I would like to know the difference between these two (sorry I do not know the name of this subject).
I come from C# where I was used to write System.data as well as classA.MethodA. I have already found out that in Cpp, with namespaces I need to use ::, with classmembers ->. But what about simple "."?
I have created System::data:odbc::odbcConnection^ connection. Later I was able to use connection.Open. Why not connection->open?
Im sorry, I am sure its something easily findable on the net, but I dont know english term for these.
Thank you guys
If you have a pointer to an object, you use:
MyClass *a = new MyClass();
a->MethodName();
On the other hand, if you have an actual object, you use dotted notation:
MyClass a;
a.MethodName();
To clarify the previous answers slightly, the caret character ^ in VC++ can be thought of as a * for most intents and purposes. It is a 'handle' to a class, and means something slightly different, but similar. See this short Googled explanation:
http://blogs.msdn.com/branbray/archive/2003/11/17/51016.aspx
So, in your example there, if you initialize your connection like:
System::Data::Odbc::OdbcConnection connect;
//You should be able to do this:
connect.Open();
Conversely, if you do this:
System::Data::Odbc::OdbcConnection^ connect1 = gcnew System::Data::Odbc::OdbcConnection();
connect1.Open(); // should be an error
connect1->Open(); //correct
The short answer: C++ allows you to manage your own memory. As such, you can create and manipulate memory, through usage of pointers (essentially integer variables containing memory addresses, rather than a value).
a.Method() means a is an instance of a class, from which you call Method.
a->Method() means a is a pointer to an instance of a class, from which you call Method.
When you use syntax like a->member, you are using a pointer to a structure or object.
When you use syntax like a.member, you are using the structure or object and not a pointer to the structure or object.
I did a quick google for you and THIS looks fairly quick and decent explanation.
Related
Inside an Objective-C method, it is possible to get the selector of the method with the keyword _cmd. Does such a thing exist for the names of arguments?
For example, if I have a method declared as such:
- (void)methodWithAnArgument:(id)foo {
...
}
Is there some sort of construct that would allow me to get access to some sort of string-like representation of the variable name? That is, not the value of foo, but something that actually reflects the variable name "foo" in a local variable inside the method.
This information doesn't appear to be stored in NSInvocation or any of its related classes (NSMethodSignature, etc), so I'm not optimistic this can be done using Apple's frameworks or the runtime. I suspect it might be possible with some sort of compile-time macro, but I'm unfamiliar with C macros so I wouldn't know where to begin.
Edit to contain more information about what I'm actually trying to do.
I'm building a tool to help make working with third-party URL schemes easier. There are two sides to how I want my API to look:
As a consumer of a URL scheme, I can call a method like [twitterHandler showUserWithScreenName:#"someTwitterHandle"];
As a creator of an app with a URL scheme, I can define my URLs in a plist dictionary, whose key-value pairs look something like #"showUserWithScreenName": #"twitter://user?screenName={screenName}".
What I'm working on now is finding the best way to glue these together. The current fully-functioning implementation of showUserWithScreenName: looks something like this:
- (void)showUserWithScreenName:(NSString *)screenName {
[self performCommand:NSStringFromSelector(_cmd) withArguments:#{#"screenName": screenName}];
}
Where performCommand:withArguments: is a method that (besides some other logic) looks up the command key in the plist (in this case "showUserWithScreenName:") and evaluates the value as a template using the passed dictionary as the values to bind.
The problem I'm trying to solve: there are dozens of methods like this that look exactly the same, but just swap out the dictionary definition to contain the correct template params. In every case, the desired dictionary key is the name of the parameter. I'm trying to find a way to minimize my boilerplate.
In practice, I assume I'm going to accept that there will be some boilerplate needed, but I can probably make it ever-so-slightly cleaner thanks to NSDictionaryOfVariableBindings (thanks #CodaFi — I wasn't familiar with that macro!). For the sake of argument, I'm curious if it would be possible to completely metaprogram this using something like forwardInvocation:, which as far as I can tell would require some way to access parameter names.
You can use componentsSeparatedByString: with a : after you get the string from NSStringFromSelector(_cmd) and use your #selector's argument names to put the arguments in the correct order.
You can also take a look at this post, which is describing the method naming conventions in Objective C
I dont undesratand in which situations is more convenient to pass references as functions parameters:
- (void)exportXMLToString:(NSMutableString **)aString
Can I just pass the string by value and have it back when the method finishes to execute ?
Thanks
You may find the following thread useful. I think your issue is vastly discussed here:
Use of pass by reference in Objective-C
It more convenient to pass references when you do not want an extra copy of String,
Extra copy means more space, If you want to read/append the String< It is better if you do not create a new new one.
You easily do this by passing String value (create a new one) but that's not very efficient. (you want two glasses space to store 1/2 glass of water :) )
As I understand what you are trying to achieve, you could just name your method - (NSString *)xmlStringValue.
It is a matter of style, I personally only use references in ObjC when I have to (it is not really in the spirit of the language imho), and almost exclusively for (NSError **).
If you take this method call for instance(from other post)
- (int)methodName:(int)arg1 withArg2:(int)arg2
{
// Do something crazy!
return someInt;
}
Is withArg2 actually ever used for anything inside this method ?
withArg2 is part of the method name (it is usually written without arguments as methodName:withArg2: if you want to refer to the method in the documentation), so no, it is not used for anything inside the method.
As Tamás points out, withArg2 is part of the method name. If you write a function with the exact same name in C, it will look like this:
int methodNamewithArg2(int arg1, int arg2)
{
// Do something crazy!
return someInt;
}
Coming from other programming languages, the Objective-C syntax at first might appear weird, but after a while you will start to understand how it makes your whole code more expressive. If you see the following C++ function call:
anObject.subString("foobar", 2, 3, true);
and compare it to a similar Objective-C method invocation
[anObject subString:"foobar" startingAtCharacter:2 numberOfCharacters:3 makeResultUpperCase:YES];
it should become clear what I mean. The example may be contrived, but the point is to show that embedding the meaning of the next parameter into the method name allows to write very readable code. Even if you choose horrible variable names or use literals (as in the example above), you will still be able to make sense of the code without having to look up the method documentation.
You would call this method as follows:
int i=[self methodName:arg1 withArg2:arg2];
This is just iOs's way of making the code easier to read.
I've been using std::unique_ptr to store some COM resources, and provided a custom deleter function. However, many of the COM functions want pointer-to-pointer. Right now, I'm using the implementation detail of _Myptr, in my compiler. Is it going to break unique_ptr to be accessing this data member directly, or should I store a gajillion temporary pointers to construct unique_ptr rvalues from?
COM objects are reference-countable by their nature, so you shouldn't use anything except reference-counting smart pointers like ATL::CComPtr or _com_ptr_t even if it seems inappropriate for your usecase (I fully understand your concerns, I just think you assign too much weight to them). Both classes are designed to be used in all valid scenarios that arise when COM objects are used, including obtaining the pointer-to-pointer. Yes, that's a bit too much functionality, but if you don't expect any specific negative consequences you can't tolerate you should just use those classes - they are designed exactly for this purpose.
I've had to tackle the same problem not too long ago, and I came up with two different solutions:
The first was a simple wrapper that encapsulated a 'writeable' pointer and could be std::moved into my smart pointer. This is just a little more convenient that using the temp pointers you are mentioning, since you cannot define the type directly at the call-site.
Therefore, I didn't stick with that. So what I did was a Retrieve helper-function that would get the COM function and return my smart-pointer (and do all the temporary pointer stuff internally). Now this trivially works with free-functions that only have a single T** parameter. If you want to use this on something more complex, you can just pass in the call via std::bind and only leave the pointer-to-be-returned free.
I know that this is not directly what you're asking, but I think it's a neat solution to the problem you're having.
As a side note, I'd prefer boost's intrusive_ptr instead of std::unique_ptr, but that's a matter of taste, as always.
Edit: Here's some sample code that's transferred from my version using boost::intrusive_ptr (so it might not work out-of-the box with unique_ptr)
template <class T, class PtrType, class PtrDel>
HRESULT retrieve(T func, std::unique_ptr<PtrType, PtrDel>& ptr)
{
ElementType* raw_ptr=nullptr;
HRESULT result = func(&raw_ptr);
ptr.reset(raw_ptr);
return result;
}
For example, it can be used like this:
std::unique_ptr<IFileDialog, ComDeleter> FileDialog;
/*...*/
using std::bind;
using namespace std::placeholders;
std::unique_ptr<IShellItem, ComDeleter> ShellItem;
HRESULT status = retrieve(bind(&IFileDialog::GetResult, FileDialog, _1), ShellItem);
For bonus points, you can even let retrieve return the unique_ptr instead of taking it by reference. The functor that bind generates should have signature typedefs to derive the pointer type. You can then throw an exception if you get a bad HRESULT.
C++0x smart pointers have a portable way to get at the raw pointer container .get() or release it entirely with .release(). You could also always use &(*ptr) but that is less idiomatic.
If you want to use smart pointers to manage the lifetime of an object, but still need raw pointers to use a library which doesn't support smart pointers (including standard c library) you can use those functions to most conveniently get at the raw pointers.
Remember, you still need to keep the smart pointer around for the duration you want the object to live (so be aware of its lifetime).
Something like:
call_com_function( &my_uniq_ptr.get() ); // will work fine
return &my_localscope_uniq_ptr.get(); // will not
return &my_member_uniq_ptr.get(); // might, if *this will be around for the duration, etc..
Note: this is just a general answer to your question. How to best use COM is a separate issue and sharptooth may very well be correct.
Use a helper function like this.
template< class T >
T*& getPointerRef ( std::unique_ptr<T> & ptr )
{
struct Twin : public std::unique_ptr<T>::_Mybase {};
Twin * twin = (Twin*)( &ptr );
return twin->_Myptr;
}
check the implementation
int wmain ( int argc, wchar_t argv[] )
{
std::unique_ptr<char> charPtr ( new char[25] );
delete getPointerRef(charPtr);
getPointerRef(charPtr) = 0;
return charPtr.get() != 0;
}
I'm trying to store the names of some variables inside strings. For example:
Dim Foo1 as Integer
Dim Foo1Name as String
' -- Do something to set Foo1Name to the name of the other variable --
MessageBox.Show(Foo1Name & " is the variable you are looking for.")
' Outputs:
' Foo1 is the variable you are looking for.
This would help with some debugging I'm working on.
Well, you can clearly just set Foo1Name = "Foo1" - but I strongly suspect that's not what you're after.
How would you know which variable you're trying to find the name of? What's the bigger picture? What you want may be possible with reflection, if we're talking about non-local variables, but I suspect it's either not feasible, or there's a better way to attack the problem in the first place.
Does this example from msdn using reflection help?
One solution would be to use an associative array to store your variables. Once, I did this in .Net, but I think I wrote a custom class to do it.
myArray("foo1Name") = "foo1"
Then, you can just store a list of your variable names, or you can wrap that up in the same class.
if( myArray(variableName(x)) == whatImLookingFor ) print variableName(x) & "is it"
I think this really depends on what you are trying to debug. Two possible things to look at are the Reflection and StackTrace classes. That said when your program is compiled, the compiler and runtime do not guarantee that that names need to be consistent with the original program.
This is especially the case with debug vs. release builds. The point of the .PDB files (symbols) in the debug version are to include more information about the original program. For native C/C++ applications it is strongly recommended that you generate symbols for every build (debug+release) of your application to help with debugging. In .NET this is less of an issue since there are features like Reflection. IIRC John Robbins recommends that you always generate symbols for .NET projects too.
You might also find Mike Stall's blog useful and the managed debugger samples.
For finding the variable name, see: Finding the variable name passed to a function
This would apply to VB.Net as well.