Part of a task for a homework is to load two text-files and save their content in a class using dynamically allocated char-arrays.
This is my class. What can I improve about it?
Content.hpp
class Content
{
public:
Content(char* pContent);
~Content();
char* getContent();
private:
char* data;
};
Content.cpp
#include <cstring>
#include "Content.h"
using namespace std;
Content::Content(char* pContent){
data = new char[sizeof pContent];
strcpy(data, pContent);
}
Content::~Content(){
delete[] data;
}
char* Content::getContent(){
return data;
}
You should replace sizeof pContent with strlen(pContent) + 1, if you are storing strings (which it appears you are). This is because character arrays will decay to pointers in C & C++, which hold no length.
Consider declaring const char* getContent() instead of char* getContent() because it returns a private data member that you may want to prevent from being modified externally.
Related
When I initialize the constructor with the given data type of the parameter, I find that it goes wrong with the explaination that " const char* values cannot be assigned to char* entities".
class TString
{
private:
char* m_pData;
int m_nLength;
public:
TString();
TString(const char* pStr);
······
}
TString::TString(const char* pStr) {
this->m_pData = pStr;
}
What should I do to solve this problem? If possible, give me a right example.
Thanks in advance and apolpgize for my ignorance.
Const char * generally are prefined static compiled strings that cannot be changed because they are locked in the source code, or they come from some immutable source. This is in part, why they are marked const to prevent people from trying to change them.
The easiest solution to this problem is to take the const char * and make a copy of it on the heap, then it is no longer constant.
For example:
#include <string.h> // for strdup
...
TString::TString(const char* pStr) {
m_pData = strdup(pStr); // this will malloc and copy the string accepting const char * as input.
}
One thing you will need to consider, the m_pData is now on the heap, so in the destructor, you will want to free this data otherwise you will have a memory leak.
TString::~TString(){
free(m_pData);
}
You will also want in the TString() constructor to set the m_pData=NULL too.
This will work with strings, but if it's binary data i.e. no terminator allocate the data using malloc and use a memcpy, like:
m_pData=(char *)malloc(m_nlength*sizeof(char));
memcpy(m_pData,pStr,m_nlength);
Or some such.
It might not be advisable according to what I have read at a couple of places (and that's probably the reason std::string doesn't do it already), but in a controlled environment and with careful usage, I think it might be ok to write a string class which can be implicitly converted to a proper writable char buffer when needed by third party library methods (which take only char* as an argument), and still behave like a modern string having methods like Find(), Split(), SubString() etc. While I can try to implement the usual other string manipulation methods later, I first wanted to ask about the efficient and safe way to do this main task. Currently, we have to allocate a char array of roughly the maximum size of the char* output that is expected from the third party method, pass it there, then convert the return char* to a std::string to be able to use the convenient methods it allows, then again pass its (const char*) result to another method using string.c_str(). This is both lengthy and makes the code look a little messy.
Here is my very initial implementation so far:
MyString.h
#pragma once
#include<string>
using namespace std;
class MyString
{
private:
bool mBufferInitialized;
size_t mAllocSize;
string mString;
char *mBuffer;
public:
MyString(size_t size);
MyString(const char* cstr);
MyString();
~MyString();
operator char*() { return GetBuffer(); }
operator const char*() { return GetAsConstChar(); }
const char* GetAsConstChar() { InvalidateBuffer(); return mString.c_str(); }
private:
char* GetBuffer();
void InvalidateBuffer();
};
MyString.cpp
#include "MyString.h"
MyString::MyString(size_t size)
:mAllocSize(size)
,mBufferInitialized(false)
,mBuffer(nullptr)
{
mString.reserve(size);
}
MyString::MyString(const char * cstr)
:MyString()
{
mString.assign(cstr);
}
MyString::MyString()
:MyString((size_t)1024)
{
}
MyString::~MyString()
{
if (mBufferInitialized)
delete[] mBuffer;
}
char * MyString::GetBuffer()
{
if (!mBufferInitialized)
{
mBuffer = new char[mAllocSize]{ '\0' };
mBufferInitialized = true;
}
if (mString.length() > 0)
memcpy(mBuffer, mString.c_str(), mString.length());
return mBuffer;
}
void MyString::InvalidateBuffer()
{
if (mBufferInitialized && mBuffer && strlen(mBuffer) > 0)
{
mString.assign(mBuffer);
mBuffer[0] = '\0';
}
}
Sample usage (main.cpp)
#include "MyString.h"
#include <iostream>
void testSetChars(char * name)
{
if (!name)
return;
//This length is not known to us, but the maximum
//return length is known for each function.
char str[] = "random random name";
strcpy_s(name, strlen(str) + 1, str);
}
int main(int, char*)
{
MyString cs("test initializer");
cout << cs.GetAsConstChar() << '\n';
testSetChars(cs);
cout << cs.GetAsConstChar() << '\n';
getchar();
return 0;
}
Now, I plan to call the InvalidateBuffer() in almost all the methods before doing anything else. Now some of my questions are :
Is there a better way to do it in terms of memory/performance and/or safety, especially in C++ 11 (apart from the usual move constructor/assignment operators which I plan to add to it soon)?
I had initially implemented the 'buffer' using a std::vector of chars, which was easier to implement and more C++ like, but was concerned about performance. So the GetBuffer() method would just return the beginning pointer of the resized vector of . Do you think there are any major pros/cons of using a vector instead of char* here?
I plan to add wide char support to it later. Do you think a union of two structs : {char,string} and {wchar_t, wstring} would be the way to go for that purpose (it will be only one of these two at a time)?
Is it too much overkill rather than just doing the usual way of passing char array pointer, converting to a std::string and doing our work with it. The third party function calls expecting char* arguments are used heavily in the code and I plan to completely replace both char* and std::string with this new string if it works.
Thank you for your patience and help!
If I understood you correctly, you want this to work:
mystring foo;
c_function(foo);
// use the filled foo
with a c_function like ...
void c_function(char * dest) {
strcpy(dest, "FOOOOO");
}
Instead, I propose this (ideone example):
template<std::size_t max>
struct string_filler {
char data[max+1];
std::string & destination;
string_filler(std::string & d) : destination(d) {
data[0] = '\0'; // paranoia
}
~string_filler() {
destination = data;
}
operator char *() {
return data;
}
};
and using it like:
std::string foo;
c_function(string_filler<80>{foo});
This way you provide a "normal" buffer to the C function with a maximum that you specify (which you should know either way ... otherwise calling the function would be unsafe). On destruction of the temporary (which, according to the standard, must happen after that expression with the function call) the string is copied (using std::string assignment operator) into a buffer managed by the std::string.
Addressing your questions:
Do you think there are any major pros/cons of using a vector instead of char* here?
Yes: Using a vector frees your from manual memory management. This is a huge pro.
I plan to add wide char support to it later. Do you think a union of two structs : {char,string} and {wchar_t, wstring} would be the way to go for that purpose (it will be only one of these two at a time)?
A union is a bad idea. How do you know which member is currently active? You need a flag outside of the union. Do you really want every string to carry that around? Instead look what the standard library is doing: It's using templates to provide this abstraction.
Is it too much overkill [..]
Writing a string class? Yes, way too much.
What you want to do already exists. For example with this plain old C function:
/**
* Write n characters into buffer.
* n cann't be more than size
* Return number of written characters
*/
ssize_t fillString(char * buffer, ssize_t size);
Since C++11:
std::string str;
// Resize string to be sure to have memory
str.resize(80);
auto newSize = fillSrting(&str[0], str.size());
str.resize(newSize);
or without first resizing:
std::string str;
if (!str.empty()) // To avoid UB
{
auto newSize = fillSrting(&str[0], str.size());
str.resize(newSize);
}
But before C++11, std::string isn't guaranteed to be stored in a single chunk of contiguous memory. So you have to pass through a std::vector<char> before;
std::vector<char> v;
// Resize string to be sure to have memor
v.resize(80);
ssize_t newSize = fillSrting(&v[0], v.size());
std::string str(v.begin(), v.begin() + newSize);
You can use it easily with something like Daniel's proposition
Sorry for the confusing title, basically I have created two classes, one is an object, and the other being a box that contains an array of such objects. so what I want to do is create a function/constructor inside the object class that takes in an array of ints and stores them inside the box. I want to be able to call this function through the box class constructor to initialize these objects. So ive tried something like below but it isnt working at all, since only the first value of the array gets passed through. What am I doing wrong?
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
class object{
string objectName;
int values[];
public:
void createObject(int[]);
}
class Box{
object objects[100];
public:
Box();
}
Box::Box (void){
int array1[2];
int array2[15];
object[1].createObject(array1);
object[2].createObject(array2);
}
Object::Object(int Values[]){
values = Values;
}
You should really use std::vector. The problem with arrays is that they decay to pointers when passed as arguments to functions. As a consequence, If you want to store a private copy of the elements you are forced to use heap-allocated objects and consequently do memory management by hand (with all the pain it causes).
It is much better to rely on data members that permit applying the rule of zero.
Here's a tentative solution:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
class object {
public:
object(std::vector<int> const& v, std::string const& object_name): v_(v.begin(), v.end()), object_name_(object_name) {}
private:
std::vector<int> v_;
std::string object_name_;
};
class box {
public:
box(std::vector<object> const& objects): objects_(objects) {};
private:
std::vector<object> objects_;
};
I recommend you instead use a std::vector. Arrays don't really work well being passed to functions. When you define Object::Object(int Values[]) you are simply passing the first element of this array by value. If you were to use vectors, the function would look like this:
Object::Object(std::vector<int> &Values):
values(Values)
{
}
The problem with the code is in your thinking on what the array is. In C++, all an array is, is a memory pointer. The language allows you to pass an index into the array pointer to access whatever chunk of data lives at that index.
Whenever you pass arrays between functions or classes, pass the array name only. It will be interpreted as a pointer, and won't copy any data. When you do this, you must also pass the length of the array.
Granted, most people stick with vector<> because it's easier, takes care of memory leaks (mostly) and is VERY efficient. But I like doing it myself. It's good for you. I would try:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
class Object
{
string _objectName;
int *_values;
int _myLength;
Object();
~Object();
void createObject(int *pValues, int arrLength);
}
class Box
{
_Object objects[100];
Box();
}
Box::Box(void) {
int array1[2];
int array2[15];
object[1].createObject(array1, 2);
object[2].createObject(array2, 15);
}
Object::Object() {
_values = null_ptr;
_myLength = 0;
}
Object::~Object() {
delete[] _values;
}
void Object::createObject(int *pvalues, int arrLength) {
_myLength = arrLength;
_values = new int[_myLength];
for(int ndx=0; ndx<arrLength; ndx++) {
_values[ndx] = pvalues[ndx];
}
}
-CAUTION-
I just adapted your code you provided, and added some conventions. There are a couple places in the code where I'm not sure what the purpose is, but there you go. This should give you a good head start.
Assume I want to write my own string class. The string has a property char * s which is a pointer that points to a character.
Now in the constructor, String::String(), what would you pass in to assume another char * to that? You can't really do something like the code below since both pointers will point to the same thing (and we don't want that):
String::String(const char *str) {
s = str;
}
Any help is appreciated!
You need to deep copy the string, i.e. create a character buffer long enough to incorporate the contents of str, then copy the contents into it. The simplest way to achieve that would be using strdup strcpy, since the former is nonstandard:
s = new char[strlen (str) + 1];
if (s == NULL) throw some_exception;
strcpy (s, str);
Please do not write your own string class. There are hell of a lot of details you have to know not to introduce mistakes (for example, overloaded operators, boolean idioms etc), and a lot more details to make that string class efficient (for example, implement copy-on-write) etc. But just for educational purposes, you have to make a copy of the passed string. Here is an example:
#include <cstdint>
#include <cstring>
#include <cstdio>
class String
{
char *p_;
public:
explicit String (const char *str)
{
auto length = std::strlen (str) + 1;
p_ = new char [length];
std::memcpy (p_, str, length);
}
~String ()
{
delete [] p_;
p_ = nullptr;
}
inline const char *c_str () const
{
return p_;
}
};
int
main ()
{
String s ("Hello, world!");
std::printf ("%s\n", s.c_str ());
}
You should copy contents of null-terminated string that is passed as parameter.
One thing is that you might remove terminating null, because if you have your own class you can manage string boundaries manually by keeping current length.
What is the problem in my code? It does not compile..
class FileNames
{
public:
static char* dir;
static char name[100];
static void Init3D()
{
FileNames::dir = "C://3D//";
FileNames::name = "abc";
}
};
You cannot assign to an array, so FileNames::name = "abc" fails (char arr[4] = "abc" works, however, because this is a direct initialization, not assignment). Either use a char* here as well, or use strcpy to copy data to the array or better a std::string which avoids many of the downsides of raw strings.
Most importantly you need to define your static members somewhere at global scope, outside a function:
char FileNames::name[100];. At this time initialization syntax using = would be possible even with the array, but the string to be assigned needs to have the same length as the array.
There are two problems with your code:
1) You've duplicated the variable name (with two different types).
2) You can't initialise static members like that (see example below).
The last thing isn't a problem as such, but you should consider using std::string instead, as that encapsulates string functionality so that you don't need to deal with raw pointers. It's a lot less painful, especially if you're new to this sort of thing.
Change it to this:
// Header file
class FileNames
{
private:
static char* name;
public:
static char* dir;
};
CPP file
#include "FileNames.h"
char* FileNames::name = "abc";
char* FileNames::dir = "C://3D//";
// Now use your class...
Try initializing like this:
class FileNames
{
public:
static char* dir;
static char name[];
};
char *FileNames::dir = "C://3D//";
char FileNames::name[100] = "abc";
Did you remember to actually define the static members outside of the class? Also, I don't believe you need to resolve the scope unless you're actually outside of the class.
Use:
FileNames::dir = new char[strlen("C://3D//")];
strcpy(FileNames::dir, "C://3D//");
strcpy(FileNames::name, "abc");
Also, don't forget to #include <cstring> and to later delete[](FileNames::dir)