How is it possible to use parts of the C++ STL in Enterprise Architect?
It would be nice to be able to specify certain class attributes as std::string or use std::auto_ptr (or even std::tr1::shared_ptr) as types.
Another interesting thing would be how one is able to integrate container-types like std::vector and std::map into EA.
I have taught how STL containers look like to EA, I guess it can be extended to stl pointers too:
Forward engineering:
You can define collection classes for different multiplicities globally in the language settings, or for a specific class of your project (this will define how it is "contained" in other classes) this way.
Simple example setting:
Make sure you set the container classes for the target class of the association, not the source. Set the Multiplicity of the Target Role to multiple (different from 0, 0..1, 1 and empty field according to the code template). Also, set the Containment of the Target Role of the association to Value to avoid generating a pointer to a container.
Another, more flexible way would be to modify the code templates in Settings -> Code Generation Templates. I believe there is a way to override the default template for stereotyped connectors, though I never tried. This is probably the only way to generate STL pointers, as collection class definitions are only used by EA for multiplicities bigger than 1.
Reverse engineering:
Go to Tools->Options->Source code engineering->C++ and append to 'Additional Collection Classes' the following string:
vector<#TYPE#*>;deque<#TYPE#*>;list<#TYPE#*>;stack<#TYPE#*>;queue<#TYPE#*>;priority_queue<#TYPE#*>;set<#TYPE#*>;map<*,#TYPE#*>;multiset<#TYPE#*>;multimap<*,#TYPE#*>;
I've never tried, but I assume adding the STL pointers to this is trivial.
Round-trip engineering
I don't know if the above works if you do round-trip engineering. I assume the fact that the definitions are asymmetric will cause issues.
I've been toying with this sort of thing and it's doable... just.
What you'd need to do is reverse-engineer the libraries from source, but since EA does not contain a complete preprocessor, you'll end up with a lot of "You may need to define a language macro" errors. Perhaps actually running the source through a preprocessor first would help.
The other way, of course, is to just add the STL classes as you need them.
As for container types, I'm not sure if EA provides any support for constructions like the Allocator in
template < class T, class Allocator = allocator<T> > class vector;
Simple template classes, however, are defined as a Class with Template Parameters. The easiest way to create an instantiation is to create a new Class, go into its Templates tab and add a Binding to the template Class; this allows you to select values for the formal template parameters.
Related
After reading and watching much about SOLID principles I was very keen to use these principles in my work (mostly C++ development) since I do think they are good principles and that they indeed will bring much benefit to the quality of my code, readability, testability, reuse and maintainability.
But I have real hard time with the 'D' (Dependency inversion).
This principal states that:
A. High-level modules should not depend on low-level modules. Both should depend on abstractions.
B. Abstractions should not depend on details. Details should depend on abstractions.
Let me explain by example:
Lets say I am writing the following interface:
class SOLIDInterface {
//usual stuff with constructor, destructor, don't copy etc
public:
virtual void setSomeString(const std::string &someString) = 0;
};
(for the sake of simplicity please ignore the other things needed for a "correct interface" such as non virutal publics, private virtuals etc, its not part of the problem.)
notice, that setSomeString() is taking an std::string.
But that breaks the above principal since std::string is an implementation.
Java and C# don't have that problem since the language offers interfaces to all the complex common types such as string and containers.
C++ does not offer that.
Now, C++ does offer the possibility to write this interface in such a way that I could write an 'IString' interface that would take any implementation that will support an std::string interface using type erasure
(Very good article: http://www.artima.com/cppsource/type_erasure.html)
So the implementation could use STL (std::string) or Qt (QString), or my own string implementation or something else.
Like it should be.
But this means, that if I (and not only I but all C++ developers) want to write C++ API which obeys SOLID design principles ('D' included), I will have to implement a LOT of code to accommodate all the common non natural types.
Beyond being not realistic in terms of effort, this solution has other problems such as - what if STL changes?(for this example)
And its not really a solution since STL is not implementing IString, rather IString is abstracting STL, so even if I were to create such an interface the principal problem remains.
(I am not even getting into issues such as this adds polymorphic overhead, which for some systems, depending on size and HW requirements may not be acceptable)
So may question is:
Am I missing something here (which I guess the true answer, but what?), is there a way to use Dependency inversion in C++ without writing a whole new interface layer for the common types in a realistic way - or are we doomed to write API which is always dependent on some implementation?
Thanks for your time!
From the first few comments I received so far I think a clarification is needed:
The selection of std::string was just an example.
It could be QString for that matter - I just took STL since it is the standard.
Its not even important that its a string type, it could be any common type.
I have selected the answer by Corristo not because he explicitly answered my question but because the extensive post (coupled with the other answers) allowed me to extract my answer from it implicitly, realizing that the discussion tends to drift from the actual question which is:
Can you implement Dependency inversion in C++ when you use basic complex types like strings and containers and basically any of the STL with an effort that makes sense. (and the last part is a very important element of the question).
Maybe I should have explicitly noted that I am after run-time polymorphism not compile time.
The clear answer is NO, its not possible.
It might have been possible if STL would have exposed abstract interfaces to their implementations (if there are indeed reasons that prevent the STL implementations to derive from these interfaces (say, performance)) then it still could have simply maintained these abstract interfaces to match the implementations).
For types that I have full control over, yes, there is no technical problem implementing the DIP.
But most likely any such interface (of my own) will still use a string or a container, forcing it to use either the STL implementation or another.
All the suggested solutions below are either not polymorphic in runtime, or/and are forcing quiet a some coding around the interface - when you think you have to do this for all these common types the practicality is simply not there.
If you think you know better, and you say it is possible to have what I described above then simply post the code proving it.
I dare you! :-)
Note that C++ is not an object-oriented programming language, but rather lets the programmer choose between many different paradigms. One of the key principles of C++ is that of zero-cost abstractions, which in particular entails to build abstractions in such a way that users don't pay for what they don't use.
The C#/Java style of defining interfaces with virtual methods that are then implemented by derived classes don't fall into that category though, because even if you don't need the polymorphic behavior, were std::string implementing a virtual interface, every call of one of its methods would incur a vtable lookup. This is unacceptable for classes in the C++ standard library supposed to be used in all kinds of settings.
Defining interfaces without inheriting from an abstract interface class
Another problem with the C#/Java approach is that in most cases you don't actually care that something inherits from a particular abstract interface class and only need that the type you pass to a function supports the operations you use. Restricting accepted parameters to those inheriting from a particular interface class thus actually hinders reuse of existing components, and you often end up writing wrappers to make classes of one library conform to the interfaces of another - even when they already have the exact same member functions.
Together with the fact that inheritance-based polymorphism typically also entails heap allocations and reference semantics with all its problems regarding lifetime management, it is best to avoid inheriting from an abstract interface class in C++.
Generic templates for implicit interfaces
In C++ you can get compile-time polymorphism through templates.
In its simplest form, the interface that an object used in a templated function or class need to conform to is not actually specified in C++ code, but implied by what functions are called on them.
This is the approach used in the STL, and it is really flexible. Take std::vector for example. There the requirements on the value type T of objects you store in it are dependent on what operations you perform on the vector. This allows e.g. to store move-only types as long as you don't use any of the operations that need to make a copy. In such a case, defining an interface that the value types needs to conform to would greatly reduce the usefulness of std::vector, because you'd either need to remove methods that require copies or you'd need to exclude move-only types from being stored in it.
That doesn't mean you can't use dependency inversion, though: The common Button-Lamp example for dependency inversion implemented with templates would look like this:
class Lamp {
public:
void activate();
void deactivate();
};
template <typename T>
class Button {
Button(T& switchable)
: _switchable(&switchable) {
}
void toggle() {
if (_buttonIsInOnPosition) {
_switchable->deactivate();
_buttonIsInOnPosition = false;
} else {
_switchable->activate();
_buttonIsInOnPosition = true;
}
}
private:
bool _buttonIsInOnPosition{false};
T* _switchable;
}
int main() {
Lamp l;
Button<Lamp> b(l)
b.toggle();
}
Here Button<T>::toggle implicitly relies on a Switchable interface, requiring T to have member functions T::activate and T::deactivate. Since Lamp happens to implement that interface it can be used with the Button class. Of course, in real code you would also state these requirements on T in the documentation of the Button class so that users don't need to look up the implementation.
Similarly, you could also declare your setSomeString method as
template <typename String>
void setSomeString(String const& string);
and then this will work with all types that implement all the methods you used in the implementation of setSomeString, hence only relying on an abstract - although implicit - interface.
As always, there are some downsides to consider:
In the string example, assuming you only make use of .begin() and .end() member functions returning iterators that return a char when dereferenced (e.g. to copy it into the classes' local, concrete string data member), you can also accidentally pass a std::vector<char> to it, even though it isn't technically a string. If you consider this a problem is arguable, in a way this can also be seen as the epitome of relying only on abstractions.
If you pass an object of a type that doesn't have the required (member) functions, then you can end up with horrible compiler error messages that make it very hard to find the source of the error.
Only in very limited cases it is possible to separate the interface of a templated class or function from its implementation, as is typically done with separate .h and .cpp files. This can thus lead to longer compile times.
Defining interfaces with the Concepts TS
if you really care about types used in templated functions and classes to conform to a fixed interface, regardless of what you actually use, there are ways to restrict the template parameters only to types conforming to a certain interface with std::enable_if, but these are very verbose and unreadable. In order to make this kind of generic programming easier, the Concepts TS allows to actually define interfaces that are checked by the compiler and thus greatly improves diagnostics. With the Concepts TS, the Button-Lamp example from above translates to
template <typename T>
concept bool Switchable = requires(T t) {
t.activate();
t.deactivate();
};
// Lamp as before
template <Switchable T>
class Button {
public:
Button(T&); // implementation as before
void toggle(); // implementation as before
private:
T* _switchable;
bool _buttonIsInOnPosition{false};
};
If you can't use the Concepts TS (it is only implemented in GCC right now), the closest you can get is the Boost.ConceptCheck library.
Type erasure for runtime polymorphism
There is one case where compile-time polymorphism doesn't suffice, and that is when the types you pass to or get from a particular function aren't fully determined at compile-time but depend on runtime parameters (e.g. from a config file, command-line arguments passed to the executable or even the value of a parameter passed to the function itself).
If you need to store objects (even in a variable) of a type dependent on runtime parameters, the traditional approach is to store pointers to a common base class instead and to use dynamic dispatch via virtual member functions to get the behavior you need. But this still suffers from the problem described before: You can't use types that effectively do what you need but were defined in an external library, and thus don't inherit from the base class you defined. So you have to write a wrapper class.
Or you do what you described in your question and create a type-erasure class.
An example from the standard library is std::function. You declare only the interface of the function and it can store arbitrary function pointers and callables that have that interface. In general, writing a type erasure class can be quite tedious, so I refrain from giving an example of a type-erasing Switchable here, but I can highly recommend Sean Parent's talk Inheritance is the base class of evil, where he demonstrates the technique for "Drawable" objects and explores what you can build on top of it in just over 20 minutes.
There are libraries that help writing type-erasure classes though, e.g. Louis Dionne's experimental dyno, where you define the interface via what he calls "concept maps" directly in C++ code, or Zach Laine's emtypen which uses a python tool to create the type erasure classes from a C++ header file you provide. The latter also comes with a CppCon talk describing the features as well as the general idea and how to use it.
Conclusion
Inheriting from a common base class just to define interfaces, while easy, leads to many problems that can be avoided using different approaches:
(Constrained) templates allow for compile-time polymorphism, which is sufficient for the majority of cases, but can lead to hard-to-understand compiler errors when used with types that don't conform to the interface.
If you need runtime polymorphism (which actually is rather rare in my experience), you can use type-erasure classes.
So even though the classes in the STL and other C++ libraries rarely derive from an abstract interface, you can still apply dependency inversion with one of the two methods described above if you really want to.
But as always, use good judgment on a case-by-case basis whether you really need the abstraction or if it is better to simply use a concrete type. The string example you brought up is one where I'd go with concrete types, simply because the different string classes don't share a common interface (e.g. std::string has .find(), but QStrings version of the same function is called .contains()). It might be just as much effort to write wrapper classes for both as it is to write a conversion function and to use that at well-defined boundaries within the project.
Ahh, but C++ lets you write code that is independent of a particular implementation without actually using inheritance.
std::string itself is a good example... it's actually a typedef for std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char>>. Which allows you to create strings using other allocators if you choose (or mock the allocator object in order to measure number of calls, if you like). There just isn't any explicit interface like an IAllocator, because C++ templates use duck-typing.
A future version of C++ will support explicit description of the interface a template parameter must adhere to -- this feature is called concepts -- but just using duck-typing enables decoupling without requiring redundant interface definitions.
And because C++ performs optimization after instantiation of templates, there's no polymorphic overhead.
Now, when you do have virtual functions, you'll need to commit to a particular type, because the virtual-table layout doesn't accommodate use of templates each of which generates an arbitrary number of instances each of which require separate dispatch. But when using templates, you'll won't need virtual functions nearly as much as e.g. Java does, so in practice this isn't a big problem.
What are the differences between Module and Class in OCaml.
From my searching, I found this:
Both provide mechanisms for abstraction and encapsulation, for
subtyping (by omitting methods in objects, and omitting fields in
modules), and for inheritance (objects use inherit; modules use
include). However, the two systems are not comparable.
On the one hand, objects have an advantage: objects are first-class
values, and modules are not—in other words, modules do not support
dynamic lookup. On the other hand, modules have an advantage: modules
can contain type definitions, and objects cannot.
First, I don't understand what does "Modules do not support dynamic lookup" mean. From my part, abstraction and polymorphism do mean parent pointer can refer to a child instance. Is that the "dynamic lookup"? If not, what actually dynamic lookup means?
In practical, when do we choose to use Module and when Class?
The main difference between Module and Class is that you don't instantiate a module.
A module is basically just a "drawer" where you can put types, functions, other modules, etc... It is just here to order your code. This drawer is however really powerful thanks to functors.
A class, on the other hand, exists to be instantiated. They contains variables and methods. You can create an object from a class, and each object contains its own variable and methods (as defined in the class).
In practice, using a module will be a good solution most of the time. A class can be useful when you need inheritance (widgets for example).
From a practical perspective dynamic lookup lets you have different objects with the same method without specifying to which class/module it belongs. It helps you when using inheritance.
For example, let's use two data structures: SingleList and DoubleLinkedList, which, both, inherit from List and have the method pop. Each class has its own implementation of the method (because of the 'override').
So, when you want to call it, the lookup of the method is done at runtime (a.k.a. dynamically) when you do a list#pop.
If you were using modules you would have to use SingleList.pop list or DoubleLinkedList.pop list.
EDIT: As #Majestic12 said, most of the time, OCaml users tend to use modules over classes. Using the second when they need inheritance or instances (check his answer).
I wanted to make the description practical as you seem new to OCaml.
Hope it can help you.
What would be the best representation of a C/C++ function pointer (fp) in an UML structural diagram?
I'm thinking about using an interface element, may be even if 'degenerate' with the constraint of having at most a single operation declared.
I found some proposal in this document: C and UML Synchronization User Guide, Section 5.7.4. But this sounds quite cumbersome and not very useful in practice. Even if right from a very low level of semantic view. Here's a diagram showing their concept briefly:
IMHO in C and C++ function pointers are used as such a narrowed view of an interface which only provides a single function and it's signature. In C fp's would be used also to implement more complex interfaces declaring a struct containing a set of function pointers.
I think I can even manage to get my particular UML tool (Enterprise Architect) to forward generate the correct code, and synchronizing with code changes without harm.
My questions are:
Would declaration of fp's as part of interface elements in UML proivde a correct semantic view?
What kind of stereotype should be used for single fp declaration? At least I need to provide a typedef in code so this would be my guts choice.(I found this stereotype is proprietary for Enterprise Architect) and I need to define an appropriate stereotype to get the code generation adapted. Actually I have chosen the stereotype name 'delegate', does this have any implications or semantic collisions?
As for C++, would be nesting a 'delegate' sterotyped interface with in a class element enough to express a class member function pointer correctly?
Here's a sample diagram of my thoughts for C language representation:
This is the C code that should be generated from the above model:
struct Interface1;
typedef int (*CallbackFunc)(struct Interface1*);
typedef struct Interface1
{
typedef void (*func1Ptr)(struct Interface1*, int, char*);
typedef int (*func2Ptr)(struct Interface1*, char*);
typedef int (*func3Ptr)(struct Interface1*, CallbackFunc);
func1Ptr func1;
func2Ptr func2;
func3Ptr func3;
void* instance;
};
/* The following extern declarations are only dummies to satisfy code
* reverse engineering, and never should be called.
*/
extern void func1(struct Interface1* self, int p1, char* p2) = 0;
extern int func2(struct Interface1* self, char*) = 0;
extern int func3(struct Interface1* self, CallbackFunc p1) = 0;
EDIT:
The whole problem boils down what would be the best way with the UML tool at hand and its specific code engineering capabilities. Thus I have added the enterprise-architect tag.
EA's help file has the following to say on the subject of function pointers:
When importing C++ source code, Enterprise Architect ignores function pointer declarations. To import them into your model you could create a typedef to define a function pointer type, then declare function pointers using that type. Function pointers declared in this way are imported as attributes of the function pointer type.
Note "could." This is from the C++ section, the C section doesn't mention function pointers at all. So they're not well supported, which in turn is of course due to the gap between the modelling and programming communities: non-trivial language concepts are simply not supported in UML, so any solution will by necessity be tool-specific.
My suggestion is a bit involved and it's a little bit hacky, but I think it should work pretty well.
Because in UML operations are not first-class and cannot be used as data types, my response is to create first-class entities for them - in other words, define function pointer types as classes.
These classes will serve two purposes: the class name will reflect the function's type signature so as to make it look familiar to the programmer in the diagrams, while a set of tagged values will represent the actual parameter and return types for use in code generation.
0) You may want to set up an MDG Technology for steps 1-4.
1) Define a tagged value type "retval" with the Detail "Type=RefGUID;Values=Class;"
2) Define a further set of tagged value types with the same Detail named "par1", "par2" and so on.
3) Define a profile with a Class stereotype "funptr" containing a "retval" tagged value (but no "par" tags).
4) Modify the code generation scripts Attribute Declaration and Parameter to retrieve the "retval" (always) and "par1" - "parN" (where defined) and generate correct syntax for them. This will be the tricky bit and I haven't actually done this. I think it can be done without too much effort, but you'll have to try it. You should also make sure that no code is generated for "funptr" class definitions as they represent anonymous types, not typedefs.
5) In your target project, define a set of classes to represent the primitive C types.
With this, you can define a function pointer type as a «funptr» class with a name like "long(*)(char)" for a function that takes a char and returns a long.
In the "retval" tag, select the "long" class you defined in step 4.
Add the "par1" tag manually, and select the "char" class as above.
You can now use this class as the type of an attribute or parameter, or anywhere else where EA allows a class reference (such as in the "par1" tag of a different «funptr» class; this allows you to easily create pointer types for functions where one of the parameters is itself of a function pointer type).
The hackiest bit here is the numbered "par1" - "parN" tags. While it is possible in EA to define several tags with the same name (you may have to change the tagged value window options to see them), I don't think you could retrieve the different values in the code generation script (and even if you could I don't think the order would necessarily be preserved, and parameter order is important in C). So you'd need to decide the maximum number of parameters beforehand. Not a huge problem in practice; setting up say 20 parameters should be plenty.
This method is of no help for reverse engineering, as EA 9 does not allow you to customize the reverse-engineering process. However, the upcoming EA 10 (currently in RC 1) will allow this, although I haven't looked at it myself so I don't know what form this will take.
Defining of function pointers is out of scope of UML specification. What is more, it is language-specific feature that is not supported by many UML modeling software. So I think that the general answer to your first question suggests avoiding of this feature. Tricks you provided are relevant to Enterprise Architect only and are not compatible with other UML modeling tools. Here is how function pointers is supported in some other UML software:
MagicDraw UML uses <<C++FunctionPtr>> stereotypes for FP class members and <<C++FunctionSignature>> for function prototype.
Sample of code (taken from official site -- see "Modeling typedef and function pointer for C++ code generation" viewlet):
class Pointer
{
void (f*) ( int i );
}
Corresponding UML model:
Objecteering defines FP attributes with corresponding C++ TypeExpr note.
Rational Software Architect from IBM doesn't support function pointers. User might add them to generated code in user-defined sections that are leaved untouched during code->UML and UML->code transformations.
Seems correct to me. I'm not sure you should dive into the low-level details of descripting the type and relation of your single function pointer. I usually find that description an interface is enough detalization without the need to decompose the internal elements of it.
I think you could virtually wrap the function pointer with a class. I think UML has not to be blueprint level to the code, documenting the concept is more important.
My feeling is that you desire to map UML interfaces to the struct-with-function-pointers C idiom.
Interface1 is the important element in your model. Declaring function pointer object types all over the place will make your diagrams illegible.
Enterprise Architect allows you to specify your own code generators. Look for the Code Template Framework. You should be able to modify the preexisting code generator for C with the aid of a new stereotype or two.
I have been able to get something sort of working with Enterprise Architect. Its a bit of a hacky solution, but it meets my needs. What I did:
Create a new class stereotype named FuncPtr. I followed the guide here: http://www.sparxsystems.com/enterprise_architect_user_guide/10/extending_uml_models/addingelementsandmetaclass.html
When I did this I made a new view for the profile. So I can keep it contained outside of my main project.
Modified the Class code templates. Basically selecting the C language and start with the Class Template and hit the 'Add New Stereotype Override' and add in FuncPtr as a new override.
Add in the following code to that new template:
%PI="\n"%
%ClassNotes%
typedef %classTag:"returnType"% (*%className%)(
%list="Attribute" #separator=",\n" #indent=" "%
);
Modified the Attribute Declaration code template. Same way as before, adding in a new Stereotype
Add in the following code to the new template:
%PI=""% %attConst=="T" ? "const" : ""%
%attType%
%attContainment=="By Reference" ? "*" : ""%
%attName%
That's all that I had to do to get function pointers in place in Enterprise Architect. When I want to define a function pointer I just:
Create a regular class
Add in the tag 'returnType' with the type of return I want
Add in attributes for the parameters.
This way it'll create a new type that can be included as attributes or parameters in other classes (structures), and operators. I didn't make it an operator itself because then it wouldn't have been referenced inside the tool as a type you can select.
So its a bit hacky, using special stereotyped classes as typedefs to function pointers.
Like your first example I would use a Classifier but hide it away in a profile. I think they've included it for clarity of the explaining the concept; but in practice the whole idea of stereotypes is abstract away details into profiles to avoid the 'noise' problem. EA is pretty good for handling Profiles.
Where I differ from your first example is that I would Classify the Primitive Type Stereotype not the Data Type stereotype. Data Type is a Domain scope object, while Primitive Type is an atomic element with semantics defined out side the scope of UML. That is not to say you cannot add notes, especially in the profile or give it a very clear stereotype name like functionPointer.
I was wondering about using or not templates, in other thread I found out that templates must be implement in the header file because of some reasons.
Thats ok, my question is if the source will be need if other programm use it?
from the logic of the other thread's answer, it seems that even other programm would need the full implementation so the compiler can say if a line can or not use the templated function.
if yes, I guess templates are not a good thing for the developer who wants others to use his library?
if no, then we are good and templates will be used.
or if at least there is anyway to save my hard, hours spent, code from others?
(I will use stl vectors and such, but I am asking for my own code... Templates seem to be nice, save you a lot of hardcoded lines or macro abusing, but if others can read your source than it makes almost no sense[lot of sense to open projects xD])
Thanks,
Joe
If you want users of your library to be able to use your templates, their source code needs to be available to those users.
However you can sometimes design your template classes so that most of the logic happens in non-template classes which don't have the full source code in the headers.
It depends on whether your templates are part of your libraries interface or whether they are just part of the implementation.
If they are part of the interface (i.e. perhaps a entry point returns an object of a specific template type), then yes, you need to expose your template definitions to the outside world.
But if the templates are solely part of your implementation, then once you build your library, there is no need to share the template definitions with consumers of your library.
You could write the templates as wrappers around non-template (often non-typesafe) code.
Advantages are...
The source for the non-template implementation code needn't be distributed.
It's a good way to reduce template bloat.
The obvious disadvantages are that you have an extra layer of abstraction and overhead, and non-typesafe implementation code obviously requires some care. I tend to have an abstract 'tool' class defined in the non-template code, specialised in the template wrapper. I call it a tool because methods don't primarily act on the tools state, but on objects passed in as void* parameters. The tool class encapsulates as most type-unsafety issues in a few methods. The template also provides the typesafe wrapper that users actually use, which interfaces to the unsafe code, providing the tool instance and doing typecasts etc.
For example, if I'm implementing a tree data structure, most tree algorithms will be type-unsafe and will see nodes and data items as void* pointers (or perhaps node* and data* pointers with node and data being declared but undefined structs). I'll have an abstract tree-tool-base with pure methods for node creation, disposal and other basic operations, and the wrapper template will basically specialise the tree tool, supplying method implementations that know the precise types of the nodes and data items, and holding an instance of the tool as a class member. To the user, the wrapper is just a typesafe container, same as any other.
BTW - when implementing the template wrapper, watch out for dependent name issues.
I am trying to make a toy language in c++. I have used boost spirit for the grammar, and hopefully for parser/lexer. The idea is a toy language where 'everything is an object' like javascript and some implementation of prototype based inheritance. I want to know how to implement the 'object' type for the language in c++. I saw source codes of engine spidermonkey but mostly it is done using structures, also getting more complex at later stages. As structures are more or less equivalent to classes in C++, I hope I could manage with the stdlib itself. All I want is a solid idea of how the basic object has to be implemented and how properties are created/modified/destroyed. I tried to take a look at V8, but its really confusing me a lot!
Have each class have pointers to parent classes and implement properties and methods in STL containers like <string,pointer_fun> so that you can add/remove dynamically methods.
Then you could just lookup a method in an obj, if there isn't then follow the ptr to parent and lookup there till you find one or fail non-existant method.
For properties you could have a template to wrap them in the STL container so that they share a common ancestor and you can store pointers like <string,property<type>* > where property makes created type inherit from common type.
With this approach and some runtime checks you can support dynamically anything, just need to have clear which are the lookup rules for a method when you call it in an object.
So essentially every obj instance in your system could be:
class obj{
type_class parent*;
string type;
std::map<string,pointer_fun> methods;
std::map<string,property_parent_class> properties;
}
And have constructors/destructor be normal methods with special names.
Then in obj creation you could just lookup for type_name in type_objs and copy the member and properties from the type to the impl obj.
EDIT:
About function objects, you can use functors inheriting from a common one to use the container_of_pointers approach.
For lists I'd create a simple class object that implements metods like __add__() or __len__() or __get__() like in python for example, then when you parse the language you'd substitute list_obj[3] for your_list_obj.method['__get__'] after checking that it exists of course.