I have a function that is part of a class handles some input as pair of iterators. The signature of which is:
class Obj {
public:
template <typename InputIterator>
void handle_read(InputIterator first, InputIterator last);
...
};
I would like to bind that to a function:
void Obj::handle_connect() {
connections.start(std::make_shared<connection>(std::move(socket), connections, logger),
std::bind(&server::handle_read<InputIterator>, this, std::placeholders::_1, std::placeholders::_2));
}
However that doesn't work, specifically the error suggests that it can't find InputIterator.
However if I put the exact signature for the bind in:
std::bind(&server::handle_read<std::array<uint8_t, 8192>::iterator>, this, std::placeholders::_1, std::placeholders::_2));
It compiles, but the code is brittle: If I change to a vector then I will need to go around changing the signatures (though failing code will be easy to detect), and if I decide that a different container would be more efficient than an array in a particular use case, then it breaks altogether.
How I do keep the bind generic and not tied to a particular iterator type?
Related
I'm building a publish-subscribe class (called SystermInterface), which is responsible to receive updates from its instances, and publish them to subscribers.
Adding a subscriber callback function is trivial and has no issues, but removing it yields an error, because std::function<()> is not comparable in C++.
std::vector<std::function<void()> subs;
void subscribe(std::function<void()> f)
{
subs.push_back(f);
}
void unsubscribe(std::function<void()> f)
{
std::remove(subs.begin(), subs.end(), f); // Error
}
I've came down to five solutions to this error:
Registering the function using a weak_ptr, where the subscriber must keep the returned shared_ptr alive.
Solution example at this link.
Instead of registering at a vector, map the callback function by a custom key, unique per callback function.
Solution example at this link
Using vector of function pointers. Example
Make the callback function comparable by utilizing the address.
Use an interface class (parent class) to call a virtual function.
In my design, all intended classes inherits a parent class called
ServiceCore, So instead of registering a callback function, just
register ServiceCore reference in the vector.
Given that the SystemInterface class has a field attribute per instance (ID) (Which is managed by ServiceCore, and supplied to SystemInterface by constructing a ServiceCore child instance).
To my perspective, the first solution is neat and would work, but it requires handling at subscribers, which is something I don't really prefer.
The second solution would make my implementation more complex, where my implementation looks as:
using namespace std;
enum INFO_SUB_IMPORTANCE : uint8_t
{
INFO_SUB_PRIMARY, // Only gets the important updates.
INFO_SUB_COMPLEMENTARY, // Gets more.
INFO_SUB_ALL // Gets all updates
};
using CBF = function<void(string,string)>;
using INFO_SUBTREE = map<INFO_SUB_IMPORTANCE, vector<CBF>>;
using REQINF_SUBS = map<string, INFO_SUBTREE>; // It's keyed by an iterator, explaining it goes out of the question scope.
using INFSRC_SUBS = map<string, INFO_SUBTREE>;
using WILD_SUBS = INFO_SUBTREE;
REQINF_SUBS infoSubrs;
INFSRC_SUBS sourceSubrs;
WILD_SUBS wildSubrs;
void subscribeInfo(string info, INFO_SUB_IMPORTANCE imp, CBF f) {
infoSubrs[info][imp].push_back(f);
}
void subscribeSource(string source, INFO_SUB_IMPORTANCE imp, CBF f) {
sourceSubrs[source][imp].push_back(f);
}
void subscribeWild(INFO_SUB_IMPORTANCE imp, CBF f) {
wildSubrs[imp].push_back(f);
}
The second solution would require INFO_SUBTREE to be an extended map, but can be keyed by an ID:
using KEY_T = uint32_t; // or string...
using INFO_SUBTREE = map<INFO_SUB_IMPORTANCE, map<KEY_T,CBF>>;
For the third solution, I'm not aware of the limitations given by using function pointers, and the consequences of the fourth solution.
The Fifth solution would eliminate the purpose of dealing with CBFs, but it'll be more complex at subscriber-side, where a subscriber is required to override the virtual function and so receives all updates at one place, in which further requires filteration of the message id and so direct the payload to the intended routines using multiple if/else blocks, which will increase by increasing subscriptions.
What I'm looking for is an advice for the best available option.
Regarding your proposed solutions:
That would work. It can be made easy for the caller: have subscribe() create the shared_ptr and corresponding weak_ptr objects, and let it return the shared_ptr.
Then the caller must not lose the key. In a way this is similar to the above.
This of course is less generic, and then you can no longer have (the equivalent of) captures.
You can't: there is no way to get the address of the function stored inside a std::function. You can do &f inside subscribe() but that will only give you the address of the local variable f, which will go out of scope as soon as you return.
That works, and is in a way similar to 1 and 2, although now the "key" is provided by the caller.
Options 1, 2 and 5 are similar in that there is some other data stored in subs that refers to the actual std::function: either a std::shared_ptr, a key or a pointer to a base class. I'll present option 6 here, which is kind of similar in spirit but avoids storing any extra data:
Store a std::function<void()> directly, and return the index in the vector where it was stored. When removing an item, don't std::remove() it, but just set it to std::nullptr. Next time subscribe() is called, it checks if there is an empty element in the vector and reuses it:
std::vector<std::function<void()> subs;
std::size_t subscribe(std::function<void()> f) {
if (auto it = std::find(subs.begin(), subs.end(), std::nullptr); it != subs.end()) {
*it = f;
return std::distance(subs.begin(), it);
} else {
subs.push_back(f);
return subs.size() - 1;
}
}
void unsubscribe(std::size_t index) {
subs[index] = std::nullptr;
}
The code that actually calls the functions stored in subs must now of course first check against std::nullptrs. The above works because std::nullptr is treated as the "empty" function, and there is an operator==() overload that can check a std::function against std::nullptr, thus making std::find() work.
One drawback of option 6 as shown above is that a std::size_t is a rather generic type. To make it safer, you might wrap it in a class SubscriptionHandle or something like that.
As for the best solution: option 1 is quite heavy-weight. Options 2 and 5 are very reasonable, but 6 is, I think, the most efficient.
Given the following code how can I convert the v8::Local<v8::Value> into a uint32_t. Or other types based on the Is* method?
v8::Local<v8::Value> value;
v8::Local<v8::Context> context = v8::Context::New(v8::Isolate::GetCurrent());
if(value->IsUint32()) {
v8::MaybeLocal<Int32> maybeLocal = value->Uint32Value(context);
uint32_t i = maybeLocal;
}
Your posted code doesn't work because value->Uint32Value(context) doesn't return a v8::MaybeLocal<Int32>. C++ types are your friend (just like TypeScript)!
You have two possibilities:
(1) You can use Value::Uint32Value(...) which returns a Maybe<uint32_t>. Since you already checked that value->IsUint32(), this conversion cannot fail, so you can extract the uint32_t wrapped in the Maybe using Maybe::ToChecked().
(2) You can use Value::ToUint32(...) which returns a MaybeLocal<Uint32>. Again, since you already checked that value->IsUint32(), that cannot fail, so you can get a Local<Uint32> via MaybeLocal::ToLocalChecked(), and then simply use -> syntax to call the wrapped Uint32's Value() method, which gives a uint32_t.
If you're only interested in the final uint32_t (and not in the intermediate Local<Uint32>, which you could pass back to JavaScript), then option (1) will be slightly more efficient.
Note that IsUint32() will say false for objects like {valueOf: () => 42; }. If you want to handle such objects, then attempt the conversion, and handle failures, e.g.:
Maybe<uint32_t> maybe_uint = value->Uint32Value(context);
if (maybe_uint.IsJust()) {
uint32_t i = maybe_uint.FromJust();
} else {
// Conversion failed. Maybe it threw an exception (use a `v8::TryCatch` to catch it), or maybe the object wasn't convertible to a uint32.
// Handle that somehow.
}
Also, note that most of these concepts are illustrated in V8's samples and API tests. Reading comments and implementations in the API headers themselves also provides a lot of insight.
Final note: you'll probably want to track the current context you're using, rather than creating a fresh context every time you need one.
I am implementing a command pattern implementations with large number of actions and parameters involved. To simplify I am planning to use class that can hold all possible params to module in a map.
class ParamBag {
public:
add(int paramId, shared_ptr<IParam> param);
bool contains(int paramId);
std::shared_ptr<IParam> get(paramId);
private:
int mask;
std::map<int, std::shared_ptr<IParam>> params;
};
One clear downside of this implementation is each param has to extend from IParam interface, can I somehow simplify this.
If the one that uses the param after the get knows the type of the param, then you can use c++17 std::any, or if you must use c++11 you can try boost::any, or if none of those you can resort back to a void*.
The difference is that void* will not fail on a cast to a wrong type, where any_cast would throw an exception, or return nullptr if used with a pointer. You would also need to use a custom deleter in the std::shared_ptr in order to be able to free the void*.
I've some code that moves an object into another object. I won't need the original, moved object anymore in the upper level. Thus move is the right choice I think.
However, thinking about safety I wonder if there is a way to invalidate the moved object and thus preventing undefined behaviour if someone accesses it.
Here is a nice example:
// move example
#include <utility> // std::move
#include <vector> // std::vector
#include <string> // std::string
int main () {
std::string foo = "foo-string";
std::string bar = "bar-string";
std::vector<std::string> myvector;
myvector.push_back (foo); // copies
myvector.push_back (std::move(bar)); // moves
return 0;
}
The description says:
The first call to myvector.push_back copies the value of foo into the
vector (foo keeps the value it had before the call). The second call
moves the value of bar into the vector. This transfers its content
into the vector (while bar loses its value, and now is in a valid but
unspecified state).
Is there a way to invalidate bar, such that access to it will cause a compiler error? Something like:
myvector.push_back (std::move(bar)); // moves
invalidate(bar); //something like bar.end() will then result in a compiler error
Edit: And if there is no such thing, why?
Accessing the moved object is not undefined behavior. The moved object is still a valid object, and the program may very well want to continue using said object. For example,
template< typename T >
void swap_by_move(T &a, T &b)
{
using std::move;
T c = move(b);
b = move(a);
a = move(c);
}
The bigger picture answer is because moving or not moving is a decision made at runtime, and giving a compile-time error is a decision made at compile time.
foo(bar); // foo might move or not
bar.baz(); // compile time error or not?
It's not going to work.. you can approximate in compile time analysis, but then it's going to be really difficult for developers to either not get an error or making anything useful in order to keep a valid program or the developer has to make annoying and fragile annotations on functions called to promise not to move the argument.
To put it a different way, you are asking about having a compile time error if you use an integer variable that contains the value 42. Or if you use a pointer that contains a null pointer value. You might be succcessful in implementing an approximate build-time code convention checker using clang the analysis API, however, working on the CFG of the C++ AST and erroring out if you can't prove that std::move has not been called till a given use of a variable.
Move semantics works like that so you get an object in any it's correct state. Correct state means that all fields have correct value, and all internal invariants are still good. That was done because after move you don't actually care about contents of moved object, but stuff like resource management, assignments and destructors should work OK.
All STL classes (and all classed with default move constructor/assignment) just swap it's content with new one, so both states are correct, and it's very easy to implement, fast, and convinient enough.
You can define your class that has isValid field that's generally true and on move (i. e. in move constructor / move assignment) sets that to false. Then your object will have correct state I am invalid. Just don't forget to check it where needed (destructor, assignment etc).
That isValid field can be either one pointer having null value. The point is: you know, that object is in predictable state after move, not just random bytes in memory.
Edit: example of String:
class String {
public:
string data;
private:
bool m_isValid;
public:
String(string const& b): data(b.data), isValid(true) {}
String(String &&b): data(move(b.data)) {
b.m_isValid = false;
}
String const& operator =(String &&b) {
data = move(b.data);
b.m_isValid = false;
return &this;
}
bool isValid() {
return m_isValid;
}
}
I'm new to the bimap functionality of the Boost libraries, and I'm having trouble passing a bimap into another function. My bimap looks like this:
typedef boost::bimap< int, int > bimap_type;
bimap_type bm;
I have an add_values() function that adds a set of values to the bimap:
add_values(int a, int b)
{
bm.insert(bimap_type::value_type(a, b));
}
I then have a function that is meant to set the values of the bimap by getting them from a Singleton Class:
void set_values()
{
MyClass::instance()->get_values(bm);
}
And, in MyClass, get_values() looks like this:
void get_values(bimap_type myBimap)
{
myBimap.add_values(3, 5);
}
However, MyClass does not recognise 'bimap_type'. I try putting the typedef in a separate header file and including that in MyClass, but I get the error message:
'class bimap_type' has no member named 'add_values'
How can I successfully pass the bimap to this Singleton Class in order to fill it with values from the Class? Does anyone know?
Thanks a lot.
Er, boost::bimap itself doesn't have an add_values method and it's hard to tell from these code fragments why you're suddenly expecting one to appear.
Consider renaming your functions: set_values() that calls get_values() that calls add_values() is one confusing call chain...
When you need to modify an object in a function, you have to take it by reference (or a pointer). The idea is that you must work with the same object inside and outside of the function. If you pass by value, function will see a copy, so anything it does with it does not reflect on original object.
// formerly known as add_values()
void initialize(bimap_type& bm, int a, int b)
{
bm.insert(bimap_type::value_type(a, b));
}
And this is how you will call it:
initialize(myBitmap, 3, 5);
Make sure to update your whole call chain to pass by reference where appropriate, because currently your get_values() works with a copy too.