I'm programming in Visual C++ 2010. I've got a example.h example.cpp and Form1.h.
Basically, I've pasted bits of code. I'm not able to include Form1.h in the example.h file, not sure why. But The main question is how do I call Test (which is in form1.h) from example.cpp? What would be the syntax? Is it possible to do this?
My Form1.h
#include "example.h"
public ref class Form1 : public System::Windows::Forms::Form
{
public: void Test(void)
{
// Does something
}
}
My example.cpp
#include "example.h"
#include "Form1.h"
Test(); // would like to call Test from here.
You have two problems here:
You must call functions from inside of another function. The code you currently have in your example.cpp file is invalid, because you are trying to call the Test() function at global scope.
Make it look like this instead:
int main()
{
Test();
return 0;
}
This also solves the problem that you don't have a main function, which is the entry point to any C++ application.
More generally, I would strongly recommend using one of the project templates that comes with Visual Studio to get started (rather than copying and pasting random bits of code, like you said). That ensures that you have all of the things you need to get started, like an entry point. Once you have a solid foundation, you can start building up from there.
You might also find it useful to obtain either a book on C++/CLI or an online tutorial (such as this one: Hello C++/CLI, Part 1 and Hello C++/CLI, Part 2).
Your Test function is a member function of the Form1 class, which means that you need an object of that class in order to call it. Thus, the code should actually look like this:
int main()
{
Form1^ frm = gcnew Form1();
frm.Test();
return 0;
}
Alternatively, you could work around this by making the Test() function a static function. This would allow you to call it without having an instance of the class:
public ref class Form1 : public System::Windows::Forms::Form
{
public: static void Test(void)
{
// Does something
}
}
// ...
int main()
{
Form1::Test();
return 0;
}
However, beware that this means you cannot access any other members of the Form1 class inside of the Test() function (because there is no this pointer).
This should all be explained in whatever book/tutorial you decide to use to learn C++/CLI—search for a chapter about "Classes" or "Object-Oriented Design".
Is it possible to extend or modify the code of a C# class at runtime?
My question specifically revolves around Monkey Patching / Duck Punching or Meta Object Programming (MOP), as it happens in scripting languages such as Groovy, Ruby etc.
For those still stumbling on this question in the present day, there is indeed a present-day library called Harmony that relatively-straightforwardly enables such monkey-patching at runtime. Its focus is on video game modding (particularly games built with Unity), but there ain't much stopping folks from using it outside of that use case.
Copying the example from their introduction, if you have an existing class like so:
public class SomeGameClass
{
public bool isRunning;
public int counter;
private int DoSomething()
{
if (isRunning)
{
counter++;
}
return counter * 10;
}
}
Then Harmony can patch it like so:
using HarmonyLib;
using Intro_SomeGame;
public class MyPatcher
{
// make sure DoPatching() is called at start either by
// the mod loader or by your injector
public static void DoPatching()
{
var harmony = new Harmony("com.example.patch");
harmony.PatchAll();
}
}
[HarmonyPatch(typeof(SomeGameClass))]
[HarmonyPatch("DoSomething")]
class Patch01
{
static AccessTools.FieldRef<SomeGameClass, bool> isRunningRef =
AccessTools.FieldRefAccess<SomeGameClass, bool>("isRunning");
static bool Prefix(SomeGameClass __instance, ref int ___counter)
{
isRunningRef(__instance) = true;
if (___counter > 100)
return false;
___counter = 0;
return true;
}
static void Postfix(ref int __result)
{
__result *= 2;
}
}
Here, we have a "prefix" patch which gets inserted before the original method runs, allowing us to set variables within the method, set fields on the method's class, or even skip the original method entirely. We also have a "postfix" patch which gets inserted after the original method runs, and can manipulate things like the return value.
Obviously this ain't quite as nice as the sorts of monkey-patching you can do in e.g. Ruby, and there are a lot of caveats that might hinder its usefulness depending on your use case, but in those situations where you really do need to alter methods, Harmony's a pretty proven approach to doing so.
Is it possible to extend or modify the code of a C# class at run-time?
No it is not possible to do this in .NET. You could write derived classes and override methods (if they are virtual) but you cannot modify an existing class. Just imagine if what you were asking was possible: you could modify the behavior of some existing system classes like System.String.
You may also take a look at Extension methods to add functionality to an existing class.
You can add functionality, but you cannot change or remove functionality.
You can extend classes by adding extra methods, but you cannot override them because added methods have always lower priority than existing ones.
For more info, check Extension Methods in C# Programming Guide.
Why should we make the constructor private in class? As we always need the constructor to be public.
Some reasons where you may need private constructor:
The constructor can only be accessed from static factory method inside the class itself. Singleton can also belong to this category.
A utility class, that only contains static methods.
By providing a private constructor you prevent class instances from being created in any place other than this very class. There are several use cases for providing such constructor.
A. Your class instances are created in a static method. The static method is then declared as public.
class MyClass()
{
private:
MyClass() { }
public:
static MyClass * CreateInstance() { return new MyClass(); }
};
B. Your class is a singleton. This means, not more than one instance of your class exists in the program.
class MyClass()
{
private:
MyClass() { }
public:
MyClass & Instance()
{
static MyClass * aGlobalInst = new MyClass();
return *aGlobalInst;
}
};
C. (Only applies to the upcoming C++0x standard) You have several constructors. Some of them are declared public, others private. For reducing code size, public constructors 'call' private constructors which in turn do all the work. Your public constructors are thus called delegating constructors:
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass() : MyClass(2010, 1, 1) { }
private:
MyClass(int theYear, int theMonth, int theDay) { /* do real work */ }
};
D. You want to limit object copying (for example, because of using a shared resource):
class MyClass
{
SharedResource * myResource;
private:
MyClass(const MyClass & theOriginal) { }
};
E. Your class is a utility class. That means, it only contains static members. In this case, no object instance must ever be created in the program.
To leave a "back door" that allows another friend class/function to construct an object in a way forbidden to the user. An example that comes to mind would be a container constructing an iterator (C++):
Iterator Container::begin() { return Iterator(this->beginPtr_); }
// Iterator(pointer_type p) constructor is private,
// and Container is a friend of Iterator.
Everyone is stuck on the Singleton thing, wow.
Other things:
Stop people from creating your class on the stack; make private constructors and only hand back pointers via a factory method.
Preventing creating copys of the class (private copy constructor)
This can be very useful for a constructor that contains common code; private constructors can be called by other constructors, using the 'this(...);' notation. By making the common initialization code in a private (or protected) constructor, you are also making explicitly clear that it is called only during construction, which is not so if it were simply a method:
public class Point {
public Point() {
this(0,0); // call common constructor
}
private Point(int x,int y) {
m_x = x; m_y = y;
}
};
There are some instances where you might not want to use a public constructor; for example if you want a singleton class.
If you are writing an assembly used by 3rd parties there could be a number of internal classes that you only want created by your assembly and not to be instantiated by users of your assembly.
This ensures that you (the class with private constructor) control how the contructor is called.
An example : A static factory method on the class could return objects as the factory method choses to allocate them (like a singleton factory for example).
We can also have private constructor,
to enfore the object's creation by a specific class
only(For security reasons).
One way to do it is through having a friend class.
C++ example:
class ClientClass;
class SecureClass
{
private:
SecureClass(); // Constructor is private.
friend class ClientClass; // All methods in
//ClientClass have access to private
// & protected methods of SecureClass.
};
class ClientClass
{
public:
ClientClass();
SecureClass* CreateSecureClass()
{
return (new SecureClass()); // we can access
// constructor of
// SecureClass as
// ClientClass is friend
// of SecureClass.
}
};
Note: Note: Only ClientClass (since it is friend of SecureClass)
can call SecureClass's Constructor.
You shouldn't make the constructor private. Period. Make it protected, so you can extend the class if you need to.
Edit: I'm standing by that, no matter how many downvotes you throw at this.
You're cutting off the potential for future development on the code. If other users or programmers are really determined to extend the class, then they'll just change the constructor to protected in source or bytecode. You will have accomplished nothing besides to make their life a little harder. Include a warning in your constructor's comments, and leave it at that.
If it's a utility class, the simpler, more correct, and more elegant solution is to mark the whole class "static final" to prevent extension. It doesn't do any good to just mark the constructor private; a really determined user may always use reflection to obtain the constructor.
Valid uses:
One good use of a protected
constructor is to force use of static
factory methods, which allow you to
limit instantiation or pool & reuse
expensive resources (DB connections,
native resources).
Singletons (usually not good practice, but sometimes necessary)
when you do not want users to create instances of this class or create class that inherits this class, like the java.lang.math, all the function in this package is static, all the functions can be called without creating an instance of math, so the constructor is announce as static.
If it's private, then you can't call it ==> you can't instantiate the class. Useful in some cases, like a singleton.
There's a discussion and some more examples here.
I saw a question from you addressing the same issue.
Simply if you don't want to allow the others to create instances, then keep the constuctor within a limited scope. The practical application (An example) is the singleton pattern.
Constructor is private for some purpose like when you need to implement singleton or limit the number of object of a class.
For instance in singleton implementation we have to make the constructor private
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class singletonClass
{
static int i;
static singletonClass* instance;
public:
static singletonClass* createInstance()
{
if(i==0)
{
instance =new singletonClass;
i=1;
}
return instance;
}
void test()
{
cout<<"successfully created instance";
}
};
int singletonClass::i=0;
singletonClass* singletonClass::instance=NULL;
int main()
{
singletonClass *temp=singletonClass::createInstance();//////return instance!!!
temp->test();
}
Again if you want to limit the object creation upto 10 then use the following
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class singletonClass
{
static int i;
static singletonClass* instance;
public:
static singletonClass* createInstance()
{
if(i<10)
{
instance =new singletonClass;
i++;
cout<<"created";
}
return instance;
}
};
int singletonClass::i=0;
singletonClass* singletonClass::instance=NULL;
int main()
{
singletonClass *temp=singletonClass::createInstance();//return an instance
singletonClass *temp1=singletonClass::createInstance();///return another instance
}
Thanks
You can have more than one constructor. C++ provides a default constructor and a default copy constructor if you don't provide one explicitly. Suppose you have a class that can only be constructed using some parameterized constructor. Maybe it initialized variables. If a user then uses this class without that constructor, they can cause no end of problems. A good general rule: If the default implementation is not valid, make both the default and copy constructor private and don't provide an implementation:
class C
{
public:
C(int x);
private:
C();
C(const C &);
};
Use the compiler to prevent users from using the object with the default constructors that are not valid.
Quoting from Effective Java, you can have a class with private constructor to have a utility class that defines constants (as static final fields).
(EDIT: As per the comment this is something which might be applicable only with Java, I'm unaware if this construct is applicable/needed in other OO languages (say C++))
An example as below:
public class Constants {
private Contants():
public static final int ADDRESS_UNIT = 32;
...
}
EDIT_1:
Again, below explanation is applicable in Java : (and referring from the book, Effective Java)
An instantiation of utility class like the one below ,though not harmful, doesn't serve
any purpose since they are not designed to be instantiated.
For example, say there is no private Constructor for class Constants.
A code chunk like below is valid but doesn't better convey intention of
the user of Constants class
unit = (this.length)/new Constants().ADDRESS_UNIT;
in contrast with code like
unit = (this.length)/Constants.ADDRESS_UNIT;
Also I think a private constructor conveys the intention of the designer of the Constants
(say) class better.
Java provides a default parameterless public constructor if no constructor
is provided, and if your intention is to prevent instantiation then a private constructor is
needed.
One cannot mark a top level class static and even a final class can be instantiated.
Utility classes could have private constructors. Users of the classes should not be able to instantiate these classes:
public final class UtilityClass {
private UtilityClass() {}
public static utilityMethod1() {
...
}
}
You may want to prevent a class to be instantiated freely. See the singleton design pattern as an example. In order to guarantee the uniqueness, you can't let anyone create an instance of it :-)
One of the important use is in SingleTon class
class Person
{
private Person()
{
//Its private, Hense cannot be Instantiated
}
public static Person GetInstance()
{
//return new instance of Person
// In here I will be able to access private constructor
}
};
Its also suitable, If your class has only static methods. i.e nobody needs to instantiate your class
It's really one obvious reason: you want to build an object, but it's not practical to do it (in term of interface) within the constructor.
The Factory example is quite obvious, let me demonstrate the Named Constructor idiom.
Say I have a class Complex which can represent a complex number.
class Complex { public: Complex(double,double); .... };
The question is: does the constructor expects the real and imaginary parts, or does it expects the norm and angle (polar coordinates) ?
I can change the interface to make it easier:
class Complex
{
public:
static Complex Regular(double, double = 0.0f);
static Complex Polar(double, double = 0.0f);
private:
Complex(double, double);
}; // class Complex
This is called the Named Constructor idiom: the class can only be built from scratch by explicitly stating which constructor we wish to use.
It's a special case of many construction methods. The Design Patterns provide a good number of ways to build object: Builder, Factory, Abstract Factory, ... and a private constructor will ensure that the user is properly constrained.
In addition to the better-known uses…
To implement the Method Object pattern, which I’d summarize as:
“Private constructor, public static method”
“Object for implementation, function for interface”
If you want to implement a function using an object, and the object is not useful outside of doing a one-off computation (by a method call), then you have a Throwaway Object. You can encapsulate the object creation and method call in a static method, preventing this common anti-pattern:
z = new A(x,y).call();
…replacing it with a (namespaced) function call:
z = A.f(x,y);
The caller never needs to know or care that you’re using an object internally, yielding a cleaner interface, and preventing garbage from the object hanging around or incorrect use of the object.
For example, if you want to break up a computation across methods foo, bar, and zork, for example to share state without having to pass many values in and out of functions, you could implement it as follows:
class A {
public static Z f(x, y) {
A a = new A(x, y);
a.foo();
a.bar();
return a.zork();
}
private A(X x, Y y) { /* ... */ };
}
This Method Object pattern is given in Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns, Kent Beck, pages 34–37, where it is the last step of a refactoring pattern, ending:
Replace the original method with one that creates an instance of the new class, constructed with the parameters and receiver of the original method, and invokes “compute”.
This differs significantly from the other examples here: the class is instantiable (unlike a utility class), but the instances are private (unlike factory methods, including singletons etc.), and can live on the stack, since they never escape.
This pattern is very useful in bottoms-up OOP, where objects are used to simplify low-level implementation, but are not necessarily exposed externally, and contrasts with the top-down OOP that is often presented and begins with high-level interfaces.
Sometimes is useful if you want to control how and when (and how many) instances of an object are created.
Among others, used in patterns:
Singleton pattern
Builder pattern
On use of private constructors could also be to increase readability/maintainability in the face of domain-driven design.
From "Microsoft .NET - Architecing Applications for the Enterprise, 2nd Edition":
var request = new OrderRequest(1234);
Quote, "There are two problems here. First, when looking at the code, one can hardly guess what’s going
on. An instance of OrderRequest is being created, but why and using which data? What’s 1234? This
leads to the second problem: you are violating the ubiquitous language of the bounded context. The
language probably says something like this: a customer can issue an order request and is allowed to
specify a purchase ID. If that’s the case, here’s a better way to get a new OrderRequest instance:"
var request = OrderRequest.CreateForCustomer(1234);
where
private OrderRequest() { ... }
public OrderRequest CreateForCustomer (int customerId)
{
var request = new OrderRequest();
...
return request;
}
I'm not advocating this for every single class, but for the above DDD scenario I think it makes perfect sense to prevent a direct creation of a new object.
If you create a private constructor you need to create the object inside the class
enter code here#include<iostream>
//factory method
using namespace std;
class Test
{
private:
Test(){
cout<<"Object created"<<endl;
}
public:
static Test* m1(){
Test *t = new Test();
return t;
}
void m2(){
cout<<"m2-Test"<<endl;
}
};
int main(){
Test *t = Test::m1();
t->m2();
return 0;
}
So, I have two classes...Very basic in structure. I try to import one into the other, and declare a new object of that class type...however, it seems to read the class name as the name of a variable?!
The header class provided below will not read the "ApplicationManager" class properly.
Code:
####ifndef _GAME_H_
####define _GAME_H_
####include "application.h"
####include "applicationmanager.h"
class Game : public Application
{
public:
Game();
~Game();
void LoadContent() override;
void UnloadContent() override;
void Draw() override;
private:
//int ApplicationManager; //WHY DOES THIS COMPILE??!
ApplicationManager management; //This DOES NOT WORK?
};
####endif
Here is the header for the "ApplicationManager" class.
Code:
####ifndef _APPMANAGER_H_
####define _APPMANAGER_H_
####include "game.h"
####include "application.h"
class ApplicationManager
{
public:
ApplicationManager(void);
~ApplicationManager(void);
private:
};
####endif
The error that occurs, tells me that I need a ";" before "management", and that "ApplicationManager" is missing a type specifier, so it is assumed to be default-type int.
...any ideas why it won't compile properly? Can someone else try this and report the results? I copied the code, and pasted it in a different solution, to see if something became corrupted....it still didn't work.
You have a cyclic reference. When game.h is included from applicationmanager.h, the ApplicationManager class has not yet been read by the compiler.
To fix, remove the line
#include "game.h"
from applicationmanager.h.
Why do you have circular dependency between Game.h and AppicationManager.h?
Aside from that, I'd say check your header guard (#ifdef _*_H) in Application.h. A fairly often occurence in C++, when copy/pasting code or copying files, is to forget to change the header guard define name for a new class, so you end up with two different headers guarded by the same define. In which case, if both are included into some other file, only the first will actually be expanded into anything useful.
THe error message is some what misleading. It basically says "For some reason (probably an error in the referenced type) I cannot recognize the type you're using (in you case ApplicationManager)".
If you need ApplicationManager to know about Game make a pure virtual base class (interface in other terms) and have Game inherit from that (with out extending the interface) and have ApplicationManager include the base class header file