Is there a way to instantiate objects from a string holding their class name?
I got a problem basically the same with the above question. But I need to instantiate a class with some parameters. different class constructor name may require different number of variables and the type of each variable may differ either. And because the class contains constant variables so you could not new it with new T() and then set the parameter to the correct value. the "class name"-"constructor" map seems not suitable for my needs.
Any alternatives?
I'm going to preface this by saying, maybe C++ isn't the right language for whatever you're trying to accomplish. The more you try to control your program via external data, the closer you get to full on scripting. And there are lots of more powerful options when that is your goal.
That said, sure, it is possible, although not as easily. Two ways come immediately to mind. The first is to require all applicable types to have a constructor that accepts a std::string. This constructor will be responsible for its own parsing.
template<typename T> Base * createInstance(const std::string& s) { return new T(s); }
typedef std::map<std::string, Base*(*)(const std::string&)> map_type;
//...and similar changes as needed
If you don't want to change your type definitions, or this is otherwise unacceptable [perhaps your types already have such a constructor?], get rid of the templated createInstance method, and provide individual versions for each type you are interested in. This function does the parsing, and calls the appropriate constructor.
map["derivedA"] = createDerivedA;
map["derivedB"] = createDerivedB;
A third option might be possible using variadic templates [or boost-esque variadic-like templates] that would bring you back to the original simplicity.
template<typename T, typename... Args>
Base* create(std::string) {
//somehow pass the string to a generic function that packs the arguments into a tuple
//then somehow unpack that tuple and pass the bits to the constructor
}
map["derivedA"] = create<derivedA, int, double, std::string>;
However, I have no idea how to pull that off, or even if it is possible.
You could use a factory design patten. pass your string to the factory class and then let it decode your string choosing the correct version of the constructor and class to call. it would then pass back an instance of the correct class for the rest of your code to use.
Here's some info factory design pattern
Related
My team works on an HTTP web server in C++. The codebase has aged over time, and has a widespread problem of 12+ parameters being passed to every function.
A fake example: We need to build a Car, but in order to do that, we have the following function:
MaybeBuildCar(engine_params, steering_params, interior_params, fuel_params, available_inventory, parts, &debug);
Someone on our team has proposed that we create a wrapper CarBuilder class whose constructor takes in the params and "stateful" objects like available_inventory, then has a separate function for BuildCar as follows:
CarBuilder car_builder(engine_params, steering_params, interior_params, fuel_params, available_inventory, &debug);
auto car = car_builder.BuildCar(parts);
Personally, I don't see much value in having a class with a single public function that is always called. We'll always need these parameters, and we'll always need the parts, so this just adds more steps to build the car. It could even add confusion, as now a user of CarBuilder must know to both construct it and call BuildCar.
Admittedly, this simplifies our helper functions within car_builder.cc, as they also require passing these params, but to me that's misusing what a class is for: maintaining state.
Is creating this CarBuilder a misuse of the class, or is simply cleaning up function signatures a valid use? Does anyone have any suggestions on how to tackle this problem?
Minimizing function parameters can be a blessing for heavily used functions in a performance-sensitive environment:
If you pass 6 references to a function, that is 6 pointer copies pushed to the stack;
If you pass a single CarBuilder, it is one "reference-that-contains-6-other-references".
It depends on your situation.
you could define a class that contains all parameters and in each function just passed this object.
struct CarComponent
{
public:
EngineParams engine_params;
SteeringParams steering_params;
InteriorParams interior_params;
FuelParams fuel_params;
AvailableInventory available_inventory
};
MaybeBuildCar(car_component);
other_function(car_component);
Advantage:
Function's signature is decoupled from changing members of the struct (CarComponent). easy to change.
Refactor all the parameters in each function with a specific object. it prevents repetition and it becomes easier to read the code.
I am relatively new to C++ and I am working on a personal project for practicing where I need to create a class that can take function pointers with different signatures.
The idea is that each instance of the class will store a pointer to a specific function and can call that function whenever I want.
To give a better idea of what I want, let me explain with a little bit more detail what I am trying to do. The project I am working on is a very basic console game and the object I am trying to create is an object that would store details on each location the player can access in the game.
(DISCLAIMER: I know that most of what I describe later is probably an overkill for a basic console game. I can easily make the whole game in a couple of files using just simple functions and I know how to do that. But the idea here is that I wanted to practice more advanced C++ techniques without having to figure out a complex project. So, since I know how to make a basic console game, I thought it would be a good idea to try and figure out how to achieve the same result but with more advanced techniques)
One of the details that I think should be stored is what happens in each location, basically the text that is output to the screen describing what happens and prompting the user to take action.
Since this would be different for each location, I can't just declare and implement a function in the class.
One way of solving this issue is to create a base class with a virtual function and then implement this function in a series of derived classes, each defining a new location.
The problem I have with this approach is that it makes each location a class that can be inherited further and instanced, which I don't need as I will only have 1 instance of each location.
I can of course just create 1 instance of the class, but I wanted to see if there is a way to avoid having to create separate classes for each location.
This why I started thinking of function pointers.
Now, I know I can declare a function pointer and initialise it in a class like that:
class Test
{
public:
Test(void (*p)())
: print{p}
{}
private:
void (*print)();
};
That works fine as long as the function returns void and accepts no arguments.
So, I thought maybe I can do that with a template:
template <typename Function>
class Test
{
public:
Test(Function *p)
: print{p}
{}
Function *print;
};
This actually works well. I can now have a class that accepts different functions with different return types.
I can create instances of the class in the following way:
void print();
Test<void ()> a {print};
However, I have one problem with this approach. Because it is a class template, I can't have a pointer that I want to use to point to instances of Test class regardless of the function that is passed to them.
For instance, if I declare the following pointer:
Test<void ()> *b = &a;
There is no way to re-assign that pointer to another instance of Test class unless the function pointer passed to it also returns void and accepts no arguments. Otherwise, I have to create a new pointer.
Is there a way to avoid that? Is there a better way of achieving what I am looking for than using function pointers?
Thank you very much and sorry for the long message.
There is no way to re-assign that pointer to another instance of Test class unless the function pointer passed to it also returns void and accepts no arguments.
And how would you expect that to work? Each Test has a different signature for its print method. In the example below, if you assigned action2 to action1, then how would it know what to pass to the print function?
void fun1() {}
void fun2(int) {}
void test() {
Test<void()> action1= &fun1;
action1.print();
Test<void(int)> action2= &fun2;
action2.print(42);
}
What you want is really simple, thanks to improvements in C++11: std::function<void()>.
Whenever you need to pass some arguments to the function, you'd use a lambda, potentially with captures:
#include <functional>
void fun1() {}
void fun2(int) {}
using Action = std::function<void()>;
int main() {
class MyObject { public: void doSomething() {} } obj;
Action action1;
action1 = fun1;
action1 = []{ fun2(42); };
action1 = [&obj]{ obj.doSomething(); }; // obj captured by reference
}
So that's pretty much what you should do.
Now of course you may ask "hey, but what if I wanted to implement something like std::function myself"? It's not a trivial task, if you want to get full functionality of std::function, including small object optimization (i.e. std::function usually doesn't allocate unless the functor it wraps is "big").
I wanted to see what can I do if I had a reason to have the each game location using a function that have different return types.
You chose to use a common abstraction, i.e. some class (like Action) that you can always call the same way, and get to do various things. So, what would you like the following code to do?
Action someAction;
int result = someAction();
std::string result = someAction();
Now suppose that e.g. someAction has captured a void() function. What should the code that assigns the "result" to an integer or a string do? And how would you protect from mistakes, e.g. if you really wanted someAction() to return an int, but you accidentally used one that returns nothing?
Remember that the compiler has to generate code for all of the sites where you call someAction, so it needs to know what to do ahead of time, even if you may otherwise ensure that no "incorrect" calls are made.
You could implement a custom Action class on top of std::function that could support std::optional<ResultType> instead of ResultType. That way, if the actual result of the functor wrapped in Action was convertible to that ResultType, you'd get a non-null optional, otherwise the optional would be null. And the list of supported result types would need to be pre-determined, i.e. the compiler wouldn't be able to dynamically add them, but adding a new type should amount to passing an additional type as a template argument, so it'd be easy to support quite many types.
In my code, I have several class, each with different methods. For example:
class A {
public:
int sum(int a, int b);
bool isScalable(double d);
}
class B {
public:
std:string ownerName();
}
My aim is to create a map of all the function names as below
std::map<std::string, FnPtr> myMap;
// Add the newly implemented function to this map
myMap["sum"] = &A::sum;
myMap["isScalable"] = &A::isScalable;
myMap["myMap"] = &B::myMap;
The issue is I am not aware how I can define FnPtr. Can you please help me out.
As comments suggest, it is unlikely you really want to do this.
Assuming that you do, however - perhaps you should reconsider whether C++ is the right language for the task. Another language which has better runtime reflection facility might be more appropriate; perhaps an interpreted language like Python or Perl. Those are typically much more convenient when you need to look up class methods by name at runtime.
If it has to be C++, then perhaps you should relax the class structure somewhat. Use a single class for both A's and B's (lets call it MyCommonObj); and have the class hold a map of strings to function pointers. As for these functions' signatures - It's probably a good idea not to make the member functions, but freestanding ones. In that case, perhaps your function pointer type would be:
using generic_function = std::any (*)(std::vector<std::any>);
That's pretty generic - for storage and for invocation. If you have this map, you can easily look up your function name and pass the arguments. However, you might need to also keep additional information about what type your arguments should be, otherwise you'll always be passing strings. ... which is also an option, I suppose:
using generic_function = std::any (*)(std::vector<std::string>);
Now if the A and B members in your example are really non-static like you listed them, i.e. they use instance fields, then these generic functions must also always take a reference or pointer to an instance of MyCommonObj:
using generic_function = std::any (*)(MyCommonObj&, std::vector<std::string>);
Finally, note that code using this type, and run-time lookup of function names etc - will not be very performant.
If you're not using C++17 and don't have access to std::any, you can either:
Use boost::any from the Boost libraries.
Use an any-emulator library (which exist on GitHub)
Use a union of all the types you actually use, e.g. union {int i; double d;} - but then you'll need to protect yourself against passing values of the wrong type.
I often run into the problems associated with SubType Polymorphism, I'm looking for an elegant solution I may not already be aware of.
Here is a simple inheritence hierarchy:
struct BaseClass {
virtual ~BaseClass() = 0;
std::string name;
};
template <T>
struct DerivedClass
{
DerivedClass(const std::string& _name): name(_name) { }
};
Now I might create lots of these DerivedClass instances with different names and template types and store them in an array using their BaseClass.
std::vector<BaseClass*> array;
array.push_back(new DerivedClass<TABC>("abc"));
array.push_back(new DerivedClass<TDEF>("def"));
...
This is pretty standard runtime polymorphism.
However, when I have a new layer of functionality that is type-specific to add and don't want this new layer to be coupled in both directions, I end up having to do something like this:
template <typename T>
void method(DerivedClass<T>* object) { }
void callMethod(BaseClass* object)
{
// this is the logic I'm trying to move up a layer
if (object->name == "abc") method<TABC>(object);
else if (object->name == "def") method<TDEF>(object);
}
Each of these methods has to have the same list of run-time strings to compile-time types to convert, which means adding a new type requires a lot of changes.
If I was to assume the new layer would only support specific options known at compile-time (as is the case here anyway), then it would be feasible to add new types at runtime, but not be able to use them in this layer, which would be fine.
My current thinking is if I was to introduce a virtual method to the class hierarchy that took a function pointer, I could register the function pointers for each method in the second layer based on specific compile-time types (ideally only specified once), kind of like a double dispatch type method.
Any thoughts, suggestions?
You need that link to call the specific template version based on a string, the best you can do is have a dictionary of string->lambda function and use the string as a lookup to get a function<> to call. This avoids the nested ifs and it's relatively easy to maintain, both at compile time (the default list) and at runtime (any changes are just array changes).
Rather than steal Sean Parent's thunder I'll direct you to this talk which will show you how to achieve this cleanly, safely and simply.
The technique is called 'polymorphism as an implementation detail'. It has transformed the way I write code.
https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/GoingNative/2013/Inheritance-Is-The-Base-Class-of-Evil
I have a class that uses functors as units of work. It accepts a reference to a functor in its Run() method. To allow this class to operate on any functor, all these functors must derive from my base functor class which looks like this:
class baseFunctor{
public:
virtual void operator()()=0;
virtual baseFunctor Clone()=0;
};
This works, however obviously it restricts these functors to having an operator method that returns void and accepts no parameters. I need to be able to accept a functor in my class that can take any type of parameters and return anything. Its apparently do-able but I can't seem to find a way to do it. I have considered using templates, multiple inheritance, but I keep getting thwarted by the fact that the class that needs to run this functor must be able to accept any type, so will accept the base class type, and so will not know the actual type of the functor.
Any suggestions of what avenue to look at would be appreciated.
How will the class that calls the functor know what parameters to provide and what to do with the return value, if any?
So, if I'm reading this right, you have a "Visitor pattern." It might be a good thing for you to look up.
Someone needs to know what type the functor is to give it arguments. Often with functors, the arguments are assigned to fields of the derived class, and operator() will operate on those fields. That is, the dumb method that calls the functor and doesn't know anything about it is given the closure (method plus arguments all in one class) by someone more knowledgeable.
If you do want generic functors that take multiple arguments in the operator(), templating will get you partway there, but you'll need one per arity.
I agree with Neil. Your main class has to know what parameters to pass and what return value to expect from these functors. Can you just type-cast your "functor" to an appropriate class that supports the function with the necessary arguments and return value?
class baseFunctor
{
};
class functor1x2: public baseFunctor
{
public:
virtual void* execute(void*, void*);
}
class MainClass
{
public:
void Execute(baseFunctor* ipFunctor)
{
functor1x2* lpFunctor1x2 = dynamic_cast<functor1x2*>(ipFunctor);
if(lpFunctor1x2)
{
lpFunctor1x2->execute(NULL, NULL);
}
}
}
I'm not sure what could be accomplished with this approach that couldn't more easily be accomplished with the Visitor pattern, as Drew noted.
If you are open to using the Boost library (www.boost.org), you might find Boot.Bind and Boost.Function of particular interest. I have used them in the past to achieve something very much along the lines of what you are discussing.
If you use Boost.Bind, you can perform currying on the functors to account for differences between the number of arguments the functor expects and the number of arguments the Run method expects (i.e., zero). The code that creates the functor would have to bind any arguments to specific values and thus create a zero-argument functor that can be passed to Run().
MV
Why'd you want to return the functor? Are you storing some state as well? Some more detail will be much appreciated since it is not very clear what exactly you want to do.
If you plan to use inheritance, do look up Covariant Return Types (and the Virtual Constructor idiom).
Now, for the meat of the problem: the problem is really not with passing in a functor but with functor application. You may want to take a look at boost::lambda and boost::parameter as well.
I think you want an ellipsis argument, like varargs for C++.
Perhaps std::tr1::function is interesting for you?