like this
std::vector<object> v;
// Add classes that has 'bool someFunction()' method
v.emplace_back(someClass());
v.emplace_back(someOtherClass());
// Test our vector
for (auto& x : v)
std::cout << x.someFunction() << std::endl;
Several methods
For several methods use shared pointer to share object between methods
struct object {
template <class T>
object(T&& t) {
auto ptr = std::make_shared<std::remove_reference_t<T>>(std::forward<T>(t));
someFunction = [ptr]() { return ptr->someFunction(); };
someOtherFunction = [ptr](int x) { ptr->someOtherFunction(x); };
}
std::function<bool()> someFunction;
std::function<void(int)> someOtherFunction;
};
Other types
Primitive types (such as int, float, const char*) or classes (std::string etc.) may be wrapped in the same way as object class do but behave differently. For example:
struct otherType {
template <class T>
otherType(T t)
: someFunction([t = std::move(t)]() {
// Return something different
return true;
})
{ }
std::function<bool()> someFunction;
};
So now it is possible to add types that does not have someFunction method.
v.emplace_back(otherType(17)); // Adding an int
v.emplace_back(otherType("test")); // A string
Solution nr. 2
After some thoughts what we basically done in first solution is created array of callable functions. So why not just do the following instead.
// Example class with method we want to put in array
struct myclass {
void draw() const {
std::cout << "myclass" << std::endl;
}
};
// All other type's behaviour
template <class T>
void draw(const T& x) {
std::cout << typeid(T).name() << ": " << x << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
myclass x;
int y = 17;
std::vector<std::function<void()>> v;
v.emplace_back(std::bind(&myclass::draw, &x));
v.emplace_back(std::bind(draw<int>, y));
for (auto& fn : v)
fn();
}
Conclusion
Solution nr. 1 is definitely an interesting method that does not require inheritance nor virtual functions. And can be used to other stuff where you need to store a template argument to be used later.
Solution nr. 2, on the other hand, is simpler, more flexible and probably a better choice here.
If you're looking at a container to store multiple types, then you should explore boost variant from the popular boost library.
I am creating a bunch of C structs so i can encapsulate data to be passed over a dll c interface. The structs have many members, and I want them to have defaults, so that they can be created with only a few members specified.
As I understand it, the structs need to remain c-style, so can't contain constructors. Whats the best way to create them? I was thinking a factory?
struct Foo {
static Foo make_default ();
};
A factory is overkill. You use it when you want to create instances of a given interface, but the runtime type of the implementation isn't statically known at the site of creation.
The C-Structs can still have member functions. Problems will, however, arise if you start using virtual functions as this necessitates a virtual table somewhere in the struct's memory. Normal member functions (such as a constructor) don't actually add any size to the struct. You can then pass the struct to the DLL with no problems.
I would use a constructor class:
struct Foo { ... };
class MakeFoo
{
Foo x;
public:
MakeFoo(<Required-Members>)
{
<Initalize Required Members in x>
<Initalize Members with default values in x>
}
MakeFoo& optionalMember1(T v)
{
x.optionalMember1 = v;
}
// .. for the rest option members;
operator Foo() const
{
return x;
}
};
This allows to arbitrary set members of the struct in expression:
processFoo(MakeFoo(1,2,3).optionalMember3(5));
I have an easy idea, here is how:
Make the structure, just like you normally would, and create a simple function that initializes it:
struct Foo{...};
void Default(Foo &obj) {
// ... do the initialization here
}
If you have multiple structures, you are allowed in C++ to overload the function, so you can have many functions called 'default', each initializing its own type, for example:
struct Foo { //... };
struct Bar { //... };
void Default(Foo &obj) {...}
void Default(Bar &obj) {...}
The C++ compiler will know when to call the first or the second overload based on the parameter. The & makes obj a reference to whatever parameter you give it, so any changes made to obj will be reflected to the variable you put as parameter.
Edit:
I also have an idea for how to specify some parameters, you can do it by using default parameters. This is how it works:
For example you the following function; you can specify default values for parameters like this:
void Default (Foo &obj, int number_of_something = 0, int some_other_param = 10)
{ ... }