the question can sound a bit unusual. Let's take a POD struct:
struct MyStruct
{
int myInt;
double myDouble;
AnotherPOD* myPointer;
};
The compiler knows the list of available data members. Do you know any way to get list of data member name (and type) either at compile time (better) or at run time?
I have a huge amount of POD structs and I would like to automate the creation of operator<<.
I know I could create a parser for the header files, create some files and compile those. However, I am sure the compiler has already had this information and I would like to exploit it.
Any ideas?
Thanks
BOOST_FUSION_ADAPT_STRUCT introduces compile-time reflection (which is awesome).
It is up to you to map this to run-time reflection of course, and it won't be too easy, but it is possible in this direction, while it would not be in the reverse :)
I don't know of any way to do what you want directly, but you might want to take a look at clang, which is a compiler front-end implementation that you can make use of to do other things:
http://clang.llvm.org
I guess you'd then be able to traverse the abstract syntax tree it creates and get at the information you're after.
Well, standard C++ compilers can't do that, they lack reflection capabilities.
Sounds like a task for a code generator. So either use a toolkit to extract these informations from the headers or generate both headers and serialization functions from another source. Just make sure you do not repeat yourself.
I am afraid but C++ doesn't support reflection. You can use Boost.TypeTraits to achieve a restricted form of reflection at compile time.
Related
I'm looking for a data structure which behaves similar to boost::property_tree but (optionally) leaves the get/set implementation for each value item to the developer.
You should be able to do something like this:
std::function<int(void)> f_foo = ...;
my_property_tree tree;
tree.register<int>("some.path.to.key", f_foo);
auto v1 = tree.get<int>("some.path.to.key"); // <-- calls f_foo
auto v2 = tree.get<int>("some.other.path"); // <-- some fallback or throws exception
I guess you could abuse property_tree for this but I haven't looked into the implementation yet and I would have a bad feeling about this unless I knew that this is an intended use case.
Writing a class that handles requests like val = tree.get("some.path.to.key") by calling a provided function doesn't look too hard in the first place but I can imagine a lot of special cases which would make this quite a bulky library.
Some extra features might be:
subtree-handling: not only handle terminal keys but forward certain subtrees to separate implementations. E.g.
tree.register("some.path.config", some_handler);
// calls some_handler.get<int>("network.hostname")
v = tree.get<int>("some.path.config.network.hostname");
search among values / keys
automatic type casting (like in boost::property_tree)
"path overloading", e.g. defaulting to a property_tree-implementation for paths without registered callback.
Is there a library that comes close to what I'm looking for? Has anyone made experiences with using boost::property_tree for this purpose? (E.g. by subclassing or putting special objects into the tree like described here)
After years of coding my own container classes I ended up just adopting QVariantMap. This way it pretty much behaves (and is as flexible as) python. Just one interface. Not for performance code though.
If you care to know, I really caved in for Qt as my de facto STL because:
Industry standard - used even in avionics and satellite software
It has been around for decades with little interface change (think about long term support)
It has excellent performance, awesome documentation and enormous user base.
Extensive feature set, way beyond the STL
Would an std::map do the job you are interested in?
Have you tried this approach?
I don't quite understand what you are trying to do. So please provide a domain example.
Cheers.
I have some home-cooked code that lets you register custom callbacks for each type in GitHub. It is quite basic and still missing most of the features you would like to have. I'm working on the second version, though. I'm finishing a helper structure that will do most of the job of making callbacks. Tell me if you're interested. Also, you could implement some of those features yourself, as the code to register callbacks is already done. It shouldn't be so difficult.
Using only provided data structures:
First, getters and setters are not native features to c++ you need to call the method one way or another. To make such behaviour occur you can overload assignment operator. I assume you also want to store POD data in your data structure as well.
So without knowing the type of the data you're "get"ting, the only option I can think of is to use boost::variant. But still, you have some overloading to do, and you need at least one assignment.
You can check out the documentation. It's pretty straight-forward and easy to understand.
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_61_0/doc/html/variant/tutorial.html
Making your own data structures:
Alternatively, as Dani mentioned, you can come up with your own implementation and keep a register of overloaded methods and so on.
Best
I have a library which can save/load on disk "chunks" which are POD structs with constant size and unique static CHUNK_ID field. So load looks somethink like this.
void Load(int docId, char* ptr, int type, size_t& size)...
If you want to add new chunk you just add struct with new CHUNK_ID and use Save Load functions to it.
What I want is to force all "chunks" to have functions like PrintHumanReadable, CompareThisTypeOfChunk etc(Ideally program should not compile without such functions). Also I want to mark/register/enumerate all chunk-structs.
I have a few ideas but all of them have problems.
Create base class with pure virtual functions PrintHumanReadable, CompareThisTypeOfChunk.
Problem:breaks pod type and requires library rewriting.
Implement factory which creates chunk struct from CHUNK_ID. Problem: compiles when I add new chunk without required functions.
Could you recomend elegant design solution for my problem?
Implement a simple code generator. You can use something like Mako or Cheetah (both Python libraries). Make a text file containing all the class names, then have the generator build the factory method and a series of methods which aren't really used but which refer to the desired methods in all the classes. This will also make it straightforward to enumerate the classes (again, using generated code).
The proper design pattern for this is called "use Boost.Serialization". It's really the best tool for writing objects to a format and then reading them back later. It can write in text, binary, and even XML formats (and others if you write a proper stream for them). It's can be non-intrusive, so you don't need to modify the objects to serialize them. And so forth.
Once you're using the proper tool for this job, you can then use whatever class hierarchy or other method you like to ensure that the proper functions for an object exist.
If you can't/won't use Boost.Serialization, then you're pretty much stuck with a runtime solution. And since the solution is runtime rather than compile time, there's no way to ensure at compile time that any particular chunk ID has the requisite functions.
Just out of curiosity: is there a way to use variable as object name in c++?
something along the lines:
char a[] = "testme\0";
*a *vr = new *a();
If you were to write a c/c++ compiler how would you go about to implement such a thing?
I know they implemented this feature in zend engine but to lazy to look it up.
Maybe some of you guys can enlight me :)
In case what you are looking for is something like this
<?php
$className = "ClassName";
$instance = new $className();
?>
That's simply not possible in C++. This fails for many reasons, one of them that C++ at runtime doesn't know much about names of classes anymore (only in debug mode) If somebody wanted to write a compiler that would allow something like this, it would be necessary to keep a lot of information that a C++ compiler only needs during compilation and linking. Changing this would create a new language.
If you want to dynamically create classes depending on information only available at runtime, in C++ you would most likely use some of the Creational Design Patterns.
Edit:
PHP is one language, C++ is a very different one. 16M may not be that much nowadays, for a C++ programmer where some programs are in the k range, it's a whole world. Nobody wants to ship a complete compiler with his C++ app to be able to get all the dynamic features (that btw PHP too implements only in a limited way as far as I know, if you want really dynamic runtime code creation, have a look at Ruby or Python). C++ has (as all languages) a certain philosophy and creating objects by name in a string doesn't fit very well with it. This feature alone is quite useless anyway and would by no means justify the overhead necessary to implement it. This could most likely be done without adding runtime compilation, but even the extra kilobytes necessary to store the names alone make no sense in the C++ world. And C++ is strictly typed and this functionality would have to make sure, that type checking doesn't break.
In C and C++, identifier names do not have the same meaning they do in PHP.
PHP is a dynamic language, and (at least conceptually) runs in an interpreted context. Identifier names are present at run time, they can be inspected through PHP's reflection features, you can use strings to refer to functions, variables, globals, and object properties by name, etc. PHP identifiers are actual semantic entities.
In C++, identifiers are lost at run time (again, conceptually speaking). You use them in your source code to identify variables, functions, classes, etc., but the compiler translates them into memory addresses or literal values, or even optimizes them away completely. Identifier names are not generally present in the compiled binary (unless you instructed the compiler to include debug symbols), and there is no way to inspect them at run-time. Even with RTTI, the best you can get is an arbitrary number to identify a type; you can compare them for equality, but you cannot get the name back.
Consequently, if you want to translate strings into identifier names at run-time in C++, you have to perform the mapping manually. std::map can be a great help for this - you hand it a string, and it gives you a value. This doesn't work directly for class names; for these, you need to implement some sort of factory method. A nice solution is to have one wrapper function for each type, and then a std::map that maps class names to the corresponding wrappers. Something like:
map<string, FoobarFactoryMethod> factory_map;
Foobar* FooFactory() { return new Foo(); }
Foobar* BarFactory() { return new Bar(); }
Foobar* BazFactory() { return new Baz(); }
void fill_map() {
factory_map["Foo"] = FooFactory;
factory_map["Bar"] = BarFactory;
factory_map["Baz"] = BazFactory;
}
// and then later:
Foobar* f = factory_map[classname]();
Why do you even want to have this feature? You are most likely misusing OOP. Whenever my needs ran into hard language barriers like this I ended up doing one of the following:
Rethink your solution to the problem so it fits OOP better
Create a DSL for your problem (domain specific language)
Create a code generator for this part of your problem
Pick a language that fits your problem better
A combination of the above
I would think that what you want to do would be best accomplished using interfaces and a factory pattern.
As far as I know, if I have a class such as the following:
class TileSurface{
public:
Tile * tile;
enum Type{
Top,
Left,
Right
};
Type type;
Point2D screenverts[4]; // it's a rectangle.. so..
TileSurface(Tile * thetile, Type thetype);
};
There's no easy way to programatically (using templates or whatever) go through each member and do things like print their types (for example, typeinfo's typeid(Tile).name()).
Being able to loop through them would be a useful and easy way to generate class size reports, etc. Is this impossible to do, or is there a way (even using external tools) for this?
Simply not possible in C++. You would need something like Reflection to implement this, which C++ doesn't have.
As far as your code is concerned after it is compiled, the "class" doesn't exist -- the names of the variables as well as their types have no meaning in assembly, and therefore they aren't encoded into the binary.
(Note: When I say "Not possible in C++" I mean "not possible to do built into the language" -- you could of course write a C++ parser in C++ which could implement this sort of thing...)
No. There are no easy way. If to put "easy way" aside then with C++ you can do anything imaginable.
If you want just to dump your data contents run-time then simplest way is to implement operator<<(ostream&,YourClass const&) for each YourClass you are interested in. Bit more complex is to implement visitor pattern, but with visitor pattern you may have different reports done by different visitors and also the visitors may do other things, not only generate reports.
If you want it as static analysis (program is not running, you want to generate reports) then you can use debugger database. Alternatively you may analyze AST generated by some compilers (g++ and CLang have options to generate it) and generate reports from it.
If you really need run-time reflection then you have to build it into your classes. That involves overhead. For example you may use common base-classes and put all data members of classes into array too. It is often done to communicate with applications written in languages that have reflection on more equal grounds (oldest example is Lisp).
I beg to differ from the conventional wisdom. C++ does have it; it's not part of the C++ standard, but every single C++ compiler I've seen emits metadata of this sort for use by the debugger.
Moreover, two formats for the debug database cover almost all modern compilers: pdb (the Microsoft format) and dwarf2 (just about everything else).
Our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit is what you call an "external tool" for extractingt/transforming arbitrary code. DMS is generalized compiler technology parameterized by explicit langauge definitions. It has language definitions for C, C++, Java, COBOL, PHP, ...
For C, C++, Java and COBOL versions, it provides complete access to parse trees, and symbol table information. That symbol table information includes the kind of data you are likely to want from "reflection". If you goal is to enumerate some set of fields or methods and do something with them, DMS can be used to transform the code (or generate derived code) according to what you find in the symbol tables in arbitrary ways.
If you derive all types of the member variables from your common typeinfo-provider-baseclass, then you can get that. It is a bit more work than like in Java, but possible.
External tools: you mentioned that you need reports like class size, etc.--
Doxygen could help http://www.doxygen.nl/manual/features.html to generate class member lists (including inherited members).
What's the best way to output the public contents of an object to a human-readable file? I'm looking for a way to do this that would not require me to know of all the members of the class, but rather use the compiler to tell me what members exist, and what their names are. There have to be macros or something like that, right?
Contrived example:
class Container
{
public:
Container::Container() {/*initialize members*/};
int stuff;
int otherStuff;
};
Container myCollection;
I would like to be able to do something to see output along the lines of "myCollection: stuff = value, otherStuff = value".
But then if another member is added to Container,
class Container
{
public:
Container::Container() {/*initialize members*/};
int stuff;
string evenMoreStuff;
int otherStuff;
};
Container myCollection;
This time, the output of this snapshot would be "myCollection: stuff = value, evenMoreStuff=value, otherStuff = value"
Is there a macro that would help me accomplish this? Is this even possible? (Also, I can't modify the Container class.)
Another note: I'm most interested about a potential macros in VS, but other solutions are welcome too.
What you're looking for is "[reflection](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(computer_science)#C.2B.2B)".
I found two promising links with a Google search for "C++ reflection":
http://www.garret.ru/cppreflection/docs/reflect.html
http://seal-reflex.web.cern.ch/seal-reflex/index.html
Boost has a serialization library that can serialize into text files. You will, however, not be able to get around with now knowing what members the class contains. You would need reflection, which C++ does not have.
Take a look at this library .
What you need is object serialization or object marshalling. A recurrent thema in stackoverflow.
I'd highly recommend taking a look at Google's Protocol Buffers.
There's unfortunately no macro that can do this for you. What you're looking for is a reflective type library. These can vary from fairly simple to home-rolled monstrosities that have no place in a work environment.
There's no real simple way of doing this, and though you may be tempted to simply dump the memory at an address like so:
char *buffer = new char[sizeof(Container)];
memcpy(buffer, containerInstance, sizeof(Container));
I'd really suggest against it unless all you have are simple types.
If you want something really simple but not complete, I'd suggest writing your own
printOn(ostream &) member method.
XDR is one way to do this in a platform independent way.