I have a Visual Studio 2013 C++11 project where I'm trying to define an iterator. I want that iterator to dereference to an object, but internally it actually iterates over some internal data the object requires for construction.
class my_obj
{
public:
my_obj(some_internal_initialization_value_ v);
std::wstring friendly_name() const;
// ...
};
class my_iterator
: public boost::iterator_facade<
my_iterator,
my_obj,
boost::forward_traversal_tag>
{
// ...
private:
my_obj& dereference() const
{
// warning C4172: returning address of local variable or temporary
return my_obj(some_internal_initialization_value_);
}
};
int main( int argc, char* argv[])
{
my_container c;
for (auto o = c.begin(); o != c.end(); ++o)
printf( "%s\n", o->friendly_name().c_str() );
}
These internal values are unimportant implementation details to the user and I'd prefer not to expose them. How can I write the iterator that does this correctly? The alternative is that I would have to do something like this:
my_container c;
for (auto i = c.begin(); i != c.end(); ++i)
{
my_obj o(*i);
printf( "%s\n", o.friendly_name().c_str() );
}
From the boost page on iterator_facade, the template arguments are: derived iterator, value_type, category, reference type, difference_type. Ergo, merely tell it that references are not references
class my_iterator
: public boost::iterator_facade<
my_iterator,
my_obj,
boost::forward_traversal_tag,
my_obj> //dereference returns "my_obj" not "my_obj&"
See it working here: http://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/4b09ddc37068368b
Related
Historically, I've been using trait classes to hold information and apply that into a "generic" function that runs the same "algorithm." Only differed by the trait class. For example: https://onlinegdb.com/ryUo7WRmN
enum selector { SELECTOR1, SELECTOR2, SELECTOR3, };
// declaration
template < selector T> struct example_trait;
template<> struct example_trait<SELECTOR1> {
static constexpr size_t member_var = 3;
static size_t do_something() { return 0; }
};
template<> struct example_trait<SELECTOR2> {
static constexpr size_t member_var = 5;
static size_t do_something() { return 0; }
};
// pretend this is doing something useful but common
template < selector T, typename TT = example_trait<T> >
void function() {
std::cout << TT::member_var << std::endl;
std::cout << TT::do_something() << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
function<SELECTOR1>();
function<SELECTOR2>();
return 0;
}
I'm not sure how to create "generic" algorithms this when dealing with polymorphic classes.
For example: https://onlinegdb.com/S1hFLGC7V
Below I have created an inherited class hierarchy. In this example I have a base catch-all example that defaults all the parameters to something (0 in this case). And then each derived class sets overrides specific methods.
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
#include <type_traits>
#include <assert.h>
using namespace std;
struct Base {
virtual int get_thing_one() {
return 0;
}
virtual int get_thing_two() {
return 0;
}
virtual int get_thing_three() {
return 0;
}
virtual int get_thing_four() {
return 0;
}
};
struct A : public Base {
virtual int get_thing_one() override {
return 1;
}
virtual int get_thing_three() override {
return 3;
}
};
struct B : public Base {
virtual int get_thing_one() override {
return 2;
}
virtual int get_thing_four() override{
return 4;
}
};
Here I created a simple factory, not elegant but for illustrative purposes
// example simple factory
std::shared_ptr<Base> get_class(const int input) {
switch(input)
{
case 0:
return std::shared_ptr<Base>(std::make_shared<A>());
break;
case 1:
return std::shared_ptr<Base>(std::make_shared<B>());
break;
default:
assert(false);
break;
}
}
So this is the class of interest. It is a class does "something" with the data from the classes above. The methods below are a simple addition example but imagine a more complicated algorithm that is very similar for every method.
// class that uses the shared_ptr
class setter {
private:
std::shared_ptr<Base> l_ptr;
public:
setter(const std::shared_ptr<Base>& input):l_ptr(input)
{}
int get_thing_a()
{
return l_ptr->get_thing_one() + l_ptr->get_thing_two();
}
int get_thing_b()
{
return l_ptr->get_thing_three() + l_ptr->get_thing_four();
}
};
int main()
{
constexpr int select = 0;
std::shared_ptr<Base> example = get_class(select);
setter l_setter(example);
std::cout << l_setter.get_thing_a() << std::endl;
std::cout << l_setter.get_thing_b() << std::endl;
return 0;
}
How can I make the "boilerplate" inside the setter class more generic? I can't use traits as I did in the example above because I can't tie static functions with an object. So is there a way to make the boilerplate example more common?
Somewhere along the lines of having a selector, say
enum thing_select { THINGA, THINGB, };
template < thing_select T >
struct thing_traits;
template <>
struct thing_traits<THINGA>
{
static int first_function() --> somehow tied to shared_ptr<Base> 'thing_one' method
static int second_function() --> somehow tied to shared_ptr<Base> 'thing_two' method
}
template <>
struct thing_traits<THINGB>
{
static int first_function() --> somehow tied to shared_ptr<Base> 'thing_three' method
static int second_function() --> somehow tied to shared_ptr<Base> 'thing_four' method
}
// generic function I'd like to create
template < thing_select T, typename TT = thing_traits<T> >
int perform_action(...)
{
return TT::first_function(..) + TT::second_function(..);
}
I ideally would like to modify the class above to something along the lines of
// Inside setter class further above
int get_thing_a()
{
return perform_action<THINGA>(...);
}
int get_thing_b()
{
return perform_action<THINGB>(...);
}
The answer is, maybe I can't, and I need to pass int the shared_ptr as a parameter and call the specific methods I need instead of trying to tie a shared_ptr method to a static function (in hindsight, that doesn't sound like a good idea...but I wanted to bounce my idea)
Whoever makes the actual call will need a reference of the object, one way or the other. Therefore, assuming you want perform_action to perform the actual call, you will have to pass the parameter.
Now, if you really want to store which function of Base to call as a static in thing_traits without passing a parameter, you can leverage pointer to member functions:
template <>
struct thing_traits<THINGA>
{
static constexpr int (Base::*first_function)() = &Base::get_thing_one;
...
}
template < thing_select T, typename TT = thing_traits<T>>
int perform_action(Base & b)
{
return (b.*TT::first_function)() + ...;
}
You can also play instead with returning a function object that does the call for you (and the inner function takes the parameter).
It all depends on who you need to make the call and what information/dependencies you assume you have available in each class/template.
Suppose you want to avoid narrowing when calling a function
void foo(char c) { /* ... */ }
foo(4); // get a compilation error here
You can define your target function, and a forwarding template overload that will attempt a non-narrowing conversion to the target type (DEMO):
void foo(char) {}
template <typename T>
void foo(T&& t) { foo(char{std::forward<T>(t)}); }
foo('a');
// foo(4); // ill-formed
foo({4});
// foo(0); // ill-formed
foo({0});
// foo(u'a'); // ill-formed
foo({u'a'});
int i = 2;
// foo(i); // ill-formed
// foo({i}); // ill-formed
This has the nice advantage that clients can force the conversion themselves by passing a braced-init-list. Since the braced-init-list impedes template deduction, only the target function can be selected by overload resolution. So even though e.g. foo(4) matches the template overload and is ill-formed - since int cannot in general be converted to char without narrowing - foo({4}) is well-formed since 4 can be converted to char without narrowing.
You can use a class template on T that has
1) a template constructor on a different type X that tries to instantiate the class when the parameter is not T
2) a constructor with T as param that takes care of the case where you are instantiating the class with the exact type
#include <iostream>
// g++-4.9 -Werror=narrowing -std=c++11 main2.cc
// https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55783
template <typename T>
struct no_narrowing
{
using type = T;
// this template constructor lets you try to
// instantiate a no_narrowing using a different
// type. if Narrowing would take place
// value{ val } takes care of it
template <typename X>
no_narrowing(X val) : value{val} {}
// if type is exactly T we use this
no_narrowing(type val) : value{val} {}
operator type() const { return value;}
type value;
};
template <typename T>
using nn = no_narrowing<T>;
void print(nn<char> v)
{
std::cout << v << std::endl;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int i = 2;
print('d');
print(i); // this will not compile
return 0;
}
If I have two classes D1 and D2 that both derive from class Base, and I want to construct a particular one based on say, a boolean variable, there are various well known techniques, eg use a factory, or use smart pointers.
For example,
std::unique_ptr<Base> b;
if (flag)
{
b.reset(new D1());
}
else
{
b.reset(new D2());
}
But this uses the heap for allocation, which is normally fine but I can think of times where it would be good to avoid the performance hit of a memory allocation.
I tried:
Base b = flag ? D1() : D2(); // doesn’t compile
Base& b = flag ? D1() : D2(); // doesn’t compile
Base&& b = flag ? D1() : D2(); // doesn’t compile
Base&& b = flag ? std::move(D1()) : std::move(D2()); // doesn’t compile
My intention is that D1 or D2 whichever is chosen is constructed on the stack, and its lifetime ends when b goes out of scope. Intuitively, I feel there should be a way to do it.
I played with lambda functions and found that this works:
Base&& b = [j]()->Base&&{
switch (j)
{
case 0:
return std::move(D1());
default:
return std::move(D2());
}
}();
Why it doesn’t suffer from the same issues as the others that do not compile I do not know.
Further, it would only be suitable for classes that are inexpensive to copy, because despite my explicit request to use move, it does I think still call a copy constructor. But if I take away the std::move, I get a warning!
I feel this is closer to what i think should be possible but it still has some issues:
the lambda syntax is not friendly to old-timers who havent yet
embraced the new features of the language ( myself included)
the copy constructor call as mentioned
Is there a better way of doing this?
If you know all the types, you can use a Boost.Variant, as in:
class Manager
{
using variant_type = boost::variant<Derived1, Derived2>;
struct NameVisitor : boost::static_visitor<const char*>
{
template<typename T>
result_type operator()(T& t) const { return t.name(); }
};
public:
template<typename T>
explicit Manager(T t) : v_(std::move(t)) {}
template<typename T>
Manager& operator=(T t)
{ v_ = std::move(t); return *this; }
const char* name()
{ return boost::apply_visitor(NameVisitor(), v_); }
private:
variant_type v_;
};
Note: by using variant, you no longer need a base class or virtual functions.
The way you are trying to do it, you are going to get a dangling reference. Having the std::move is just hiding that.
Generally I just structure the code so that the logic is in a separate function. That is, instead of
void f(bool flag)
{
Base &b = // some magic to choose which derived class to instantiate
// do something with b
}
I do
void doSomethingWith(Base &b)
{
// do something with b
}
void f(bool flag)
{
if (flag) {
D1 d1;
doSomethingWith(d1);
}
else {
D2 d2;
doSomethingWith(d2);
}
}
However, if that doesn't work for you, you can use a union inside a class to help manage it:
#include <iostream>
using std::cerr;
struct Base {
virtual ~Base() { }
virtual const char* name() = 0;
};
struct Derived1 : Base {
Derived1() { cerr << "Constructing Derived1\n"; }
~Derived1() { cerr << "Destructing Derived1\n"; }
virtual const char* name() { return "Derived1"; }
};
struct Derived2 : Base {
Derived2() { cerr << "Constructing Derived2\n"; }
~Derived2() { cerr << "Destructing Derived2\n"; }
virtual const char* name() { return "Derived2"; }
};
template <typename B,typename D1,typename D2>
class Either {
union D {
D1 d1;
D2 d2;
D() { }
~D() { }
} d;
bool flag;
public:
Either(bool flag)
: flag(flag)
{
if (flag) {
new (&d.d1) D1;
}
else {
new (&d.d2) D2;
}
}
~Either()
{
if (flag) {
d.d1.~D1();
}
else {
d.d2.~D2();
}
}
B& value()
{
if (flag) {
return d.d1;
}
else {
return d.d2;
}
}
};
static void test(bool flag)
{
Either<Base,Derived1,Derived2> either(flag);
Base &b = either.value();
cerr << "name=" << b.name() << "\n";
}
int main()
{
test(true);
test(false);
}
gives this output:
Constructing Derived1
name=Derived1
Destructing Derived1
Constructing Derived2
name=Derived2
Destructing Derived2
You can ensure you have enough space for allocating either on the stack with std::aligned_storage. Something like:
// use macros for MAX since std::max is not const-expr
std::aligned_storage<MAX(sizeof(D1), sizeof(D2)), MAX(alignof(D1), alignof(D2))> storage;
Base* b = nullptr;
if (flag)
b = new (&storage) D1();
else
b = new (&storage) D2();
You can make a wrapper type for aligned_storage that just takes two types and does the maximum of size/alignment of the two without needing to repeat yourself in the code using it. You can emulate aligned_storage for non-over-aligned types fairly trivially too if you need C++98 support. The custom type without over-aligned support would be something like:
template <typename T1, typename T2>
class storage
{
union
{
double d; // to force strictest alignment (on most platforms)
char b[sizeof(T1) > sizeof(T2) ? sizeof(T1) : sizeof(T2)];
} u;
};
And that can be given protections against copies/moves if you so wish. It can even be turned into a simplified Boost.Variant with relatively little work.
Note that with this approach (or some of the others), destructors will not be called automatically on your class and you must call them yourself. If you want RAII patterns to apply here, you can extend the example class above to store a deleter function that is bound during construction into the space.
template <typename T1, typename T2>
class storage
{
using deleter_t = void(*)(void*);
std::aligned_storage<
sizeof(T1) > sizeof(T2) ? sizeof(T1) : sizeof(T2),
alignof(T1) > alignof(T2) ? alignof(T1) : alignof(T2)
> space;
deleter_t deleter = nullptr;
public:
storage(const storage&) = delete;
storage& operator=(const storage&) = delete;
template <typename T, typename ...P>
T* emplace(P&&... p)
{
destroy();
deleter = [](void* obj){ static_cast<T*>(obj)->~T(); }
return new (&space) T(std::forward<P>(p)...);
}
void destroy()
{
if (deleter != nullptr)
{
deleter(&space);
deleter = nullptr;
}
}
};
// usage:
storage<D1, D2> s;
B* b = flag ? s.emplace<D1>() : s.emplace<D2>();
And of course that can all be done in C++98, just with a lot more work (especially in terms of emulating the emplace function).
How about
B&&b = flag ? static_cast<B&&>(D1()) : static_cast<B&&>(D2());
If you just need them to be freed when the reference goes out of scope, you could implement another simple class (maybe named DestructorDecorator) that points to the object (D1 or D2). And then you just have to implement ~DestructorDecorator to call the destructor of D1 or D2.
You haven't mentioned it, your flag is known at compile time?
As far as a compile-time flag is concerned, you can use template magic to deal with the conditional construction of the class:
First, declaring a template create_if which takes two types and a boolean:
template <typename T, typename F, bool B> struct create_if {};
Second, specializing create_if for true and false values:
template <typename T, typename F> struct create_if<T, F, true> { using type = T; };
template <typename T, typename F> struct create_if<T, F, false> { using type = F; };
Then, you can do this:
create_if<D1, D2, true>::type da; // Create D1 instance
create_if<D1, D2, false>::type db; // Create D2 instance
You can change the boolean literals with your compile-time flag or with a constexpr function:
constexpr bool foo(const int i) { return i & 1; }
create_if<D1, D2, foo(100)>::type dc; // Create D2 instance
create_if<D1, D2, foo(543)>::type dd; // Create D1 instance
This is valid only if the flag is known at compile time, I hope it helps.
Live example.
I wanted to store a vector of function pointers, each taking different no. of arguments in a class "Store". So, wrote a templated class "Func" that would store the function as a std::function and its arguments in a tuple.
I derived this "Func" class from a non-template base class "IFunc", so that i can store a vector of pointers to this base class in the class "Store".
template<typename... Args>
class Func : public IFunc
{
public:
std::function<void (Args...)> f;
std::tuple<Args...> args;
template <typename F,typename... Ar>
Func(F&& func,Ar&&... arg): f(std::forward<F>(func)),args(std::make_tuple(std::forward<Ar>(arg)...))
{
}
virtual ~NonMemfun()
{
}
//other methods to unpack the tuple and call the function
};
The IFunc class:
class IFunc
{
public:
Ifunc(){}
virtual ~Ifunc(){}
};
The Store class:
class Store
{
std::vector<Ifunc*> funcs;
public:
template<typename... Args,typename... Args2>
void registerfunc(std::string name,int runs,void(*f)(Args...),Args2&&... arg)
{
Func<Args2...>* sample = new Func<Args2...>(f,arg...);
Ifunc* fp = sample;
funcs.push_back(fp);
}
};
I want to iterate through the vector and call each function. To do that i need to do a static cast like this:
Func<>* der = static_cast<Func<>*>(funcs[0]);
When i try to do this, the cast doesn't happen properly. I cannot specify the template paramenters(variadics) since this class(Store) is not aware of them.
I am totally stuck at this place. Something is wrong with my design i guess. Can someone please suggest me a better way to do this. Thank you.
Rather than trying to do a cast from IFunc to Func<>, you should make a pure virtual function, Apply() in IFunc, which Func<> defines as apply(f, args...);. As you iterate over the vector of IFunc pointers, simply call IFunc->Apply(), which will dispatch to the Func<>::Apply() and do the actual apply.
I'm not much of a C++ programmer, but I think you may find this useful.
I'm sure you know that templates are a compile time thing in C++ so your functions need to be known at build time.
With that said, if you do know your functions and you just want to map them to say a string command and then dynamically bind arguments from something like a stream then this code should help you. It is actually able to use a dynamic_cast to retrieve the command from the map.
this snippet is from a school project I did a while back that had a similar goal:
#include <map>
#include <string>
#include <sstream>
#include <tuple>
using namespace std;
class Shell {
class Command {
public:
virtual ~Command() {};
virtual void executeWithArgStream(Shell*, istream& s)=0;
};
template <typename... ArgTypes>
class ShellCommand : public Command {
private:
// FIXME: its probably more apropriate for FuncType to return an int for exit code...
typedef function<void(Shell*, ArgTypes...)> FuncType;
FuncType _f;
tuple<ArgTypes...> args;
template<int... Is>
struct seq { };
template<int N, int... Is>
struct gen_seq : gen_seq<N - 1, N - 1, Is...> { };
template<int... Is>
struct gen_seq<0, Is...> : seq<Is...> { typedef seq<Is...> type; };
template<size_t I = 0, class ...P>
typename std::enable_if<I == sizeof...(P)>::type
// template for functions with no arguments
parseArgs(istream& is, std::tuple<P...> &) {}
template<size_t I = 0, class ...P>
typename std::enable_if<I < sizeof...(P)>::type
parseArgs(istream& is, std::tuple<P...> & parts) {
// this is the magic bit that takes a tuple of pointers (representing the command arguments)
// created at compile time and creates new instances of each argument type and populates it from
// the given input stream :D
auto& part = std::get<I>(args);
// hmmm should we delete or recycle...
delete part;
part = new typeof(*part);
is >> *part;
parseArgs<I + 1>(is, parts);
}
template<int ...S>
void callFunc(Shell* shell, seq<S...>) {
_f(shell, get<S>(args) ...);
}
public:
static constexpr size_t numArgs = sizeof...(ArgTypes);
ShellCommand(FuncType f) : _f(f) {};
void operator()(Shell* shell, ArgTypes... args) {
_f(shell, args...);
};
void executeWithArgStream(Shell* shell, istream& s)
{
parseArgs(s, args);
callFunc(shell, typename gen_seq<sizeof...(ArgTypes)>::type());
};
};
private:
typedef shared_ptr<Command> CommandPtr;
typedef map<string, CommandPtr> FMap;
FMap _cmdMap;
ostream& _out;
istream& _in;
public:
Shell(istream& is = cin, ostream& os = cout)
: _out(os), _in(is)
{
// populate
_cmdMap.insert(pair<string, CommandPtr>("chdir", make_shared<ShellCommand<string*>>(&Shell::chdir)));
_cmdMap.insert(pair<string, CommandPtr>("list", make_shared<ShellCommand<>>(&Shell::list)));
_cmdMap.insert(pair<string, CommandPtr>("count", make_shared<ShellCommand<>>(&Shell::count)));
};
int run();
// FIXME: its probably more apropriate for execute to return an int for exit code...
template <typename... ArgTypes>
void execute(string& command, ArgTypes... args);
void executeWithArgStream(string& command, istream& istr);
// shell commands:
// any command parameters must be done as a pointer!
// the magic that parses string arguments into real types depends on it!
void list() {
list command
};
void chdir(string* dir) {
// chdir command
};
void count() {
// count command
};
};
template <typename... ArgTypes>
void Shell::execute(string& command, ArgTypes... args)
{
typedef ShellCommand<ArgTypes...> CommandType;
CommandType* c = dynamic_cast<CommandType*>(_cmdMap[command].get());
// TODO: neeed to diferentiate between invalid commands and some kind of dynamic_cast failure
if (c) {
(*c)(this, args...);
} else {
// dynamic cast failure
throw runtime_error("Broken Implementation for:" + command);
}
}
void Shell::executeWithArgStream(string& command, istream& istr)
{
Command* c = _cmdMap[command].get();
if (c) {
c->executeWithArgStream(this, istr);
} else {
throw runtime_error("Invalid Shell Command: " + command);
}
}
int Shell::run()
{
do {
string cmd, argString;
_out << _currentDir->name() << "> ";
_in.clear();
_in >> cmd;
if (cmd == "q") {
return 0;
}
if (_in.peek() == ' ')
_in.ignore(1, ' ');
getline(cin, argString);
if (_cmdMap[cmd]) {
try {
if (argString.length()) {
istringstream s(argString);
executeWithArgStream(cmd, s);
} else {
execute(cmd);
}
} catch (runtime_error& e) {
_out << e.what() << endl;
}
} else {
_out << "unrecognized command: " << cmd << endl;
}
} while (true);
}
int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
{
// start the interactive "shell"
Shell shell();
return shell.run();
}
I'm building a large project on Debian 6.0.6 (with gcc 4.4.5) that was initially built in Microsoft VS (2008, I think).
What seems to be the problem is that when I declare a member as
typedef typename std::set<T>::iterator iterator, and then later use this iterator, gcc appears to interpret this as (const T*).
The part of the class containing the typename designation:
template <class entityType>
class entityArray
{
private: std::set<entityType> m_array;
public: typedef typename std::set<entityType>::iterator iterator;
...
public:
entityType* At( const char* name);
...
};
plus a few other classes that are needed for the discussion:
class entity
{
private:
entity* m_parent;
int m_ncid;
std::string m_name;
public:
entity () { m_ncid = 0; m_parent = NULL;}
virtual ~entity () {};
...
};
class attribute : public entity
{
public:
attribute(){};
virtual ~attribute(){};
};
class var : public entity
{
private:
entityArray<attribute> m_atts;
public:
var(){}
virtual ~var(){}
...
};
class dim : public entity
{
public:
dim() {};
virtual ~dim() {};
};
class group : public entity
{
private:
entityArray<var> m_vars;
entityArray<dim> m_dims;
...
public:
dim* DimAt( const char* dimname ) { return m_dims.At(dimname);}
};
Now an iterator is initialized through a call to the function DimAt which in turn calls At. The At function in the first class is defined as:
template <class entityType>
entityType* entityArray<entityType>::At( const char* name )
{
entityType dummy;
iterator iter;
entityType* ptr;
... define dummy ...
iter = m_array.find( dummy );
ptr = (iter != m_array.end()) ? &(*iter) : NULL;
return ptr;
}
Compiling the above produces
error: invalid conversion from const dim* to dim*., referring to &(*iter).
I realize that typename is required for declaring iterator, since the type is a dependent and qualified name, but I don't see why this substitution (const *) is being performed by the compiler. I would appreciate any help that you could provide. Thanks!
This has absolutely nothing to do with typename.
The standard allows std::set<T>::iterator and std::set<T>::const_iterator to be the same type, and with GCC the types are the same.
The reason is that modifying an element of a std::set e.g. by *iter = val might invalidate the ordering of the set elements, breaking the invariant that the elements of the set are always in order. By making the iterator type a constant iterator instead of a mutable iterator it's not possible to alter the element, preventing you from corrupting the set's ordering.
So with GCC's implementation, when you dereference the iterator using *iter you get a const entitType& and when you take its address using &*iter you get a const entityType*