Suppose you have a table widget class.
Do you do table.row(i).column(0).setText(students[i].surname())
or table[0][i] = students[i].surname()
the latter makes way less sense but the simplicity is so luring ;)
ditto for: table.row(0).column(0).setBackground(red)
vs: table[0][0].setBackground(red)
Note that Table::row returns a Table::Row, whose column function returns a Table::Cell, and Table::Cell provides either setText or op= (as well as setBackground).
Same for Table::op[] and Table::Row::op[].
Your thoughts?
As a less verbose alternative for many common cases, I would also provide something like this:
table.rowcol(i, j) = "blah"; // rowcol returns directly a cell
table.colrow(k, t).SetBackground(black);
Basically the name of the method just serves as a reminder on the order of the parameters.
Also, being a single method, you can perform better exception handling IMO.
The solution with Table::row() and Table::Row::column() methods is a bit more readable (in general) and allows you to unambiguously create a Table::column() method, Table::Column (proxy) class, and Table::Column::row() method later on, if that is ever needed. This solution also makes it easy to find all places where rows/columns are accessed, which is much harder when you use operator overloading.
As others pointed out however, the second solution is less typing and, in my opinion, not much worse in readability. (May even be more readable in certain situations.)
It's up to you to decide though, I'm just giving some implications of both solutions :-)
The second one. It carries just as much meaning as the first and is hugely easier to read and to type.(I don't really understand why you say it makes "way less sense".)
Actually you'd do neither of those. They are both buggy code and could lead to exceptions if there are no rows.
if(table.rows > 0)
{
var row = table.row[0];
if(row.columns > 0)
{
var col = row.column[0];
etc...
table.row(i).column(0)
This style is known as the Named Parameter Idiom. This makes it easy to reorder a set of calls in any way that pleases you as an alternative to positional parameters. However, this works provided each of the chained calls return the same original object. Of course, in your case you have a row object and a column object. So, there isn't much to gain here.
The ease of use of the second construct provides another compelling reason to choose the latter over the former.
There is not a way which is better than another. It depends on what you have to do with your data structure.
That said, for a simple table widget (assuming you are not coding a complex Excel-like application) I'd seek easy syntax instead of a more general interface.
So table[0][1] = "blah" would just work fine for me.
Related
I'm looking for a data structure which behaves similar to boost::property_tree but (optionally) leaves the get/set implementation for each value item to the developer.
You should be able to do something like this:
std::function<int(void)> f_foo = ...;
my_property_tree tree;
tree.register<int>("some.path.to.key", f_foo);
auto v1 = tree.get<int>("some.path.to.key"); // <-- calls f_foo
auto v2 = tree.get<int>("some.other.path"); // <-- some fallback or throws exception
I guess you could abuse property_tree for this but I haven't looked into the implementation yet and I would have a bad feeling about this unless I knew that this is an intended use case.
Writing a class that handles requests like val = tree.get("some.path.to.key") by calling a provided function doesn't look too hard in the first place but I can imagine a lot of special cases which would make this quite a bulky library.
Some extra features might be:
subtree-handling: not only handle terminal keys but forward certain subtrees to separate implementations. E.g.
tree.register("some.path.config", some_handler);
// calls some_handler.get<int>("network.hostname")
v = tree.get<int>("some.path.config.network.hostname");
search among values / keys
automatic type casting (like in boost::property_tree)
"path overloading", e.g. defaulting to a property_tree-implementation for paths without registered callback.
Is there a library that comes close to what I'm looking for? Has anyone made experiences with using boost::property_tree for this purpose? (E.g. by subclassing or putting special objects into the tree like described here)
After years of coding my own container classes I ended up just adopting QVariantMap. This way it pretty much behaves (and is as flexible as) python. Just one interface. Not for performance code though.
If you care to know, I really caved in for Qt as my de facto STL because:
Industry standard - used even in avionics and satellite software
It has been around for decades with little interface change (think about long term support)
It has excellent performance, awesome documentation and enormous user base.
Extensive feature set, way beyond the STL
Would an std::map do the job you are interested in?
Have you tried this approach?
I don't quite understand what you are trying to do. So please provide a domain example.
Cheers.
I have some home-cooked code that lets you register custom callbacks for each type in GitHub. It is quite basic and still missing most of the features you would like to have. I'm working on the second version, though. I'm finishing a helper structure that will do most of the job of making callbacks. Tell me if you're interested. Also, you could implement some of those features yourself, as the code to register callbacks is already done. It shouldn't be so difficult.
Using only provided data structures:
First, getters and setters are not native features to c++ you need to call the method one way or another. To make such behaviour occur you can overload assignment operator. I assume you also want to store POD data in your data structure as well.
So without knowing the type of the data you're "get"ting, the only option I can think of is to use boost::variant. But still, you have some overloading to do, and you need at least one assignment.
You can check out the documentation. It's pretty straight-forward and easy to understand.
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_61_0/doc/html/variant/tutorial.html
Making your own data structures:
Alternatively, as Dani mentioned, you can come up with your own implementation and keep a register of overloaded methods and so on.
Best
So I have this huge tree that is basically a big switch/case with string keys and different function calls on one common object depending on the key and one piece of metadata.
Every entry basically looks like this
} else if ( strcmp(key, "key_string") == 0) {
((class_name*)object)->do_something();
} else if ( ...
where do_something can have different invocations, so I can't just use function pointers. Also, some keys require object to be cast to a subclass.
Now, if I were to code this in a higher level language, I would use a dictionary of lambdas to simplify this.
It occurred to me that I could use macros to simplify this to something like
case_call("key_string", class_name, do_something());
case_call( /* ... */ )
where case_call would be a macro that would expand this code to the first code snippet.
However, I am very much on the fence whether that would be considered good style. I mean, it would reduce typing work and improve the DRYness of the code, but then it really seems to abuse the macro system somewhat.
Would you go down that road, or rather type out the whole thing? And what would be your reasoning for doing so?
Edit
Some clarification:
This code is used as a glue layer between a simplified scripting API which accesses several different aspects of a C++ API as simple key-value properties. The properties are implemented in different ways in C++ though: Some have getter/setter methods, some are set in a special struct. Scripting actions reference C++ objects casted to a common base class. However, some actions are only available on certain subclasses and have to be cast down.
Further down the road, I may change the actual C++ API, but for the moment, it has to be regarded as unchangeable. Also, this has to work on an embedded compiler, so boost or C++11 are (sadly) not available.
I would suggest you slightly reverse the roles. You are saying that the object is already some class that knows how to handle a certain situation, so add a virtual void handle(const char * key) in your base class and let the object check in the implementation if it applies to it and do whatever is necessary.
This would not only eliminate the long if-else-if chain, but would also be more type safe and would give you more flexibility in handling those events.
That seems to me an appropriate use of macros. They are, after all, made for eliding syntactic repetition. However, when you have syntactic repetition, it’s not always the fault of the language—there are probably better design choices out there that would let you avoid this decision altogether.
The general wisdom is to use a table mapping keys to actions:
std::map<std::string, void(Class::*)()> table;
Then look up and invoke the action in one go:
object->*table[key]();
Or use find to check for failure:
const auto i = table.find(key);
if (i != table.end())
object->*(i->second)();
else
throw std::runtime_error(...);
But if as you say there is no common signature for the functions (i.e., you can’t use member function pointers) then what you actually should do depends on the particulars of your project, which I don’t know. It might be that a macro is the only way to elide the repetition you’re seeing, or it might be that there’s a better way of going about it.
Ask yourself: why do my functions take different arguments? Why am I using casts? If you’re dispatching on the type of an object, chances are you need to introduce a common interface.
Sometimes when fixing a defect in an existing code base I might (often out of laziness) decide to change a method from:
void
MyClass::foo(uint32_t aBar)
{
// Do something with aBar...
}
to:
void
MyClass::foo(uint32_t aBar, bool aSomeCondition)
{
if (aSomeCondition)
{
// Do something with aBar...
}
}
During a code review a colleague mentioned that a better approach would be to sub-class MyClass to provide this specialized functionality.
However, I would argue that as long as aSomeCondition doesn't violate the purpose or cohesion of MyClass it is an acceptable pattern to use. Only if the code became infiltrated with flags and if statements would inheritance be a better option, otherwise we would be potentially be entering architecture astronaut territory.
What's the tipping point here?
Note: I just saw this related answer which suggests that an enum may be a better
choice than a bool, but I think my question still applies in this case.
There is not only one solution for this kind of problem.
Boolean has a very low semantic. If you want to add in the future a new condition you will have to add a new parameter...
After four years of maintenance your method may have half a dozen of parameters, if these parameters are all boolean it is very nice trap for maintainers.
Enum is a good choice if cases are exclusive.
Enums can be easily migrated to a bit-mask or a context object.
Bit mask : C++ includes C language, you can use some plain old practices. Sometime a bit mask on an unsigned int is a good choice (but you loose type checking) and you can pass by mistake an incorrect mask. It is a convenient way to move smoothly from a boolean or an enum argument to this kind of pattern.
Bit mask can be migrated with some effort to a context-object. You may have to implement some kind of bitwise arithmetics such as operator | and operator & if you have to keep a buildtime compatibility.
Inheritence is sometime a good choice if the split of behavior is big and this behavior IS RELATED to the lifecycle of the instance. Note that you also have to use polymorphism and this is may slow down the method if this method is heavily used.
And finally inheritence induce change in all your factory code... And what will you do if you have several methods to change in an exclusive fashion ? You will clutter your code of specific classes...
In fact, I think that this generally not a very good idea.
Method split : Another solution is sometime to split the method in several private and provide two or more public methods.
Context object : C++ and C lack of named parameter can be bypassed by adding a context parameter. I use this pattern very often, especially when I have to pass many data across level of a complex framework.
class Context{
public:
// usually not a good idea to add public data member but to my opinion this is an exception
bool setup:1;
bool foo:1;
bool bar:1;
...
Context() : setup(0), foo(0), bar(0) ... {}
};
...
Context ctx;
ctx.setup = true; ...
MyObj.foo(ctx);
Note:
That this is also useful to minimize access (or use) of static data or query to singleton object, TLS ...
Context object can contain a lot more of caching data related to an algorithm.
...
I let your imagination run free...
Anti patterns
I add here several anti pattern (to prevent some change of signature):
*NEVER DO THIS *
*NEVER DO THIS * use a static int/bool for argument passing (some people that do that, and this is a nightmare to remove this kind of stuff). Break at least multithreading...
*NEVER DO THIS * add a data member to pass parameter to method.
Unfortunately, I don't think there is a clear answer to the problem (and it's one I encounter quite frequently in my own code). With the boolean:
foo( x, true );
the call is hard to understand .
With an enum:
foo( x, UseHigherAccuracy );
it is easy to understand but you tend to end up with code like this:
foo( x, something == someval ? UseHigherAccuracy : UseLowerAccuracy );
which is hardly an improvement. And with multiple functions:
if ( something == someval ) {
AccurateFoo( x );
}
else {
InaccurateFoo( x );
}
you end up with a lot more code. But I guess this is the easiest to read, and what I'd tend to use, but I still don't completely like it :-(
One thing I definitely would NOT do however, is subclass. Inheritance should be the last tool you ever reach for.
The primary question is if the flag affects the behaviour of the class, or of that one function. Function-local changes should be parameters, not subclasses. Run-time inheritance should be one of the last tools reached for.
The general guideline I use is: if aSomeCondition changes the nature of the function in a major way, then I consider subclassing.
Subclassing is a relatively large effort compared to adding a flag that has only a minor effect.
Some examples:
if it's a flag that changes the direction in which a sorted collection is returned to the caller, that's a minor change in nature (flag).
if it's a one-shot flag (something that affects the current call rather than a persistent change to the object), it should probably not be a subclass (since going down that track is likely to lead to a massive number of classes).
if it's a enumeration that changes the underlying data structure of your class from array to linked list or balanced tree, that's a complex change (subclass).
Of course, that last one may be better handled by totally hiding the underlying data structure but I'm assuming here that you want to be able to select one of many, for reasons such as performance.
IMHO, aSomeCondition flag changes or depends on the state of current instance, therefore, under certain conditions this class should change its state and handle mentioned operation differently. In this case, I can suggest the usage of State Pattern. Hope it helps.
I would just change code:
void MyClass::foo(uint32_t aBar, bool aSomeCondition)
{
if (aSomeCondition)
{
// Do something with aBar...
}
}
to:
void MyClass::foo(uint32_t aBar)
{
if (this->aSomeCondition)
{
// Do something with aBar...
}
}
I always omit bool as function parameter and prefer to put into struct, even if I would have to call
myClass->enableCondition();
In my current project, there are lots of code using
switch statements with too many cases.
Switch(c)
{
case CASENUMBERONE:
//50-100 lines of code in each code
...
case CASENUMBERTWENTY:
..
}
//thousands of lines of macro definition in another file
#define CASENUMBERONE 1
...
#define CASENUMBERTWENTY 20
...
It seems not reasonable programming style.
How to avoid this?
Depends.
You could write a function for each case. You can inline them if you're concerned about performance, but in real life, you may actually end up with a performance gain by having separate functions due to better instruction cache coherence.
You could create a jump table if all your possible integer values are close by and pretty dense. That's what many compilers internally do for switch/case if certain conditions are met. The jump table is an array of function pointers, and the integer is an index into it. Obviously, you need to do bounds checking and NULL checks.
You could redesign your code to use polymorphism and call a virtual function instead.
As #Zain says, factor out the code for each case as a function/method (this isn't general advice, but advice for overly long functions).
In addition, consider using e.g. an array of function pointers.
Then you can just say handler[c]() :-)
Even better, chances are that the cases are not really a good approach to the original problem.
Perhaps using a base type with virtual methods would help (not using that is a common cause of inordinately long and absurd switch statements).
Cheers & hth.,
I wouldn't say that style seems reasonable. Given that you haven't given us much to go on, all I can do is generalise. Put each "case" into a separate function rather than inline in the switch. You could go as far as to create an array of function pointers which reference each of those functions for the given cases, but that depends on the cases you're covering. You could also use object-orientation and polymorphism to call each function for you.
I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't find any commonality across those cases.
I agree with your assessment that code is not well written. You will either have to rewrite the legacy code using good techniques or provide an abstraction layer that effectively hides the bad code; this way you can rewrite the bad code at your leisure and the abstraction layer will tie your new, good code with the legacy code.
As always, you should write tests for every I/O pair to those functions to find out where to split them and how they tie together; tests will also allow you to refactor with near impunity.
It's too bad older C++ code is littered with style like this :/
1500 lines = (50-100 lines per case) * 20
you're absolutely right. it's not reasonable.
the method/function attempts to do way too much.
break it down into smaller objects/functions which are tailored to certain instance variables, features, or categories. (repeat as necessary)
(also, those defines are evil)
Besides creating an array or function pointers and jump tables, you can create a map of function pointers. For that, boost::assign::map_list_of is very useful.
Then you can use find method to get the required element. Throw an exception or assert if the element is missing from the map.
I think you should create separate methods for each case, and call them as per requirement.
Inheritance objects, or you you should try array also, depends on how you use switch
One way is to use Polymorphism:
Instead of putting a huge case statement inside of function foo and calling it with some parameter, use a virtual method instead. You would write a base class with a virtual method, and then write a derived class for every case statement you currently have. For every case statement you currently have you can override the base class virtual method.
So for instance, instead of calling ptr->foo(c), you would instead call ptr->foo(). That way the compiler and the virtual table will be doing your switching for you.
I have created a class that models time slots in a variable-granularity daily schedule, where, for example, the first time slot is 30 minutes, but the second time slot can be 40 minutes and the first available slot starts at (a value comparable to) 1.
What I want to do now is to define somehow the maximum and minimum allowable values that this class takes and I have two practical questions in order to do so:
1.- Does it make sense to define absolute minimum and maximum in such a way for a custom class? Or better, does it suffice that a value always compares as lower-than any other possible value of the type, given the class's defined relational operators, to be defined the min? (and analogusly for the max)
2.- Assuming the previous question has an answer modeled after "yes" (or "yes but ..."), how do I define such max/min? I know that there is std::numeric_limits<> but from what I read it is intended for "numeric types". Do I interpret that as meaning "represented as a number" or can I make a broader assumption like "represented with numbers" or "having a correspondence to integers"? After all, it would make sense to define the minimum and maximum for a date class, and maybe for a dictionary class, but numeric_limits may not be intended for those uses (I don't have much experience with it). Plus, numeric_limits has a lot of extra members and information that I don't know what to make with. If I don't use numeric_limits, what other well-known / widely-used mechanism does C++ offer to indicate the available range of values for a class?
Having trouble making sense of your question. I think what you're asking is whether it makes sense to be assertive about the class's domain (that data which can be fed to it and make sense), and if so how to be assertive.
The first has a very clear answer: yes, absolutely. You want your class to be, "...easy to use correctly and difficult to use incorrectly." This includes making sure the clients of the class are being told when they do something wrong.
The second has a less clear answer. Much of the time you'll simply want to use the assert() function to assert a function or class's domain. Other times you'll want to throw an exception. Sometimes you want to do both. When performance can be an issue sometimes you want to provide an interface that does neither. Usually you want to provide an interface that can at least be checked against so that the clients can tell what is valid/invalid input before attempting to feed it to your class or function.
The reason you might want to both assert and throw is because throwing an exception destroys stack information and can make debugging difficult, but assert only happens during build and doesn't actually do anything to protect you from running calculations or doing things that can cause crashes or invalidate data. Thus asserting and then throwing is often the best answer so that you can debug when you run into it while testing but still protect the user when those bugs make it to the shelf.
For your class you might consider a couple ways to provide min/max. One is to provide min/max functions in the class's interface. Another might be to use external functionality and yes, numeric_limits might just be the thing since a range is sometimes a type of numeric quantity. You could even provide a more generic interface that has a validate_input() function in your class so that you can do any comparison that might be appropriate.
The second part of your question has a lot of valid answers depending on a lot of variables including personal taste.
As the designer of your schedule/slot code, it's up to you as to how much flexibility/practicality you want.
Two simple approaches would be to either define your own values in that class
const long MIN_SLOT = 1;
const long MAX_SLOT = 999; // for example
Or define another class that holds the definitions
class SchedLimits{
public:
const static long MIN_SLOT = 1;
const static long MAX_SLOT = 999;
}
Simplest of all would be enums. (my thanks to the commenter that reminded me of those)
enum {MIN_SLOT = 1, MAX_SLOT = 999};
Just create some const static members that reflect the minimums and maximums.