I'm trying to write a C++ mex function for Matlab that can handle multiple datatypes. Matlab gives me an mxArray*, from which I can retrieve a void* for the data, and an mxClassID telling me the datatype. So I can do something like:
void *data = mxGetData(mxarray);
switch (mxGetClassID(mxarray)) {
case mxDOUBLE_CLASS:
my_function(static_cast<double *>(data));
...
my_function is templated, so this handles different datatypes nicely. But it's still very annoying to need to have this switch for every possible my_function1, my_function2, etc.
So far, the solution I've come up with is to use a functional approach and have a method that accepts a functor:
template <typename ReturnType, typename FunctorType>
ReturnType mxarr_apply(const mxArray *inarr, FunctorType functor) {
void *data = mxGetData(inarr);
switch (mxGetClassID(inarr)) {
case mxDOUBLE_CLASS:
return (ReturnType) functor(static_cast<double *>(data));
...
This way I can put my logic in the functor (with operator() templated) and not have to recreate the switch over and over.
But I wonder if there is some other way? In Java I think I could just have a function that translates the mxClassID directly into a class reference that could then be used to instantiate a type flexibly at runtime, but this doesn't seem to be an option in C++.
You're correct. There's no way in C++ to get a class reference at runtime. You have to write the switch, at least once.
If you face the need to write multiple switches you might want to either hide it's logic into a factory, that would return the right functor given the type
void *data = mxGetData(mxarray);
functor func = FunctorFactory::Get(mxGetClassID(mxarray));
func (reinterpret_cast<double*>(data));
or simply create a map (preferrably unordered or a hash) of types to functors.
void *data = mxGetData(mxarray);
functor func = functorMap[mxGetClassID(mxarray)]; // need to check for key availability
func (reinterpret_cast<double*>(data));
Related
The Goal:
decide during runtime which templated function to use and then use it later without needing the type information.
A Partial Solution:
for functions where the parameter itself is not templated we can do:
int (*func_ptr)(void*) = &my_templated_func<type_a,type_b>;
this line of code can be modified for use in an if statement with different types for type_a and type_b thus giving us a templated function whose types are determined during runtime:
int (*func_ptr)(void*) = NULL;
if (/* case 1*/)
func_ptr = &my_templated_func<int, float>;
else
func_ptr = &my_templated_func<float, float>;
The Remaining Problem:
How do I do this when the parameter is a templated pointer?
for example, this is something along the lines of what I would like to do:
int (*func_ptr)(templated_struct<type_a,type_b>*); // This won't work cause I don't know type_a or type_b yet
if (/* case 1 */) {
func_ptr = &my_templated_func<int,float>;
arg = calloc(sizeof(templated_struct<int,float>, 1);
}
else {
func_ptr = &my_templated_func<float,float>;
arg = calloc(sizeof(templated_struct<float,float>, 1);
}
func_ptr(arg);
except I would like type_a, and type_b to be determined during runtime. I see to parts to the problem.
What is the function pointers type?
How do I call this function?
I think I have the answer for (2): simply cast the parameter to void* and the template function should do an implicit cast using the function definition (lease correct me if this won't work as I think it will).
(1) is where I am getting stuck since the function pointer must include the parameter types. This is different from the partial solution because for the function pointer definition we were able to "ignore" the template aspect of the function since all we really need is the address of the function.
Alternatively there might be a much better way to accomplish my goal and if so I am all ears.
Thanks to the answer by #Jeffrey I was able to come up with this short example of what I am trying to accomplish:
template <typename A, typename B>
struct args_st {
A argA;
B argB;
}
template<typename A, typename B>
void f(struct args_st<A,B> *args) {}
template<typename A, typename B>
void g(struct args_st<A,B> *args) {}
int someFunction() {
void *args;
// someType needs to know that an args_st struct is going to be passed
// in but doesn't need to know the type of A or B those are compiled
// into the function and with this code, A and B are guaranteed to match
// between the function and argument.
someType func_ptr;
if (/* some runtime condition */) {
args = calloc(sizeof(struct args_st<int,float>), 1);
f((struct args_st<int,float> *) args); // this works
func_ptr = &g<int,float>; // func_ptr should know that it takes an argument of struct args_st<int,float>
}
else {
args = calloc(sizeof(struct args_st<float,float>), 1);
f((struct args_st<float,float> *) args); // this also works
func_ptr = &g<float,float>; // func_ptr should know that it takes an argument of struct args_st<float,float>
}
/* other code that does stuff with args */
// note that I could do another if statement here to decide which
// version of g to use (like I did for f) I am just trying to figure out
// a way to avoid that because the if statement could have a lot of
// different cases similarly I would like to be able to just write one
// line of code that calls f because that could eliminate many lines of
// (sort of) duplicate code
func_ptr(args);
return 0; // Arbitrary value
}
Can't you use a std::function, and use lambdas to capture everything you need? It doesn't appear that your functions take parameters, so this would work.
ie
std::function<void()> callIt;
if(/*case 1*/)
{
callIt = [](){ myTemplatedFunction<int, int>(); }
}
else
{
callIt = []() {myTemplatedFunction<float, float>(); }
}
callIt();
If I understand correctly, What you want to do boils down to:
template<typename T>
void f(T)
{
}
int somewhere()
{
someType func_ptr;
int arg = 0;
if (/* something known at runtime */)
{
func_ptr = &f<float>;
}
else
{
func_ptr = &f<int>;
}
func_ptr(arg);
}
You cannot do that in C++. C++ is statically typed, the template types are all resolved at compile time. If a construct allowed you to do this, the compiler could not know which templates must be instanciated with which types.
The alternatives are:
inheritance for runtime polymorphism
C-style void* everywhere if you want to deal yourself with the underlying types
Edit:
Reading the edited question:
func_ptr should know that it takes an argument of struct args_st<float,float>
func_ptr should know that it takes an argument of struct args_st<int,float>
Those are incompatible. The way this is done in C++ is by typing func_ptr accordingly to the types it takes. It cannot be both/all/any.
If there existed a type for func_ptr so that it could take arguments of arbitrary types, then you could pass it around between functions and compilation units and your language would suddenly not be statically typed. You'd end up with Python ;-p
Maybe you want something like this:
#include <iostream>
template <typename T>
void foo(const T& t) {
std::cout << "foo";
}
template <typename T>
void bar(const T& t) {
std::cout << "bar";
}
template <typename T>
using f_ptr = void (*)(const T&);
int main() {
f_ptr<int> a = &bar<int>;
f_ptr<double> b = &foo<double>;
a(1);
b(4.2);
}
Functions taking different parameters are of different type, hence you cannot have a f_ptr<int> point to bar<double>. Otherwise, functions you get from instantiating a function template can be stored in function pointers just like other functions, eg you can have a f_ptr<int> holding either &foo<int> or &bar<int>.
Disclaimer: I have already provided an answer that directly addresses the question. In this answer, I would like to side-step the question and render it moot.
As a rule of thumb, the following code structure is an inferior design in most procedural languages (not just C++).
if ( conditionA ) {
// Do task 1A
}
else {
// Do task 1B
}
// Do common tasks
if ( conditionA ) {
// Do task 2A
}
else {
// Do task 2B
}
You seem to have recognized the drawbacks in this design, as you are trying to eliminate the need for a second if-else in someFunction(). However, your solution is not as clean as it could be.
It is usually better (for code readability and maintainability) to move the common tasks to a separate function, rather than trying to do everything in one function. This gives a code structure more like the following, where the common tasks have been moved to the function foo().
if ( conditionA ) {
// Do task 1A
foo( /* arguments might be needed */ );
// Do task 2A
}
else {
// Do task 1B
foo( /* arguments might be needed */ );
// Do task 2B
}
As a demonstration of the utility of this rule of thumb, let's apply it to someFunction(). ... and eliminate the need for dynamic memory allocation ... and a bit of cleanup ... unfortunately, addressing that nasty void* is out-of-scope ... I'll leave it up to the reader to evaluate the end result. The one feature I will point out is that there is no longer a reason to consider storing a "generic templated function pointer", rendering the asked question moot.
// Ideally, the parameter's type would not be `void*`.
// I leave that for a future refinement.
void foo(void * args) {
/* other code that does stuff with args */
}
int someFunction(bool condition) {
if (/* some runtime condition */) {
args_st<int,float> args;
foo(&args);
f(&args); // Next step: pass by reference instead of passing a pointer
}
else {
args_st<float,float> args;
foo(&args);
f(&args); // Next step: pass by reference instead of passing a pointer
}
return 0;
}
Your choice of manual memory management and over-use of the keyword struct suggests you come from a C background and have not yet really converted to C++ programming. As a result, there are many areas for improvement, and you might find that your current approach should be tossed. However, that is a future step. There is a learning process involved, and incremental improvements to your current code is one way to get there.
First, I'd like to get rid of the C-style memory management. Most of the time, using calloc in C++ code is wrong. Let's replace the raw pointer with a smart pointer. A shared_ptr looks like it will help the process along.
// Instead of a raw pointer to void, use a smart pointer to void.
std::shared_ptr<void> args;
// Use C++ memory management, not calloc.
args = std::make_shared<args_st<int,float>>();
// or
args = std::make_shared<args_st<float,float>>();
This is still not great, as it still uses a pointer to void, which is rarely needed in C++ code unless interfacing with a library written in C. It is, though, an improvement. One side effect of using a pointer to void is the need for casts to get back to the original type. This should be avoided. I can address this in your code by defining correctly-typed variables inside the if statement. The args variable will still be used to hold your pointer once the correctly-typed variables go out of scope.
More improvements along this vein can come later.
The key improvement I would make is to use the functional std::function instead of a function pointer. A std::function is a generalization of a function pointer, able to do more albeit with more overhead. The overhead is warranted here in the interest of robust code.
An advantage of std::function is that the parameter to g() does not need to be known by the code that invokes the std::function. The old style of doing this was std::bind, but lambdas provide a more readable approach. Not only do you not have to worry about the type of args when it comes time to call your function, you don't even need to worry about args.
int someFunction() {
// Use a smart pointer so you do not have to worry about releasing the memory.
std::shared_ptr<void> args;
// Use a functional as a more convenient alternative to a function pointer.
// Note the lack of parameters (nothing inside the parentheses).
std::function<void()> func;
if ( /* some runtime condition */ ) {
// Start with a pointer to something other than void.
auto real_args = std::make_shared<args_st<int,float>>();
// An immediate function call:
f(real_args.get());
// Choosing a function to be called later:
// Note that this captures a pointer to the data, not a copy of the data.
// Hence changes to the data will be reflected when this is invoked.
func = [real_args]() { g(real_args.get()); };
// It's only here, as real_args is about to go out of scope, where
// we lose the type information.
args = real_args;
}
else {
// Similar to the above, so I'll reduce the commentary.
auto real_args = std::make_shared<args_st<float,float>>();
func = [real_args]() { g(real_args.get()); };
args = real_args;
}
/* other code that does stuff with args */
/* This code is probably poor C++ style, but that can be addressed later. */
// Invoke the function.
func();
return 0;
}
Your next step probably should be to do some reading on these features so you understand what this code does. Then you should be in a better position to leverage the power of C++.
So I wanted to challenge myself by writing a small threadpool in C++, and I wanted to try to mimic the easy to use way that std::thread work with, that you can just create a thread and as parameters send a function and parameters for that function, compared to something like pthreads which force you to have a void* as the only indata for the function.
So far I have been able to use templates and parameter packs to create a function that can take another function and parameters for it and execute it, but I can't find a way to store them so that I can execute them at a later time (when there is a free thread in the threadpool). I have tried using both std::function together with std::tuple, and std::bind, but since I don't know exactly what types I am dealing with I can't find a way to store the function and the parameters so that I can use them later on in another part of my code, since at that point I no longer know what types everything is of. Down below is some code I have been messing around with that might help show how I mean.
template<typename Function, typename... Arguments>
void TestFunction(Function func, Arguments... parameters)
{
std::function<std::result_of<Function(Arguments...)>::type(Arguments...)>* tempFunc;
tempFunc = new std::function<std::result_of<Function(Arguments...)>::type(Arguments...)>(func);
void* funcPtr = tempFunc;
std::tuple<Arguments...>* tempTuple;
tempTuple = new std::tuple<Arguments...>(parameters...);
void* tuplePtr = tempTuple;
//func(parameters...);
(Arguments...)>*)funcPtr, *(std::tuple<Arguments...>*)tuplePtr);
auto bindTest = std::bind(func, parameters...);
bindTest();
void* bindPtr = &bindTest;
}
int main()
{
TestFunction(std::printf, "%d, %d, %d\n", 3, 2, 1);
getchar();
return 0;
}
It might be that it's not possible to do what I want to do, and in that case I guess I'll just have to switch to an approach more like pthreads. But if anyone knows a work around I would be grateful.
The key thing is that you can store the return type of std::bind in a std::function. Because std::bind returns an object that is callable. You should then be able to store the std::function instance depending on how you want to handle the return type.
template<typename Function, typename... Arguments>
void TestFunction(Function func, Arguments... parameters)
{
using Ret = typename std::result_of<Function>::type;
std::function<Ret()> val{std::bind(func, parameters...)};
}
If you do this when you first recive the function you no longer have to think about the arguments type, and only the return type. How you handle the return type will depend on the usecase of storing the function. One simple approach is to require that Function is a void function, which may make sense if there is no way to pass the value back to the consumer of the API.
Lets say I have several functions like function1(), function2(), ....., function1000()
and I am getting a string in a function lets say call_function(string function_name).
Now I need to execute function based on function_name.
I searched for solutions and found I can use maps.
Is there any easy way to create a map for lets say 1000 keys(string type) and respective functions ?
eg: call_function(function541) then it should execute function541();
You can use map to function pointers for this stuff
void func1(const char *args)
{
//....
}
void func2(const char *args)
{
//....
}
typedef void (*function) (const char *args);
//......
std::map<std::string, function> func_map;
func_map.insert(std::pair<std::string, function>("func1", func1));
func_map.insert(std::pair<std::string, function>("func2", func2));
func_map["func1"]("arg1 arg2 arg3"); // Here is the func1 call
Is there any easy way to create a map for lets say 1000 keys(string type) and respective functions ?
eg: call_function(function541)
then it should execute function541();
No, there is no easy way, because C++ does not have reflection. Function names only exist for the compiler. At run-time, there is no relationship between a function called function541 in your source code and the string "function541" existing in memory while the program is being executed.
Each and any of such links must be established manually:
std::map<std::string, std::function<void()>> map;
// ...
map["function541"] = function541;
Of course, you can still automate such a task with code generation. Functions with mechanical names like this don't look like manually written C++ code anyway. That is, you can write a script in some other language that creates the C++ code to add the thousand functions to the map, perhaps as some kind of pre-build step.
Still, from a run-time point of view, there's no automation whatsoever.
I am writing an adapter to combine two APIs (one in C and another in C++).
If a function is called on the one API I need to pass the callers ID and the function's arguments to an adapter and call the according function with this information passed.
Now aparently they can not be mapped directly as one interface requires C++ compilation and the name mangling would screw the other so that is why I am using a set of adapters in the first place.
As the number of arguments varies, I looked up variadic functions and found the idea pretty useful, however I am operating on POD only and have to deal with structs, enums and a lot of different arguments per call, which might need to be put back into a struct before feeding it to the target function.
Every example I stumbled upon was far simpler and involved mostly arithmetic operations like summing stuff up , finding largest numbers or printing. Mostly done with for loops on the var_list.
Maybe I got stuck on the idea and it won't work at all, but I am just curious...
Say I wanted to assign the arguments from the list to my target functions parameters (the order of the arguments passed is the correct one), what would be a good way?
BOOL Some_Function(
/* in */ CallerId *pObjectId,
/* in */ someDataType argument1 )
{
BOOL ret = Adapter_Call(pFunction, pObjectId, argument1);
return ret;
}
and so once I made it to the right adapter I want to do
BOOL Adapter_Call(*pFunction, *pObjectId, argument1, ...)
{
va_list args;
va_start(args, argument1);
/*go over list and do `var_list[i] = pFunctionArgList[i]` which is
of whatever type so I can use it as input for my function */
va_end(args);
pObjectId.pFunction(arg1,...,argn);
}
Can I access the input parameters of a function to perform assignments like this?
Has anyone done something like this before? Is there a conceptual mistake in my thinking?
All I found on the net was this, http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/extracting-function-parameter-and-return/240000586but due to the use of templates I am not sure if it wouldn't create another problem and so in the end implementing an adapter for each and every single functioncall may be simpler to do.
A SO search only returned this: Dynamic function calls at runtime (va_list)
First, you should heed Kerrek's advice about extern "C". This is C++'s mechanism for giving an identifier C linkage, meaning that the name won't be mangled by the C++ compiler.
Sometimes, and adapter still needs to be written for a C++ interface, because it manipulates objects that do not map to a C POD. So, the adapter gives the C interface a POD or opaque pointer type to manipulate, but the implementation of that interface converts that into an C++ object or reference and then calls the C++ interface. For example, suppose you wanted to provide a C interface for C++ std::map<int, void *>, you would have a common header file in C and C++ that would contain:
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif
struct c_map_int_ptr;
// ...
// return -1 on failure, otherwise 0, and *data is populated with result
int c_map_int_ptr_find (struct c_map_int_ptr *, int key, void **data);
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif
Then, the C++ code could implement the function like:
typedef std::map<int, void *> map_int_ptr;
int c_map_int_ptr_find (struct c_map_int_ptr *cmap, int key, void **data) {
map_int_ptr &map = *static_cast<map_int_ptr *>(cmap);
map_int_ptr::iterator i = map.find(key);
if (i != map.end()) {
*data = i->second;
return 0;
}
return -1;
}
Thus, there is no need to pass the arguments passed via the C interface through a variable argument adapter. And so, there is no need for the C++ code to tease out the arguments from a variable argument list. The C code calls directly into the C++ code, which knows what to do with the arguments.
I suppose if you are trying to implement some kind of automated C adapter code generator by parsing C++ code, you could think that using variable arguments would provide a regular mechanism to communicate arguments between the generated C code interface and the generated C++ adapter code that would call the original C++ interface. For such a scenario, the code for the above example would look something like this:
// C interface
typedef struct c_map_int_ptr c_map_int_ptr;
typedef struct c_map_int_ptr_iterator c_map_int_ptr_iterator;
//...
c_map_int_ptr_iterator c_map_int_ptr_find (c_map_int_ptr *map, int key) {
c_map_int_ptr_iterator result;
cpp_map_int_ptr_adapter(__func__, map, key, &result);
return result;
}
// C++ code:
struct cpp_adapter {
virtual ~cpp_adapter () {}
virtual void execute (va_list) {}
};
void cpp_map_int_ptr_adapter(const char *func, ...) {
va_list ap;
va_start(ap, func);
cpp_map_int_ptr_adapter_method_lookup(func).execute(ap);
va_end(ap);
}
//...
struct cpp_map_int_ptr_find_adapter : cpp_adapter {
void execute (va_list ap) {
map_int_ptr *map = va_arg(ap, map_int_ptr *);
int key = va_arg(ap, int);
c_map_int_ptr_iterator *c_iter = va_arg(ap, c_map_int_ptr_iterator *);
map_int_ptr::iterator i = map->find(key);
//...transfer result to c_iter
}
};
Where cpp_map_int_ptr_adapter_method_lookup() returns an appropriate cpp_adapter instance based on a table lookup.
this is my first question after long time checking on this marvelous webpage.
Probably my question is a little silly but I want to know others opinion about this. What is better, to create several specific methods or, on the other hand, only one generic method? Here is an example...
unsigned char *Method1(CommandTypeEnum command, ParamsCommand1Struct *params)
{
if(params == NULL) return NULL;
// Construct a string (command) with those specific params (params->element1, ...)
return buffer; // buffer is a member of the class
}
unsigned char *Method2(CommandTypeEnum command, ParamsCommand2Struct *params)
{
...
}
unsigned char *Method3(CommandTypeEnum command, ParamsCommand3Struct *params)
{
...
}
unsigned char *Method4(CommandTypeEnum command, ParamsCommand4Struct *params)
{
...
}
or
unsigned char *Method(CommandTypeEnum command, void *params)
{
switch(command)
{
case CMD_1:
{
if(params == NULL) return NULL;
ParamsCommand1Struct *value = (ParamsCommand1Struct *) params;
// Construct a string (command) with those specific params (params->element1, ...)
return buffer;
}
break;
// ...
default:
break;
}
}
The main thing I do not really like of the latter option is this,
ParamsCommand1Struct *value = (ParamsCommand1Struct *) params;
because "params" could not be a pointer to "ParamsCommand1Struct" but a pointer to "ParamsCommand2Struct" or someone else.
I really appreciate your opinions!
General Answer
In Writing Solid Code, Steve Macguire's advice is to prefer distinct functions (methods) for specific situations. The reason is that you can assert conditions that are relevant to the specific case, and you can more easily debug because you have more context.
An interesting example is the standard C run-time's functions for dynamic memory allocation. Most of it is redundant, as realloc can actually do (almost) everything you need. If you have realloc, you don't need malloc or free. But when you have such a general function, used for several different types of operations, it's hard to add useful assertions and it's harder to write unit tests, and it's harder to see what's happening when debugging. Macquire takes it a step farther and suggests that, not only should realloc just do _re_allocation, but it should probably be two distinct functions: one for growing a block and one for shrinking a block.
While I generally agree with his logic, sometimes there are practical advantages to having one general purpose method (often when operations is highly data-driven). So I usually decide on a case by case basis, with a bias toward creating very specific methods rather than overly general purpose ones.
Specific Answer
In your case, I think you need to find a way to factor out the common code from the specifics. The switch is often a signal that you should be using a small class hierarchy with virtual functions.
If you like the single method approach, then it probably should be just a dispatcher to the more specific methods. In other words, each of those cases in the switch statement simply call the appropriate Method1, Method2, etc. If you want the user to see only the general purpose method, then you can make the specific implementations private methods.
Generally, it's better to offer separate functions, because they by their prototype names and arguments communicate directly and visibly to the user that which is available; this also leads to more straightforward documentation.
The one time I use a multi-purpose function is for something like a query() function, where a number of minor query functions, rather than leading to a proliferation of functions, are bundled into one, with a generic input and output void pointer.
In general, think about what you're trying to communicate to the API user by the API prototypes themselves; a clear sense of what the API can do. He doesn't need excessive minutae; he does need to know the core functions which are the entire point of having the API in the first place.
First off, you need to decide which language you are using. Tagging the question with both C and C++ here makes no sense. I am assuming C++.
If you can create a generic function then of course that is preferable (why would you prefer multiple, redundant functions?) The question is; can you? However, you seem to be unaware of templates. We need to see what you have omitted here to tell if you if templates are suitable however:
// Construct a string (command) with those specific params (params->element1, ...)
In the general case, assuming templates are appropriate, all of that turns into:
template <typename T>
unsigned char *Method(CommandTypeEnum command, T *params) {
// more here
}
On a side note, how is buffer declared? Are you returning a pointer to dynamically allocated memory? Prefer RAII type objects and avoid dynamically allocating memory like that if so.
If you are using C++ then I would avoid using void* as you don't really need to. There is nothing wrong with having multiple methods. Note that you don't actually have to rename the function in your first set of examples - you can just overload a function using different parameters so that there is a separate function signature for each type. Ultimately, this kind of question is very subjective and there are a number of ways of doing things. Looking at your functions of the first type, you would perhaps be well served by looking into the use of templated functions
You could create a struct. That's what I use to handle console commands.
typedef int (* pFunPrintf)(const char*,...);
typedef void (CommandClass::*pKeyFunc)(char *,pFunPrintf);
struct KeyCommand
{
const char * cmd;
unsigned char cmdLen;
pKeyFunc pfun;
const char * Note;
long ID;
};
#define CMD_FORMAT(a) a,(sizeof(a)-1)
static KeyCommand Commands[]=
{
{CMD_FORMAT("one"), &CommandClass::CommandOne, "String Parameter",0},
{CMD_FORMAT("two"), &CommandClass::CommandTwo, "String Parameter",1},
{CMD_FORMAT("three"), &CommandClass::CommandThree, "String Parameter",2},
{CMD_FORMAT("four"), &CommandClass::CommandFour, "String Parameter",3},
};
#define AllCommands sizeof(Commands)/sizeof(KeyCommand)
And the Parser function
void CommandClass::ParseCmd( char* Argcommand )
{
unsigned int x;
for ( x=0;x<AllCommands;x++)
{
if(!memcmp(Commands[x].cmd,Argcommand,Commands[x].cmdLen ))
{
(this->*Commands[x].pfun)(&Argcommand[Commands[x].cmdLen],&::printf);
break;
}
}
if(x==AllCommands)
{
// Unknown command
}
}
I use a thread safe printf pPrintf, so ignore it.
I don't really know what you want to do, but in C++ you probably should derive multiple classes from a Formatter Base class like this:
class Formatter
{
virtual void Format(unsigned char* buffer, Command command) const = 0;
};
class YourClass
{
public:
void Method(Command command, const Formatter& formatter)
{
formatter.Format(buffer, command);
}
private:
unsigned char* buffer_;
};
int main()
{
//
Params1Formatter formatter(/*...*/);
YourClass yourObject;
yourObject.Method(CommandA, formatter);
// ...
}
This removes the resposibility to handle all that params stuff from your class and makes it closed for changes. If there will be new commands or parameters during further development you don't have to modifiy (and eventually break) existing code but add new classes that implement the new stuff.
While not full answer this should guide you in correct direction: ONE FUNCTION ONE RESPONSIBILITY. Prefer the code where it is responsible for one thing only and does it well. The code whith huge switch statement (which is not bad by itself) where you need cast void * to some other type is a smell.
By the way I hope you do realise that according to standard you can only cast from void * to <type> * only when the original cast was exactly from <type> * to void *.