I'm trying to implement a generic toString() function that would work on all types. All our internal classes derive from Abstract which includes a signature for toString(). In other words, all our internal classes have in some form, a toString method.
The problem is, the primitive types (int, char, double..) don't have a native toString function. But we do have a utility function that calls the lexical_cast to give back the string value of the primitive. We don't want a whole bunch of if statements depending So I'm trying to create a templated utility class that would do the job.
My first hack at this is the below:
template<class T>
class ObjectToString {
public:
string objectToString(T value) {
iil::stringUtils::StringSp ret(stringUtils::valueToString<T>(value));
return ret;
}
};
template<>
class ObjectToString <Abstract<T>*> {
public:
iil::stringUtils::StringSp objectToString(Abstract<T>* value) {
return iil::stringUtils::StringSp(new std::string("AAAA"));
}
};
The problem now is, since Abstract is a templated class, it needs the template value T. I have no idea how to set that. Could anyone advise?
How about simply providing a specialization for lexical_cast?
template<> string lexical_cast(Abstract* obj)
{
return obj->toString();
}
Isn't your problem much simpler? On all Abstract objects you know what to do, so all you need is to provide overloaded functions for built-in types:
string getAsString(Abstract *obj)
{
return obj->toString();
}
string getAsString(int x)
{
return intToStr(x);
}
string getAsString(double x)
{
return doubleToStr(x);
}
etc, where you implement intToStr() and doubleToStr() as appropriate.
This has been dealt with at length by Matthew Wilson in the form of shims, as described in this Dr Dobb's article, and the books Imperfect C++ and Extended STL. They underlie the technology that allow the FastFormat and Pantheios libraries to deal with argument types generically.
You just don't think in C++ way. C++ already has "toString" that is called operator<< to std::ostream. You need to implement it for your classes.
And if you want to support inheritence, do this:
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/lexical_cast.hpp>
#include <string>
class streamable {
public:
virtual void stream(std::ostream &) const = 0;
};
std::ostream &operator<<(std::ostream &out,streamable const &obj)
{
obj.stream(out);
return out;
}
// Now anything derived from streamable can be written to std::ostream
// For example:
class bar : public streamable {
int x;
int y;
public:
bar(int a,int b) : x(a),y(b){}
virtual void stream(std::ostream &out) const { out<<x<<":"<<y; }
};
int main()
{
bar b(1,3);
std::cout<< b << std::endl;
// and converted to string
std::string str=boost::lexical_cast<std::string>(b);
std::cout<< str <<std::endl;
}
This is C++ way, and as you can see you have boost::lexical_cast for free.
EDIT for your case:
template<typename T>
class Abstract {
public:
virtual void stream(std::ostream &) const = 0;
};
template<typename T>
std::ostream &operator<<(std::ostream &out,Abstract<T> const &obj)
{
obj.stream(out);
return out;
}
Now if you don't like boost::lexical_cast, implement string_cast as simple as
template<typename T>
std::string string_cast(T const &obj)
{
std::ostringstram ss;
ss<<obj;
return ss.str();
}
Related
I have an algorithm (not preseted here) which takes as input different parameters (int, float, vectors).
My idea of design was to have an container which holds all these differents parameters.
To achive this, I have a base class Parameter and a derivated template class TypeParameter.
These parameters will be holded in a container.
The design is presented below:
#pragma once
#include <utility>
#include <memory>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
namespace parameter
{
/*
Interface for parameter
*/
class Parameter
{
public:
Parameter() {}
Parameter(std::string param_name) : name(param_name) {}
Parameter(const Parameter&& other) noexcept : name(std::move(other.name)) {}
virtual ~Parameter() {}
inline const std::string get_name() { return name; }
private:
std::string name;
};
/*
*/
template<class T>
class TypeParameter
: public Parameter
{
public:
TypeParameter(std::string param_name, T new_value) : Parameter(param_name), value(new_value) {}
TypeParameter(const TypeParameter&& other) noexcept : Parameter(std::move(other)), value(std::move(other.T)) {}
inline const T get_value() { return value; }
private:
T value;
};
/*
Container for parameters
*/
class ParameterSet
{
public:
ParameterSet() {}
void add(std::unique_ptr<Parameter> param) { data.push_back(std::move(param)); }
private:
std::vector <std::unique_ptr<Parameter>> data;
};
} //namespace parameter
The main is:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include "Parameter.h"
using parameter::TypeParameter;
using parameter::Parameter;
using parameter::ParameterSet;
void foo(std::unique_ptr<Parameter> p)
{
std::cout << p->get_value(); // ERROR
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
TypeParameter<int> *iparam = new TypeParameter<int>("ee", 3);
std::unique_ptr<Parameter> p = std::make_unique <TypeParameter<int>>("foo", 3);
foo(std::move(p));
ParameterSet param_set;
param_set.add(std::unique_ptr<Parameter>(iparam));
param_set.add(std::move(p));
getchar();
}
My problem is I cannot get the value without a cast.
Hence, my question is how do I cast the unique_ptr from a Parameter class to derived TypeParameter.
Is there another way to design the container?
Thanks a lot!
You don't have to reinvent the wheel. There are a couple of classes you can use from the standard library:
std::variant.
As suggested by the comments, variant is a type-safe union of a pre-defined set of data types, which you put in the templates argument of variant.
For example, a std::variant<int,float,double> can hold any value of type int, float, or double, but nothing else.
To use the stored value, you can either use the visitor pattern with the std::visit() function. Other functions allow you to know which of the preset types is stored in the variable (index()) and to extract the value from it (using get()). If you try to extract the value of the wrong type, the get() function throws an exception
std::any
is another utility that can hold different data types. As opposed to variant, you don't have to know the types at compile-time. Basically, it stores a void* to the data with a typeinfo to remember its original type. You can then use any_cast to cast the variable back to its original type. Just like variant, an exception is thrown when trying to cast to the wrong type.
These two classes are available in C++ 17. If these features are not available to you, they were also included in boost (respectively boost:variant and boost:any)
You can store the set of values in a standard library container, e.g. in a std::vector<std::variant<int,float,double>> or a std::vector<std::any>>.
Alternative to std::variant/std::any is the old way polymorphism:
class Parameter
{
public:
Parameter(const std::string& param_name) : name(param_name) {}
virtual ~Parameter() = default;
const std::string& get_name() const { return name; }
virtual void printValue() const = 0;
// Other virtual methods
private:
std::string name;
};
template<class T>
class TypeParameter : public Parameter
{
public:
TypeParameter(const std::string& name, const T& t) : Parameter(name), value(t) {}
// Non virtual method when we don't access it by base class.
const T& get_value() const { return value; }
void printValue() const { std::cout << value; }
private:
T value;
};
And then your
void foo(const Parameter& p)
{
std::cout << p.get_value(); // ERROR
}
becomes
void foo(const Parameter& p)
{
p.print();
}
If you don't want to add many virtual methods to Parameter, then Visitor pattern can help, but then you have to know each derived types.
The relevant code is :
std::fstream fout("Logs.txt");
class Logs;
typedef std::ostream& (*ostream_manipulator2)(std::ostream&);
class LogsOutput
{
public:
LogsOutput() {}
~LogsOutput() {}
Logs * pLogs;
friend LogsOutput& operator<<(LogsOutput &logsClass, std::string &strArg);
friend LogsOutput& operator<<(LogsOutput &logsClass, const char *strArg);
friend LogsOutput& operator<<(LogsOutput &logsClass, ostream_manipulator2 pf);
friend LogsOutput& operator<<(LogsOutput &logsClass, uint64_t number);
};
LogsOutput *pLogsOutput;
template <typename T>
T& LOUToutput()
{
if (pLogsOutput)
{
return (*pLogsOutput);
}
else
return fout;
}
I would like to call this function as such :
LOUToutput () << "Print this line " << std::endl;
Sometimes however the LogsOutput class isn't created, therefore dereferencing its pointer would crash in which case i would rather output to file instead.
I understand that the compiler cannot tell at compile time whether the LogsOutput class will be instantiated or not and thus cannot deduce the type of the template, but I don't see any other way I could make it work.
So my question is how can my function return a different type based on a run time condition ?
The complex solution to this is to use inheritance. If you were to inherit from std::ostream, you could return a common base class (Here is a discussion if you are interested: How to inherit from std::ostream?)
The simpler solution, imo., is to return a proxy class that redirects output as necessary.
struct LogProxy {
LogsOutput *pLog;
// ...
LogProxy &operator<<(std::string &o) {
if(pLogsOutput) {
*pLog << o;
} else {
// Assuming this is available as a global.. You probably don't want to do that
fout << o;
}
return *this;
}
// ....
};
LogProxy LOUToutput() {
return LogProxy { pLogsOutput; };
}
A few other general comments:
If you want to use templates you would need to make this a compile time condition. You could use something like std::enable_if<> to provide multiple template overloads of LOUToutput() which choose at compile time where to log to.
I'm guessing it was just for the purposes of posting to SO, but your code has multiple globals declared in a header file. You'll need to fix that.
There are no const declarations on your code. A lot of those operators look like they should at least be declared const on their output (string,.etc.) parameters.
EDIT: Here is a working (compiles correctly) sample of this idea:
#include <iostream>
struct PRXY {
bool cond;
const PRXY &operator<<(const std::string &t) const {
if(cond) {
std::cout << t;
} else {
std::cerr << t;
}
return *this;
}
};
PRXY pr(bool cond) {
return PRXY { cond };
}
void test() {
pr(false) << "Hello";
}
I'm using a third party C++ library which has a json parsing class that has
different functions like this:
GetInt
GetBool
GetString
GetDouble
I'd like to write a utility function that can access this class. I'm thinking of something like this:
class <template T>
class MyClass {
static T getValue(ThirdPartyClass someObj, const string &key) {
if(someObj[key].IsDouble())
return someObj[key].GetDouble();
else if (someObj[key].IsString())
return someObj[key].GetString();
// ... (for other types)
}
}
The caller of this class will hold the correct return type.
However this is ugly. Is there any way (using macro substitution for example) I can avoid the if conditions? The third party class has IsXXTypeXX and corresponding GetXXTypeXX functions (where XXTypeXX is Int, Double,String or Bool).
I know the return type when I call the function for eg:
int i = getValue(someObj, "intKey");
string s = getValue(someObj, "strKey");
So I dont need the if conditions at all. Ideally I would look to have something so
I would be able to do this:
int i = MyClass<int>::getValue(someObj, "intKey");
string s = MyClass<string>::getValue(someObj, "strKey");
Why not just write a bunch of static Get functions (GetInt/GetDouble...) that validates the input, returns the appropriate type result and throws an exception if it isn't that type?
Technically you can achieve the public interface that you've outlined there but that would involve very ugly looking template specialization.
It would probably be better if you just had a bunch of static functions instead. Here is what template specialization would look like:
template <typename T> class MyClass {
static T getValue(ThirdPartyClass someObj, const string &key) {
// handle types that you didn't specialize for
}
};
template <> class MyClass <string> {
static string getValue(ThirdPartyClass someObj, const string &key) {
return someObj[key].GetString();
}
};
template <> class MyClass <int> {
static int getValue(ThirdPartyClass someObj, const string &key) {
return someObj[key].GetInt();
}
};
//..
Skeleton key for software engineering: add an intermediate layer.
#include <string>
#include <cassert>
using std::string;
class Proxy {
public:
enum Type {
Int,
Bool,
String,
Double
};
Type type;
int i;
bool b;
string s;
double d;
operator int() const {
assert(type == Int);
return i;
}
operator bool() const {
assert(type == Bool);
return b;
}
operator string() const {
assert(type == String);
return s;
}
operator double() const {
assert(type == Double);
return d;
}
Proxy(int i) : type(Int), i(i) {}
Proxy(bool b) : type(Bool), b(b) {}
Proxy(string s) : type(String), s(s) {}
Proxy(double d) : type(Double), d(d) {}
}; // class Proxy
Proxy getValue(ThirdPartyClass someObj, const string &key) {
if (someObj[key].IsDouble())
return someObj[key].GetDouble();
else if (someObj[key].IsString())
return someObj[key].GetString();
//... (for other types)
}
int main() {
int i = getValue(someObj, "intKey"); // if type does not match, a exception will be thrown.
string s = getValue(someObj, "strKey");
}
The code you showed won't compile. You can't in the same function return a double, a string, and an int. What you'd have to do it specialize for each return type, and then call only the function for that type:
template <>
class MyClass<int> getValue(ThirdPartyClass someObj, const string& key) {
if(someOjb[key].IsInt()) return someObj[key].GetInt();
else { /* Maybe throw an exception */ }
};
and repeat for each type.
Now, you're probably thinking, "this is silly, how come I have to specialize each type?" That's because your JSON library is using type erasure, so you have to check the type at runtime. The only way to save yourself the work is if the library provides a templated get.
If you want, you could create a macro to stamp these instantiations out. It would take advantage of the # (stringification) and ## (concatenation) features of the preprocessor. It'll probably be clearer to just write them out.
Note: I know similar questions to this have been asked on SO before, but I did not find them helpful or very clear.
Second note: For the scope of this project/assignment, I'm trying to avoid third party libraries, such as Boost.
I am trying to see if there is a way I can have a single vector hold multiple types, in each of its indices. For example, say I have the following code sample:
vector<something magical to hold various types> vec;
int x = 3;
string hi = "Hello World";
MyStruct s = {3, "Hi", 4.01};
vec.push_back(x);
vec.push_back(hi);
vec.push_back(s);
I've heard vector<void*> could work, but then it gets tricky with memory allocation and then there is always the possibility that certain portions in nearby memory could be unintentionally overridden if a value inserted into a certain index is larger than expected.
In my actual application, I know what possible types may be inserted into a vector, but these types do not all derive from the same super class, and there is no guarantee that all of these types will be pushed onto the vector or in what order.
Is there a way that I can safely accomplish the objective I demonstrated in my code sample?
Thank you for your time.
The objects hold by the std::vector<T> need to be of a homogenous type. If you need to put objects of different type into one vector you need somehow erase their type and make them all look similar. You could use the moral equivalent of boost::any or boost::variant<...>. The idea of boost::any is to encapsulate a type hierarchy, storing a pointer to the base but pointing to a templatized derived. A very rough and incomplete outline looks something like this:
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
class any
{
private:
struct base {
virtual ~base() {}
virtual base* clone() const = 0;
};
template <typename T>
struct data: base {
data(T const& value): value_(value) {}
base* clone() const { return new data<T>(*this); }
T value_;
};
base* ptr_;
public:
template <typename T> any(T const& value): ptr_(new data<T>(value)) {}
any(any const& other): ptr_(other.ptr_->clone()) {}
any& operator= (any const& other) {
any(other).swap(*this);
return *this;
}
~any() { delete this->ptr_; }
void swap(any& other) { std::swap(this->ptr_, other.ptr_); }
template <typename T>
T& get() {
return dynamic_cast<data<T>&>(*this->ptr_).value_;
}
};
int main()
{
any a0(17);
any a1(3.14);
try { a0.get<double>(); } catch (...) {}
a0 = a1;
std::cout << a0.get<double>() << "\n";
}
As suggested you can use various forms of unions, variants, etc. Depending on what you want to do with your stored objects, external polymorphism could do exactly what you want, if you can define all necessary operations in a base class interface.
Here's an example if all we want to do is print the objects to the console:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
#include <memory>
class any_type
{
public:
virtual ~any_type() {}
virtual void print() = 0;
};
template <class T>
class concrete_type : public any_type
{
public:
concrete_type(const T& value) : value_(value)
{}
virtual void print()
{
std::cout << value_ << '\n';
}
private:
T value_;
};
int main()
{
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<any_type>> v(2);
v[0].reset(new concrete_type<int>(99));
v[1].reset(new concrete_type<std::string>("Bottles of Beer"));
for(size_t x = 0; x < 2; ++x)
{
v[x]->print();
}
return 0;
}
In order to do that, you'll definitely need a wrapper class to somehow conceal the type information of your objects from the vector.
It's probably also good to have this class throw an exception when you try to get Type-A back when you have previously stored a Type-B into it.
Here is part of the Holder class from one of my projects. You can probably start from here.
Note: due to the use of unrestricted unions, this only works in C++11. More information about this can be found here: What are Unrestricted Unions proposed in C++11?
class Holder {
public:
enum Type {
BOOL,
INT,
STRING,
// Other types you want to store into vector.
};
template<typename T>
Holder (Type type, T val);
~Holder () {
// You want to properly destroy
// union members below that have non-trivial constructors
}
operator bool () const {
if (type_ != BOOL) {
throw SomeException();
}
return impl_.bool_;
}
// Do the same for other operators
// Or maybe use templates?
private:
union Impl {
bool bool_;
int int_;
string string_;
Impl() { new(&string_) string; }
} impl_;
Type type_;
// Other stuff.
};
I have a "generator" class that basically constructs its subclass. To use this thing I simply subclass it and pass it the correct parameters to build the object I want built. I want to serialize these things and there's no good reason to do it for each subclass since all the data is in the base. Here's what I've got as example:
#include <boost/serialization/serialization.hpp>
template < typename T >
struct test_base
{
// works...
//template < typename Archive >
//void serialize(Archive &, unsigned int const)
// {
//}
};
template < typename T >
void f(test_base<T> const&) {}
struct test_derived : test_base<int>
{
};
namespace boost { namespace serialization {
template < typename Archive, typename T >
void serialize(Archive &, test_base<T> &, unsigned int const)
{
}
}}
#include <boost/archive/binary_oarchive.hpp>
#include <sstream>
int main()
{
int x = 5;
test_derived d;
//boost::serialization::serialize(x, d, 54); // <- works.
std::ostringstream str;
boost::archive::binary_oarchive out(str);
out & d; // no worky.
}
I want the free version to work if possible. Is it?
Version above pukes up error about serialize not being a member of test_derived.
Clarification why the problem happens:
boost::serialization has to ways of implementing the serialize function. As class method or (in your case) the non-intrusive way of defining a function in the boost::serialization namespace.
So the compiler has to somehow decide which implementation to choose. For that reason boost has a 'default' implementation of the boost::serialization::serialize template function.
Signature:
template<class Archive, class T>
inline void serialize(Archive & ar, T & t, const BOOST_PFTO unsigned int file_version)
Within that function there is a call to T::serialize(...). So when you don't want the intusive version you have to override the boost::serialization::serialize function with something more explicit than the default function-template.
Now the problem: In your case the compiler has to decide if it
a) chooses the version where a parameter has to be casted implicit (test_derived& to test_base&)
b) use the generic function without casting (T is test_derived&)
You want the compiler to use variant a) but the compiler prefers b)
Solution:
I don't know a really good solution. I think i would go with a macro which generates implementations of serialize(...) with the explicit type.
If that isn't a possible solution for you, you could also tell the compiler more explicit what to call:
out & *((test_base<int>*)&d);
and wrap it in some helper function (because no one wants to look at such code all the day)
I hope that is a clear description and helps
In case my explanation was not clear, here is an example:
#include <iostream>
class Base
{
public:
virtual ~Base()
{
}
};
class Derived : public Base
{
public:
virtual ~Derived()
{
}
};
void foo(Base& bar)
{
std::cout << "special" << std::endl;
}
template<typename T>
void foo(T& bar)
{
std::cout << "generic" << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
Derived derived;
foo(derived); // => call to generic implementation
foo(*((Base*) &bla)); // => call to special
return 0;
}