Programming in C++, I often want to give the user of a class read-only access to an attribute, and the class itself read-write access. I hate XxxGet() methods, so I often use a public const & to a private attribute, like this:
class counter {
private:
int _count;
public:
const int & count;
counter : _count( 0 ), count( _count ){}
void inc( void ){ _counter++; }
};
Is there a common name for this trick?
My personal name for that trick would be bad idea.
I would avoid the approach that you are following, as it incurs extra unneeded cost. If you add accessors they can be inlined as needed, with the only penalty of having to type an extra pair of parentheses:
class counter {
int _count;
public:
counter() : _count() {}
int count() const { return _count; }
void inc() { ++_count; }
};
The main difference is that in your solution you are incrementing the size of the object by one reference (for most implementations this means pointer), and then each access requires an extra indirection. On the other hand, with the accessor, the actual variable is used, the function will be optimized away (inlined, and resolved to a single read to the variable).
As of a proper name for that type of construct, well, I have never seen your particular construct in C++, but if you consider other languages, that is the basic concept of a property in C#, where you can make the getter public and the setter private.
EDIT: I guess that bad idea can be misinterpreted as just a personal opinion (which it is), but consider the side effects of that design:
Because of the reference in the object, you inhibit the implicit definition of the assignment operator. Much worse, the copy constructor will compile but not work as expected:
// consider the implementation with the const reference
counter c1;
counter c2( c1 ); // compiles, so it must work
c2.inc();
std::cout << c2.count; // outputs 0
// c2 = c1; // error: well, at least this does not compile!
The problem is that the compiler generated copy constructor will make the count reference in c2 refer to the same int that the count reference in c1 refers to, which might lead to hard-to-find subtle issues in your code that are actually quite hard to debug.
Edit
Just now I thought of a name that could be considered the same pattern. Though not typically used for member variables.
There could actually be a name for this, as has been made popular by the Boost Tuple library as well as the TR1/C++11 implementations:
Tieing
Typical example:
tuple<int> tie(ref(some_var));
// or shorter:
auto tied = tie(var1, var2, var3);
Assignment complications
The closest name for this (anti?) pattern I could _immediately think of before, is: pointer or reference aliasing. It is not a very good idea for many reasons, some of which have been mentioned
class layout + size
copy/assignment semantics
compiler optimizations: the compiler will shun from making assumptions about the value of (register-allocated) variables when it knows references could point to the same memory location.
In addition to the points David makes, the compiler will be unable to generate default
semantically valid copy constructor
assignment operator
move assignment operator
for your class now that contains references. Note also that your class can't possibly be POD anymore
A number of others have already condemned this idea, and I (mostly) tend to agree with them. Although quite a few people probably dislike it (at least) as much, if I was going to support something on this order, I'd do something like this:
class counter {
int count_;
public:
counter(int init=0) : count_(init) {}
operator int() const { return count_; }
void inc() { ++count_; }
};
The one problem with this is one that's shared with implicit conversions in general: that the implicit conversion can happen even when you don't want it to. OTOH, the fact that it's a user-supplied conversion actually eliminates many of the problems -- only one implicit conversion will happen automatically in any given situation, so (for example) the fact that you've supplied a conversion to int will not mean that a counter with a value of 0 can be implicitly converted from a counter to an int to a (null) pointer to T, because that would involve two implicit conversions.
There are times this can cause a problem anyway, in which case (as of C++11) you can make the conversion operator explicit, so it'll only happen when/if the user does an explicit conversion like:
counter t;
int x = t; // allowed by code above, but not with `explicit` conversion operator.
int y = static_cast<int>(t); // allowed with `explicit` conversion operator.
Related
I'd like to know is it better to specify a default initialization for a smart-pointer or do a NULL value check before accessing the smart-pointers methods?
Currently I've been using the method below to avoid calling increment() on a NULL pointer. Is this a reasonable way of doing things or is there a pitfall that I don't see?
Note: We use a custom smart-pointer class and I don't have the Boost libraries on my current configuration to test compile this code. This should compile, but YMMV.
Example.h
#include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp>
class Foo
{
public:
Foo() : mFoo(0) {}
Foo(int rawValue) : mFoo(rawValue) {}
void increment() { mFoo++; }
private:
int mFoo;
};
typedef boost::shared_ptr<Foo> FooSP;
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass() : mFoo(new Foo()) {}
FooSP foo() { return mFoo; }
void setFoo(FooSP newFoo) { mFoo = newFoo; }
private:
FooSP mFoo;
};
Main.cpp
#include <Example.h>
int main()
{
MyClass temp; // Default-constructed
temp.foo()->increment(); // Increment Foo's member integer
// Before: mFoo = 0
// After: mFoo = 1
FooSP tempFoo = new Foo(10); // Create a Foo with a default size
temp.setFoo(FooSP(new Foo(10))); // Explicitly set the FooSP member
temp.foo()->increment(); // Increment the new FooSP
// Before: mFoo = 10
// After: mFoo = 11
return 0;
}
If you are using a smart pointer as a general replacement for a pointer type, you cannot get away from a check for null. This is because a class defined with a smart pointer with a default constructor is likely to allow the smart pointer to be created with its default constructor. Dynamically creating a new object just to fill the pointer until you can set it seems to be a waste of resources.
shared_ptr's constructor is explicit, so your initialization of tempFoo won't compile. If you wanted to save a line of code, you can avoid declaring the temporary like this:
temp.setFoo(FooSP(new Foo(10)));
You can also declare the method of setFoo to take a constant reference, to avoid manipulating the reference count when taking in the parameter.
void setFoo(const FooSP &newFoo) { mFoo = newFoo; }
Or use swap on the parameter instance.
void setFoo(FooSP newFoo) { std::swap(mFoo, newFoo); }
If I were required to implement something along the lines of what you are proposing, I would create a static instance of Foo to serve as the null version, and then have the increment method throw an exception if it was the null version.
class Foo
{
public:
static Foo Null;
//...
void increment() {
if (this == &Null) throw Null;
mFoo++;
}
//...
};
struct DeleteFoo {
void operator () (Foo *t) const {
if (t != &Foo::Null) delete t;
}
};
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass() : mFoo(&Foo::Null, DeleteFoo()) {}
//...
};
Note the custom deleter for FooSP to properly deal with Foo::Null.
is it better to specify a default initialization for a smart-pointer or do a NULL value check before accessing the smart-pointers methods?
There is no right answer which applies to every case (more soon). If I had to err to one or the other, I would err toward NULL testing without default initialization because that's an obvious programmer error which can be detected and corrected easily.
However, I think the right answer is that there are good reasons we use multiple idioms for construction and initialization, and that you should choose the best approach for your program.
Typically, I will be explicit (no default or no default initialization) in the lower level classes, as well as complex higher level classes. When the classes are mid-level and defaults and ownership are more obvious (often because of limited use cases), then a default may be sensible.
Often, you will just want to be consistent, to avoid surprising clients. You'll also need to be aware of the complexity of allocating default-initialized objects. If it's big and complex to create, and a default does not make sense, then you are simply wasting a lot of resources when the default-constructed object is the wrong choice.
a) do not apply a default where it does not make sense. the default should be obvious.
b) avoid wasted allocations.
In addition to the approaches you have mentioned, there are a few other angles you might also consider:
Matching Foo's declared constructors in MyClass. At least, the ones which pertain to MyClass.
If copyable and efficient to copy, passing a Foo to MyClass's constructor.
Passing Foo in a container (smart pointer in this case) to MyClass's constructor to remove any ambiguity and to offer the client the option to construct (and share, in the case of a shared pointer) Foo as they desire.
Is this a reasonable way of doing things or is there a pitfall that I don't see?
Wasted allocations. Surprising results. It can restrict capabilities. The most obvious, broadly applicable problems are time and resource consumption.
To illustrate some scenarios:
say Foo reads a 1MB file every time it is constructed. when construction parameters are necessary and the default is not the right option, the file would have to be read a second time. the innocent default would double the disk io required.
in another case, an omitted construction parameter may be another large or complex shared pointer. if absent, Foo may create its own -- when the resource could/should have been shared.
Constructors parameters are often very important, and often should not be erased from the interface. It's certainly fine to do so in some cases, but these conveniences can introduce a lot of restrictions or introduce much unnecessary allocations and CPU time as the contained object's complexity increases.
Using both approaches in your programs is fine. Using additional approaches I outlined is also fine. Specifically, using the right approach for the problem is ideal - there are multiple ways to implement ideal solutions available; you just have to determine what that is in the context of what it is your program is trying to do. All these approaches have separate pros and cons - there is often an ideal match for the context of your program's operation and exposed interfaces.
Sometimes we like to take a large parameter by reference, and also to make the reference const if possible to advertize that it is an input parameter. But by making the reference const, the compiler then allows itself to convert data if it's of the wrong type. This means it's not as efficient, but more worrying is the fact that I think I am referring to the original data; perhaps I will take it's address, not realizing that I am, in effect, taking the address of a temporary.
The call to bar in this code fails. This is desirable, because the reference is not of the correct type. The call to bar_const is also of the wrong type, but it silently compiles. This is undesirable for me.
#include<vector>
using namespace std;
int vi;
void foo(int &) { }
void bar(long &) { }
void bar_const(const long &) { }
int main() {
foo(vi);
// bar(vi); // compiler error, as expected/desired
bar_const(vi);
}
What's the safest way to pass a lightweight, read-only reference? I'm tempted to create a new reference-like template.
(Obviously, int and long are very small types. But I have been caught out with larger structures which can be converted to each other. I don't want this to silently happen when I'm taking a const reference. Sometimes, marking the constructors as explicit helps, but that is not ideal)
Update: I imagine a system like the following: Imagine having two functions X byVal(); and X& byRef(); and the following block of code:
X x;
const_lvalue_ref<X> a = x; // I want this to compile
const_lvalue_ref<X> b = byVal(); // I want this to fail at compile time
const_lvalue_ref<X> c = byRef(); // I want this to compile
That example is based on local variables, but I want it to also work with parameters. I want to get some sort of error message if I'm accidentally passing a ref-to-temporary or a ref-to-a-copy when I think I'll passing something lightweight such as a ref-to-lvalue. This is just a 'coding standard' thing - if I actually want to allow passing a ref to a temporary, then I'll use a straightforward const X&. (I'm finding this piece on Boost's FOREACH to be quite useful.)
Well, if your "large parameter" is a class, the first thing to do is ensure that you mark any single parameter constructors explicit (apart from the copy constructor):
class BigType
{
public:
explicit BigType(int);
};
This applies to constructors which have default parameters which could potentially be called with a single argument, also.
Then it won't be automatically converted to since there are no implicit constructors for the compiler to use to do the conversion. You probably don't have any global conversion operators which make that type, but if you do, then
If that doesn't work for you, you could use some template magic, like:
template <typename T>
void func(const T &); // causes an undefined reference at link time.
template <>
void func(const BigType &v)
{
// use v.
}
If you can use C++11 (or parts thereof), this is easy:
void f(BigObject const& bo){
// ...
}
void f(BigObject&&) = delete; // or just undefined
Live example on Ideone.
This will work, because binding to an rvalue ref is preferred over binding to a reference-to-const for a temporary object.
You can also exploit the fact that only a single user-defined conversion is allowed in an implicit conversion sequence:
struct BigObjWrapper{
BigObjWrapper(BigObject const& o)
: object(o) {}
BigObject const& object;
};
void f(BigObjWrapper wrap){
BigObject const& bo = wrap.object;
// ...
}
Live example on Ideone.
This is pretty simple to solve: stop taking values by reference. If you want to ensure that a parameter is addressable, then make it an address:
void bar_const(const long *) { }
That way, the user must pass a pointer. And you can't get a pointer to a temporary (unless the user is being terribly malicious).
That being said, I think your thinking on this matter is... wrongheaded. It comes down to this point.
perhaps I will take it's address, not realizing that I am, in effect, taking the address of a temporary.
Taking the address of a const& that happens to be a temporary is actually fine. The problem is that you cannot store it long-term. Nor can you transfer ownership of it. After all, you got a const reference.
And that's part of the problem. If you take a const&, your interface is saying, "I'm allowed to use this object, but I do not own it, nor can I give ownership to someone else." Since you do not own the object, you cannot store it long-term. This is what const& means.
Taking a const* instead can be problematic. Why? Because you don't know where that pointer came from. Who owns this pointer? const& has a number of syntactic safeguards to prevent you from doing bad things (so long as you don't take its address). const* has nothing; you can copy that pointer to your heart's content. Your interface says nothing about whether you are allowed to own the object or transfer ownership to others.
This ambiguity is why C++11 has smart pointers like unique_ptr and shared_ptr. These pointers can describe real memory ownership relations.
If your function takes a unique_ptr by value, then you now own that object. If it takes a shared_ptr, then you now share ownership of that object. There are syntactic guarantees in place that ensure ownership (again, unless you take unpleasant steps).
In the event of your not using C++11, you should use Boost smart pointers to achieve similar effects.
You can't, and even if you could, it probably wouldn't help much.
Consider:
void another(long const& l)
{
bar_const(l);
}
Even if you could somehow prevent the binding to a temporary as input to
bar_const, functions like another could be called with the reference
bound to a temporary, and you'd end up in the same situation.
If you can't accept a temporary, you'll need to use a reference to a
non-const, or a pointer:
void bar_const(long const* l);
requires an lvalue to initialize it. Of course, a function like
void another(long const& l)
{
bar_const(&l);
}
will still cause problems. But if you globally adopt the convention to
use a pointer if object lifetime must extend beyond the end of the call,
then hopefully the author of another will think about why he's taking
the address, and avoid it.
I think your example with int and long is a bit of a red herring as in canonical C++ you will never pass builtin types by const reference anyway: You pass them by value or by non-const reference.
So let's assume instead that you have a large user defined class. In this case, if it's creating temporaries for you then that means you created implicit conversions for that class. All you have to do is mark all converting constructors (those that can be called with a single parameter) as explicit and the compiler will prevent those temporaries from being created automatically. For example:
class Foo
{
explicit Foo(int bar) { }
};
(Answering my own question thanks to this great answer on another question I asked. Thanks #hvd.)
In short, marking a function parameter as volatile means that it cannot be bound to an rvalue. (Can anybody nail down a standard quote for that? Temporaries can be bound to const&, but not to const volatile & apparently. This is what I get on g++-4.6.1. (Extra: see this extended comment stream for some gory details that are way over my head :-) ))
void foo( const volatile Input & input, Output & output) {
}
foo(input, output); // compiles. good
foo(get_input_as_value(), output); // compile failure, as desired.
But, you don't actually want the parameters to be volatile. So I've written a small wrapper to const_cast the volatile away. So the signature of foo becomes this instead:
void foo( const_lvalue<Input> input, Output & output) {
}
where the wrapper is:
template<typename T>
struct const_lvalue {
const T * t;
const_lvalue(const volatile T & t_) : t(const_cast<const T*>(&t_)) {}
const T* operator-> () const { return t; }
};
This can be created from an lvalue only
Any downsides? It might mean that I accidentally misuse an object that is truly volatile, but then again I've never used volatile before in my life. So this is the right solution for me, I think.
I hope to get in the habit of doing this with all suitable parameters by default.
Demo on ideone
It is an open ended question.
Effective C++. Item 3. Use const whenever possible. Really?
I would like to make anything which doesn't change during the objects lifetime const. But const comes with it own troubles. If a class has any const member, the compiler generated assignment operator is disabled. Without an assignment operator a class won't work with STL. If you want to provide your own assignment operator, const_cast is required. That means more hustle and more room for error. How often you use const class members?
EDIT: As a rule, I strive for const correctness because I do a lot of multithreading. I rarely need to implemented copy control for my classes and never code delete (unless it is absolutely necessary). I feel that the current state of affairs with const contradicts my coding style. Const forces me to implement assignment operator even though I don't need one. Even without const_cast assignment is a hassle. You need to make sure that all const members compare equal and then manually copy all non-const member.
Code. Hope it will clarify what I mean. The class you see below won't work with STL. You need to implement an assignment for it, even though you don't need one.
class Multiply {
public:
Multiply(double coef) : coef_(coef) {}
double operator()(double x) const {
return coef_*x;
}
private:
const double coef_;
};
You said yourself that you make const "anything which doesn't change during the objects lifetime". Yet you complain about the implicitly declared assignment operator getting disabled. But implicitly declared assignment operator does change the contents of the member in question! It is perfectly logical (according to your own logic) that it is getting disabled. Either that, or you shouldn't be declaring that member const.
Also, providing you own assignment operator does not require a const_cast. Why? Are you trying to assign to the member you declared const inside your assignment operator? If so, why did you declare it const then?
In other words, provide a more meaningful description of the problems you are running into. The one you provided so far is self-contradictory in the most obvious manner.
As AndreyT pointed out, under these circumstances assignment (mostly) doesn't make a lot of sense. The problem is that vector (for one example) is kind of an exception to that rule.
Logically, you copy an object into the vector, and sometime later you get back another copy of the original object. From a purely logical viewpoint, there's no assignment involved. The problem is that vector requires that the object be assignable anyway (actually, all C++ containers do). It's basically making an implementation detail (that somewhere in its code, it might assign the objects instead of copying them) part of the interface.
There is no simple cure for this. Even defining your own assignment operator and using const_cast doesn't really fix the problem. It's perfectly safe to use const_cast when you get a const pointer or reference to an object that you know isn't actually defined to be const. In this case, however, the variable itself is defined to be const -- attempting to cast away the constness and assign to it gives undefined behavior. In reality, it'll almost always work anyway (as long as it's not static const with an initializer that's known at compile time), but there's no guarantee of it.
C++ 11 and newer add a few new twists to this situation. In particular, objects no longer need to be assignable to be stored in a vector (or other collections). It's sufficient that they be movable. That doesn't help in this particular case (it's no easier to move a const object than it is to assign it) but does make life substantially easier in some other cases (i.e., there are certainly types that are movable but not assignable/copyable).
In this case, you could use a move rather than a copy by adding a level of indirection. If your create an "outer" and an "inner" object, with the const member in the inner object, and the outer object just containing a pointer to the inner:
struct outer {
struct inner {
const double coeff;
};
inner *i;
};
...then when we create an instance of outer, we define an inner object to hold the const data. When we need to do an assignment, we do a typical move assignment: copy the pointer from the old object to the new one, and (probably) set the pointer in the old object to a nullptr, so when it's destroyed, it won't try to destroy the inner object.
If you wanted to badly enough, you could use (sort of) the same technique in older versions of C++. You'd still use the outer/inner classes, but each assignment would allocate a whole new inner object, or you'd use something like a shared_ptr to let the outer instances share access to a single inner object, and clean it up when the last outer object is destroyed.
It doesn't make any real difference, but at least for the assignment used in managing a vector, you'd only have two references to an inner while the vector was resizing itself (resizing is why a vector requires assignable to start with).
I very rarely use them - the hassle is too great. Of course I always strive for const correctness when it comes to member functions, parameters or return types.
Errors at compile time are painful, but errors at runtime are deadly. Constructions using const might be a hassle to code, but it might help you find bugs before you implement them. I use consts whenever possible.
I try my best to follow the advice of using const whenever possible, however I agree that when it comes to class members, const is a big hassle.
I have found that I am very careful with const-correctness when it comes to parameters, but not as much with class members. Indeed, when I make class members const and it results in an error (due to using STL containers), the first thing I do is remove the const.
I'm wondering about your case... Everything below is but supposition because you did not provide the example code describing your problem, so...
The cause
I guess you have something like:
struct MyValue
{
int i ;
const int k ;
} ;
IIRC, the default assignment operator will do a member-by-member assignment, which is akin to :
MyValue & operator = (const MyValue & rhs)
{
this->i = rhs.i ;
this->k = rhs.k ; // THIS WON'T WORK BECAUSE K IS CONST
return *this ;
} ;
Thus, this won't get generated.
So, your problem is that without this assignment operator, the STL containers won't accept your object.
As far I as see it:
The compiler is right to not generate this operator =
You should provide your own, because only you know exactly what you want
You solution
I'm afraid to understand what do you mean by const_cast.
My own solution to your problem would be to write the following user defined operator :
MyValue & operator = (const MyValue & rhs)
{
this->i = rhs.i ;
// DON'T COPY K. K IS CONST, SO IT SHOULD NO BE MODIFIED.
return *this ;
} ;
This way, if you'll have:
MyValue a = { 1, 2 }, b = {10, 20} ;
a = b ; // a is now { 10, 2 }
As far as I see it, it is coherent. But I guess, reading the const_cast solution, that you want to have something more like:
MyValue a = { 1, 2 }, b = {10, 20} ;
a = b ; // a is now { 10, 20 } : K WAS COPIED
Which means the following code for operator =:
MyValue & operator = (const MyValue & rhs)
{
this->i = rhs.i ;
const_cast<int &>(this->k) = rhs.k ;
return *this ;
} ;
But, then, you wrote in your question:
I would like to make anything which doesn't change during the objects lifetime const
With what I supposed is your own const_cast solution, k changed during the object lifetime, which means that you contradict yourself because you need a member variable that doesn't change during the object lifetime unless you want it to change!
The solution
Accept the fact your member variable will change during the lifetime of its owner object, and remove the const.
you can store shared_ptr to your const objects in STL containers if you'd like to retain const members.
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/foreach.hpp>
#include <boost/make_shared.hpp>
#include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp>
#include <boost/utility.hpp>
#include <vector>
class Fruit : boost::noncopyable
{
public:
Fruit(
const std::string& name
) :
_name( name )
{
}
void eat() const { std::cout << "eating " << _name << std::endl; }
private:
const std::string _name;
};
int
main()
{
typedef boost::shared_ptr<const Fruit> FruitPtr;
typedef std::vector<FruitPtr> FruitVector;
FruitVector fruits;
fruits.push_back( boost::make_shared<Fruit>("apple") );
fruits.push_back( boost::make_shared<Fruit>("banana") );
fruits.push_back( boost::make_shared<Fruit>("orange") );
fruits.push_back( boost::make_shared<Fruit>("pear") );
BOOST_FOREACH( const FruitPtr& fruit, fruits ) {
fruit->eat();
}
return 0;
}
though, as others have pointed out it's somewhat of a hassle and often easier in my opinion to remove the const qualified members if you desire the compiler generated copy constructor.
I only use const on reference or pointer class members. I use it to indicate that the target of the reference or pointer should not be changed. Using it on other kinds of class members is a big hassle as you found out.
The best places to use const is in function parameters, pointers and references of all kinds, constant integers and temporary convenience values.
An example of a temporary convenience variable would be:
char buf[256];
char * const buf_end = buf + sizeof(buf);
fill_buf(buf, buf_end);
const size_t len = strlen(buf);
That buf_end pointer should never point anywhere else so making it const is a good idea. The same idea with len. If the string inside buf never changes in the rest of the function then its len should not change either. If I could, I would even change buf to const after calling fill_buf, but C/C++ does not let you do that.
The point is that the poster wants const protection within his implementation but still wants the object assignable. The language does not support such semantics conveniently as constness of the member resides at the same logical level and is tightly coupled with assignability.
However, the pImpl idiom with a reference counted implementation or smart pointer will do exactly what the poster wants as assignability is then moved out of the implementation and up a level to the higher level object. The implementation object is only constructed/destructed whence assignment is never needed at the lower level.
I think your statement
If a class has const any member, the
compiler generated assignment operator
is disabled.
Might be incorrect. I have classes that have const method
bool is_error(void) const;
....
virtual std::string info(void) const;
....
that are also used with STLs. So perhaps your observation is compiler dependent or only applicable to the member variables?
I would only use const member iff the class itself is non-copyable. I have many classes that I declare with boost::noncopyable
class Foo : public boost::noncopyable {
const int x;
const int y;
}
However if you want to be very sneaky and cause yourself lots of potential
problems you can effect a copy construct without an assignment but you have to
be a bit careful.
#include <new>
#include <iostream>
struct Foo {
Foo(int x):x(x){}
const int x;
friend std::ostream & operator << (std::ostream & os, Foo const & f ){
os << f.x;
return os;
}
};
int main(int, char * a[]){
Foo foo(1);
Foo bar(2);
std::cout << foo << std::endl;
std::cout << bar<< std::endl;
new(&bar)Foo(foo);
std::cout << foo << std::endl;
std::cout << bar << std::endl;
}
outputs
1
2
1
1
foo has been copied to bar using the placement new operator.
It isn't too hard. You shouldn't have any trouble making your own assignment operator. The const bits don't need to be assigned (as they're const).
Update
There is some misunderstanding about what const means. It means that it will not change, ever.
If an assignment is supposed to change it, then it isn't const.
If you just want to prevent others changing it, make it private and don't provide an update method.
End Update
class CTheta
{
public:
CTheta(int nVal)
: m_nVal(nVal), m_pi(3.142)
{
}
double GetPi() const { return m_pi; }
int GetVal() const { return m_nVal; }
CTheta &operator =(const CTheta &x)
{
if (this != &x)
{
m_nVal = x.GetVal();
}
return *this;
}
private:
int m_nVal;
const double m_pi;
};
bool operator < (const CTheta &lhs, const CTheta &rhs)
{
return lhs.GetVal() < rhs.GetVal();
}
int main()
{
std::vector<CTheta> v;
const size_t nMax(12);
for (size_t i=0; i<nMax; i++)
{
v.push_back(CTheta(::rand()));
}
std::sort(v.begin(), v.end());
std::vector<CTheta>::const_iterator itr;
for (itr=v.begin(); itr!=v.end(); ++itr)
{
std::cout << itr->GetVal() << " " << itr->GetPi() << std::endl;
}
return 0;
}
Philosophically speaking, it looks as safety-performance tradeoff. Const used for safety. As I understand, containers use assignment to reuse memory, i.e. for sake of performance. They would may use explicit destruction and placement new instead (and logicaly it is more correct), but assignment has a chance to be more efficient. I suppose, it is logically redundant requirement "to be assignable" (copy constructable is enough), but stl containers want to be faster and simpler.
Of course, it is possible to implement assignment as explicit destruction+placement new to avoid const_cast hack
Rather than declaring the data-member const, you can make the public surface of the class const, apart from the implicitly defined parts that make it (semi)regular.
class Multiply {
public:
Multiply(double coef) : coef(coef) {}
double operator()(double x) const {
return coef*x;
}
private:
double coef;
};
You basically never want to put a const member variable in a class. (Ditto with using references as members of a class.)
Constness is really intended for your program's control flow -- to prevent mutating objects at the wrong times in your code. So don't declare const member variables in your class's definition, rather make it all or nothing when you declare instances of the class.
Given a class like this:
class Foo
{
const int a;
};
Is it possible to put that class in a vector? When I try, my compiler tells me it can't use the default assignment operator. I try to write my own, but googling around tells me that it's impossible to write an assignment operator for a class with const data members. One post I found said that "if you made [the data member] const that means you don't want assignment to happen in the first place." This makes sense. I've written a class with const data members, and I never intended on using assignment on it, but apparently I need assignment to put it in a vector. Is there a way around this that still preserves const-correctness?
I've written a class with const data members, and I never intended on using assignment on it, but apparently I need assignment to put it in a vector. Is there a way around this that still preserves const-correctness?
You have to ask whether the following constraint still holds
a = b;
/* a is now equivalent to b */
If this constraint is not true for a and b being of type Foo (you have to define the semantics of what "equivalent" means!), then you just cannot put Foo into a Standard container. For example, auto_ptr cannot be put into Standard containers because it violates that requirement.
If you can say about your type that it satisfies this constraint (for example if the const member does not in any way participate to the value of your object, but then consider making it a static data member anyway), then you can write your own assignment operator
class Foo
{
const int a;
public:
Foo &operator=(Foo const& f) {
/* don't assign to "a" */
return *this;
}
};
But think twice!. To me, it looks like that your type does not satisfy the constraint!
Use a vector of pointers std::vector<Foo *>. If you want to avoid the hassle of cleaning up after yourself, use boost::ptr_vector.
Edit: My initial stab during my coffee break, static const int a; won't work for the use case the OP has in mind, which the initial comments confirm, so I'm rewriting and expanding my answer.
Most of the time, when I want to make an element of a class constant, it's a constant whose value is constant for all time and across all instances of the class. In that case, I use a static const variable:
class Foo
{
public:
static const int a;
};
Those don't need to be copied among instances, so if it applied, that would fix your assignment problem. Unfortunately, the OP has indicated that this won't work for the case the OP has in mind.
If you want to create a read-only value that clients can't modify, you can make it a private member variable and only expose it via a const getter method, as another post on this thread indicates:
class Foo
{
public:
int get_a() const { return a; }
private:
int a;
};
The difference between this and
class Foo
{
public:
const int a;
};
is:
The const int gives you assurance that not even the implementation of the class will be able to muck with the value of a during the lifetime of the object. This means that assignment rightfully won't work, since that would be trying to modify the value of a after the object's been created. (This is why, btw, writing a custom operator=() that skips the copy of a is probably a bad idea design-wise.)
The access is different – you have to go through a getter rather than accessing the member directly.
In practice, when choosing between the two, I use read-only members. Doing so probably means you'll be able to replace the value of an object with the value of another object without violating semantics at all. Let's see how it would work in your case.
Consider your Grid object, with a width and height. When you initially create the vector, and let's say you reserve some initial space using vector::reserve(), your vector will be populated with initial default-initialized (i.e. empty) Grids. When you go to assign to a particular position in the vector, or push a Grid onto the end of the vector, you replace the value of the object at that position with a Grid that has actual stuff. But you may be OK with this! If the reason you wanted width and height to be constant is really to ensure consistency between width and height and the rest of the contents of your Grid object, and you've verified that it doesn't matter whether width and height are replaced before or after other elements of Grid are replaced, then this assignment should be safe because by the end of the assignment, the entire contents of the instance will have been replaced and you'll be back in a consistent state. (If the lack of atomicity of the default assignment was a problem, you could probably get around this by implementing your own assignment operator which used a copy constructor and a swap() operation.)
In summary, what you gain by using read-only getters is the ability to use the objects in a vector or any container with value semantics. However, it then falls to you to ensure that none of Grid's internal operations (or the operations of friends of Grid) violate this consistency, because the compiler won't be locking down the width and height for you. This goes for default construction, copy construction, and assignment as well.
I'm considering making the data member non-const, but private and only accessible by a get function, like this:
class Foo
{
private:
int a;
public:
int getA() const {return a;}
};
Is this 'as good' as const? Does it have any disadvantages?
As of c++20, using const member variables are legal without restrictions that had made it virtually unusable in containers. You still have to define a copy assignment member function because it continues to be automatically deleted when a const object exists in the class. However, changes to "basic.life" now allow changing const sub-objects and c++ provides rather convenient functions for doing this. Here's a description of why the change was made:
The following code shows how to define a copy assignment member function which is useable in any class containing const member objects and uses the new functions std::destroy_at and std::construct_at to fulfil the requirement so the new "basic.life" rules. The code demonstrates assignment of vectors as well as sorting vectors with const elements.
Compiler explorer using MSVC, GCC, CLANG https://godbolt.org/z/McfcaMWqj
#include <memory>
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
class Foo
{
public:
const int a;
Foo& operator=(const Foo& arg) {
if (this != &arg)
{
std::destroy_at(this);
std::construct_at(this, arg);
}
return *this;
}
};
int main()
{
std::vector<Foo> v;
v.push_back({ 2 });
v.push_back({ 1 });
v.insert(v.begin() + 1, Foo{ 0 });
std::vector<Foo> v2;
v2 = v;
std::sort(v2.begin(), v2.end(), [](auto p1, auto p2) {return p1.a < p2.a; });
for (auto& x : v2)
std::cout << x.a << '\n';
}
I want to implement a Swap() method for my class (let's call it A) to make copy-and-swap operator=(). As far as I know, swap method should be implemented by swapping all members of the class, for example:
class A
{
public:
void swap(A& rhv)
{
std::swap(x, rhv.x);
std::swap(y, rhv.y);
std::swap(z, rhv.z);
}
private:
int x,y,z;
};
But what should I do if I have a const member? I can't call std::swap for it, so I can't code A::Swap().
EDIT: Actually my class is little bit more complicated. I want to Serialize and Deserialize it. Const member is a piece of data that won't change (its ID for example) within this object. So I was thinking of writing something like:
class A
{
public:
void Serialize(FILE* file) const
{
fwrite(&read_a, 1, sizeof(read_a), file);
}
void Deserialize(FILE* file) const
{
size_t read_a;
fread(&read_a, 1, sizeof(read_a), file);
A tmp(read_a);
this->Swap(tmp);
}
private:
const size_t a;
};
and call this code:
A a;
FILE* f = fopen(...);
a.Deserialize(f);
I'm sorry for such vague wording.
I think what you really want is to have an internal data structure that you can easily exchange between objects. For example:
class A
{
private:
struct A_Data {
int x;
int y;
const int z;
A_Data(int initial_z) : z(initial_z) {}
};
std::auto_ptr<A_Data> p_data;
public:
A(int initial_z) : p_data(new A_Data(initial_z)) {}
void swap(A& rhv) {
std::swap(p_data, rhv.p_data);
}
};
This keeps the z value constant within any instance of A object internal data, but you can swap the internal data of two A objects (including the constant z value) without violating const-correctness.
After a good nights sleep I think the best answer is to use a non-const pointer to a const value -- after all these are the semantics you are trying to capture.
f0b0s, a good design principle is to design your objects to be immutable. This means that the object can't change once created. To "change" the object, you must copy the object and make sure to change the elements you want.
That being said, in this case you should look at using a copy constructor instead to copy the objects you want to swap, and then actually swap the references to the object. I can understand it'd be tempting just to be able to change the elements of an object under the hood, but it'd be better to make a copy of the object and replace the references to that object with the NEW object instead. This gets you around any const nastiness.
Hope this helps.
I suggest you use pointers to the instances. The pointers can be swapped much easier than the data in the class or struct.
The only way to swap a constant value is to create another object, or clone the current object.
Given a struct:
struct My_Struct
{
const unsigned int ID;
std::string name;
My_Struct(unsigned int new_id)
: ID(new_id)
{ ; }
};
My understanding is that you want to swap instances of something like My_Struct above. You can copy the mutable (non-const) members but not the const member. The only method to alter the const member is to create a new instance with a new value for the const member.
Perhaps you need to rethink your design.
IMHO you must consider not to swap CONST members.
PD: I think you could consider to use reflection in your approach. so you don't have to maintain the function.
This is why const_cast was created. Just remember not to shoot your foot off.
Edit: OK, I concede - const_cast wasn't made for this problem at all. This might work with your compiler, but you can't count on it and if demons come flying out of your nostrils, please don't blame me.
tl;dr; : It's Undefined Behavior.
Reference/reason: CppCon 2017: Scott Schurr “Type Punning in C++17: Avoiding Pun-defined Behavior, #24m52s +- ”
My interpretation, by example:
Suppose you create an object of type T, which have some const members. You can pass this object as a non-const reference to a function f(&T) that manipulates it, but you'd expect the const members to remain unalterable after the call. swap can be called in non-const references, and it can happen inside the function f, breaking the premise of const members to the caller.
Every part of your code that uses swap would have to assert that the object of type T being swapped does not belong to any context where the const members are assumed constant. That is impossible to automatically verify*.
*I just assumed that this is impossible to verify because it seems like an extension of the undecidability of the halting problem.