How do I do that? Like you know in Java, you can use an ArrayList and it will take any object as long as you cast it down to whatever it is when you're retrieving the object.
Even better, you can specify what class of objects that ArrayList would store by doing...
new ArrayList()< whateverObject >
I've implemented a linked list data structure in C++ and I'd like to know how I can allow it to do this...
At the moment, I'm just using...
typedef whateverObject ItemType
at the start of my header file for my linked list and then manipulating "ItemType" throughout the implementation of the linked list. So every time I want to change the type, e.g. instead of using the list for storing strings, I want to store an int, I'll have to change the typedef in my linked list's header but I want to be able to simply use it for any object so...
How?!
Thanks.
Templates are the answer to your question.
Define your linked list as follows :
template<typename ItemType>
class ArrayList
{
// What's inside your class definition does not need to be changed
// Include your method definitions here and you'll be fine
};
The type to use is then ArrayList<WhateverObject>.
Use templates. It's a lot to explain so I'll just give you a link where it's explained much better than I'll ever be able to do here: C++ FAQ - Templates.
While you're at it, if you have the time, I suggest you read the whole FAQ, it's really a great resource!
If I have understood well what you ask, templates is what you want.
Take a look here:
http://www.cplusplus.com/doc/tutorial/templates/
In java you can do so, because all classes are inherited from one base class Object. In C++ you do not have it. The reason is that Object base class impose overhead for all objects, while C++ do not like any unnecessary overhead.
If you want to store any object - you can store "void *" data type. The question remained - what you will be able to do with objects, without the knowledge of the type? If you do know - you can cast to the needed type and use it. The practice described above is not safe, and templates are better in most cases.
Related
I have a class that looks something like this:
class container{
private:
std::vector<physical_component> physical;
std::vector<storage_component> storage;
--some other stuff not relevant--
public:
--constructors, getters setters, methods to add to the vectors etc--
}
Now I am struggeling with making the physical_component and storage_component classes since I dont know a proper datatype to handle this sort of thing.
Physical_component should be able to:
Store a set amount of types, and fully retaining a type (something I can cast to is good enough)
Should store the objects in a way that makes them individual from the ones passed (and therefore secure from changes to the orignial class)
I remember something like that excisting in c alongside enum but I dont know the name. Also c++ probably has a better way for that.
Storage_component is supposed to:
Store any type
(optional) remember the original type
I have no idea how to achieve this properly. I saw std::any but it seems to be rather new therefore I dont know if its a good way to go about this. Also I cant make storage_component a template because I cant store it in a vector then
What is the (proper) way to implement these classes?
Store a set amount of types, and fully retaining a type
You probably want std::variant<Ts...> (or boost::variant<Ts...>). It stores one of Ts... at a particular point in time.
Store any type
If all the types share the same interface, use a traditional virtual + std::unique_ptr polymorphism approach. Otherwise std::any is the right choice here.
Is it possible to derive a child from an array Class?
What I am playing with right now is:
Creating an array of Linked Lists
I am building a List class from which I can derive different types of lists (ie. Linear, Circular, Double Linked, etc...
What I would like to do is to extend an array class to make a "arrayOfLists" class. Then I would take the child class and add to it a LinkedList object member.
Is this possible? Am I even thinking of OOP correctly in this instance?
Thank you for your help
The fact that you're talking about it as an arrayOfLists class is a pretty good clue that inheritance is the wrong tool for this job.
Inheritance (public inheritance, anyway) should only be used when the derived class can be substituted for the base class under any possible circumstances. In other words, that an arrayOfLists could be used anywhere a List could be used. Although that might be possible, it seems fairly unlikely.
It sounds to me like what you want is really just an array-like template (e.g., std::vector) instantiated over one of your linked list classes.
I'm trying to create something like an analogue for Python's list. There are some objects derived from class Object. There is also class List, which is just a overlay for std::vector<Object*>. All classes have clone function (as well as some other functions). Now I'm trying to provide a possibility to find an index for the given element (like Python's list.index). It would be also great to provide a possibility to sort in future, i.e. to compare objects inside List class. How can I realise it without having to overload operator==? I've heard about hashing algorithms. Is it the thing that I'm looking for? If yes, could you advice a library or (better) how can I implement it using raw C++?
Thanks in advance!
I have two questions.
I know it is possible to declare class objects in structs. But is it ethical to do that from design point of view?
In my scenario I have a structure with a huge number of member elements and I want to include a class object too. Here I have another question. If I memset() the whole struct the class handle is also reset. So, I check the size of the rest of the struct without the class object and subtract it while I call memset(), to get rid of this problem. (Please note that I am using STL class 'queue' here. And I cannot use sizeof() operator on the object, since it is not overloaded.)
But is this totally an unacceptable way to do that? Can you suggest some solution to this problem?
struct = class (except for default visibility).
If you have a “huge number of members” you are probably doing something wrong, change your design, otherwise it becomes intractable.
It is absolutely fine to nest classes and / or structs, where it makes sense. For instance, it’s common to define nested classes for implementation details (so a linked_list class could have a node member class).
There’s no such thing as a “class object”, and it’s not clear what you mean by that.
Don’t use memset – you probably don’t need it, just use normal constructors and assignment.
And I cannot use sizeof() operator on the object
Wrong, you can use it.
The solution is to avoid memset with classes and structures, and use constructors. In C++11 you can use initialization lists too under various conditions.
There is no much functional difference between classes and structs in c++. Structs exisist in c++ only for backward compatibility with C. So it is ok to have a class objects in structs. However I generally prefer structs that have only member variables with getter and setter. I dont use any functions inside struct that manupulate the data. If i need that then i will use class.
I'm trying to implement a generic class for lists for an embedded device using C++. Such a class will provide methods to update the list, sort the list, filter the list based on some user specified criteria, group the list based on some user specified criteria etc. But there are quite a few varieties of lists I want this generic class to support and each of these varieties can have different display aspects. Example: One variety of list can have strings and floating point numbers in each of its elements. Other variety could have a bitmap, string and special character in each of it's elements. etc.
I wrote down a class with the methods of interest (sort, group, etc). This class has an object of another class (say DisplayAspect) as its member. But the number of member variables and the type of each member variable of class DisplayAspect is unknown. What would be a better way to implement this?
Why not use the std::list, C++ provides that and it provides all the functionality you mentioned(It is templated class, So it supports all data types you can think of).
Also, there is no point reinventing the wheel as the code you write will almost will never be as efficient as std::list.
In case you still want to reinvent this wheel, You should write a template list class.
First, you should probably use std::list as your list, as others have stated. It seems to me that you are having problems more with what to put in the list, however, so I'm focusing on that part of the question.
Since you want to also store multiple bits of information in each element of the list, you will need to create multiple classes, one to store each combination. You don't describe why you are storing mutiple bits of information, but you'd want to use a logical name for each class. So if, for example, you were storing a name and a price (string and a double), you could give the class some name like Product.
You mention creating a class called DisplayAspect.
If this is because you want to have one piece of code print all of these lists, then you should use inheritance and polymorphism to accomplish this goal. One way to accomplish that is to make your DisplayAspect class an abstract class with the needed functions (printItem() for example) pure virtual and have each of the classes you created for the combinations of data be subclasses of this DisplayAspect class.
If, on the other hand, you created the DisplayAspect class so that you could reuse your list code, you should look into template classes. std::list is an example of a template class and it will hold any type you'd like to put into it and in that case, you could drop your DisplayAspect class.
Others (e.g., #Als) have already given the obvious, direct, answer to the question you asked. If you really want a linked list, they're undoubtedly correct: std::list is the obvious first choice.
I, however, am going to suggest that you probably don't want a linked list at all. A linked list is only rarely a useful data structure. Given what you've said you want (sorting, grouping), and especially your target (embedded system, so you probably don't have a lot of memory to waste) a linked list probably isn't a very good choice for what you're trying to do. At least right off, it sounds like something closer to an array probably makes a lot more sense.
If you end up (mistakenly) deciding that a linked list really is the right choice, there's a fair chance you only need a singly linked list though. For that, you might want to look at Boost Slist. While it's a little extra work to use (it's intrusive), this will generally have lower overhead, so it's at least not quite a poor of a choice as many generic linked lists.