Is there a pattern where I can inherit enum from another enum in C++??
Something like that:
enum eBase
{
one=1, two, three
};
enum eDerived: public eBase
{
four=4, five, six
};
#include <iostream>
#include <ostream>
class Enum
{
public:
enum
{
One = 1,
Two,
Last
};
};
class EnumDeriv : public Enum
{
public:
enum
{
Three = Enum::Last,
Four,
Five
};
};
int main()
{
std::cout << EnumDeriv::One << std::endl;
std::cout << EnumDeriv::Four << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Not possible. There is no inheritance with enums.
You can instead use classes with named const ints.
Example:
class Colors
{
public:
static const int RED = 1;
static const int GREEN = 2;
};
class RGB : public Colors
{
static const int BLUE = 10;
};
class FourColors : public Colors
{
public:
static const int ORANGE = 100;
static const int PURPLE = 101;
};
You can't do that directly, but you could try to use solution from this article.
The main idea is to use the helper template class which holds enum values and has the type cast operator. Considering that the underlying type for enum is int you can use this holder class seamlessly in your code instead of the enum.
Unfortunately it is not possible in C++14. I hope we will have such a language feature in C++17. As you already got few workarounds for your problem I won't provide a solution.
I would like to point out that the wording should be "extension" not "inheritance". The extension allows for more values (as you're jumping from 3 to 6 values in your example) whereas inheritance means putting more constraints to a given base class so the set of possibilities shrinks. Therefore, potential casting would work exactly opposite from inheritance. You can cast derived class to the base class and not vice-verse with class inheritance. But when having extensions you "should" be able to cast the base class to its extension and not vice-verse. I am saying "should" because, as I said such a language feature still doesn't exist.
How about this? Ok an instance is created for every possible value, but besides that its very flexible. Are there any downsides?
.h:
class BaseEnum
{
public:
static const BaseEnum ONE;
static const BaseEnum TWO;
bool operator==(const BaseEnum& other);
protected:
BaseEnum() : i(maxI++) {}
const int i;
static int maxI;
};
class DerivedEnum : public BaseEnum
{
public:
static const DerivedEnum THREE;
};
.cpp:
int BaseEnum::maxI = 0;
bool BaseEnum::operator==(const BaseEnum& other) {
return i == other.i;
}
const BaseEnum BaseEnum::ONE;
const BaseEnum BaseEnum::TWO;
const DerivedEnum DerivedEnum::THREE;
Usage:
BaseEnum e = DerivedEnum::THREE;
if (e == DerivedEnum::THREE) {
std::cerr << "equal" << std::endl;
}
As stated by bayda, enum's don't (and/or shouldn't) have functionality, so I've taken the following approach to your quandary by adapting Mykola Golubyev's response:
typedef struct
{
enum
{
ONE = 1,
TWO,
LAST
};
}BaseEnum;
typedef struct : public BaseEnum
{
enum
{
THREE = BaseEnum::LAST,
FOUR,
FIVE
};
}DerivedEnum;
You can use a project SuperEnum to create extendable enumerations.
/*** my_enum.h ***/
class MyEnum: public SuperEnum<MyEnum>
{
public:
MyEnum() {}
explicit MyEnum(const int &value): SuperEnum(value) {}
static const MyEnum element1;
static const MyEnum element2;
static const MyEnum element3;
};
/*** my_enum.cpp ***/
const MyEnum MyEnum::element1(1);
const MyEnum MyEnum::element2;
const MyEnum MyEnum::element3;
/*** my_enum2.h ***/
class MyEnum2: public MyEnum
{
public:
MyEnum2() {}
explicit MyEnum2(const int &value): MyEnum(value) {}
static const MyEnum2 element4;
static const MyEnum2 element5;
};
/*** my_enum2.cpp ***/
const MyEnum2 MyEnum2::element4;
const MyEnum2 MyEnum2::element5;
/*** main.cpp ***/
std::cout << MyEnum2::element3;
// Output: 3
Kind of hacky but this is what I came up with if dealing with scoped enums:
enum class OriginalType {
FOO, // 0
BAR // 1
END // 2
};
enum class ExtendOriginalType : std::underlying_type_t<OriginalType> {
EXTENDED_FOO = static_cast<std::underlying_type_t<OriginalType>>
(OriginalType::END), // 2
EXTENDED_BAR // 3
};
and then use like:
OriginalType myOriginalType = (OriginalType)ExtendOriginalType::EXTENDED_BAR;
This answer is a variant of Brian R. Bondy answer. Since has been requested in a comment I'm adding it as answer. I'm not pointing about if it really worths though.
#include <iostream>
class Colors
{
public:
static Colors RED;
static Colors GREEN;
operator int(){ return value; }
operator int() const{ return value; }
protected:
Colors(int v) : value{v}{}
private:
int value;
};
Colors Colors::RED{1};
Colors Colors::GREEN{2};
class RGB : public Colors
{
public:
static RGB BLUE;
private:
RGB(int v) : Colors(v){}
};
RGB RGB::BLUE{10};
int main ()
{
std::cout << Colors::RED << " " << RGB::RED << std::endl;
}
Live at Coliru
Well, if you'll define enum with the same name in derived class and start it from last item of correspondent enum in base class, you'll receive almost what you want - inherited enum.
Look at this code:
class Base
{
public:
enum ErrorType
{
GeneralError,
NoMemory,
FileNotFound,
LastItem,
};
};
class Inherited: public Base
{
public:
enum ErrorType
{
SocketError = Base::LastItem,
NotEnoughBandwidth,
};
};
Impossible.
But you can define the enum anonymously in a class, then add additional enum constants in derived classes.
My Solution is similar to some above, except that I wanted to return in my functions like an enum (constructor that takes the STATUS_ENUM value), and compare like an enum (operators that compare the STATUS_ENUM value to the class). I also wanted a clean way of using the base class without having to cast and check things (operator override). Lastly I wanted to make sure that only the type I specify can construct the class (deleted template).
struct StatusReturn
{
/**
* Use this to communicate trigger conditions internally to the caller.
* - Extend this class with a child who adds more static const STATUS_ENUM values as options.
* - When checking the return simply compare with != or == and the class will handle the rest.
* - This is true for a base class and a derived value, since this base class holds the value.
*/
typedef int STATUS_ENUM;
StatusReturn() = delete;
template <typename T>
StatusReturn(T) = delete;
StatusReturn(STATUS_ENUM value): _value(value) {};
// Operator overloads to compare the int to the class
friend bool operator==(const StatusReturn & lhs, const STATUS_ENUM & rhs)
{ return lhs.getValue() == rhs; };
friend bool operator!=(const StatusReturn & lhs, const STATUS_ENUM & rhs)
{ return !(lhs == rhs); };
friend bool operator==(const STATUS_ENUM & lhs, const StatusReturn & rhs)
{ return lhs == rhs.getValue(); };
friend bool operator!=(const STATUS_ENUM & lhs, const StatusReturn & rhs)
{ return !(lhs == rhs); };
// Non-exit triggering return
static const STATUS_ENUM CONTINUE = -1;
// Exit triggering values
static const STATUS_ENUM FAILED = 0;
static const STATUS_ENUM SUCCESS = 1;
static const STATUS_ENUM HALTED = 2;
STATUS_ENUM getValue() const
{ return _value; };
protected:
STATUS_ENUM _value = CONTINUE;
};
Some examples of use:
StatusReturn shouldExit()
{
return successBool ? StatusReturn::SUCCESS : StatusReturn::CONTINUE;
}
Which when called looks like:
auto exitValue = shouldExit();
if (exitValue != StatusReturn::CONTINUE)
{
return exitValue;
}
Then a check of a derived class is as such:
auto exitValue = shouldExit();
if (exitValue != DerivedReturn::DO_STUFF)
{
return exitValue;
}
Here, since DO_STUFF is also a STATUS_ENUM type, the operators just work without any explicit casting.
enum xx {
ONE = 1,
TWO,
xx_Done
};
enum yy {
THREE = xx_Done,
FOUR,
};
typedef int myenum;
static map<myenum,string>& mymap() {
static map<myenum,string> statmap;
statmap[ONE] = "One";
statmap[TWO] = "Two";
statmap[THREE] = "Three";
statmap[FOUR] = "Four";
return statmap;
}
Usage:
std::string s1 = mymap()[ONE];
std::string s4 = mymap()[FOUR];
Related
I want to create a class which behaves a certain way - e.g. spits out certain values from a function double getValue(const int& x) const - based on a "type" that was passed into its constructor. Right now I have two methods:
Store the passed-in "type" and then evaluate a switch statement in getValue each time it is called in order to decide which implementation to use.
Use a switch statement on the passed-in "type" (in the constructor) to create an internal object that represents the desired implementation. So no switch required anymore in getValue itself.
Method 1 "appears" inefficient as switch is called every time I call getValue. Method 2 seems somewhat clunky as I need to utilise <memory> and it also makes copying/assigning my class non-trivial.
Are there any other cleaner methods to tackle a problem like this?
Code Example:
#include <memory>
enum class ImplType { Simple1, Simple2 /* more cases */ };
class MyClass1
{
private:
const ImplType implType;
public:
MyClass1(const ImplType& implType) : implType(implType) { }
double getValue(const int& x) const
{
switch (implType)
{
case ImplType::Simple1: return 1; /* some implemention */
case ImplType::Simple2: return 2; /* some implemention */
}
}
};
class MyClass2
{
private:
struct Impl { virtual double getValue(const int& x) const = 0; };
struct ImplSimple1 : Impl { double getValue(const int& x) const override { return 1; /* some implemention */ } };
struct ImplSimple2 : Impl { double getValue(const int& x) const override { return 2; /* some implemention */ } };
const std::unique_ptr<Impl> impl;
public:
MyClass2(const ImplType& implType) : impl(std::move(createImplPtr(implType))) { }
static std::unique_ptr<Impl> createImplPtr(const ImplType& implType)
{
switch (implType)
{
case ImplType::Simple1: return std::make_unique<ImplSimple1>();
case ImplType::Simple2: return std::make_unique<ImplSimple2>();
}
}
double getValue(const int& x) const { return impl->getValue(x); }
};
int main()
{
MyClass1 my1(ImplType::Simple1);
MyClass2 my2(ImplType::Simple1);
return 0;
}
Your code is basically mimicing a virtual method (sloppy speaking: same interface but implementation is chosen at runtime), hence your code can be much cleaner if you actually do use a virtual method:
#include <memory>
struct base {
virtual double getValue(const int& x) const = 0;
};
struct impl1 : base {
double getValue(const int& x) { return 1.0; }
};
struct impl2 : base {
double getValue(const int& x) { return 2.0; }
};
// ... maybe more...
enum select { impl1s, impl2s };
base* make_impl( select s) {
if (s == impl1s) return new impl1();
if (s == impl2s) return new impl2();
}
int main() {
std::shared_ptr<base> x{ make_impl(impl1) };
}
Not sure if this is what you are looking for. By the way, using <memory> should not make you feel "clunky", but instead you should feel proud that we have such awesome tools in c++ ;).
EDIT: If you dont want the user to work with (smart-)pointers then wrap the above in just another class:
struct foo {
shared_ptr<base> impl;
foo( select s) : impl( make_impl(s) ) {}
double getValue(const int& x) { return impl.getValue(x); }
};
now a user can do
int main() {
auto f1 { impl1s };
auto f2 { impl2s };
f1.getValue(1);
f2.getValue(2);
}
If you have a closed set of types you can choose from, you want std::variant:
using MyClass = std::variant<MyClass1, MyClass2, MyClass3, /* ... */>;
It doesn't use dynamic allocation - it's basically a type-safe modern alternative to union.
More object-oriented approach:
class Interface
{
public:
virtual int getValue() = 0;
};
class GetValueImplementation1 : public Interface
{
public:
int getValue() {return 1;}
};
class GetValueImplementation2 : public Interface
{
public:
int getValue() {return 2;}
};
class GeneralClass
{
public:
GeneralClass(Interface *interface) : interface(interface) {}
~GeneralClass()
{
if (interface)
delete interface;
}
int getValue() { return interface->getValue(); }
private:
Interface *interface;
};
So, in this case you can use it without any pointers:
int main()
{
GeneralClass obj1(new GetValueImplementation1());
GeneralClass obj2(new GetValueImplementation2());
cout << obj1.getValue() << " " << obj2.getValue();
return 0;
}
The output will be:
1 2
But in the case you should be careful with null pointers or use smart ones inside GeneralClass.
Assume I have a class A that I want to store in an unordered_set with custom hasher and comparer. I also have a container class B that stores this set:
class B {
private:
std::unordered_set<A, Hasher, Comparer> set;
};
To make this compile I would have to make B a template class, which I want to avoid, as this would lead to some major refactoring and actually moves this problem just a layer up where I would then have to handle template parameters for B.
Next I tried to make class that specialize the set:
class MySet1 : public std::unordered_set<A, MyHasher1, MyComparer1> {
};
class MySet2 : public std::unordered_set<A, MyHasher2, MyComparer2> {
};
Obviously that doesn't help as I still have no common base class for my set var in class B.
To solve this I moved down the unordered set one level:
class MySet {
public:
// Some abstract functions...
};
class MySet1 : public MySet {
public:
// Implementation of the abstract functions.
private:
std::unordered_set<A, MyHasher1, MyComparer1> set;
};
class MySet2 : public MySet {
public:
// Implementation of the abstract functions.
private:
std::unordered_set<A, MyHasher2, MyComparer2> set;
};
Now I have a common base class (MySet) for class B. But the obvious disadvantages are: code duplication for each set specialization and I would have to imlement custom iterators to make the sets work with the STL. Here's were I stopped and asked myself if there's a better way to accomplish what I actually want: store different unordered_set classes in the same member var without the need to make the owner of that var templated as well.
Main idea
You can happily employ multiple inheritance here.
The main idea is: create a base class tagging your sets and make it a base class for all your sets. Then explicitly instantiate the set class for each template arguments you need, creating an empty class inherited publicly from both the set container and your tagging interface. Then you'll have nothing to add, no code duplication seems to be needed.
Anyway, you'll need to create some (maybe virtual) functions that will work for all template specializations. We'll need to be able to use a single variable in the same context regardless of what it holds. But you can try reduce some code with more using declarations due to inheritance and use implicit type conversion (e.g. if your sets contain numbers only).
#include <set>
class setInterface {
/* Code common for all set template specializations
(you have to have some common interface anyway) */
};
template <typename T> class TSet: public setInterface, std::set<T> {
using std::set<T>::set;
/* more using-declarations or templated versions of some functions
You can use SFINAE here to achieve more magical results,
or use template specializations for specific types. */
};
using intSet = TSet<int>;
using doubleSet = TSet<double>;
class B {
public:
setInterface values;
};
int main () {
B b;
b.values = intSet {1, 2, 3} ;
b.values = doubleSet {1., 2., 3.};
}
PS: thanks go to #Jarod42 for the template using syntax.
A working implementation
The following assumptions have been made:
We will use only the sets with items convertible to long long. We can use void* in general case and add some additional methods for convenience/safety.
We are sane and will never compare iterators of differently typed sets. The results will be unpredictable.
We don't need to check pointers for nullptrs (well, it will bring no more value in my code sample, sure in real world you always need).
The solution is able to iterate over the map using non-const begin/ends and using the new shiny range-based for. See the main; compile and run it (-std=c++14) to see the result.
#include <set>
#include <memory>
#include <iostream>
using common_denominator_type = long long;
class setInterface {
protected:
class iterator_impl;
public:
class iterator {
public:
iterator (iterator_impl* impl) : impl (impl) {}
iterator& operator++ () { ++*impl; return *this; };
bool operator != (const iterator& rhs) const { return *impl != *rhs.impl; };
common_denominator_type operator* () const { return **impl; };
private:
std::shared_ptr <iterator_impl> impl;
};
virtual iterator begin() = 0;
virtual iterator end() = 0;
virtual size_t size() const = 0;
protected:
class iterator_impl {
public:
virtual iterator_impl& operator++ () = 0;
virtual bool operator != (const iterator_impl&) const = 0;
virtual common_denominator_type operator* () const = 0;
virtual void* as_std_set_iterator () = 0;
virtual const void* as_std_set_iterator () const = 0;
};
};
template <typename T> class TSet: public setInterface, std::set<T> {
public:
using std::set<T>::set;
size_t size () const override { return std::set<T>::size(); }
iterator begin () override { return iterator (new TSet<T>::iterator_impl (std::set<T>::begin())); }
iterator end () override { return iterator (new TSet<T>::iterator_impl (std::set<T>::end ())); }
protected:
class iterator_impl: public setInterface::iterator_impl {
public:
using std_it = typename std::set<T>::iterator;
iterator_impl (std_it&& _) : m_real_iterator(std::move (_)) {}
iterator_impl& operator++ () override { ++m_real_iterator; return *this; }
bool operator != (const setInterface::iterator_impl& rhs) const override {
return *reinterpret_cast <const std_it*>(as_std_set_iterator())
!=
*reinterpret_cast <const std_it*>(rhs.as_std_set_iterator());
}
common_denominator_type operator* () const override { return *m_real_iterator; }
void* as_std_set_iterator () override { return &m_real_iterator; }
const void* as_std_set_iterator () const override { return &m_real_iterator; }
private:
std_it m_real_iterator;
};
};
using intSet = TSet<int>;
using longSet = TSet<long>;
class B {
public:
std::shared_ptr <setInterface> values;
};
std::ostream& operator<< (std::ostream& str, B& b) {
str << "[" << b.values->size() << "] [";
for (auto i = b.values->begin(); i != b.values->end(); ++i)
str << *i << " ";
str << "][";
for (auto i : *b.values)
str << i << " ";
return str << "]";
}
int main () {
B b;
b.values.reset (new intSet {1, 2, 3});
std::cout << b << std::endl;
b.values.reset (new longSet {10l, 20l, 30l});
std::cout << b << std::endl;
}
Its been a while for C++, I have a class Number and several subclasses like Integer, Decimal.. I would like to override == operator to compare when two nums are numerically equal... I have something like the following, but can't seem to figure out the syntax for subclass inheriting from template class as well as syntax for overriding == operator in subclass...
template class <T>
class Number{
T data;
Number(T num) { data = num ;}
boolean operator==(T &other){ return data == other; }
}
class Integer : public Number{
int iData;
Integer(int i) { iData = i ; }
boolean operator==(Integer &other){ return idata == other.iData; }
}
You need to specify a specialization, like Number<int>. Otherwise you cannot inherit from a template, unless your derived class is a template itself. There are some other errors in your code, like the ones mentioned in the comments, as well as the operator== operator, which should take const Number<T>& as a parameter. So in your case use e.g.
class Integer : public Number<int>
Once you do this, there is no need anymore for implementing the operator== in the derived class, since it will be inherited. Full working code below:
#include <iostream>
template <class T>
class Number
{
public:
T data;
Number(T num): data(num){}
bool operator==(const Number<T> &other) { return data == other.data; }
};
class Integer : public Number<int>
{
using Number<int>::Number; // inherit the constructor
};
int main()
{
Integer i1 = 10, i2 = 20;
std::cout << std::boolalpha << (i1 == i2);
}
Live on Coliru
either
template<class T>
class Integer : public Number<T> {
or
class Integer : public Number<int> {
depending on if you want Integer to be a template too or not
Use
template<class T>
class Number{
T data;
Number(T num) { data = num ;}
boolean operator==(T &other){ return data == other; }
};
template<typename T>
class Integer : public Number<T> {
int iData;
Integer(int i) { iData = i ; }
boolean operator==(Integer &other){ return idata == other.iData; }
}
For example, I have a base class A and its sub-classes B, C and so on. B and C can also has its sub-classes. The structure is a tree with root A. And each class in the tree is assigned a different integer to identify itself. There is no restriction on the integer id's values and orders. Just make sure they are different for different classes.
My question is how to do it smartly (or automatically) by using like template techniques since manual assignment is error-prone. Any way to get the id is fine, like
class A
{
public:
static const id = ...;
};
or
template<class A>
struct Id
{
enum { value = ... };
};
Easiest way is just a function
int nextId() {
static int rval = 1;
return rval++;
}
class A { public: static const id = nextId(); };
class B { public: static const id = nextId(); };
class C { public: static const id = nextId(); };
That will work so long as you do not need to use the IDs in dynamic initialization at the start of the program.
Edit: if that is not sufficient, the next step up is to do the same thing with static variables in a template. This works across compilation units, but is still dynamic initialization time.
template <typename DummyT = void>
struct CommonCounter
{
public:
static int nextId() {
static int rval = 1;
return rval ++;
}
};
template <typename T>
struct IdFor
{
static int value()
{
static int rval = CommonCounter<>::nextId();
return rval;
}
};
class A { public: static const id = IdFor<A>::get(); };
You could do something like this. This should give the same order on the same compiler. You could also modify how you key things to get a known order and detect problems at initialisation time. Simple implementation, not tested.
#include <typeinfo>
class A {
public:
virtual ~A();
static void register_type(std::type_info const& t);
int id() const;
};
template<class T>
struct DoInitA
{
DoInitA() { A::register_type(typeid(T)); }
};
class B : public A
{
static DoInitA<B> s_a_init;
public:
~B() { }
};
//
// Implementation file.
//
#include <vector>
#include <functional>
namespace {
struct TypeinfoLess {
typedef std::reference_wrapper<const std::type_info> value_type;
bool operator()(value_type const& lhs, value_type const& rhs) const {
return lhs.get().before(rhs.get());
}
};
}
typedef std::vector<std::reference_wrapper<const std::type_info>> TypeVector;
static TypeVector s_types;
static bool s_init_complete = false;
A::~A() { }
void A::register_type(std::type_info const& t)
{
static int s_counter = 0;
if (s_init_complete)
throw std::runtime_error("Late initialisation");
s_types.push_back(std::reference_wrapper<const std::type_info>(t));
}
int A::id() const
{
if (!s_init_complete) {
sort(s_types.begin(), s_types.end(), TypeinfoLess());
s_init_complete = true;
}
for (size_t i = 0; i < s_types.size(); ++i)
if (s_types[i].get() == typeid(*this)) return i;
throw std::runtime_error("Uninitialised type");
}
There is a class definition and some bool functions which test some attributes
class MemCmd
{
friend class Packet;
public:
enum Command
{
InvalidCmd,
ReadReq,
ReadResp,
NUM_MEM_CMDS
};
private:
enum Attribute
{
IsRead,
IsWrite,
NeedsResponse,
NUM_COMMAND_ATTRIBUTES
};
struct CommandInfo
{
const std::bitset<NUM_COMMAND_ATTRIBUTES> attributes;
const Command response;
const std::string str;
};
static const CommandInfo commandInfo[];
private:
bool
testCmdAttrib(MemCmd::Attribute attrib) const
{
return commandInfo[cmd].attributes[attrib] != 0;
}
public:
bool isRead() const { return testCmdAttrib(IsRead); }
bool isWrite() const { return testCmdAttrib(IsWrite); }
bool needsResponse() const { return testCmdAttrib(NeedsResponse); }
};
The question is how can I set NeedsResponse to true or false prior to calling needsResponse()
Please note that attributes is of type std::bitset
UPDATE:
I wrote this function:
void
setCmdAttrib(MemCmd::Attribute attrib, bool flag)
{
commandInfo[cmd].attributes[attrib] = flag; // ERROR
}
void setNeedsResponse(bool flag) { setCmdAttrib(NeedsResponse, flag); }
But I get this error:
error: lvalue required as left operand of assignment
From the comments:
There are two problems here
Data members that are const must be initialized in the class constructor.
If the members are const there is no way to change them later.
So, initialize (at least) the members that are supposed to have a constant value. Remove const from the members you intend to change later.