C++ Virtual Constructor, without clone() - c++

Question

I want to perform "deep copies" of an STL container of pointers to polymorphic classes.
I know about the Prototype design pattern, implemented by means of the Virtual Ctor Idiom, as explained in the C++ FAQ Lite, Item 20.8.
It is simple and straightforward:
struct ABC // Abstract Base Class
{
virtual ~ABC() {}
virtual ABC * clone() = 0;
};
struct D1 : public ABC
{
virtual D1 * clone() { return new D1( *this ); } // Covariant Return Type
};
A deep copy is then:
for( i = 0; i < oldVector.size(); ++i )
newVector.push_back( oldVector[i]->clone() );
Drawbacks
As Andrei Alexandrescu states it:
The clone() implementation must follow the same pattern in all derived classes; in spite of its repetitive structure, there is no reasonable way to automate defining the clone() member function (beyond macros, that is).
Moreover, clients of ABC can possibly do something bad. (I mean, nothing prevents clients to do something bad, so, it will happen.)
Better design?
My question is: is there another way to make an abstract base class clonable without requiring derived classes to write clone-related code? (Helper class? Templates?)
Following is my context. Hopefully, it will help understanding my question.
I am designing a class hierarchy to perform operations on a class Image:
struct ImgOp
{
virtual ~ImgOp() {}
bool run( Image & ) = 0;
};
Image operations are user-defined: clients of the class hierarchy will implement their own classes derived from ImgOp:
struct CheckImageSize : public ImgOp
{
std::size_t w, h;
bool run( Image &i ) { return w==i.width() && h==i.height(); }
};
struct CheckImageResolution { ... };
struct RotateImage { ... };
...
Multiple operations can be performed sequentially on an image:
bool do_operations( vector< ImgOp* > v, Image &i )
{
for_each( v.begin(), v.end(),
/* bind2nd( mem_fun( &ImgOp::run ), i ... ) don't remember syntax */ );
}
If there are multiple images, the set can be split and shared over several threads. To ensure "thread-safety", each thread must have its own copy of all operation objects contained in v -- v becomes a prototype to be deep copied in each thread.
Edited: The thread-safe version uses the Prototype design pattern to enforce copy of pointed-to-objects -- not ptrs:
struct ImgOp
{
virtual ~ImgOp() {}
bool run( Image & ) = 0;
virtual ImgOp * clone() = 0; // virtual ctor
};
struct CheckImageSize : public ImgOp { /* no clone code */ };
struct CheckImageResolution : public ImgOp { /* no clone code */ };
struct RotateImage : public ImgOp { /* no clone code */ };
bool do_operations( vector< ImgOp* > v, Image &i )
{
// In another thread
vector< ImgOp* > v2;
transform( v.begin(), v.end(), // Copy pointed-to-
back_inserter( v2 ), mem_fun( &ImgOp::clone ) ); // objects
for_each( v.begin(), v.end(),
/* bind2nd( mem_fun( &ImgOp::run ), i ... ) don't remember syntax */ );
}
This has sense when image operation classes are small: do not serialize accesses to unique instances of ImgOps, rather provide each thread with their own copies.
The hard part is to avoid writers of new ImgOp-derived classes to write any clone-related code. (Because this is implementation detail -- this is why I dismissed Paul's answers with the Curiously Recurring Pattern.)

Answer 1

You can use the curiously recursive pattern but it might make your code less readable.
You will still need copy constructors. It works as follows.
struct ABC // Abstract Base Class
{
virtual ~ABC() {}
virtual ABC * clone() const = 0;
};
template <class TCopyableClass>
struct ClonableABC : public ABC
{
virtual ABC* clone() const {
return new TCopyableClass( *(TCopyableClass*)this );
}
};
struct SomeABCImpl : public ClonableABC<SomeABCImpl>
{};

Answer 2

A deep copy is then: [for loop]
You make the client clone the vector explicitly. I'm not sure if this answers your question, but I would suggest a vector of smart pointers so the cloning happens automatically.
std::vector<cloning_pointer<Base> > vec;
vec.push_back(cloning_pointer<Base>(new Derived()));
// objects are automatically cloned:
std::vector<cloning_pointer<Base> > vec2 = vec;
Of course, you don't want these implicit copies to happen when resizing a vector or something, so you need to be able to distinguish copies from moves. Here is my C++0x toy implementation of cloning_pointer which you might have to adjust to your needs.
#include <algorithm>
template<class T>
class cloning_pointer
{
T* p;
public:
explicit cloning_pointer(T* p)
{
this->p = p;
}
~cloning_pointer()
{
delete p;
}
cloning_pointer(const cloning_pointer& that)
{
p = that->clone();
}
cloning_pointer(cloning_pointer&& that)
{
p = that.p;
that.p = 0;
}
cloning_pointer& operator=(const cloning_pointer& that)
{
T* q = that->clone();
delete p;
p = q;
return *this;
}
cloning_pointer& operator=(cloning_pointer&& that)
{
std::swap(p, that.p);
return *this;
}
T* operator->() const
{
return p;
}
T& operator*() const
{
return *p;
}
};
Julien: && is not a "ref of ref", it is an rvalue reference which only binds to modifiable rvalues. See this excellent (but sadly slightly outdated) tutorial and video for an overview of rvalue references and how they work.

Answer 3

FYI, this is the design I came out with. Thank you Paul and FredOverflow for your inputs. (And Martin York for your comment.)
Step #1, Compile-time polymorphism with templates
Polymorphism is performed at compile-time using templates and implicit-interfaces:
template< typename T >
class ImgOp
{
T m_t; // Not a ptr: when ImgOp is copied, copy ctor and
// assignement operator perform a *real* copy of object
ImageOp ( const ImageOp &other ) : m_t( other .m_t ) {}
ImageOp & operator=( const ImageOp & );
public:
ImageOp ( const T &p_t ) : m_t( p_t ) {}
ImageOp<T> * clone() const { return new ImageOp<T>( *this ); }
bool run( Image &i ) const { return m_t.run( i); }
};
// Image operations need not to derive from a base class: they must provide
// a compatible interface
class CheckImageSize { bool run( Image &i ) const {...} };
class CheckImageResolution { bool run( Image &i ) const {...} };
class RotateImage { bool run( Image &i ) const {...} };
Now all the clone-related code lies within a unique class. However, it is now impossible to have a container of ImgOps templatized on different operations:
vector< ImgOp > v; // Compile error, ImgOp is not a type
vector< ImgOp< ImgOp1 > > v; // Only one type of operation :/
Step #2, Add a level of abstraction
Add a non-template base acting as an interface:
class AbstractImgOp
{
ImageOp<T> * clone() const = 0;
bool run( Image &i ) const = 0;
};
template< typename T >
class ImgOp : public AbstractImgOp
{
// No modification, especially on the clone() method thanks to
// the Covariant Return Type mechanism
};
Now we can write:
vector< AbstractImgOp* > v;
But it becomes hard to manipulate image operation objects:
AbstractImgOp *op1 = new AbstractImgOp;
op1->w = ...; // Compile error, AbstractImgOp does not have
op2->h = ...; // member named 'w' or 'h'
CheckImageSize *op1 = new CheckImageSize;
op1->w = ...; // Fine
op1->h = ...;
AbstractImgOp *op1Ptr = op1; // Compile error, CheckImageSize does not derive
// from AbstractImgOp? Confusing
CheckImageSize op1;
op1.w = ...; // Fine
op1.h = ...;
CheckImageResolution op2;
// ...
v.push_back( new ImgOp< CheckImageSize >( op1 ) ); // Confusing!
v.push_back( new ImgOp< CheckImageResolution >( op2 ) ); // Argh
Step #3, Add a "cloning pointer" class
Based on the FredOverflow's solution, make a cloning pointer to make the framework simpler to use.
However, this pointer needs not to be templatized for it is designed to hold only one type of ptr -- only the ctor needs to be templatized:
class ImgOpCloner
{
AbstractImgOp *ptr; // Ptr is mandatory to achieve polymorphic behavior
ImgOpCloner & operator=( const ImgOpCloner & );
public:
template< typename T >
ImgOpCloner( const T &t ) : ptr( new ImgOp< T >( t ) ) {}
ImgOpCloner( const AbstractImgOp &other ) : ptr( other.ptr->clone() ) {}
~ImgOpCloner() { delete ptr; }
AbstractImgOp * operator->() { return ptr; }
AbstractImgOp & operator*() { return *ptr; }
};
Now we can write:
CheckImageSize op1;
op1.w = ...; // Fine
op1.h = ...;
CheckImageResolution op2;
// ...
vector< ImgOpCloner > v;
v.push_back( ImgOpCloner( op1 ) ); // This looks like a smart-ptr, this is not
v.push_back( ImgOpCloner( op2 ) ); // confusing anymore -- and intent is clear