Function inheritance

[Alex Vinokur]

Hi,

I need something like "function inheritance".

typedef void (*func_type1) (int);
typedef int (*func_type2) (double);
typedef char (*func_type3) (short, int);
....

I need a vector contains pointers to functions of types above.

Because conceptions "base function" and "derived function" are missing in C++,
it seems that the problem (of creating the vector) should be resolved
by using special base and derived classes/structures.

struct BFunc
{
// Stuff
};
struct DFunc1
{
func_type1 func_;
DFunc1 (func_type1 f) : func_ (f) {}
// Stuff
};

struct DFunc2
{
func_type2 func_;
DFunc2 (func_type2 f) : func_ (f) {}
// Stuff
};

struct DFunc3
{
func_type3 func_;
DFunc3 (func_type3 f) : func_ (f) {}
// Stuff
};

Now, we have

vector<*BFunc> v;

And, for instance
v.push_back (new DFunc2 (f));
v.push_back (new DFunc1 (ff));
v.push_back (new DFunc3 (fff));
v.push_back (new DFunc2 (ffff));
v.push_back (new DFunc1 (fffff));
The questions are:
1) Do we have to use dynamic_cast (while processing vector<*BFunc>)
to call a relevant function via v[i]?
2) Is there any better solution of the "function inheritance" problem?

--
Alex Vinokur
email: alex DOT vinokur AT gmail DOT com
http://mathforum.org/library/view/10978.html
http://sourceforge.net/users/alexvn

[Ivan Vecerina]

"Alex Vinokur" <al****@big-foot.com> wrote in message
news:30******** *****@uni-berlin.de...

I need something like "function inheritance".

typedef void (*func_type1) (int);
typedef int (*func_type2) (double);
typedef char (*func_type3) (short, int);
...

I need a vector contains pointers to functions of types above.

Because conceptions "base function" and "derived function" are missing in
C++,
it seems that the problem (of creating the vector) should be resolved
by using special base and derived classes/structures.
I have trouble understanding the concept of function inheritance.
To talk about inheritance, you need IMO a common interface between
the 'parent' and 'child'. If the functions, as above, have
incompatible interfaces, how can you interact with the 'child'
as if it were a 'parent' ?
How are the functions above more compatible/related to each
other than any other function ? What makes them a "family" ?

[snip: creating wrapper classes]
The questions are:
1) Do we have to use dynamic_cast (while processing vector<*BFunc>)
to call a relevant function via v[i]?
2) Is there any better solution of the "function inheritance" problem?

All (non-member) function pointers can safely be converted
to e.g. void(*)() and back. IIRC this may require
a reinterpret_cas t (not just a static cast) though,
and is safe if you don't call the function until the
pointer is cast back to its original type.
Rather than void(*)(), it might therefore be safer to
use a function that you won't be able to call (e.g.
because it takes an undefined type as a parameter).

What I would use is:

typedef void (*any_func)(cla ss ThisClassDoesNo tExist&);
std::vector<any _func> myFunctions;
hth,
Ivan
--
http://ivan.vecerina.com/contact/?subject=NG_POST <- email contact form
Brainbench MVP for C++ <> http://www.brainbench.com

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Alex Vinokur:

Hi,

I need something like "function inheritance".

typedef void (*func_type1) (int);
typedef int (*func_type2) (double);
typedef char (*func_type3) (short, int);
...

I need a vector contains pointers to functions of types above.
As Ivan Vecerina wrote, the above seems to be unrelated function
signatures.
Because conceptions "base function" and "derived function" are missing in C++,
it seems that the problem (of creating the vector) should be resolved
by using special base and derived classes/structures.

struct BFunc
{
// Stuff
};
struct DFunc1
{
func_type1 func_;
DFunc1 (func_type1 f) : func_ (f) {}
// Stuff
};
Why not make the function itself a member function?

operator() is provided for that purpose.

Then an object of this class will be a functor object.
struct DFunc2
{
func_type2 func_;
DFunc2 (func_type2 f) : func_ (f) {}
// Stuff
};

struct DFunc3
{
func_type3 func_;
DFunc3 (func_type3 f) : func_ (f) {}
// Stuff
};

Now, we have

vector<*BFunc> v;

And, for instance
v.push_back (new DFunc2 (f));
v.push_back (new DFunc1 (ff));
v.push_back (new DFunc3 (fff));
v.push_back (new DFunc2 (ffff));
v.push_back (new DFunc1 (fffff));
The questions are:
1) Do we have to use dynamic_cast (while processing vector<*BFunc>)
to call a relevant function via v[i]?
For that you need at least one virtual function.

2) Is there any better solution of the "function inheritance" problem?

It's difficult to see what you're trying to achieve since your
function signatures are all different (need different arguments).

What are you intending to use this for?

Most probably that's where the real problem/solution is, whereas this
"function inheritance" stuff is probably particular to an imagined but
ungood solution.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Alex Vinokur]

"Ivan Vecerina" <NO************ *************** *******@vecerin a.com> wrote in message news:cn******** **@newshispeed. ch...

"Alex Vinokur" <al****@big-foot.com> wrote in message
news:30******** *****@uni-berlin.de...

I need something like "function inheritance".

typedef void (*func_type1) (int);
typedef int (*func_type2) (double);
typedef char (*func_type3) (short, int);
...

I need a vector contains pointers to functions of types above.

Because conceptions "base function" and "derived function" are missing in
C++,
it seems that the problem (of creating the vector) should be resolved
by using special base and derived classes/structures.

I have trouble understanding the concept of function inheritance.
To talk about inheritance, you need IMO a common interface between
the 'parent' and 'child'. If the functions, as above, have
incompatible interfaces, how can you interact with the 'child'
as if it were a 'parent' ?
How are the functions above more compatible/related to each
other than any other function ? What makes them a "family" ?

[snip]

It seems that code below is what I want to.

========= foo.cpp : BEGIN =========
#include <cassert>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <map>
using namespace std;

typedef int (*func_type1) (int);
typedef int (*func_type2) (int, int);

int f1 (int x) { return (10 * x + 1); }
int f2 (int x, int y) { return (10 * x + 10 * y + 2); }
int f3 (int x) { return (10 * x + 3); }
// -------------------------
struct BFunc
{
static map<string, BFunc*> store_s;
static void init_store_fs ();
static void free_store_fs ();
virtual int get_value (int, char**) const = 0;
virtual ~BFunc() {}
};
map<string, BFunc*> BFunc::store_s;
struct DFunc1 : public BFunc
{
const func_type1 func_;
DFunc1 (const func_type1& func_i) : func_ (func_i) {}
int get_value (int argc, char** argv) const
{
assert (argc >= 3);
return func_ (atoi (argv[2]));
}
};
struct DFunc2 : public BFunc
{
const func_type2 func_;
DFunc2 (const func_type2& func_i) : func_ (func_i) {}
int get_value (int argc, char** argv) const
{
assert (argc >= 4);
return func_ (atoi (argv[2]), atoi (argv[3]));
}
};
// ------
const string name1 ("a1");
const string name2 ("a2");
const string name3 ("a3");
void BFunc::init_sto re_fs ()
{
store_s[name1] = new DFunc1 (f1);
store_s[name2] = new DFunc2 (f2);
store_s[name3] = new DFunc1 (f3);
}
void BFunc::free_sto re_fs ()
{
for (map<string, BFunc*>::iterat or pos_iter = store_s.begin() ;
pos_iter != store_s.end();
pos_iter++
)
{
delete pos_iter->second;
}
}

int main (int argc, char** argv)
{
BFunc::init_sto re_fs ();
assert (argc >= 2);

const string name(argv[1]);
if (BFunc::store_s .count(name))
{
cout << BFunc::store_s[name]->get_value (argc, argv) << endl;
}
else
{
cout << name << " is not in store" << endl;
}

BFunc::free_sto re_fs ();

return 0;
}
========= foo.cpp : END ===========

========= Compilation & Run : BEGIN =========

$ gpp --version
gpp.exe (GCC) 3.4.1
[---omitted---]

$ gpp -W -Wall foo.cpp
// No errors/warnings
$ a.exe a1 3 // function f1 is invoked; its type is func_type1
31

$ a.exe a2 3 4 // function f2 is invoked; its type is func_type2
72

$ a.exe a3 3 // function f3 is invoked; its type is func_type1
33

$ a.exe a4
a4 is not in store

========= Compilation & Run : END ===========
--
Alex Vinokur
email: alex DOT vinokur AT gmail DOT com
http://mathforum.org/library/view/10978.html
http://sourceforge.net/users/alexvn

[Ivan Vecerina]

"Alex Vinokur" <al****@big-foot.com> wrote in message
news:30******** *****@uni-berlin.de...

It seems that code below is what I want to. [a command line utility that uses argv[1] to specify
a function to be called, which takes the rest of
its integer parameters from the command line]

I'd rather wrap things the other way around.
Use the following common function signature:
typedef int (*FuncPtr)( int argc, char** argv );
Or even safer:
typedef int (*FuncPtr)( vector<string> const& params );

Where the vector of parameters can be initialized
in main() as follows:
vector<string> params( argv+2 , argv+argc );

Then provide one or more utility function to avoid
code duplication between the implementations of FuncPtr.
Such as:
int getIntParam( vector<string> const& params, int pos )
{
if(pos>=params. size() )
{ cout<<"...error description..." ; exit(1); }
return atoi (params[pos].c_str()); // extra error checks here?
}

struct BFunc
{
static map<string, BFunc*> store_s;
static void init_store_fs ();
static void free_store_fs (); Requiring explicit de-init is bug-prone.
I would replace the three static members by a single non-member
function:
map<string,shar ed_ptr<BFunc> > getFunctionsMap ();
// returns instance whose lifetime is used by the caller.
Using the alternative approach I suggested, this wrapper would
disappear and each function would become something like:
int f1 ( vector<string> const& params )
{
return (10 * getIntParam(0) + 1);
}

Then you do not need a container of polymorphic items anymore:
map<string, FuncPtr> getFunctionMap( );

I think you get a cleaner code by keeping the extra parameters
as a string list.
struct DFunc1 : public BFunc
{
const func_type1 func_;
DFunc1 (const func_type1& func_i) : func_ (func_i) {}
int get_value (int argc, char** argv) const
{
assert (argc >= 3); assert is not the error checking strategy one would normally
use to check the validity of user(/external) inputs.
return func_ (atoi (argv[2]));
}
};

Regards,
Ivan
--
http://ivan.vecerina.com/contact/?subject=NG_POST <- email contact form