All 2 entries tagged Cplusplus

A tricksy bit of C++ templating

Basic C++ Templates

My First Templates

Most people's first encounter with C++ templates is when they want to write a function which can take several types and do the same thing regardless of which. That is, something where the function body ends up the same, but the signatures differ. The templating engine lets you do this really easily, and better still, only the versions of the function you actually use will be created by the compiler which reduces the size of your compiled binary.

Let's make a couple of dummy functions to discuss:

template <typename T>
T myfunc(T);
template <typename T>
void myfunc(const & T);

The first of these is probably the simplest possible template function - we define a name for our 'type' parameter, calling it T, and use T where we would normally use a type such as int, double etc. The line-break is purely convention, but is the common way to write these. We can use T in the signature and/or the body, or we can not use it at all in certain circumstances. This is the 'template' for how the function should look, and if we call it from our code we'll get a version where T is substituted for an actual type, based on, in this case, the type of the argument we pass.

The second block defines a slightly more complex function, where we add some qualifiers to the T type argument, in this case making it a const reference. Note we can overload between T, const T, ref T etc just like we can with explicit types, int and int & being different functions.

Overload resolution between templated functions and between templated functions, non-templated functions and what are called template specialisations are complicated, but mostly can be thought of as going from more to less restrictive - int myfunc(int) would take priority over the templated version for example.

Templates go in Header Files

The fact that T is a placeholder for an actual type is a chunk of why template _definitions_ have to go in header files (excepting so called 'explicit instantiation' which wont discuss here) - the compiler needs the definition to compile the function when it encounters a call to it, and make sure that this function can compile for that type - for instance if the function body passes T to other functions, or calls member functions on it (is T is meant to be a class), are these available? If not, the function cannot be compiled. Since a header file is included (directly or indirectly) in every C++ file which needs it, the full definition is always available during compilation.

Or putting it another way, we can't compile a C++ file containing a templated definition on it's own because we don't know which types we're compiling for, and we certainly don't want to compile for every possible type, even if we could, as this would produce a ton of useless code.

By the way, because templates are not completely 'fleshed out' functions, they are implicitly exempted from the 'one-definition' rule, although properly using include guards etc is still a good idea!

Some More Specific Template Stuff

Template Specialisation

So what if we want to use a different version of a function for, say, integers and class types? Well, we can provide an integer _specialisation_ of the template, which will take priority over the general version, so like

template <typename T>
T myfunc(T in);
template <>
int myfunc(int in);

(Note we have to indicate this is a specialisation using the template<> bit. If we leave that out we get something slightly different and have to consider those overload resolution rules properly - lets not go into the details because they start to hurt).

Suppose in the generic version we use something like 'in.size()' - this wont compile for an integer type. But the compiler doesn't want to do extra work, and is programmed to let an explicit specialisation take priority over a general version, so, having found the specialisation, the compiler stops looking.

Thinking about this for a few moments, we see that a) if this wasn't the case these specialisations would be a bit useless and b) this is actually very powerful - we have potentially uncompilable code, but as long as we never _use_ it we're safe.

Templates For Specific Types

OK, so suppose we have a method that makes sense for int, double, float, long etc, all of the numeric types - we kinda want a template that only allows one of those. We can do it, although we wont show the details, because exactly how is messy and varies between C++11, 14, 17 and newer as this ability has got refined. The trick though, is creating a function template that only works for numeric types, by making something that tries to create an invalid type otherwise. Non-numeric types will fail to substitute, so trying to call our function with these fails - as we desire since this method doesn't make sense.

In some cases we might want to select between methods depending on something like 'is this type numeric' or is it an integer or other stuff. Assuming this technique does something similar to what we just described, we're going to get some options where certain types 'don't make sense' with potential function overloads, but we want to skip those and look at others instead.

This last bit is important - it is a fundamental principle in C++ that templates that "don't work out" don't count as compiler failure. This is "Substitution Failure Is Not An Error" or Sfinae (see other vid, link in description).

This is very powerful, pretty complicated and a big old mess, so lets leave the details alone! Instead, lets look at something neat but clever which we can do in the next section.

Decorator or Wrapper Classes

A Basic Wrapper Class - Function Pass-thru

Suppose we're writing a class which is a bit like a Python decorator - we have some class and we want to encase it in another which adds a bit of function. This is the "Decorator" pattern in design pattern terms too. A common idea is to decorate a single function with e.g. code to time it's execution. The crux is to have two things which are independent, and the ability to combine them - timing code for example would simply execute the function, timing as it goes, and return whatever it returns. It would not and should not care about what the function is, what it does, or how it does it.

A wrapper class is a similar idea, where we want to encase one class in a larger one, and in some sense 'pass through' it's functions. Perhaps we want to change the interface (function names, signatures etc) of a class to make it fit better with calling code (the Adapter pattern), or add defaults or something, and we do not want to edit the wrapped class to do so. Or again, suppose we want to decorate the class with some extra function.

As a pretty dumb but decently useful example, suppose we have some logger class for writing information to file or screen, and we wanted to add a timestamp (imagine our favorite system doesn't have this already). Naively, we might imagine just stringifying everything, then passing those to the logger, having prepended our extra info. But this is clumsy - why restrict ourselves to only taking strings? Better to write wrapper functions that take any type using a template. For instance (semi pseudocode)

class logger; // This comes from some library

class timestampedLogger{
logger myLogger;
string getTimeNow(){...}


template <typename T>
void write(T in){
logger.write(getTimeNow());
logger.write(in);
}
};

We insert a timestamp, but otherwise, we just funnel everything through. In some senses, we're making timestampedLogger substitutable for plain logger, BUT AT COMPILE TIME. Instead of creating a 'logger' we create our wrapped timestampedLogger, and implement all of the same functions, meaning we can simply swap it out. We're not inheriting from logger, which would make us substitutable at runtime, we're replacing it completely at compile time.

Compile time fiddling like this is what templates allow us to do, and do (fairly) cleanly.

Unknown Return Types

Now imagine a slightly more fiddly thing, which is something we've been playing with doing recently - suppose we have some data-storage classes, for example vector or array and we want to wrap them up in something which is aware of physical units (kg, m, s etc). This is very much a decorator pattern, with a slight twist which is that not only do we want to pass-through (certain) member functions of the storage type unchanged, we also add functions dealing with say multiplying one thing with another.

The motivation for this is a kind of enhanced type safety - a length and a time cannot be added together, so lets exploit the type system to enforce this. Ideally this happens at compile time, as our simulations are time-critical and we don't want needless runtime checks for something that, once programmed correctly, wont change. But we might be adding or changing the equations we're solving, so just manually checking things once is insufficient.

The details of doing this are actually pretty mucky and horrible (see the Github Repo for the details, but beware!), but it showed up an interesting tricky bit with wrappers like this - can we write a function which has a return type which is not fixed, nor deducible from its arguments directly, but which depends on the function we are wrapping, in particular what its return type is?

C++14 introduced the idea of an auto function return type. Why should the programmer have to specify something that the compiler can work out? Consider the following:

returnType getLogFilename(){return myLogger.getLogFilename();}

returnType might be a few things, but let's say it's a string. Or could it be a wstring (string supporting wide characters, such as accented or non-Latin)? Why should we have to go rummage in the logger class? And why should our intermediate, our wrapper, have to care if this changed in an update (leaving aside the myriad problems with changing interfaces...).

Obviously the return type of that can't be deduced (worked out) from the arguments - there are none! But it can be worked out from the call and the compiler can and will do this, so we don't have to, if instead of returnType, we put 'auto'.

A Templated Class

So one more twist - suppose we want to wrap one of multiple possible logger classes. Imagine one of these implements a method 'setToRed()' to make output red (e.g. in a terminal). If we write the following function

void setToRed(){myLogger.setToRed();};

this compiles fine for the class which implements that function, but if the logger we are wrapping does not, we get a compile error, whether or not we ever call this function. This is obvious - that code can't compile. So how can we make this available if and only if the backing class offers it?

We might hope that this:

template <typename T>
void setToRed(){myLogger.setToRed();};

would somehow do it - a templated function "isn't compiled until it's used" we think.

But it doesn't. I honestly don't understand the details of what is, and isn't allowed here, because compilers are complicated things and a lot of work goes into making template code compile as fast as possible, since it must be done every time.

But we canuse templating to do this and actually if we write our wrapper "properly" we'll get this ability for free! Before, I assumed we'd just swap out the 'logger' entity rarely, and want only one possible option at any time, so I assumed 'logger' was provided by a library, and I'd maybe use a typedef or using to make sure whatever logging class I was using had that name.

A proper wrapper class would be a templated class, where we can provide information on the logger type when we create it. So we'd do something like this:

template <typename L>
class timestampedLogger{
public:
L myLogger;
string getTimeNow(){...}


template <typename T>
void write(T in){
logger.write(getTimeNow());
logger.write(in);
}


void setToRed(){myLogger.setToRed();};


auto getLogFilename(){return myLogger.getLogFilename();}
};

We've included that 'auto' return type we mentioned, as well as an explicitly templated function - notice we have to name the parameters differently - T and L are both template types, but are unrelated.

Now to actually create one of these we have to do:

timestampedLogger<logger> myTLogger;

or we could offer a shortcut with a 'using' statement:

using tLogger = timestampedLogger<logger>;

Only if we use a function will the full body be handled, so as long as we don't use it, we can leave the setToRed here. We are now relying on the code which calls (or does not call) this function to know if it can or not - but if we're thinking of our wrapper as substitutable for a plain logger class, that was already the case, so there is no real disadvantage there.

With those two layers of templating we can write everything we need to wrap timestamping around our logger. We have to wrap every function we want to expose, but using templates and auto we can minimise how much information we're repeating about those functions - which we should always try to do. The compiler will work all that out once we substitute a real logger class type for that L parameter

Like That Type, But Different

For a brief final foray into the power, but also the attendant horror, of the templating system, lets imagine a more complicated decorator class, where our wrapping functions might change the type returned by functions they wrap.

The units checking project we're working on adds one more twist to this idea - how can we wrap our units wrapper onto something we're returning from a function whose return type we don't know? For instance, suppose we have scalars (single numbers), vectors (physics style so triplets of numbers) and tensors (ditto, so a 3x3 array). Suppose some function goes "down the hierarchy" so returns a lower rank for each, except scalars where it returns the same type.

That is how would we implement the following?

class scalar{
public:
int dat{0};
scalar()=default;
scalar(int val):dat(val){};
scalar exampleFunction(){return scalar(1);}
};


class vector{
public:
int dat[3];
vector()=default;
vector(int a, int b, int c){dat[0]=a; dat[1]=b; dat[2]=c;};
scalar exampleFunction(){return scalar(2);}
};

class tensor{
public:
int dat[9];
vector exampleFunction(){return vector(1, 2, 3);}
};
template <typename ST>
class unitsType{
public:
ST myData;
unitsType<???> exampleFunction(){unitsType<???> val; val.myData = myData.exampleFunction(); return val;}
};

What replaces those '???' ? We can't write anything in there ourselves because it depends on the type of the parameter ST, and crucially is NOT ST itself which would be simple. We can use auto in place of the return type explicitly, but not for the declaration of val. But the compiler knows on some level what type myData.exampleFunction() will return, and we can ask it to help us by spitting that out:

using ReturnTypeExample = decltype((std::declval<ST>()).exampleFunction());

Here decltype is saying 'give me just the type information and declval is taking a type, ST, and creating a sort of compile-time instance of that type so that we can access a member function by name. So we have what we need: unitsType<ReturnTypeExample> is the return value and the type we need to give to val in the body. Perfect.

But I Want to do it Myself

But there's one last twist - what if we have the same desire as before - to allow this for functions that ST may or may not implement? This is actually using the function at compile time to get that return value, AND there's no template substitution going on which might defer that until the wrapper function is actually used. The solution to this is a pretty horrible trick, and I DO NOT KNOW for sure it will work in all circumstances, but it solves this problem:

We have to add another layer of template, so that only when a specific instantiation uses the function will everything unroll and the function actually be needed. Lets name this possibly-nonexistent function nopeFunction() since nope, I didn't implement it...

So we do this:

template <typename Q>
using ReturnTypeNope = decltype((std::declval<Q>()).nopeFunction());
auto nopeFunction(){
unitsType<ReturnTypeNope<ST> > val;
val.myData = myData.nopeFunction();
return val;
}

This works - only when the nopeFunction() here is called does anything attempt to unpack its return type. The auto return type deduction can only happen when the body is compiled too.

As a final note, suppose we wanted things to be a bit clearer, or auto would not work for us for some reason. The following DOES NOT work:

unitsType<ReturnTypeNope<ST> > nopeFunction(){
unitsType<ReturnTypeNope<ST> > val;
val.myData = myData.nopeFunction();
return val;
}

because the return type tries to substitute when this line is reached. We need to keep that deferred layer, so we have to do:

template <typename Q>
unitsType<ReturnTypeNope<Q> > nopeFunction(){

unitsType<ReturnTypeNope<Q> > val; val.myData = myData.nopeFunction(); return val;}

(NOTE we don't have to name this Q, it has no relation to the other Q, it's just handy to re-use the letters for similar purposes where they don't overlap, to avoid running out).

This leaves one FINAL (promise) problem: when calling this wrapper, the type for Q cannot be deduced so we have to do ugly things in the calling code like this:

unitsType<scalar> myTyp;
myTyp.nopeFunction<scalar>();

We fix this with a final twist - a default value for the template parameter Q of ST. Note carefully: this is not defining them to be equal, it is setting a default. We get:

template <typename Q>
using ReturnTypeNope = decltype((std::declval<Q>()).nopeFunction());


template <typename Q=ST>
unitsType<ReturnTypeNope<Q> > nopeFunction(){
unitsType<ReturnTypeNope<Q> > val;
val.myData = myData.nopeFunction();
return val;
}

And now as long as the calling code doesn't call nopeFunction, nothing cares if our ST type implements it or not.

This is, frankly, a bit too deep for sanity, but it does work and is not exactly an edge use-case when dealing with decorators and wrappers.

Heather Ratcliffe : 25 Jul 2023 15:29 |  Tags: Cplusplus Programming Templates |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Global data idioms in C++

We've spoken a fair bit about global variables and why they are risky, but sometimes they are the best solution available. For instance, a recent video discussed the idea of "tramp" data, which is passed through certain objects and functions simply to get to another place. This, as we talked about there, has a lot of problems, several of which are close to or identical to, the equivalent problems with globals. So... sometimes the simple fact is, you have to choose your evil, and sticking to broad design principles is not a good motivation for locally bad design. As I quoted in that video:

"But passing global data into every function, whether it needs it or not, imposes a great deal of overhead. This is known as "tramp data", and often reflects a design error. If these things are truly global, then they're global, and pretending that they aren't, in order to make your code "OOP", is a design error."

(Pete Becker, this StackOverflow answer)

So let us agree that there are cases where you have global data and/or objects and that representing them as global state is, in fact, the correct approach. This post is going to discuss some of the options for making this "as least-bad as we can".

Static - more slippery than stable

Static as a C++ keyword is another in the unfortunately long list of C++ keywords with subtly different meanings in different contexts. I am not going to try and explain what it technically means, since that's been done before (e.g. here) and has to be quite technical. In a moment, we'll go through a few uses of it and how they work, and after that the definition might make more sense. Let's just use one small bit of the implications - static on a variable or class member is a way to get a "storage location" (i.e. a variable) which lasts for the entire program. In other words, it's lifetime is the program duration, and as we discussed in another recent videothat is in many ways equivalent to being a global variable.

Because it's "basically a global" we have to caution against static (unless also const) in any code which is, or might in future be, multithreaded. Global mutable (able to be changed, aka not const) state is the anathema of threading. In nearly every case, you do not want to try and handle the combination!

Definition, Declaration and the One Definition Rule

C++ requires you to do two things so that a variable or function "works". Firstly, you need to have declared what it looks like, so that all parts of the code know how to handle it. This means giving a variable a type, or a function a prototype - so that a variable access or function call has the right "pattern" - knows how big something is, how many parameters it has, etc. But you also have to define, or "fill in" what something actually is - create the storage space (memory) for a variable, or define the body of the function.

For variables, expecially if you have been avoiding globals, you may have never encountered this because in most cases the declaration and definition are the same - int i;does both. Do note that this is nothing to do with initialising or giving a value to a variable. The only time they become separate is in certain cases where we want multiple parts of the code to be able to use the same variable, such as for globals. Method 1 below shows how we can do this.

For functions, it is a bit more familiar - to call a function we need to have access to its prototype, and for compilation to complete and the program to run, it has to be given a body that can actually execute. For simple functions, this is why we normally declare prototypes in a header, and function bodies in a cpp file. If we put the body in a header, and include that header several times, we get errors telling us the function is multiply defined. For classes though, we can happily define function bodies in a class definition without any problem. What's happening here?

First, lets just clarify what including a header does - it pretty literally dumps the code from the included file into the including file. This is old stuff - the compiler has nothing to do with it, as it happens at the "pre-processing" step while the code is still just text. By the time the compiler sees it, the definition you wrote might appear several times, and there is no way to know that they came from the same place.

Now, the problem arises because C++ disallows certain forms of ambiguity. Suppose a function could be defined in several places - and suppose these were different! Imagine the chaos if one form were used in some places and another in others. Or might the compiler to expected to pick one? Disallowing this is mostly a Good Thing, but sometimes it has issues. For instance, being unable to define any functions in a header would rule out "header-only" libraries, where you simply include them and it works. It would also severely limit templating.

Not being able to define something multiple times is called the One Definition Rule. Because of the drawbacks just mentioned though, there are several places where it is allowed to be violated with the strict requirement that the programmer takes care of the risks. That is, you may be allowed to have a repeated definition, but if it is not the same everywhere, that is your problem (and mostly undefined behaviour, so a Very Bad Thing). The details aren't important here, and it's enough for us to suppose that where the benefits were sufficient, the rule was allowed to be broken.

Inline

Inline is a special keyword, which, yet again, has a complicated history. Originally, "inline" was a hint to the compiler that a function should be inlined (think - pasted into place in source code, rather than executed with a jump). In order to do this, the compiler would need to have access to the function body in all the places in the code it might be used. This meant the function had to be fully defined in an included header (strictly, not true, but good enough for us), which violated the One Definition Rule. Inline was considered useful, thus the rule had to be bent - C++ generally tries to allow useful things where it can (where the compiler writers think they can make it work). Once inline was allowed to bend the rule, people used it for that purpose, such that now it pretty much only is used for this case.

Since a class member function defined within the body of a class can only really be meant to be inline, this was done by default too, hence why you may never have seen this keyword. Note that it applies to functions only - and see Example 1b below for the newer extension to inline - inline variables.

Global state example in C++

Let's assume we really do have some data which is accessed in many parts of our program, both for read and write, and that we have already decided this is the best design. Perhaps it is used so widely that we would end up passing it endlessly, usually as that "tramp data". Once it's passed, it's accessible, and only some very horrible tricks (const_cast...) can allow us to restrict where it can be changed. It's already global in implication, why not admit this and allow it to be global in design.

What options do we have to do this, and what are their pros and cons?

Method 1 - A "simple" global variable

For simple data, such as a single integer, we can use the simplest "global variable" idiom - that is we want a variable whose declaration ("pattern") is available to all parts of our program, which is defined (actually created) once and only once in our code. This means we can't do what we might first think of and just create it in a header file because that would define it several times and our compiler will complain about an ambiguous name. Nothing clever we can do with include guards or trickery can avoid this. What we can do though, is to declare it in a header, and define it in a cpp file, like this:

file.h:

#ifndef file_h
#define file_h
extern int my_var;
#endif

and in file.cpp

#include "file.h"
int my_var = 10;

So what does all that mean? Our header file uses standard include guards (we'll leave these out in future) which stop the header being included repeatedly. We have our my_var variable, an int, and we declare it "extern". This tells the compiler that there will be a definition for my_var by the time the code is linked (if you're not too familiar with linking, think: compiled files combined into an executable). This means all of the parts of the code which use this header will happily compile using what they know my_var has to look like, and not worry about where it might be actually created. Then, the C++ file does the actual creation. This can happen only once, or we would risk having two separate variables with the same name.

This is the simplest idiom to get what we want, but has several problems. It's a bit confusing: extern is an old keyword that many people will never encounter. We have to go looking for the actual initialisation step, and verify that we set a value. In a lot of cases, we might have no other reason to have the file.cpp file except to instantiate one variable - and our only alternative there is to demand it be defined in some other of our cpp files, which is confusing, risky and all around a Bad Thing.

Lastly, a name as generic as my_var has now been "claimed" throughout our entire program and we re-use it at our peril. Shadowing, where a local variable "covers up" a global one, is always confusing. What would this snippet do, for instance?

int main(){
std::cout<<my_var<<std::endl;
{ int my_var = 11;
std::cout<<my_var<<std::endl;
}
std::cout<<my_var<<std::endl;
}

Actually, the problem is a bit worse than this, because only files including our header will see my_var, and you can probably work out why this can be a maintenance nightmare if suddenly code changes mean two names which had been separate begin to collide!

Method 1a - A namespaced global

To avoid the shadowing issue, and improve this solution from "pretty awful" to "alright", we can at least restrict our variable name to a namespace. If we are careful with our namings and dividing things into coherent sets, we can quite usefully indicate more about our variable, and make it easier to find places that related variables are, or should be, changed. For example

namespace display_config{
extern int width;
extern int height;
}

and

int display_config::width = 720;
int display_config::height=1080;

Generally, if we're changing our "display height" we'd also expect the width to be changed, and we now have some ability to spot this.

Method 1b - [C++ 17 or newer] This, but better

From C++ 17, this kinda obviously common and useful idiom is supported much more, by the addition of "inline" variables. We discussed inline above for functions, and this is very similar. The definitions must match, but in our case of there being only a single actual line, which is included several times, this is fine. We end up with the much more elegant looking:

namespace display_config{
inline int width=1080;
inline int height=720;}

This has several advantages - not needing a cpp file definition, being able to see at a glance that our variables are initialised (instead of having to look in two places), and having one less keyword/idiom to remember. However, C++17 is perhaps a little too new to use without at least considering where you will be compiling/running your code, as you might have to put in a request for a compiler update for a few years yet.

Method 2 - A class with static members

At the point where we're talking about linking variables to each other, we are into the territory where a class becomes a good solution. This would let us, for example, relate the setting of height and width explicitly. The obvious step from our namespace example, to a basic class is this:

file.h

class display_data{
static int height;
static int width;
};

and file.cpp

int display_data::height=720;
int display_data::width=1080;

Now this is rather different looking and the keywords have changed. We no longer have any extern, but we have introduced static, and we have these slightly unexpected definitions without which we get compiler errors telling us the variable does not exist.

A static class member variable is shared by all instances of the class. If we read or write to it, this must have the same effect (in terms of how the bits in memory are changed) whichever class instance we would use - thus we don't need to specify. In fact, we don't need to have any instance, we can access those variables as display_data::height from anywhere. This sort of explains why the second bit is needed - if they're not associated with any class instance, the variables have to be "created" and given storage space somewhere. As before, we need those to be in some cpp file and often they are the only thing there, which is ugly.

So this also has problems. Firstly - if our class has only static members, that's weird, and often considered an "anti-pattern". It's a heavy solution and goes against some of the motivation for objects. However, if we want to control the setting of height and width (forcing them to be non-negative for instance), we can get the compilers help to enforce this by making them private and providing setter and getter functions.

On the whole though, entirely static class members is an oddball solution, and I'm not sure where it's really useful.

Method 3 - A static class instance

Going back a bit, our display has sort of taken on an "object like" existence, with several items of data and methods that act on them. This object really could have several instances, it's just that for our specific program, we want to have a global one referring to "the display". This is far more naturally represented by a global instance of a regular class, so we can use the first approach with a user-defined class rather than a plain int, and get some benefits.

However, we still have most of the drawbacks of global-ness, so we do need some strong motivation. And here we additionally have all of the drawbacks of method 1 like needing the C++ file. Moreover, there is a thing called the Static Initialisation Order Fiasco if we have interaction between static objects, and a lot of other stuff gets really messy.

We mention this option for completeness, but would probably never recommend it.

Method 4 - Function Local Statics

Possibly the best approach to allow us to have a single global class like the previous method, but more safely, is to exploit function-local static variables. These are a lot like global statics, but their scope is restricted to the function where they "live". This clears up a lot of the issues from Method 1 and is much, much better. We do this (showing the function body only, there would also be a header containing prototype):

int get_display_height(){
static int the_display_height=720;
return the_display_height;}

That lets us have this global variable, but gives us no way to set it. It's easy in this case to find a sentinel value to let us do this to fix that:

int get_display_height(int new_val=-1) //In header
int get_display_height(int new_val){
static int the_display_height=720;
if(new_val != -1){the_display_height = new_val;}
return the_display_height;}

but not all things have a sentinel.

In those cases, and some others where a sentinel is not appropriate, we could instead return a reference or pointer to the variable, such as this:

int * get_display_height(){
static int the_display_height=720;
return &the_display_height;}

This is perfectly valid for a static function local, in a way which it is absolutely not valid for a regular function local variable. Yet again, we're running into confusing idioms and must tread carefully! Worse still, we've now opened up setting of our variable to the entire code and can no longer restrict values to be positive, or anything else!

Worse still, a casual reading of those snippets might miss that the initialisation to 720 is done only the first time the function is encountered. Any subsequent calls refer to the same variable, the_display_height, but the setting is not redone. In this case, we absolutely rely on that behaviour, but if it is something more complicated like a heap allocation it can really confuse you.

Method 5 - A Singleton Class

The final method we'll discuss here is the most heavy weight, but can be really useful. Suppose we really do have a class containing data and operations on it, and we want there to exist precisely one of them. This will be our global object. Much like the previous idiom, we'll have the actual storage location be a function-local static variable. So we will do something like this:

static theClass * theClass::get_instance(){
static theClass * the_instance = new theClass();
return the_instance;}

Anywhere that we want to use the class, we simply get it using theClass::get_instance()->blah.

There's one more trick we need, because we said that we want only one of these to exist - which is to privatise the constructor for theClass so that only the one in this function can be created. Voila, a single entity! This is why the function above is a class-member function, so that it and only it is able to call the constructor.

This is generally know as the Singleton Pattern and is very handy. However, be aware that it does involve statics and shared entities and so must be handled carefully. In particular, you must make sure either all operations on the class leave it in a valid state, or two parts of your code might both use it and confuse each other - obviously this gets a lot more pressing in multithreaded code, but even serial code can have the problem.

Conclusion

Global data, if it truly is global, is global however you code it. You have to use caution, but whether you pass it about, or use one of these tricks, your data is subject to change in multiple places. Be wary. Use every tool the compiler gives you, such as const, and block scoping, and only globalise things that are worth the headache!

Heather Ratcliffe : 03 Aug 2022 15:12 |  Tags: Cplusplus Programming |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem