Variable user-defined parameter list in C++? - c++

I'm looking for a simple way to create a user multi-parameter receiving function,
Here's some pseudo code
#include <iostream>
struct A {
int m_num;
};
void function(A* a, ...)
{
/* Pseudo-Code here */
for each parameter do
print a->m_num
end
}
int main()
{
A *a = new A();
A *b = new A();
A *c = new A();
a->m_num = 1;
b->m_num = 10;
c->m_num = 100;
function(a,b,c);
// delete everything
return 0;
}
I can't really use boost here, so if it's possible with standard C++ ( STL Allowed ), it would be great.
EDIT: The function parameters are heterogeneous

Old school plain C variadic arguments:
#include <cstdio>
#include <stdarg.h>
struct A {
A () : m_num (0) {}
A (int v) : m_num (v) {}
int m_num;
};
void function (A *a, ...)
{
va_list ap;
A *p = a;
va_start (ap, a);
while (p != NULL)
{
printf ("%d\n", p->m_num);
p = va_arg (ap, A*);
}
va_end (ap);
}
int main()
{
A a (1), b (10), c (100);
function (&a, &b, &c, NULL);
}
Another solution if arguments are of the same type (which is your case):
#include <cstdio>
struct A {
A () : m_num (0) {}
A (int v) : m_num (v) {}
int m_num;
};
void function (A *p, A *endp)
{
while (p != endp)
{
printf ("%d\n", p->m_num);
++p;
}
}
int main()
{
A a[3];
a[0].m_num = 1;
a[1].m_num = 10;
a[2].m_num = 100;
function (a, a + sizeof (a) / sizeof(a[0]));
}
Or even more C++-style, with iterators:
#include <cstdio>
#include <vector>
#include <list>
struct A {
A () : m_num (0) {}
A (int v) : m_num (v) {}
int m_num;
};
template <typename T>
void function (T p, T endp)
{
while (p != endp)
{
printf ("%d\n", p->m_num);
++p;
}
}
int main()
{
A a[3];
a[0].m_num = 1;
a[1].m_num = 10;
a[2].m_num = 100;
function (a, a + sizeof (a) / sizeof(a[0]));
std::vector<A> av (3);
av[0].m_num = 1;
av[1].m_num = 10;
av[2].m_num = 100;
function (av.begin (), av.end ());
std::list<A> al;
al.push_back (A (1));
al.push_back (A (10));
al.push_back (A (100));
function (al.begin (), al.end ());
}

The most straightforward way is to put your parameters into a std::vector. If they're non-homogeneous you can use a vector of boost::any or boost::variant.
Alternately design your interface like streams and use an insertion like operator/function that operators on one parameter at a time.
It would look something like this, alternately using a friend free-function.
struct A
{
int m_num;
};
struct printer
{
function& operator<<(A* a)
{
/* Pseudo-Code here */
print a->m_num
return *this;
}
};
int main()
{
A *a = new A();
A *b = new A();
A *c = new A();
a->m_num = 1;
b->m_num = 10;
c->m_num = 100;
printer function;
function << a << b << c;
// delete everything
return 0;
}

If every parameter going into function is an A, I'd do it with an array of A's, as in:
int main() {
A *abc[3];
for (int i=0;i<3;i++)
abc[i]=new A();
abc[0]->m_num=1;
abc[1]->m_num=10;
abc[2]->m_num=100;
function(abc,3);
}
void function(A *vals[],int count) {
for (int i=0;i<count;i++)
print vals[i]->m_num;
}

If you have a compiler recent enough to ship with std::tuple<> or std::tr1::tuple<>, you can do the following:
#include <cstddef>
#include <tuple>
#include <iostream>
struct A
{
int m_num;
};
template<typename T>
class function_impl
{
template<std::size_t N>
static void impl(T const& tup)
{
std::cout << std::get<N>(tup)->m_num << '\n';
}
template<std::size_t N>
struct recurse_helper
{
static void invoke(T const& tup)
{
function_impl<T>::template impl<N>(tup);
recurse_helper<N + 1u>::invoke(tup);
}
};
template<>
struct recurse_helper<std::tuple_size<T>::value>
{
static void invoke(T const&) { }
};
public:
static void invoke(T const& tup)
{
recurse_helper<0u>::invoke(tup);
}
};
template<typename T>
void function(T const& tup)
{
function_impl<T>::invoke(tup);
}
int main()
{
A* a = new A();
a->m_num = 1;
A* b = new A();
b->m_num = 10;
A* c = new A();
c->m_num = 100;
function(std::tie(a, b, c));
delete c;
delete b;
delete a;
}
Note that function actually takes a singular argument, a tuple<>, rather than multiple arguments. But, unlike any varargs-based solution, this is completely type-safe.
Also note that the implementation here would be much simpler if you could use Boost.Fusion...

As a supplement.
In C++0x, you could use variadic-template to implement your function recursively:
// Just to make the compiler happy.
template <typename T>
void function(T a) = delete;
// Base case
template <>
void function(A* a) {
printf("%d\n", a->m_num);
}
// Recursion
template <typename T, typename... Args>
void function(T a, Args... args) {
function(a);
function(args...);
}
But this will generate N functions if it accepts N parameters. Alternatively, you could use an initializer_list:
void function(std::initializer_list<A*> args) {
for (auto cit = args.begin(); cit != args.end(); ++ cit)
printf("%d\n", (*cit)->m_num);
}
but you need to call function as
function({a,b,c});
// ^ ^

Related

How can I decrease the number of overloaded functions

I want to know if there is an approach to decrease the number of overloaded function (function edit) in the below code.
class foo
{
public:
foo(int _a, char _b, float _c) : a(_a), b(_b), c(_c){};
void edit(int new_a);
void edit(char new_b);
void edit(float new_c);
void edit(int new_a, char new_b);
void edit(int new_a, float new_c);
void edit(char new_b, float new_c);
void edit(int new_a, char new_b, float new_c);
void info();
private:
int a;
char b;
float c;
};
Here is the implementation of the edit functions :
void foo::edit(int new_a)
{
a = new_a;
}
void foo::edit(char new_b)
{
b = new_b;
}
void foo::edit(float new_c)
{
c = new_c;
}
void foo::edit(int new_a, char new_b)
{
a = new_a;
b = new_b;
}
void foo::edit(int new_a, float new_c)
{
a = new_a;
c = new_c;
}
void foo::edit(char new_b, float new_c)
{
b = new_b;
c = new_c;
}
void foo::edit(int new_a, char new_b, float new_c)
{
a = new_a;
b = new_b;
c = new_c;
}
The edit function will let the user change the parameters of the object as he wishes.
But the thing is that if we add a new parameter we have to add to many overloaded function and I thought there should be a better way.
Here with 3 parameters we need 7 overloaded functions but if we had 4 parameters (a, b, c and d) then we had to develop 14 overloaded function!
That's why I think there should be a better approach.
Thanks.
With variadic and (ab)using std::get<T> on std::tuple, you might do
template <typename... Ts>
void edit(Ts... values)
{
((std::get<Ts&>(std::tie(a, b, c)) = std::get<Ts&>(std::tie(values...))), ...);
}
Demo.
Note: I use std::get<Ts&>(std::tie(values...)) instead of simply values to get error with duplicated input types(edit(42, 42);).
You can avoid the huge number of overloads and still allow the caller to set more than one member in a single expression:
class foo
{
public:
foo(int _a, char _b, float _c) : a(_a), b(_b), c(_c){};
foo& edit(int new_a) { a = new_a; return *this;}
foo& edit(char new_b) { b = new_b; return *this; }
foo& edit(float new_c) { c = new_c; return *this; }
private:
int a;
char b;
float c;
};
int main() {
foo f(1,'c',2.0);
f.edit(42).edit(42.0f).edit('a');
}
Adding a member requires you to write one overload rather than N to support all combinations.
The previous solutions are quite fine, but suppose that all elements have a different type.
A possibility is to still use a variadic template, and in the call to indicate with a string which element must be modified.
This would allow the possibility to have the same type for different elements.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
class foo {
public:
foo(int _a, char _b, float _c) : a(_a), b(_b), c(_c){};
void edit() {};
template<typename T1, typename... T2>
void edit (const std::string& id, T1 var1, T2... var2) {
if (id == "a") a = var1;
else if (id == "b") b = var1;
else if (id == "c") c = var1;
edit(var2...);
};
void info();
//private:
int a;
char b;
float c;
};
std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, const foo& obj) {
std::cout << "a = " << obj.a << " b = " << obj.b << " c = " << obj.c;
return os;
}
int main() {
foo example(1, 'a', 2.0);
example.edit("c", 3.0f, "b", 'g', "a", 5);
std::cout << example << std::endl;
}
Given your edit functions that modify a single member:
void edit(int new_a)
{
a = new_a;
}
void edit(char new_b)
{
b = new_b;
}
void edit(float new_c)
{
c = new_c;
}
You can define a single function in C++11 using variadic templates to support multiple parameters in terms of multiple calls with a single parameter:
template< typename FirstType, typename ...OtherTypes >
void edit(FirstType ft, OtherTypes ...ot)
{
edit(ft);
edit(ot...);
}
Using C++17, fold expressions can make this function even simpler.
template< typename ...Types >
void edit(Types ...types)
{
(edit(types), ...);
}
Note: This solution will not try to prevent multiple changes to the same type, such as edit(1, 2, 3);

Retrieve value from object member through std::bind

I'm wondering if it's possible to have a bind expression not return an object, but an member of the object. Here is the idea (I want to get val directly from B):
struct A
{
A(float _val) : val(_val) {}
float val;
};
struct B
{
B(float _val) : a(_val) {}
A a;
};
int main()
{
B b{ 2.0f };
auto get_a_from_b = std::bind(&B::a, std::placeholders::_1);
const A& a = get_a_from_b(b); // ok
auto get_val_from_a = std::bind(&A::val, std::placeholders::_1);
float val = get_val_from_a(a); // ok, val = 2.0f
// error
auto get_val_from_b = std::bind(&B::a::val, std::placeholders::_1);
auto x = get_val_from_b(b);
}
In particular, can the concept of B::a::val work or is it conceptually wrong? (I am aware that this can be achieved with a lambda, but that's not the question.)
Thanks!
Ok as liliscent said, it can't be done directly. You may, however, link it together like so:
int val = std::mem_fn(&A::val)(std::mem_fn(&B::a)(b));
(mem_fn is the better function for this endeavour).
This can be made more compact with its own function:
#include <functional>
#include <array>
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
struct A
{
A(int _val = 0) : val(_val) {}
int val;
};
struct B
{
B(int _val = 0) : a(_val) {}
A a;
};
template<typename Elem, typename Head, typename... Tail>
constexpr decltype(auto) getElement(const Elem& _elem, Head&& _head, Tail&&... _tail)
{
auto fn = std::mem_fn(std::forward<Head>(_head));
if constexpr(sizeof...(_tail) == 0)
{
return fn(_elem);
}
else
{
return getElement(fn(_elem), std::forward<Tail>(_tail)...);
}
}
int main()
{
B b{ 7 };
int i = getElement(b, &B::a, &A::i); // get the a from B first, then get the val from that a
int j = getElement(b.a, &A::i);
return 0;
}
But the more you stack if up, the more the brevity advantage compared to the lambda vanishes. Oh well.

Lambdas dont implicity convert when using in class constructors

I am trying to make a simple implementation of the std::function
The following code works with function pointers and lambdas which are explicitly converted.
template<typename funct>
class functor {
private:
funct *function;
public:
functor() = default;
functor(funct *func) : function(func) {};
template<typename T>
T operator()(T a, T b){
return function(a, b);
}
};
int add(int a, int b) {
return a + b;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
std::map<std::string, functor<int(int,int)>> maps = { {"+", add} };
maps.insert({ "%", {[](int i, int j)->int { return i * j; } } } );
auto temp = maps["%"](5,6);
std::cout << temp << std::endl;
system("PAUSE");
return 0;
}
I want to know why lambdas don't work with implicit conversion.
maps.insert({ "%", [](int i, int j)->int { return i * j; } } );
The above code doesn't work but the following does:
maps.insert({ "%", {[](int i, int j)->int { return i * j; } } } );
but the std::function works with {} and without.
As #KerrekSB mentioned in the comments, just give your functor a templated constructor like this:
template<class F>
functor(F f) : function(f) {}
Now you can omit the braces when initializing the map:
#include <map>
#include <iostream>
template<typename funct>
class functor {
private:
funct *function;
public:
functor() = default;
template<class F>
functor(F f) : function(f) {}
template<typename T>
T operator()(T a, T b){
return function(a, b);
}
};
int add(int a, int b) {
return a + b;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
std::map<std::string, functor<int(int,int)>> maps = { {"+", add} };
maps.insert({ "%", [](int i, int j)->int { return i * j; } } );
auto temp = maps["%"](5,6);
std::cout << temp << std::endl;
}
Live Example

How to generate a std::get like function for my class?

For example, I have a class
struct A {int a; bool b;};
And I want to generate a template function to get its elements (like the std::get to get a tuple element)
template<unsigned i, class T>
auto Get(T& t);
template<>
int& Get<0, A>(A& a)
{
return a.a;
}
template<>
bool& Get<1, A>(A& a)
{
return a.b;
}
int main()
{
A a;
Get<0>(a) = 10;
Get<1>(a) = true;
return 0;
}
The above code doesn't work. The challenge is that I don't know the returned type of Get for arbitrary class. Any way to implement it? Thanks.
Assuming you wouldn't mind making this in a "manual manner" you can do this really simply.
#include <tuple>
struct A {
int a; bool b;
};
template<size_t N>
auto get(A& a) -> decltype(std::get<N>(std::tie(a.a, a.b))) {
return std::get<N>(std::tie(a.a, a.b));
}
#include <iostream>
int main() {
A a;
get<0>(a) = 10;
get<1>(a) = true;
std::cout << a.a << '\n' << a.b;
}
Output:
10
1

Is it possible to implement events in C++?

I wanted to implement a C# event in C++ just to see if I could do it. I got stuck, I know the bottom is wrong but what I realize my biggest problem is...
How do I overload the () operator to be whatever is in T, in this case int func(float)? I can't? Can I? Can I implement a good alternative?
#include <deque>
using namespace std;
typedef int(*MyFunc)(float);
template<class T>
class MyEvent
{
deque<T> ls;
public:
MyEvent& operator +=(T t)
{
ls.push_back(t);
return *this;
}
};
static int test(float f){return (int)f; }
int main(){
MyEvent<MyFunc> e;
e += test;
}
If you can use Boost, consider using Boost.Signals2, which provides signals-slots/events/observers functionality. It's straightforward and easy to use and is quite flexible. Boost.Signals2 also allows you to register arbitrary callable objects (like functors or bound member functions), so it's more flexible, and it has a lot of functionality to help you manage object lifetimes correctly.
If you are trying to implement it yourself, you are on the right track. You have a problem, though: what, exactly, do you want to do with the values returned from each of the registered functions? You can only return one value from operator(), so you have to decide whether you want to return nothing, or one of the results, or somehow aggregate the results.
Assuming we want to ignore the results, it's quite straightforward to implement this, but it's a bit easier if you take each of the parameter types as a separate template type parameter (alternatively, you could use something like Boost.TypeTraits, which allows you to easily dissect a function type):
template <typename TArg0>
class MyEvent
{
typedef void(*FuncPtr)(TArg0);
typedef std::deque<FuncPtr> FuncPtrSeq;
FuncPtrSeq ls;
public:
MyEvent& operator +=(FuncPtr f)
{
ls.push_back(f);
return *this;
}
void operator()(TArg0 x)
{
for (typename FuncPtrSeq::iterator it(ls.begin()); it != ls.end(); ++it)
(*it)(x);
}
};
This requires the registered function to have a void return type. To be able to accept functions with any return type, you can change FuncPtr to be
typedef std::function<void(TArg0)> FuncPtr;
(or use boost::function or std::tr1::function if you don't have the C++0x version available). If you do want to do something with the return values, you can take the return type as another template parameter to MyEvent. That should be relatively straightforward to do.
With the above implementation, the following should work:
void test(float) { }
int main()
{
MyEvent<float> e;
e += test;
e(42);
}
Another approach, which allows you to support different arities of events, would be to use a single type parameter for the function type and have several overloaded operator() overloads, each taking a different number of arguments. These overloads have to be templates, otherwise you'll get compilation errors for any overload not matching the actual arity of the event. Here's a workable example:
template <typename TFunc>
class MyEvent
{
typedef typename std::add_pointer<TFunc>::type FuncPtr;
typedef std::deque<FuncPtr> FuncPtrSeq;
FuncPtrSeq ls;
public:
MyEvent& operator +=(FuncPtr f)
{
ls.push_back(f);
return *this;
}
template <typename TArg0>
void operator()(TArg0 a1)
{
for (typename FuncPtrSeq::iterator it(ls.begin()); it != ls.end(); ++it)
(*it)(a1);
}
template <typename TArg0, typename TArg1>
void operator()(const TArg0& a1, const TArg1& a2)
{
for (typename FuncPtrSeq::iterator it(ls.begin()); it != ls.end(); ++it)
(*it)(a1, a2);
}
};
(I've used std::add_pointer from C++0x here, but this type modifier can also be found in Boost and C++ TR1; it just makes it a little cleaner to use the function template since you can use a function type directly; you don't have to use a function pointer type.) Here's a usage example:
void test1(float) { }
void test2(float, float) { }
int main()
{
MyEvent<void(float)> e1;
e1 += test1;
e1(42);
MyEvent<void(float, float)> e2;
e2 += test2;
e2(42, 42);
}
You absolutely can. James McNellis has already linked to a complete solution, but for your toy example we can do the following:
#include <deque>
using namespace std;
typedef int(*MyFunc)(float);
template<typename F>
class MyEvent;
template<class R, class Arg>
class MyEvent<R(*)(Arg)>
{
typedef R (*FuncType)(Arg);
deque<FuncType> ls;
public:
MyEvent<FuncType>& operator+=(FuncType t)
{
ls.push_back(t);
return *this;
}
void operator()(Arg arg)
{
typename deque<FuncType>::iterator i = ls.begin();
typename deque<FuncType>::iterator e = ls.end();
for(; i != e; ++i) {
(*i)(arg);
}
}
};
static int test(float f){return (int)f; }
int main(){
MyEvent<MyFunc> e;
e += test;
e(2.0);
}
Here I've made use of partial specialization to tease apart the components of the function pointer type to discover the argument type. boost.signals does this and more, leveraging features such as type erasure, and traits to determine this information for non-function pointer typed callable objects.
For N arguments there are two approaches. The "easy' way, that was added for C++0x, is leveraging variadic templates and a few other features. However, we've been doing this since before that features was added, and I don't know which compilers if any, support variadic templates yet. So we can do it the hard way, which is, specialize again:
template<typename R, typename Arg0, typename Arg1>
class MyEvent<R(*)(Arg0, Arg1)>
{
typedef R (*FuncType)(Arg0, Arg1);
deque<FuncType> ls;
...
void operatror()(Arg0 a, Arg1)
{ ... }
MyEvent<FuncType>& operator+=(FuncType f)
{ ls.push_back(f); }
...
};
THis gets tedious of course which is why have libraries like boost.signals that have already banged it out (and those use macros, etc. to relieve some of the tedium).
To allow for a MyEvent<int, int> style syntax you can use a technique like the following
struct NullEvent;
template<typename A = NullEvent, typename B = NullEvent, typename C = NullEvent>
class HisEvent;
template<>
struct HisEvent<NullEvent,NullEvent,NullEvent>
{ void operator()() {} };
template<typename A>
struct HisEvent<A,NullEvent,NullEvent>
{ void operator()(A a) {} };
template<typename A, typename B>
struct HisEvent<A, B, NullEvent>
{
void operator()(A a, B b) {}
};
template<typename A, typename B, typename C>
struct HisEvent
{
void operator()(A a, B b, C c)
{}
};
static int test(float f){return (int)f; }
int main(){
MyEvent<MyFunc> e;
e += test;
e(2.0);
HisEvent<int> h;
HisEvent<int, int> h2;
}
The NullEvent type is used as a placeholder and we again use partial specialization to figure out the arity.
EDIT: Added thread safe implementation, based on this answer. Many fixes and performance improvements
This is my version, improving James McNellis' one by adding: operator-=, variadic template to support any ariety of the stored callable objects, convenience Bind(func, object) and Unbind(func, object) methods to easily bind objects and instance member functions, assignment operators and comparison with nullptr. I moved away from using std::add_pointer to just use std::function which in my attempts it's more flexible (accepts both lambdas and std::function). Also I moved to use std::vector for faster iteration and removed returning *this in the operators, since it doesn't look to be very safe/useful anyway. Still missing from C# semantics: C# events can't be cleared from outside the class where they are declared (would be easy to add this by state friendship to a templatized type).
It follows the code, feedback is welcome:
#pragma once
#include <typeinfo>
#include <functional>
#include <stdexcept>
#include <memory>
#include <atomic>
#include <cstring>
template <typename TFunc>
class Event;
template <class RetType, class... Args>
class Event<RetType(Args ...)> final
{
private:
typedef typename std::function<RetType(Args ...)> Closure;
struct ComparableClosure
{
Closure Callable;
void *Object;
uint8_t *Functor;
int FunctorSize;
ComparableClosure(const ComparableClosure &) = delete;
ComparableClosure() : Object(nullptr), Functor(nullptr), FunctorSize(0) { }
ComparableClosure(Closure &&closure) : Callable(std::move(closure)), Object(nullptr), Functor(nullptr), FunctorSize(0) { }
~ComparableClosure()
{
if (Functor != nullptr)
delete[] Functor;
}
ComparableClosure & operator=(const ComparableClosure &closure)
{
Callable = closure.Callable;
Object = closure.Object;
FunctorSize = closure.FunctorSize;
if (closure.FunctorSize == 0)
{
Functor = nullptr;
}
else
{
Functor = new uint8_t[closure.FunctorSize];
std::memcpy(Functor, closure.Functor, closure.FunctorSize);
}
return *this;
}
bool operator==(const ComparableClosure &closure)
{
if (Object == nullptr && closure.Object == nullptr)
{
return Callable.target_type() == closure.Callable.target_type();
}
else
{
return Object == closure.Object && FunctorSize == closure.FunctorSize
&& std::memcmp(Functor, closure.Functor, FunctorSize) == 0;
}
}
};
struct ClosureList
{
ComparableClosure *Closures;
int Count;
ClosureList(ComparableClosure *closures, int count)
{
Closures = closures;
Count = count;
}
~ClosureList()
{
delete[] Closures;
}
};
typedef std::shared_ptr<ClosureList> ClosureListPtr;
private:
ClosureListPtr m_events;
private:
bool addClosure(const ComparableClosure &closure)
{
auto events = std::atomic_load(&m_events);
int count;
ComparableClosure *closures;
if (events == nullptr)
{
count = 0;
closures = nullptr;
}
else
{
count = events->Count;
closures = events->Closures;
}
auto newCount = count + 1;
auto newClosures = new ComparableClosure[newCount];
if (count != 0)
{
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
newClosures[i] = closures[i];
}
newClosures[count] = closure;
auto newEvents = ClosureListPtr(new ClosureList(newClosures, newCount));
if (std::atomic_compare_exchange_weak(&m_events, &events, newEvents))
return true;
return false;
}
bool removeClosure(const ComparableClosure &closure)
{
auto events = std::atomic_load(&m_events);
if (events == nullptr)
return true;
int index = -1;
auto count = events->Count;
auto closures = events->Closures;
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
if (closures[i] == closure)
{
index = i;
break;
}
}
if (index == -1)
return true;
auto newCount = count - 1;
ClosureListPtr newEvents;
if (newCount == 0)
{
newEvents = nullptr;
}
else
{
auto newClosures = new ComparableClosure[newCount];
for (int i = 0; i < index; i++)
newClosures[i] = closures[i];
for (int i = index + 1; i < count; i++)
newClosures[i - 1] = closures[i];
newEvents = ClosureListPtr(new ClosureList(newClosures, newCount));
}
if (std::atomic_compare_exchange_weak(&m_events, &events, newEvents))
return true;
return false;
}
public:
Event()
{
std::atomic_store(&m_events, ClosureListPtr());
}
Event(const Event &event)
{
std::atomic_store(&m_events, std::atomic_load(&event.m_events));
}
~Event()
{
(*this) = nullptr;
}
void operator =(const Event &event)
{
std::atomic_store(&m_events, std::atomic_load(&event.m_events));
}
void operator=(nullptr_t nullpointer)
{
while (true)
{
auto events = std::atomic_load(&m_events);
if (!std::atomic_compare_exchange_weak(&m_events, &events, ClosureListPtr()))
continue;
break;
}
}
bool operator==(nullptr_t nullpointer)
{
auto events = std::atomic_load(&m_events);
return events == nullptr;
}
bool operator!=(nullptr_t nullpointer)
{
auto events = std::atomic_load(&m_events);
return events != nullptr;
}
void operator +=(Closure f)
{
ComparableClosure closure(std::move(f));
while (true)
{
if (addClosure(closure))
break;
}
}
void operator -=(Closure f)
{
ComparableClosure closure(std::move(f));
while (true)
{
if (removeClosure(closure))
break;
}
}
template <typename TObject>
void Bind(RetType(TObject::*function)(Args...), TObject *object)
{
ComparableClosure closure;
closure.Callable = [object, function](Args&&...args)
{
return (object->*function)(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
};
closure.FunctorSize = sizeof(function);
closure.Functor = new uint8_t[closure.FunctorSize];
std::memcpy(closure.Functor, (void*)&function, sizeof(function));
closure.Object = object;
while (true)
{
if (addClosure(closure))
break;
}
}
template <typename TObject>
void Unbind(RetType(TObject::*function)(Args...), TObject *object)
{
ComparableClosure closure;
closure.FunctorSize = sizeof(function);
closure.Functor = new uint8_t[closure.FunctorSize];
std::memcpy(closure.Functor, (void*)&function, sizeof(function));
closure.Object = object;
while (true)
{
if (removeClosure(closure))
break;
}
}
void operator()()
{
auto events = std::atomic_load(&m_events);
if (events == nullptr)
return;
auto count = events->Count;
auto closures = events->Closures;
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
closures[i].Callable();
}
template <typename TArg0, typename ...Args2>
void operator()(TArg0 a1, Args2... tail)
{
auto events = std::atomic_load(&m_events);
if (events == nullptr)
return;
auto count = events->Count;
auto closures = events->Closures;
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
closures[i].Callable(a1, tail...);
}
};
I tested it with this:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Test
{
public:
void foo() { cout << "Test::foo()" << endl; }
void foo1(int arg1, double arg2) { cout << "Test::foo1(" << arg1 << ", " << arg2 << ") " << endl; }
};
class Test2
{
public:
Event<void()> Event1;
Event<void(int, double)> Event2;
void foo() { cout << "Test2::foo()" << endl; }
Test2()
{
Event1.Bind(&Test2::foo, this);
}
void foo2()
{
Event1();
Event2(1, 2.2);
}
~Test2()
{
Event1.Unbind(&Test2::foo, this);
}
};
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
(void)argc;
(void)argv;
Test2 t2;
Test t1;
t2.Event1.Bind(&Test::foo, &t1);
t2.Event2 += [](int arg1, double arg2) { cout << "Lambda(" << arg1 << ", " << arg2 << ") " << endl; };
t2.Event2.Bind(&Test::foo1, &t1);
t2.Event2.Unbind(&Test::foo1, &t1);
function<void(int, double)> stdfunction = [](int arg1, double arg2) { cout << "stdfunction(" << arg1 << ", " << arg2 << ") " << endl; };
t2.Event2 += stdfunction;
t2.Event2 -= stdfunction;
t2.foo2();
t2.Event2 = nullptr;
}
That is possible, but not with your current design. The problem lies with the fact that the callback function signature is locked into your template argument. I don't think you should try to support this anyways, all callbacks in the same list should have the same signature, don't you think?