When writing a framework I got following problem:
I have class A and class B wchich is derived from class A.
class A has a function wchich returns B*.
Of course, it's not difficult:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class B; // forward declaration
class A
{
public:
B* ReturnSomeData();
};
class B : public A
{
};
// Implementation:
B* A::ReturnSomeData()
{
return new B; // doesn't matter how the function makes pointer
}
int main()
{
A sth;
cout << sth.ReturnSomeData(); // print adress
}
However I had to use templates like here:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
// This "forward declaration":
template <class Number>
class B<Number>;
// cannot be compiled:
// "7 error: 'B' is not a template"
template <class Number>
class A
{
public:
B<Number>* ReturnSomeData();
};
template <class Number>
class B : public A<Number>
{
};
// Implementation:
template <class Number>
B<Number>* A<Number>::ReturnSomeData()
{
return new B<Number>;
}
int main()
{
A<int> sth;
cout << sth.ReturnSomeData();
}
Look at the code. As you can see I don't know how to deal with unknown by A B*. Is it possible to write forward declaration? Or I need something different?
Yes, I searched and I see there are many posts about template declarations but can't find solve for my individual problem. It's a bit complex for me.
Thanks for help.
Your forward declaration is incorrect. It needs to be:
template <class Number>
class B;
^ no argument list
Related
I created a class and I want to force anyone who's trying to construct an object, to use unique_ptr. To do that I thought of declaring the constructor protected and use a friend function that returns a unique_ptr. So here's an example of what I want to do:
template <typename T>
class A
{
public:
friend std::unique_ptr<A<T>> CreateA<T>(int myarg);
protected:
A(int myarg) {}
};
template <typename T>
std::unique_ptr<A<T>> CreateA(int myarg)
{
// Since I declared CreateA as a friend I thought I
// would be able to do that
return std::make_unique<A<T>>(myarg);
}
I did some reading on friend functions and I understood that a friend function provides access to private/protected members of an object of a class.
Is there anyway I can make my example work?
Even without friend functions, my goal is to make the CreateA the only way for someone to create an object.
EDIT
I change the code a bit. I didn't mention that my class takes one template parameter. That makes things more complex apparently.
You can do it this way :-
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
using namespace std;
class A
{
int arg;
public:
friend unique_ptr<A> CreateA(int myarg);
void showarg() { cout<<arg; }
protected:
A(int myarg): arg(myarg) {}
};
unique_ptr<A> CreateA (int myarg)
{
return std::unique_ptr<A>(new A(myarg));
}
int main()
{
int x=5;
unique_ptr<A> u = CreateA(x);
u->showarg();
return 0;
}
Output :-
5
If you don't want to use friend function you can make the function static & call it like this :-
unique_ptr<A> u = A::CreateA(x);
EDIT :-
In reply to your edit I rewrote the program & it goes like this :-
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
using namespace std;
template <typename T>
class A
{
T arg;
public:
static std::unique_ptr<A> CreateA(T myarg)
{
return std::unique_ptr<A>( new A(myarg) );
}
void showarg()
{
cout<<arg;
}
protected:
A(T myarg): arg(myarg) {}
};
int main()
{
int x=5;
auto u = A<int>::CreateA(x);
u->showarg();
return 0;
}
Simple & easy !!! But remember you cannot instantiate the object of A. Good Luck !!!
The other answers suggest using a static template function, which I agree is the best solution, because it is simpler.
My answer explains why your friend approach didn't work and how to use the friend approach correctly.
There are two problems in your original code. One is that make_unique is not actually a friend of A, so the call make_unique<A<T>>(myarg); does not have access to A's protected constructor. To avoid this , you can use unique_ptr<A<T>>(new A(myarg)) instead. Theoretically it would be possible to declare make_unique a friend but I'm not even sure of the right syntax for that.
The other issue is the template friends problem. Inside a class template, friend <function-declaration> actually declares a non-template friend.
The C++ FAQ suggests two possible workarounds. One of them is to define the friend function inline. However, in that case the function can only be found by argument-dependent lookup. But since the function does not take A<T> (or A<T> &) as argument, it can never be found this way. So this option is not viable to your situation -- it's more suited to operator overloading.
So the only fix is to declare (and optionally define) the template function before the class definition:
#include <memory>
template<typename T>
class A;
template <typename T>
std::unique_ptr<A<T>> CreateA(int myarg)
{
return std::unique_ptr<A<T>>{new A<T>(myarg)};
}
template <typename T>
class A
{
friend std::unique_ptr<A<T>> CreateA <> (int myarg);
// refers to existing template ^^
protected:
A(int myarg) {}
};
int main()
{
auto x = CreateA<int>(5);
}
Note: It is possible to declare CreateA where I have defined it, and put the function definition later. However, the code I have posted works -- despite A not being defined when new A<T>(myarg) appears in the source -- because CreateA is not instantiated until it is called, at which point A will be defined.
Create a static function that instantiates the protected constructor.
#include<iostream>
#include<string.h>
#include<ctype.h>
#include<math.h>
#include <memory>
using namespace std;
template< typename T >
class A
{
public:
static void CreateA(int myarg, std::unique_ptr<A<T>>& objA, T t) {
std::unique_ptr<A<T>> objB(new A(myarg, t));
objA = std::move(objB);
}
protected:
A(int myarg, T t) {
m_t = t;
}
private:
T m_t;
};
int main() {
int myArg = 0;
std::unique_ptr<A<int>> anotherObjA;
A<int>::CreateA(myArg, anotherObjA, myArg);
return 0;
}
If the class G is in the namespace GSpace and it needs to be friends with the class M in the global namespace what do you have to do? I thought this would work:
/////////////////////M.h//////////////////////
#include "GFile.h"
class M
{
public:
friend class GSpace::G; // doesn't work, throws error
}
After researching on StackOverflow a bit, I found this answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/3843743/1797424
/////////////////////M.h//////////////////////
namespace GSpace
{
class G;
}
class M
{
public:
friend class GSpace::G; // works, no error
private:
GSpace::G gClassMember; // errors: "M uses undefined class GSpace::G"
};
// Note that G.h includes M.h so I do not include it here,
// instead I have it included in M.cpp
That does work for getting the class friended. However, it creates an issue when I actually declare a class member using that type, because the class is not defined. GFile.h
Am I misunderstanding how #include and forward declaration behaves, or is it some kind of implementation issue on the side of the compiler (not likely, I'm assuming)?
Because your member is not a pointer or reference, the compiler needs to know the size of G. You can't use a forward declaration.
As noted in the comment, you need to qualify G with the namespace.
Here is code which compiles for me:
namespace GSpace
{
class G
{
};
}
class M
{
public:
friend class GSpace::G;
private:
GSpace::G gClassMember;
};
int main() {return 0;}
Try the following
namespace GSpace
{
class G;
}
class M
{
public:
friend class GSpace::G;
}
namespace GSpace
{
class G { /* definition of the class */ };
}
I was trying to integrate the boost::share_ptr into a pair of templated classes that were originally derived from a boost::asio example I found. When I define a type within one class which is a shared::ptr of that class. I can't seem to reference the type in another templated class. If I remove templates from the code, it all compiles.
This won't compile:
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp>
#include <boost/enable_shared_from_this.hpp>
using namespace std;
template <typename TSomething1>
class SomeTemplateT : public boost::enable_shared_from_this<SomeTemplateT<TSomething1> >
{
public:
typedef boost::shared_ptr<SomeTemplateT<TSomething1> > Ptr;
static Ptr Create()
{
return Ptr(new SomeTemplateT<TSomething1>());
}
SomeTemplateT()
{
cout << "SomeTemplateT created" << endl;
}
};
template <typename TSomething>
class OtherTemplateT
{
public:
OtherTemplateT()
{
// COMPILATION ERROR HERE
SomeTemplateT<TSomething>::Ptr someTemplate = SomeTemplateT<TSomething>::Create();
}
private:
};
The code above yields the following compilation error:
src\Templates\main.cpp: In constructor 'OtherTemplateT<TSomething>::OtherTemplateT()':
src\comps\oamp\src\Templates\main.cpp:30: error: expected ';' before 'someTemplate'
Taking virtually the same code without templates compiles without difficulty:
class SomeTemplateT : public boost::enable_shared_from_this<SomeTemplateT>
{
public:
typedef boost::shared_ptr<SomeTemplateT> Ptr;
static Ptr Create()
{
return Ptr(new SomeTemplateT());
}
SomeTemplateT()
{
cout << "SomeTemplateT created" << endl;
}
};
class OtherTemplateT
{
public:
OtherTemplateT()
{
SomeTemplateT::Ptr someTemplate = SomeTemplateT::Create();
}
private:
};
Platform information:
I'm using gcc4.4.0 from MinGW on windows XP (Code:Blocks IDE).
Am I doing something wrong?
EDIT:
I forgot to mention that if I replace the use of the Ptr typedef with the full declaration of the shared ptr:
boost::shared_ptr
Everything compiles fine.
Also, I can use the type in code outside the of the template.
SomeTemplateT<TSomething>::Ptr is a dependent name; that is, its definition depends on the template parameter. The compiler can't assume that it's a type name unless you say so:
typename SomeTemplateT<TSomething>::Ptr someTemplate = SomeTemplateT<TSomething>::Create();
^^^^^^^^
You need to use typename:
typename SomeTemplateT<TSomething>::Ptr someTemplate = SomeTemplateT<TSomething>::Create();
This is required to make parsing possible without semantic analysis. Whether SomeTemplateT<TSomething>::Ptr is a type or a member is not known until SomeTemplateT<TSomething> has been compiled.
A example taken from the C++11 Standard (n3290) that demonstrate why the keyword typename (in this context) is useful.
( 14.6 Name resolution [temp.res] )
struct A
{
struct X { };
int X;
};
struct B
{
struct X { };
};
template<class T> void f(T t)
{
typename T::X x;
}
void foo()
{
A a;
B b;
f(b); // OK: T::X refers to B::X
f(a); // error: T::X refers to the data member A::X not the struct A::X
}
I'm having an issue with a C++ library I'm trying to write. It's the usual setup, one cpp file, one header file. I want the header file to only expose the parts that are meant to be used (I have an abstract base class for instance, I don't want in the header file). So far, I'm just working with a single file (I assume this should make no difference, as includes are done by the preprocessor, which doesn't care about anything).
You'll note that the "header file" is spread over two spots, before and after the header implementation file.
#include <stdio.h>
// lib.h
namespace foo {
template <class T> class A;
}
// lib.cpp
namespace foo {
template <class T> class A {
private:
T i;
public:
A(T i) {
this->i = i;
}
T returnT() {
return i;
}
};
};
// lib.h
namespace foo {
template <class T> T A<T>::returnT();
}
// foo.cpp
void main() {
foo::A<int> a = foo::A<int>(42);
printf("a = %d",a.returnT());
}
So, naturally, I'd like my header file to contain just
namespace foo {
template <class T> class A;
template <class T> T A<T>::returnT();
}
But my compiler does not like this (it complains that returnT is not a member of foo::A<T>. The reason I don't want to put the class declaration itself in the header is that then it would (as I understand it), contain all the private and similar stuff, which I'd like to hide.
Maybe it's just me, but the following header file seems "bad", at least as an "interface specification." It exposes some of the internals of A, which a user of the lib would not need to know about.
// lib.h
namespace foo {
template <class T> class A {
private:
int i;
public:
A(T);
T returnT();
};
}
// lib.cpp
namespace foo {
template <class T> A<T>::A(T i) {
this->i = i;
}
template <class T> T A<T>::returnT() {
return i;
}
};
Is this the accepted way of doing it? I'd like a more abstract header file, if at all possible.
You cannot separate the definition of a template from its declaration. They both have to go into the header file together.
For "why?" I recommend reading "Why can't I separate the definition of my templates class from its declaration and put it inside a .cpp file?".
I may have misread your question. To address what may also be your question, this is not valid:
namespace foo {
template <class T> class A;
template <class T> T A<T>::returnT();
}
It is not valid for the same reason that this is not valid:
namespace foo {
class A;
int A::returnT();
}
Member functions must be declared inside the definition of the class.
There are two problems with .cpp files you are dealing here:
I.
If you want to put an instance of that class on the stack (like you do in your main()) the compiler needs to know the size of the class (to allocate enough memory). For that it needs to know the members and by that the complete declaration.
The only way to hide the class' layout away is to built up an interface and a factory method/function and put the instance on the heap in the factory.
As an example (without the template; see below to know why):
namespace foo {
class IA {
public:
virtual ~IA();
virtual int returnT() = 0;
static IA *Create();
};
}
In your .cpp you then do:
namespace foo {
class A : public IA {
private:
int i;
public:
A() :
i(0) {
}
virtual ~A() {
}
virtual int returnT() {
return i;
}
};
IA::~IA() {
}
IA *IA::Create() {
return new A();
}
}
BTW: Using smart pointers would be suggested...
II.
Since you are using a template the method definitions must be either visible via header file or explicitly instantiated for a specific set of types.
So you can split up your code into a lib.h and a lib_impl.h:
lib.h:
namespace foo {
template <typename T> class IA {
public:
virtual ~IA() {
}
virtual T returnT() = 0;
static IA *Create();
};
}
lib_impl.h:
namespace foo {
template <typename T> class A : public IA<T> {
private:
T i;
public:
A() :
i(T()) {
}
virtual ~A() {
}
virtual T returnT() {
return i;
}
};
template <typename T> IA<T> *IA<T>::Create() {
return new A<T>();
}
}
so you include the lib_impl.h where ever you need the impleemntations.
To use the explicit instantiations add a lib.cpp and just let that file allow to include lib_impl.h:
lib.cpp:
#include <lib_impl.h>
namespace foo {
template class IA<int>;
template class A<int>;
template class IA<float>;
template class A<float>;
template class IA<char>;
template class A<char>;
// ...
}
Two-phase lookup question:
Is there a more synthetic way to write this code, i.e. avoiding all those using directives?
Something like using CBase<T>; is what I would like, but it is not accepted.
#include <iostream>
template <typename T>
class CBase
{
protected:
int a, b, c, d; // many more...
public:
CBase() {
a = 123; c = 0;
}
};
template <typename T>
class CDer : public CBase<T>
{
// using CBase<T>; // error, but this is what I would like
using CBase<T>::a;
using CBase<T>::b;
//...
public:
CDer() {
std::cout << a << this->c;
}
};
int main()
{
CDer<int> cd;
}
In my real code there are many more member variables/functions, and I was wondering if it is possible to write shorter code in some way.
Of course, using the this->c syntax does not solve the problem...
Thank's!
gcc 4.1
MacOS X 10.6
I reduced the testcase and then consider three options
template<typename T> struct Base { int a; };
Option 1
template<typename T> struct Der : Base<T> {
void f() {
int &ra = Der::a;
// now use ra
}
}
Option 2
template<typename T> struct Der : Base<T> {
void f() {
// use this->a instead
// or Der::a
}
}
Option 3
// use your using declarations
It doesn't look like most of those variables are parameterized. Does CBase use them all, or just a? If not, move them into a new non-template base of CDer.
Or, pack them all into a POD struct and then using CBase<T>::m_ints;.
High overhead solution: non-templated virtual base.
Not sure but worth a try: nest the definition of CDer inside CBase and then typedef it into namespace scope.