Problem about C++ class (inheritance, variables scope and functions) - c++

I have a class that contains some data: class DATA
Now I would to create some functions that uses those data. I can do it easily by writing member functions like DATA::usedata();
Since there are hundreds of functions, I would to keep an order in my code, so I would like to have some "categories" (not sure of the correct name) like:
DATA data;
data.memory.free();
data.memory.allocate();
data.file.import();
data.whatever.foo();
where memory, file and whatever are the "categories" and free, allocate and foo are the functions.
I tried the inheritance way, but I got lost since I can not declare inside DATA a memory or file object, error C2079 occurs: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/9ekhdcxs%28VS.80%29.aspx
Since I am not a programmer please don't be too complicated and if you have an easier way I am all ears.

Give your data class some classes of its own, and let those classes refer to the data object that holds them. It sounds like you might have tried to do that already. If you got an error, then you were doing something else wrong.
struct DATA
{
struct DataMemory
{
DATA& data;
DataMemory(DATA& d): data(d) { }
void free();
void allocate();
};
struct DataFile
{
DATA& data;
DataFile(DATA& d): data(d) { }
void import();
};
struct DataWhatever
{
DATA& data;
DataWhatever(DATA& d): data(d) { }
void foo();
};
DataMemory memory;
DataFile file;
DataWhatever whatever;
DATA(): memory(*this), file(*this), whatever(*this) { }
};
Each of the inner classes has a member that's a reference to the containing DATA object. They have constructors to allow that member to get assigned. The DATA class itself also has a constructor to initialize each of its members with a reference to itself.
You can now implement the functions and refer to any of the DATA object's members.
void DATA::DataMemory::free()
{
data.whatever.foo();
}
The inner classes aren't required to be inner classes; they could be standalone top-level classes like DATA if you want, but I think nesting them helps show their interdependence.

The easiest way would be to do the categories just as a naming convention. If you replace the . with _ you don't need any "subobjects" and get:
data.memory_free();
data.memory_allocate();
data.file_import();
This way you basically have the same function names but avoid all the implementation problems of the subobject approach.

If you have a class that has hundreds of member functions, you almost certainly need to break that up into multiple classes. To achieve the type of naming syntax that you're after you could use name spaces to group related classes into "categories."

class DATA
{
public:
class CategoryA_Class
{
friend DATA;
private:
CategoryA_Class() { }
public:
bool GiveMeSomeInt() { return 1; }
};
class CategoryB_Class
{
friend DATA;
private:
CategoryB_Class() { }
public:
bool GiveMeSomeBool() { return true; }
};
public:
CategoryA_Class CategoryA;
CategoryB_Class CategoryB;
};
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
DATA mydata;
int a = mydata.CategoryA.GiveMeSomeInt();
bool b = mydata.CategoryB.GiveMeSomeBool();
return 0;
}

It is normal to feel confuse when you have so many functions in one class. The trick is to break it all up so that the information is contained in smaller classes that inherits a parent class that has common functions and data to all children.
From what I see you already found a common name for the information. class DATA can be that parent class. Now, you need to break up the information into types of Data. In other words, you will have children classes that will be specialized in something. A quick way to divide the information is to create a diagram of a parent class linked with children classes.
Here is a small example of what you could do:
//parent class
template <class T> class Data
{
T data_; //you could use an array like a std::vector or
//use a stream
public:
//...
void foo();
T getData() const;
};
//child class
template <class T> class Memory
: public Data
{
public:
void free();
void allocate(T data);
//...
};
//child class
template <class T> class File
: public Data
{
public:
T readFile(); //could read the contents of a
//file and save it in data_ (class member from parent class)
void writeFile(); //could write data_
//(class member from parent class) to a file
//...
};
Also, here is documentation if you need help on the concept of inheritance.

Related

shared_ptr to derived class

I am fairly new to C++ and I am still learning to write clean code.
Below are excerpts from the current legacy code I have.
class A {
public:
setDataManager(dm)
{
_dm = dm;
}
void recieveData(data)
{
_dm.processData(data);
}
private:
std::shared_ptr<DataManager> _dm;
};
class DataManager {
public:
void processData(data)
{
DecodeData dd;
dd.Decode(data);
if (decoded data conatains a value XYZ) {
doActionA();
}
}
};
class DecodeData {
public:
void decode(data)
{
//if data contains key 1
// store the value (setters and getters defined)
//if data contains key 2
// store the value.
......
}
};
main()
{
//ConfigManager reads the location type from config file
A a;
std::shared_ptr<DataManager> dm = std::make_shared<DataManager>(...);
a.setDataManager(dm);
//a.recieveData() gets called
}
The Data received is specific for the type of location.
Currently, the legacy code is defined only for one location(NewYork).
Now I have to add another location to the configuration Manager(Australia).
That means I need to add more statements to decode(data) and additional doActions() in processData();
I want to write clean code by separating out the processing for location NY and Australia, as the data received is different for different locations.
I want to have base class, and split out the processing based on location types.
I am unable to conceptualize it. Is it possible?
How do I approach it?
Thank you.
You can create a shared pointer to a derived class and assign it to a shared pointer to a base class. That seems to be the only piece you are missing.
https://godbolt.org/z/Gf7fb1
#include <memory>
class Base
{
public:
virtual int Foo();
};
class Derived:public Base
{
public:
virtual int Foo();
};
int main()
{
std::shared_ptr<Base> ptrBase = std::make_shared<Derived>();
ptrBase->Foo();
}
So, in your case, you just need to create the right type of DataManager with something like
std::make_shared<DataManagerSpecial>;
and pass it in. Then, be sure the DataManager has the correct and flexible API in its base class. DataManagerSpecial obviously needs to derive from DataManager.

C++: Extend member type in derived class

I'd welcome some help with C++ inheritance to get a better grasp of the concept.
Is it possible to "extend" member types when creating a derived class? I think my problem can be best demonstrated by a simple example, where I'd like to extend the class VehicleData with a new double variable:
class VehicleData {
int yearOfManufacture;
//Different routines, for example Serialize(), etc., warranting to create a class for just a bunch of variables
};
class BicycleData:VehicleData {
double frameHeight; //new property that only applies to bicycles
};
//Now I create the actual classes that use the types above
class Vehicle {
VehicleData data;
void PrintData(); //a function that works on basic vehicle data
};
class Bicycle:Vehicle {
BicycleData data; //should copy VehicleData when creating an instance of this class
};
The problem with this approach is that when I code the above and create a Bicycle instance, its BicycleData member hides the already existing VehicleData member.
Is there a way to extend the base class, i.e. simply add a new double variable (to store frame height in this example), and keep the already existing (year of manufacture) data?
As far as I can tell, there is no clean way to do exactly what you want with inheritance alone.
You could create a template out of your base class:
template <typename Data>
class BaseVehicle
{
Data data;
// etc.
};
class Vehicle : BaseVehicle<VehicleData>
{
// etc.
};
class Bicycle : BaseVehicle<BicycleData>
{
// etc.
};
Then the Vehicle and Bicycle classes would contain data field of VehicleData and BicycleData types respectively.
Since in your example Bicycle inherits from Vehicle privately (i.e. there is no support for using Bicycle polymorphically via pointer/reference to Vehicle), this would effectively be identical to what you want to achieve.
If you do want dynamic polymorphism, you should create a separate, preferably abstract, class, defining the interface for your vehicles, e.g.:
class VehicleInterface
{
public:
// Some pure virtual interface methods
virtual void moveTo(const Vector2 position) = 0;
virtual ~VehicleInterface() = default;
};
And then you can have your concrete vehicles inherit and implement this interface:
class Vehicle : BaseVehicle<VehicleData>, public VehicleInterface
{
public:
virtual void moveTo(const Vector2 position) override
{
// implementation for Vehicle
}
};
class Bicycle : BaseVehicle<BicycleData>, public VehicleInterface
{
public:
virtual void moveTo(const Vector2 position) override
{
// implementation for Bicycle
}
};
Then any function, which would like to work with vehicles polymorphically, can just accept a reference or a pointer to VehicleInterface:
void driveToWork(VehicleInterface* vehicle)
{
vehicle->moveTo(getWorkPosition());
// etc.
}
Short answer; Not in the way that you're aiming for, but you can achieve something similar.
Rather than have an instance declared as you have, if you make data a pointer. You can then have BicycleData inherit VehicleData and then just replace data with the new instance in the constructor of the Bicycle.
ie
class Vehicle {
void PrintData();
protected:
void replaceData(std::shared_ptr<VehicleData> d) {
data = d;
}
std::shared_ptr<VehicleData> getData() {
return data;
}
template<class T>
std::shared_ptr<T> getDataAs() {
return std::dynamic_pointer_cast<T>(data);
}
private:
std::shared_ptr<VehicleData> data;
};
class Bicycle:Vehicle {
Bicycle(){replaceData(std::make_shared<BicycleData>());}
std::shared_ptr<BicycleData> getData() {
return getDataAs<BicycleData>();
}
};

Namespace Functions within Class alternatives?

I'd like to be able to group similar functions in a class into a group so I don't need to append each name with what it's about.
I've seen this question which says that you can't have namespaces within classes. I've also seen this question which proposes using strongly typed enums. The problem here though, is that I'm not sure whether or not these enums can actually accomodate functions?
The problem contextualised:
class Semaphore
{
public:
void Set(bool State){Semaphore = State;}
bool Get(){return Semaphore;}
void Wait()
{
while (Semaphore)
{
//Wait until the node becomes available.
}
return;
}
private:
bool Semaphore = 0; //Don't operate on the same target simultaneously.
};
class Node : Semaphore
{
public:
unsigned long IP = 0; //IP should be stored in network order.
bool IsNeighbour = 0; //Single hop.
std::vector<int> OpenPorts;
//Rest of code...
};
Currently, NodeClass.Get() is how I can get the semaphore. However this introduces confusion as to what Get() actually gets. I'd like to have something akin to NodeClass.Semaphore::Get(). Otherwise I'd have to have the functions as SemaphoreSet(), SemaphoreGet(), and SemaphoreWait(), which isn't too well organised or nice looking.
I had thought of just having the Semaphore class on it's own, and instantiating it within the other classes, but if I could stick with the inheritance approach, that would be nicer.
So essentially, is it possible to access inherited methods like InheritedClass.Group::Function()?
If you really want to do this, you could force the user to call with the base class name by deleteing the member function in the subclass:
class Base {
public:
void Set(bool) { }
};
class Derived : public Base {
public:
void Set(bool) = delete;
};
int main() {
Derived d;
// d.Set(true); // compiler error
d.Base::Set(true);
}
However, if the semantics of calling Set on the subclass are significantly different than what you'd expect them to be when calling Set on the base class, you should probably use a data member and name a member function accordingly as you've described:
class Base {
public:
void Set(bool) { }
};
class Derived {
public:
void SetBase(bool b) {
b_.Set(b);
}
private:
Base b_;
};
int main() {
Derived d;
d.SetBase(true);
}

Best way for derived classes to carry different data types in C++

What is the most elegant way to provide an interface in C++ that accepts derived class types that carry with them different data type members that then need to be retrieved later. The example below illustrates this where the Container class provides methods to "post" an Item that will be some kind of derived variant of BaseItem. Later on I want to get the derived Item back and extract its value.
The main thing I want is for the Container interface (post and receive) to stay the same in the future while allowing different "Item" derived types to be defined and "passed" through it. Would template be better for this somehow; I'd rather not use RTTI. Maybe there is some simple, elegant answer to this, but right now I'm struggling to think of it.
class ItemBase {
// common methods
};
class ItemInt : public ItemBase
{
private:
int dat;
public:
int get() { return dat; }
};
class ItemDouble : public ItemBase
{
private:
double dat;
public:
double get() { return dat; }
};
class Container {
public:
void post(int postHandle, ItemBase *e);
ItemBase* receive(int handle); // Returns the associated Item
};
int main()
{
ItemInt *ii = new IntItem(5);
Container c;
c.post(1, ii);
ItemInt *jj = c.receive(1);
int val = jj->get(); // want the value 5 out of the IntItem
}
This is definitely a candidate for generic programming, rather than inheritance. Remember, generics (templates) are ideal when you want identical handling for different data types. Your ItemInt and ItemDouble classes violate OO design principles (the get() method returns different data types depending on what the actual subtype is). Generic programming is built for that. The only other answer would be a tagged data type, and I personally avoid those like the plague.
How about?
template<typename T>
class Item
{
private:
T dat;
public:
T get() { return dat; }
};
class Container {
public:
template<typename T>
void post(int postHandle, Item<T> *e);
template<typename T>
Item<T>* receive(int handle); // Returns the associated Item
};
int main()
{
Item<int> *ii = new Item<int>(5);
Container c;
c.post(1, ii);
Item<int> *jj = c.receive<int>(1);
int val = jj->get(); // want the value 5 out of the IntItem
}
Your Container class looks suspiciously like a std::map. It looks to me like your ItemBase class is just a different name for "Object", the universal base class, which I think is not much different from (or better than) void*. I would avoid trying to contain items of different type in a single container. If your design seems to call for doing so, I'd rethink your design.
A pure template approach doesn't work because you apparently want to have mixed types in your container. You could work with something like Boost's any although I think you need to restore the actual. What I think is called for in this case is a base class exposing the type-independent and virtual methods plus a templatized derived class to hold the actual items:
class Base {
public:
virtual ~Base() {}
virtual void post() = 0;
};
template <typename T>
class Item: public Base {
public:
Item(T const& value): value_(value) {}
void post() { std::cout << "posting " << this->value_ << "\n"; }
private:
T value_;
};
This approach avoids the need to write any derived Item class for another value type. To make creation of these beast easier you probably want to create a suitable creation function as well, e.g.
template <typename T>
std::unique_ptr<Base> make_item(T const& value) {
return std::unique_ptr<Base>(new Item<T>(value));
}
A std::unique_ptr<Base> is returned to make sure that the allocated object is released (if you don't use C++2011 you can used std::auto_ptr<T> instead). This type can easily be converted to other pointer types, e.g. to a std::shared_ptr<Base> which is a better suited to be put into a container.

C++ class that can hold one of a set of classes that all inherit from a common class

What are the ways in C++ to handle a class that has ownership of an instance of another class, where that instance could potentially be of a number of classes all of which inherit from a common class?
Example:
class Item { //the common ancestor, which is never used directly
public:
int size;
}
class ItemWidget: public Item { //possible class 1
public:
int height;
int width;
}
class ItemText: public Item { //possible class 2
std::string text;
}
Let's say there is also a class Container, each of which contains a single Item, and the only time anyone is ever interested in an Item is when they are getting it out of the Container. Let's also say Items are only created at the same time the Container is created, for the purpose of putting them in the Container.
What are the different ways to structure this? We could make a pointer in Container for the contained Item, and then pass arguments to the constructor of Container for what sort of Item to call new on, and this will stick the Items all in the heap. Is there a way to store the Item in the stack with the Container, and would this have any advantages?
Does it make a difference if the Container and Items are immutable, and we know everything about them at the moment of creation, and will never change them?
A correct solution looks like:
class Container {
public:
/* ctor, accessors */
private:
std::unique_ptr<Item> item;
};
If you have an old compiler, you can use std::auto_ptr instead.
The smart pointer ensures strict ownership of the item by the container. (You could as well make it a plain pointer and roll up your own destructor/assignment op/copy ctor/move ctor/ move assignment op/ etc, but unique_ptr has it all already done, so...)
Why do you need to use a pointer here, not just a plain composition?
Because if you compose, then you must know the exact class which is going to be composed. You can't introduce polymorphism. Also the size of all Container objects must be the same, and the size of Item's derived classes may vary.
And if you desperately need to compose?
Then you need as many variants of Container as there are the items stored, since every such Container will be of different size, so it's a different class. Your best shot is:
struct IContainer {
virtual Item& getItem() = 0;
};
template<typename ItemType>
struct Container : IContainer {
virtual Item& getItem() {
return m_item;
}
private:
ItemType m_item;
};
OK, crazy idea. Don't use this:
class AutoContainer
{
char buf[CRAZY_VALUE];
Base * p;
public:
template <typename T> AutoContainer(const T & x)
: p(::new (buf) T(x))
{
static_assert(std::is_base_of<Base, T>::value, "Invalid use of AutoContainer");
static_assert(sizeof(T) <= CRAZY_VAL, "Not enough memory for derived class.");
#ifdef __GNUC__
static_assert(__has_virtual_destructor(Base), "Base must have virtual destructor!");
#endif
}
~AutoContainer() { p->~Base(); }
Base & get() { return *p; }
const Base & get() const { return *p; }
};
The container requires no dynamic allocation itself, you must only ensure that CRAZY_VALUE is big enough to hold any derived class.
the example code below compiles and shows how to do something similar to what you want to do. this is what in java would be called interfaces. see that you need at least some similarity in the classes (a common function name in this case). The virtual keyword means that all subclasses need to implement this function and whenever that function is called the function of the real class is actually called.
whether the classes are const or not doesn't harm here. but in general you should be as const correct as possible. because the compiler can generate better code if it knows what will not be changed.
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
class outputter {
public:
virtual void print() = 0;
};
class foo : public outputter {
public:
virtual void print() { std::cout << "foo\n"; }
};
class bar : public outputter {
public:
virtual void print() { std::cout << "bar\n"; }
};
int main(){
std::vector<outputter *> vec;
foo *f = new foo;
vec.push_back(f);
bar *b = new bar ;
vec.push_back(b);
for ( std::vector<outputter *>::iterator i =
vec.begin(); i != vec.end(); ++i )
{
(*i)->print();
}
return 0;
}
Output:
foo
bar
Hold a pointer (preferably a smart one) in the container class, and call a pure virtual clone() member function on the Item class that is implemented by the derived classes when you need to copy. You can do this in a completely generic way, thus:
class Item {
// ...
private:
virtual Item* clone() const = 0;
friend Container; // Or make clone() public.
};
template <class I>
class ItemCloneMixin : public Item {
private:
I* clone() const { return new I(static_cast<const I&>(*this); }
};
class ItemWidget : public ItemCloneMixin<ItemWidget> { /* ... */ };
class ItemText : public ItemCloneMixin<ItemText> { /* ... */ };
Regarding stack storage, you can use an overloaded new that calls alloca(), but do so at your peril. It will only work if the compiler inlines your special new operator, which you can't force it to do (except with non-portable compiler pragmas). My advice is that it just isn't worth the aggravation; runtime polymorphism belongs on the heap.