I have a cyclical redundancy circular dependency between two classes in my project, StatusEffect and BaseCharacter.
Both classes need to be aware of each other as the BaseCharacter needs to store a set of StatusEffects and StatusEffect needs to be able to do operations on BaseCharacter. I don't think it's possible to eliminate this behavior and still have it work correctly. Here's what I'm trying to do right now:
Base Character exists inside the namespace Game::Character and StatusEffect exists inside the namespace Game::StatusEffects
inside StatusEffects.h, I forward declared BaseCharacter like so:
namespace Game {
namespace Character {
class BaseCharacter;
}
}
then below it I have:
namespace Game
{
namespace StatusEffects
{
class StatusEffect
{
public:
virtual void TickCharacter(Game::Character::BaseCharacter* character, int ticks = 1)
{
std::cout << "Name " << character->GetName() << std::endl;
}
protected:
private:
std::string name;
int StatusEffectUID;
};
}
}
However, this is giving me a compiler error:
Error 1 error C2027: use of undefined type 'Game::Character::BaseCharacter'
I thought that because I'm using a pointer, this forward declaration is fine. Is there something else I need to forward declare? I dont need to forward declare the whole class definition do I?
You can't call a method through a pointer to a forward-declared class. You have to move this code somewhere where the class is already defined - for example into a .cpp file that includes both classes definition.
Your forward declaration is fine. However, you must not refer to any of the members of such a class.
You should only declare the TickCharacter method in the header. You should then define the StatusEffect::TickCharacter method in its own module file after #include ing the header file which contains the full declaration of BaseCharacter.
Related
I'm aware of using function prototypes, and I was under the impression that forward class declarations could serve a similar purpose when main() and a class are in the same file. For example, I would have expected this would compile:
// main.cpp
#include <iostream>
// class prototypes
class MyClass;
int main(void)
{
MyClass myClass;
// do stuff with myClass here
return(0);
}
class MyClass
{
public:
int someInt;
double someDouble;
// more stuff here . . .
};
But on the MyClass myClass; line I'm getting the error 'myClass' uses undefined class 'MyClass'. What am I doing wrong?
P.S. I'm aware that I could cut/paste main() below all the classes it uses and that would fix the error, but I'd prefer to keep main() as the first function or class.
P.P.S. I'm aware that in any substantial size production program main(), .h content, and .cpp content would be in 3 separate files. In this case I'm attempting to write a small example or test program where main and a class(es) are in the same file.
Forward declarations can only be used via pointers or references.
Calling a constructor function doesn't fall into this category.
I'm aware that I could cut/paste main() below all the classes it uses and that would fix the error, but I'd prefer to keep main() as the first function or class.
That's why usually header files are used, instead of placing all the declarations and definitions in the main.cpp file.
I'm aware that in any substantial size production program main(), .h content, and .cpp content would be in 3 separate files. In this case I'm attempting to write a small example or test program where main and a class(es) are in the same file.
You should still stick to that idiom though, everything else would probably end up in a mess.
This doesn't use forward declarations but it partially addresses the spirit of a single main.cpp with your "main" at the top. I find this technique sometimes useful when you want to share something via an online C++ ide where a single file is much easier to deal with, and you want to focus on the action in main rather than implementation detail in helper structs/classes etc.
#include <iostream>
template<typename MyClass,typename MyOtherClass>
int main_()
{
MyClass a;
a.do_foo();
MyOtherClass b;
b.do_bar();
return 0;
}
struct MyClass
{
void do_foo() { std::cout << "MyClass: do_foo called\n"; }
};
struct MyOtherClass
{
void do_bar() { std::cout << "MyOtherClass: do_bar called\n"; }
};
int main()
{
return main_<MyClass,MyOtherClass>();
}
In one of my classes header file Lfo.h, I have a class definition where I put the member function definition out of the class (It might be better to have a separate .cpp file but it should be ok put here?):
// Lfo.h
class CLfo
{
public:
static int create (CLfo*& pCLfo);
};
int CLfo::create(CLfo *&pCLfo)
{
pCLfo = new CLfo;
return 0;
}
Then I have another class called CVibrato:
// Vibrato.h
class CVibrato
{
public:
static int create (CVibrato*& pCVibrato);
private:
CVibrato();
};
and the .cpp file (in the cpp file, I include Lfo.h because later on the vibrato class will have a lfo member but I haven't implemented right now):
// Vibrato.cpp
#include "Lfo.h"
#include "Vibrato.h"
int CVibrato::create(CVibrato *&pCVibrato)
{
pCVibrato = new CVibrato();
return 0;
}
CVibrato::CVibrato()
{
}
Then I want to create a instance of vibrato class in main()
#include "Vibrato.h"
#include "Lfo.h" // if comment this line out there will be no error, why is that?
int main()
{
CVibrato *vibrato = 0;
CVibrato::create(vibrato);
return 0;
}
However I get a 1 duplicate symbol for architecture x86_64 error. What is duplicated? It seems the reason is in Lfo.h, I put the definition of the member function outside of the class, if I put it inside, the program runs properly. But I cannot understand. In c++, aren't we allowed to do this? By the way, if one of my class (in my case vibrato) is going to have a class member of another class (in this case lfo), should I include the header file of member class in .h (vibrato.h) file or .cpp (vibrato.cpp) file?
Classes are declarations. No code is produced from a declaration. Even if you have a member function in the class, it is treated as if an inline by the compiler. Function bodies can be put in a header but should always be declared as inline. The compiler may not actually inline it, but it will treat it as a single instance for code creation.
Any time you:
void function( ) { }
Code is created for that function. If a header is included more than once the compiler is told to create the code more than once. But all functions must have unique names! So you get the duplicate error. That is why code generating lines belong in the .cpp files.
'inline' tells the compiler not to create immediate code but to create the code at the usage point.
You can't put class method definition directly in a header file, unless you explicitly mark it as inline. Like the following:
// Lfo.h
class CLfo
{
public:
inline static int create (CLfo*& pCLfo);
};
int CLfo::create(CLfo *&pCLfo)
{
pCLfo = new CLfo;
return 0;
}
Or,
// Lfo.h
class CLfo
{
public:
static int create (CLfo*& pCLfo);
};
inline int CLfo::create(CLfo *&pCLfo)
{
pCLfo = new CLfo;
return 0;
}
I am trying to implement a listener. Because of many cross-references I am trying to avoid including other classes and pre-define them
My listener looks as follows
.h
class Book
{
public:
Book();
private:
std::vector<MyListener *> listeners_;
void Notify();
}
.cpp
Book::Book() {}
void Book::Notify() {
MyListener *p_listener;
for ( int i = 0; i < this->listeners_.size(); i++ ) {
p_listener = listeners_[i];
p_listener->Update(); // ERRORS THROWN HERE WHEN NOT INCLUDING LISTENER.H
}
}
This all works fine when I include the listener.h file
#include "listener.h"
But when I instead pre-declare Listener it doesnt work
class Listener;
It gives me the two errors
C:\CPP\qtTradeSim\qtTradeSim\test\book.cpp:33: error: C2027: use of undefined type 'Listener'
C:\CPP\qtTradeSim\qtTradeSim\test\book.cpp:33: error: C2227: left of '->Update' must point to class/struct/union/generic type
Is there a way to avoid including the Listener header?
In the header file of class Book, you should indeed use a forward declaration of MyListener, as the header only defines an std::vector of pointers to MyListener and does not need to know the full declaration of MyListener.
The implementation file of class Book, however, actually needs the full declaration of MyListener, as it calls its update method, so you would include listener.h in the implementation file of class Book instead of in the header file.
Let's suppose the compiler sees the following code:
class Listener;
std::vector<Listener*> pListeners;
// some code...
for(auto& pListener: pListeners) {
pListener->update();
}
Note, how does the compiler see the Listener has a member function update? The symbol update could not be determined until the compiler see the Listener full declaration. Think if you used update with an argument missing, could the compiler capture this problem without seeing the declaration of update? Thus, it cannot translate the code. If you give a full declaration of the Listener, e.g.
class Listener {
public:
Listener() { // some construction
}
void update() {
// dosth
}
};
The compiler could know the update method, its parameters, the return value, etc., and compile it happily.
namespace n1 {
namespace n2 {
...
int myfunc(void)
{
return 1;
}
class myclass {
..
};
}
}
I thought it is possible to define a function this way, and access it both from 'myclass' and its derivatives. However gcc doesn't even want to compile this code:
multiple definition of `n1::n2::myfunc()'
This function is the only one here, what am I missing?
Thanks.
You need to either mark the function inline to avoid breaking the one definition rule, or place the implementation in a .cpp file, and leave only the declaration in the header.
I can't solve this circular dependency problem; always getting this error:
"invalid use of incomplete type struct GemsGame"
I don't know why the compiler doesn't know the declaration of GemsGame even if I included gemsgame.h
Both classes depend on each other (GemsGame store a vector of GemElements, and GemElements need to access this same vector)
Here is partial code of GEMELEMENT.H:
#ifndef GEMELEMENT_H_INCLUDED
#define GEMELEMENT_H_INCLUDED
#include "GemsGame.h"
class GemsGame;
class GemElement {
private:
GemsGame* _gemsGame;
public:
GemElement{
_gemsGame = application.getCurrentGame();
_gemsGame->getGemsVector();
}
};
#endif // GEMELEMENT_H_INCLUDED
...and of GEMSGAME.H:
#ifndef GEMSGAME_H_INCLUDED
#define GEMSGAME_H_INCLUDED
#include "GemElement.h"
class GemsGame {
private:
vector< vector<GemElement*> > _gemsVector;
public:
GemsGame() {
...
}
vector< vector<GemElement*> > getGemsVector() {
return _gemsVector;
}
}
#endif // GEMSGAME_H_INCLUDED
Remove the #include directives, you already have the classes forward declared.
If your class A needs, in its definition, to know something about the particulars of class B, then you need to include class B's header. If class A only needs to know that class B exists, such as when class A only holds a pointer to class B instances, then it's enough to forward-declare, and in that case an #include is not needed.
If you deference the pointer and the function is inline you will need the full type. If you create a cpp file for the implementation you can avoid the circular dependecy (since neither of the class will need to include each others .h in their headers)
Something like this:
your header:
#ifndef GEMELEMENT_H_INCLUDED
#define GEMELEMENT_H_INCLUDED
class GemsGame;
class GemElement {
private:
GemsGame* _gemsGame;
public:
GemElement();
};
#endif // GEMELEMENT_H_INCLUDED
your cpp:
#include "GenGame.h"
GenElement::GenElement()
{
_gemsGame = application.getCurrentGame();
_gemsGame->getGemsVector();
}
Two ways out:
Keep the dependent classes in the same H-file
Turn dependency into abstract interfaces: GemElement implementing IGemElement and expecting for IGemsGame, and GemsGame implementing IGemsGame and containing a vector of IGemElement pointers.
Look at the top answer of this topic: When can I use a forward declaration?
He really explains everything you need to know about forward declarations and what you can and cannot do with classes that you forward declare.
It looks like you are using a forward declaration of a class and then trying to declare it as a member of a different class. This fails because using a forward declaration makes it an incomplete type.