How to create derived structure properties in C - c

In Python, its possible to create a derived property from a class using the #property decorator for example
class State():
def __init__(self, fav_num_monday, fav_num_not_monday, is_monday):
self.fav_num_monday = fav_num_monday
self.fav_num_not_monday = fav_num_not_monday
self.is_monday = is_monday
#property
def fav_num(self):
return self.is_monday * self.fav_num_monday + \
(1 - self.is_monday) * self.fav_num_not_monday
state = State(12, 5, 0)
print("Current favourite number: %d" % state.fav_num)
My question is then what is the best way to achieve this in C (where speed is of the utmost importance). I've have added below some ways I have tried but am not sure if they could have repercussions in a larger codebase. They are as follows:
Simply writing out the whole expression each time.
Pros: No unexpected repercussions, no code/speed penalty.
Cons: Ugly code, takes a long time to write.
Using a get function.
Pros: Code easier to read.
Cons: Inefficient code (slower than 1).
Defining a macro.
Pros: No code/speed penalty. Code quick to write.
Cons: Potential repercussions later, code not so easy to follow.
The example program is below
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#define state_fav_num state.is_monday * state.fav_num_monday + (1 - state.is_monday) * state.fav_num_not_monday
struct State {
int fav_num_monday;
int fav_num_not_monday;
int is_monday;
};
int get_state(struct State *state, char *property) {
// Returns value of the property in state.
// Allows us to create derived properties also.
if (!strncmp(property, "fav_num_monday", 14)) {
return state->fav_num_monday;
} else if (!strncmp(property, "fav_num_not_monday", 18)) {
return state->fav_num_not_monday;
} else if (!strncmp(property, "is_monday", 9)) {
return state->is_monday;
} else if (!strncmp(property, "fav_num", 7)) {
return state->is_monday * state->fav_num_monday +
(1 - state->is_monday) * state->fav_num_not_monday;
}
}
int main() {
// Set the state.
struct State state;
state.fav_num_monday = 12;
state.fav_num_not_monday = 5;
state.is_monday = 1;
// Print favourite number in different ways.
printf("\n1) Current favourite number is %d.",
state.is_monday * state.fav_num_monday +
(1 - state.is_monday) * state.fav_num_not_monday);
printf("\n2) Current favourite number is %d.",
get_state(&state, "fav_num"));
printf("\n3) Current favourite number is %d.",
state_fav_num);
printf("\n");
return 0;
}

You can get the best of both worlds (function and macro) for readability and performance, with a static inline function.
You usually wouldn't use that, but if you know the compiler is going to optimize its code away, then it's OK to use it. The usual rule I use is 3 or less lines of code, and the function should require extra performance.
That said, your get_state doesn't meet the (my) requirements for a static inline function, but if you only want a function to get only the fav_num, it would make sense:
struct State {
int fav_num_monday;
int fav_num_not_monday;
bool is_monday;
};
static inline int get_fav_num(const struct State *state)
{
if (state->is_monday)
return state->fav_num_monday;
else
return state->fav_num_not_monday;
}
int main(void)
{
struct State state;
int fav_num;
state = (struct State){
.fav_num_monday = 12;
.fav_num_not_monday = 5;
.is_monday = 1;
};
// Print favourite number in different ways.
printf("\n");
if (state.is_monday)
fav_num = state->fav_num_monday;
else
fav_num = state->fav_num_not_monday;
printf("1) Current favourite number is %d.\n", fav_num);
fav_num = get_fav_num(&state);
printf("4) Current favourite number is %d.\n", fav_num);
return 0;
}
Disclaimer: This code needs C99 or later.
Although here the code is all together, the struct State {...}; and the static inline function would usually go in a header .h file.
Also, I would improve your get_state function in this way:
enum Properties {
FAV_NUM_MONDAY,
FAV_NUM_NOT_MONDAY,
IS_MONDAY,
FAV_NUM
};
int get_state(const struct State *state, int property)
{
switch (property) {
case FAV_NUM_MONDAY:
return state->fav_num_monday;
case FAV_NUM_NOT_MONDAY:
return state->fav_num_not_monday;
case IS_MONDAY:
return state->is_monday;
case FAV_NUM:
return get_fav_num(state);
default:
return -1; /* Error */
}
}
This function would be a usual extern function and would go in a .c file, although the enum Properties should go in a header file so that it can be used by the user of the function.
Edit: Add high performance version using array
state.h
#include <stdint.h>
enum State_Properties {
FAV_NUM_MONDAY,
FAV_NUM_NOT_MONDAY,
IS_MONDAY,
STATE_PROPERTIES
};
static inline
uint_fast8_t get_fav_num(const uint_fast8_t *restrict (state[STATE_PROPERTIES]))
{
if ((*state)[IS_MONDAY])
return (*state)[FAV_NUM_MONDAY];
else
return (*state)[FAV_NUM_NOT_MONDAY];
}
main.c
#include <inttypes.h>
#include "state.h"
int main(void)
{
uint_fast8_t state[STATE_PROPERTIES];
uint_fast8_t fav_num;
uint_fast8_t fav_num_monday;
state = (uint_fast8_t [STATE_PROPERTIES]){
[FAV_NUM_MONDAY] = 12;
[FAV_NUM_NOT_MONDAY] = 5;
[IS_MONDAY] = true;
};
// Print favourite number in different ways.
fav_num = get_fav_num(&state);
printf("5) Current favourite number is %"PRIuFAST8".\n", fav_num);
// Example of how to retrieve any property:
fav_num_monday = state[FAV_NUM_MONDAY];
}
Of course you can change the type to anyone you want. I used uint_fast8_t, because your data can fit in there, and it is the fastest type on any system.

Related

using function names as functions in a C macro

Suppose i have code like this in my program:
if (!strcmp(current, "sin")) {
pushFloat(sin(x), &operands);
} else if (!strcmp(current, "cos")) {
pushFloat(cos(x), &operands);
} else if (!strcmp(current, "tan")) {
pushFloat(tan(x), &operands);
} else if (!strcmp(current, "ctg")) {
pushFloat(1. / tan(x), &operands);
} else if (!strcmp(current, "ln")) {
pushFloat(log(x), &operands);
} else if (!strcmp(current, "sqrt")) {
pushFloat(sqrt(x), &operands);
}
There are function names such as "sin" or "cos" saved in the current char array
Instead of using this long if block, or replacing it with an even longer switch block, i wanted to write a simple macro like this: #define PUSHFUNC(stack, func, value)(pushFloat(func(value), &stack)) and call it like this PUSHFUNC(operands, current, x)
Doing it this way creates an error "current is not a function or function pointer". I initially thought macros are just text replacement, so if i force a string that is equal to an actual function into a macro, it would expand to the function itself, but looks like i was wrong. Is there a way to achieve what i want using a macro, or should i just write a map block?
I initially thought macros are just text replacement,
That's your problem: macros are just text replacement. So if you have:
#define PUSHFUNC(stack, func, value) (pushFloat(func(value), &stack))
And you write:
PUSHFUNC(operands, current, x)
You get:
(pushFloat(current(value), &operands))
And indeed, you have no function named current. Macros are expanded before your code compiles; the preprocessor has no knowledge of the content of your variables.
If you really want to avoid a long chain of if statements, you could implement some sort of table lookup:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stddef.h>
#include <math.h>
typedef double (*floatop)(double x);
typedef struct {
char *name;
floatop operation;
} entry;
double ctg(double);
entry opertable[] = {
{"sin", sin},
{"cos", cos},
{"tan", tan},
{"ctg", ctg},
{"sqrt", sqrt},
{NULL, NULL},
};
double ctg(double x) {
return 1. / tan(x);
}
floatop findop(char *name) {
int i;
for (i=0; opertable[i].name; i++) {
if (strcmp(opertable[i].name, name) == 0) {
return opertable[i].operation;
}
}
}
int main() {
float x = 4;
printf("sin(%f) = %f\n", x, findop("sin")(x));
printf("sqrt(%f) = %f\n", x, findop("sqrt")(x));
printf("tan(%f) = %f\n", x, findop("tan")(x));
printf("ctg(%f) = %f\n", x, findop("ctg")(x));
}
...but this requires that all of your functions take the same arguments, so for things like ctg you would need to add a helper function. You also need to decide if the increased complexity of the table lookup makes sense: it really depends on how many different operation names you expect to implement.
The output of the above code is:
sin(4.000000) = -0.756802
sqrt(4.000000) = 2.000000
tan(4.000000) = 1.157821
ctg(4.000000) = 0.863691
Is there a way to achieve what i want using a macro, or should i just write a map block?
I would recommend using an enum containing symbols for all the functions you might want to call, and using that in a switch-case block, instead of comparing a bunch of strings. Here's a very brief sample that only uses some of the functions you refer to...
enum which_func { SIN, COS, TAN, };
enum which_func which = SIN;
switch (which) {
case SIN:
pushFloat(sin(x), &operands);
break;
case COS:
pushFloat(cos(x), &operands);
break;
case TAN:
pushFloat(tan(x), &operands);
break;
default:
assert(false); // shouldn't be reachable if enum value is well-defined
}
This version will be easier to maintain in the long run, more efficient to execute and possibly more robust to logic errors (there are some compiler warnings that you can enable which will warn you if you're not handling all enum values, which can help you catch missed cases in your logic).
To add to what other answers said, what you can do is to make a macro that expands to the "basic block" of your if chain, avoiding some repetitions thanks to the stringizing operator:
#define HANDLE_FN_EXPR(fn, expr) \
else if(!strcmp(current, #fn)) \
pushFloat((expr), &operands)
#define HANDLE_FN(fn) \
HANDLE_FN_EXPR(fn, fn(x))
Then you can do
if(0);
HANDLE_FN(sin);
HANDLE_FN(cos);
HANDLE_FN(tan);
HANDLE_FN_EXPR(ctg, 1./tan(x));
HANDLE_FN(ln);
HANDLE_FN(sqrt);
Macros do in fact do text replacement. Given your macro definition, this:
PUSHFUNC(operands, current, x)
expands to this:
(pushFloat(current(x), &operands))
So as you can see, the text that is being replaced is the name of the variable, not the text that it contains.
And even if this did work as you expected, it wouldn't be able to properly handle the 1. / tan(x) case.
This means there isn't really a better way to do what you want.
Why not create some objects for each function type? I know, this is C not C++, but the idea will still work. First, create the function object type:-
typedef struct _Function
{
char *name;
float (*function) (float argument);
} Function;arg
And now create an array of function objects:-
Function functions [] =
{
{ "sin", sin },
{ "cos", cos }
// and so on
};
where the functions are defined:-
float sin(float x)
{
return 0; // put correct code here
}
float cos(float x)
{
return 0; // put correct code here
}
Finally, parse the input:-
for (int i = 0; i < sizeof functions / sizeof functions[0]; ++i)
{
if (strcmp(functions[i].name, current) == 0)
{
pushFloat(functions[i].function(arg)); // add operands!
break;
}
}
I find using enums for stuff like this very hard to maintain! Adding new functions means going through the code to find cases where the enum is used and updating it prone to errors (like missing a place!).
All because it's not C++, doesn't mean you can't use objects! It's just there's no language support for it so you have to do a bit more work (and, yeah, there are features missing!)

Which lookup method is most efficient for simple integer to string lookup

I need to lookup string identifiers in some C code and was thinking about how to code the lookup. The identifiers and strings are fixed at compile time and are not likely to change. I thought that an index into an array of strings would be the most efficient - that is lookup1.
Sometimes in the code the identifier does not start from 0 or there are gaps in the numbering so chose lookup2 for those cases. lookup2 uses a switch statement.
Another option is lookup3 which uses a struct with an integer to string mapping.
Some pros and cons I thought about.
lookup2 is more flexible if identifiers do not start from zero or if there are gaps
If identifiers start from zero and there are no gaps then lookup1 is better? If not then go for lookup2 method?
How about lookup3?
This is legacy code and the defines are already there. For new code, enums would be better for this?
Generally there would be say 5-20 defines in a category. There can be over 100.
Here is the code.
#include <stdio.h>
#define RINGING 0x0
#define DIALING 0x1
#define IDLE 0x2
#define ENGAGED 0x3
#define CONNECTED 0x4
static const char* const lookup1(int id) {
static const char* const identifiers[] = {
"RINGING",
"DIALING",
"IDLE",
"ENGAGED",
"CONNECTED" };
int size = sizeof(identifiers) / sizeof(identifiers[0]);
if (id >= 0 && id < size) {
return identifiers[id];
}
return "Unknown identifier";
}
static const char* const lookup2(int id) {
switch (id) {
case RINGING: return "RINGING";
case DIALING: return "DIALING";
case IDLE: return "IDLE";
case ENGAGED: return "ENGAGED";
case CONNECTED: return "CONNECTED";
default: return "unknown";
}
}
static const char* const lookup3(int id) {
struct id2name {
int id;
const char* const name;
};
static struct id2name pairings[] = {
{ RINGING, "RINGING" },
{ DIALING, "DIALING" },
{ IDLE, "IDLE" },
{ ENGAGED, "ENGAGED" },
{ CONNECTED, "CONNECTED" } };
int size = sizeof(pairings) / sizeof(pairings[0]);
if (id >= 0 && id < size) {
return pairings[id].name;
}
return "Unknown identifier";
}
int main() {
const int identifiers[] = { RINGING, DIALING, IDLE, ENGAGED, CONNECTED };
const int size = sizeof(identifiers) / sizeof(identifiers[0]);
for (int i = 0; i < size; ++i) {
printf("using lookup1 id %d is: %s\n", i, lookup1(i));
printf("using lookup2 id %d is: %s\n", i, lookup2(i));
printf("using lookup3 id %d is: %s\n", i, lookup3(i));
}
}
It's hard to beat a table lookup such as your lookup1() for clarity, concision, and speed. That's not to say, however, that other approaches might not compete at least on speed. For relative performance questions, you really need to benchmark.
If the maximum index number is large or if any of the index numbers are less than zero, or if you cannot rely on at least C99, then a direct array-based table lookup is problematic, but otherwise, gaps between the indexes are not a particular problem, including between the start of the array and the lowest index used. Consider this:
#define INITIALIZER(x) [x] = #x,
const char *lookup4(int x) {
static const char * const table[] = {
INITIALIZER(RINGING)
INITIALIZER(DIALING)
INITIALIZER(IDLE)
INITIALIZER(ENGAGED)
INITIALIZER(CONNECTED)
// initializers have the form:
// [MACRO] = "MACRO",
};
const char *result = ((x < 0 | x >= (sizeof(table) / sizeof(table[0])))
? NULL
: table[x];
return result ? result : "unknown";
}
That uses designated initializers (produced by the INITIALIZER() macro) to initialize those elements of the lookup table that correspond to valid strings; the others will be NULL. This ends up being pretty closely analogous to your lookup1().
There's nothing particularly wrong with your lookup2(). It's clean and clear, and I imagine most compilers will produce very efficient code for it.
As lookup3() is presented, however, I don't see any reason to prefer it over any of the others. You don't use the message numbers, so why store them in your struct? Without them, however, you don't need a struct, so you basically have a more complex implementation of lookup1(). If you did use the numbers -- e.g. by performing a search through the array for the requested message number -- then that would be more expensive on average than the other approaches.
If identifiers start from zero and there are no gaps then lookup1 is better?
Yes.
If not then go for lookup2 method?
Yes.
How about lookup3?
lookup3 is buggy. You need to iterate all the pairings and check for an ID, i.e.:
static struct id2name pairings[] = {
{ RINGING, "RINGING" },
{ DIALING, "DIALING" },
{ IDLE, "IDLE" },
{ ENGAGED, "ENGAGED" },
{ CONNECTED, "CONNECTED" } };
int size = sizeof(pairings) / sizeof(pairings[0]);
for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
if (pairings[i].id == id) {
return pairings[i].name;
}
}
If the IDs in pairings[] are sorted, you can break the for loop sooner, i.e.
for (i = 0; i < size && pairings[i].id < id; i++) {
For new code, enums would be better for this?
Not in terms of performance, but they will look nicer.

Any jump with return instruction in C?

I have multiple locations in my code where I want to be able to jump to one specific location and return to where I was before.
A function calls provides that control flow but is not an option for me as I want the code I branch to to access a number of variables and passing all of them as arguments to the function call wouldn't be practical or efficient.
And the goto statement is only built to take a label, i.e. expected to be a one-way ticket.
Currently I am achieving what I need with the following:
void *return_addr;
int x,y;
...
return_addr=&&RETURN_0;
goto SOMEWHERE;
RETURN_0:
...
x+=1;
...
return_addr=&&RETURN_1;
goto SOMEWHERE;
RETURN_1:
...
SOMEWHERE:
y=x;
...
goto *return_addr;
Is there something more elegant and less cumbersome?
Is there something more elegant and less cumbersome?
You are obviously using GCC, as the computed goto statement is a GCC extension. With GCC we can use a nested function and access local variables without needing to pass them as arguments:
{
int x, y;
void SOMEWHERE()
{
y = x;
//...
}
//...
SOMEWHERE();
//...
x += 1;
//...
SOMEWHERE();
//...
}
Let's have the variables collected in a structure:
struct data_t {
int a;
int b;
/* and so on */
int x;
int y;
};
Let's have the repeated code defined in a function:
void func(struct data_t* data) {
data->y = data->x;
/* and so on */
}
Let's have the function used:
struct data_t data = {1, 2, ..., 24, 25};
func(&data);
data.x += 1;
func(&data);
/* and so on */
C has setjmp() / longjmp(), which can support what you describe. Do not use them. Even more, however, do not rely on your current approach, which is not standard C, and which is terribly poor form.
What you describe is what functions are for. If you have a lot of data that you must share between the caller and callee, then either
record them in file-scope variables so that both functions can access them directly, or
create one or more complex data types (presumably structs) with which to hold and organize the data, and give the callee access by passing a pointer to such a struct.
A state machine can be written like this:
typedef enum { start, stop, state1, ... } state;
state s = start;
while (s != stop) {
switch (s) {
case start:
do_stuff; // lots of code
// computed goto
s = cond ? state23 : state45;
break;
...
Need a call stack?
state stack[42]; int sp=0;
...
do_stuff;
stack[sp++] = state33;
s = state45; // call
break;
case state33:
case state45:
do_processing; // some code
s = stack[--sp]; // ret
break;
You should only do this after you benchmark your time-critical code sections and find that the normal function call mechanism is indeed the bottleneck.

How to implement a C function that will not proceed with it's operations if it is called more than 100 times per second?

I need to implement a function which should not proceed it's operations if it is called more than 100 times per a sec. Any suggestions how can I write this function in C?
How about:
#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>
uint64_t timedfun(uint64_t a, uint64_t b) //dummy arguments, replace with yours
{
static time_t lastt; //might want to use _Thread_local
static uint_fast8_t count; //might want to use _Thread_local
time_t currt = time(NULL);
if (lastt != currt)
{
lastt = currt;
count = 0;
}
if (++count > 100)
{
exit(EXIT_FAILURE); //You didn't specify what to do when it's called more than 100 times...
}
return a+b; //dummy result, replace with your function
}
As nos touched upon thread-safety in his answer, I've added some comments. The comments show where an applicable storage/lifetime specifier should go to ensure thread-safety (this will allow up to 100 calls to this function per thread). Otherwise this limit would be shared over all threads, and prone to race-conditions. In that case, you might need a mutex too.
Edit for non-POSIX systems, pure C-compliance (kudos to chux's comment):
#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>
uint64_t timedfun(uint64_t a, uint64_t b) //dummy arguments, replace with yours
{
static time_t lastt; //might want to use _Thread_local
static uint_fast8_t count; //might want to use _Thread_local
time_t currt = time(NULL);
if (difftime(lastt, currt) >= 1.0) //uses floating-point numbers, use for non-POSIX systems
{
lastt = currt;
count = 0;
}
if (++count > 100)
{
exit(EXIT_FAILURE); //You didn't specify what to do when it's called more than 100 times...
}
return a+b; //dummy result, replace with your function
}
Add:
usleep(10000);
:)
Short of that you'll need to allocate storage to hold the times of the last 100 invocations, and keep track of those in a rotating fashion. This seems silly, but perhaps there might in some dark corner of the universe be a reasonable reason to do this.
You can use a token bucket principle to rate limit your function.
First some common stuff:
struct RateLimit {
//how many tickets we want
long tickets;
//per this period of time
long period;
//internal fields:
//money we have to "buy" tickets
long funds;
//time of the previos period
long last_refill_ts;
};
#define RATELIMIT_INITIALIZER(tickets, period)\
{ tickets, period, 0, -period}
//current_ts must be in the unit of r->period
static void ratelimit_refill(struct RateLimit *r, long current_ts)
{
long diff_period;
//Find elapsed time
diff_period = current_ts - r->last_refill_ts;
if (diff_period > r->period) {
//help prevent overflow when calculating available tickets below
diff_period = r->period;
} else if (diff_period < 0) {
//time went backwards, skip this round
diff_period = 0;
}
//Calculate the cost of tickets that became available
r->funds += diff_period * r->tickets;
//throttle handing out tickets
if (r->funds > r->period * r->tickets) {
r->funds = r->period * r->tickets;
}
//save this period.
r->last_refill_ts = current_ts;
}
int ratelimit_allow(struct RateLimit *r, long current_ts)
{
int allowed;
if (r->funds < r->period) { //not enough funds
ratelimit_refill(r, current_ts);
//as we keep track of the last timestamp of refilling
//We don't need to refill when there is enough funds
}
//If we have enough to buy atleast one ticket, we can allow
if (r->funds >= r->period) {
r->funds -= r->period;
allowed = 1;
} else {
//not enough to buy a ticket
allowed = 0;
}
return allowed;
}
Then you'd use this in your function that you want to rate limit:
void my_function(void)
{ //limit to 100/sec
static struct RateLimit rl = RATELIMIT_INITIALIZER(100, 1);
if (!ratelimit_allow(&rl, time(NULL))) {
abort(); //or less drastic measures
}
//your actual code here
}
Note - this function is not thread safe, you'd have to provide a mutex or similar around the ratelimit_allow() to make it thread safe too.

Object-orientation in C

What would be a set of nifty preprocessor hacks (ANSI C89/ISO C90 compatible) which enable some kind of ugly (but usable) object-orientation in C?
I am familiar with a few different object-oriented languages, so please don't respond with answers like "Learn C++!". I have read "Object-Oriented Programming With ANSI C" (beware: PDF format) and several other interesting solutions, but I'm mostly interested in yours :-)!
See also Can you write object oriented code in C?
I would advise against preprocessor (ab)use to try and make C syntax more like that of another more object-oriented language. At the most basic level, you just use plain structs as objects and pass them around by pointers:
struct monkey
{
float age;
bool is_male;
int happiness;
};
void monkey_dance(struct monkey *monkey)
{
/* do a little dance */
}
To get things like inheritance and polymorphism, you have to work a little harder. You can do manual inheritance by having the first member of a structure be an instance of the superclass, and then you can cast around pointers to base and derived classes freely:
struct base
{
/* base class members */
};
struct derived
{
struct base super;
/* derived class members */
};
struct derived d;
struct base *base_ptr = (struct base *)&d; // upcast
struct derived *derived_ptr = (struct derived *)base_ptr; // downcast
To get polymorphism (i.e. virtual functions), you use function pointers, and optionally function pointer tables, also known as virtual tables or vtables:
struct base;
struct base_vtable
{
void (*dance)(struct base *);
void (*jump)(struct base *, int how_high);
};
struct base
{
struct base_vtable *vtable;
/* base members */
};
void base_dance(struct base *b)
{
b->vtable->dance(b);
}
void base_jump(struct base *b, int how_high)
{
b->vtable->jump(b, how_high);
}
struct derived1
{
struct base super;
/* derived1 members */
};
void derived1_dance(struct derived1 *d)
{
/* implementation of derived1's dance function */
}
void derived1_jump(struct derived1 *d, int how_high)
{
/* implementation of derived 1's jump function */
}
/* global vtable for derived1 */
struct base_vtable derived1_vtable =
{
&derived1_dance, /* you might get a warning here about incompatible pointer types */
&derived1_jump /* you can ignore it, or perform a cast to get rid of it */
};
void derived1_init(struct derived1 *d)
{
d->super.vtable = &derived1_vtable;
/* init base members d->super.foo */
/* init derived1 members d->foo */
}
struct derived2
{
struct base super;
/* derived2 members */
};
void derived2_dance(struct derived2 *d)
{
/* implementation of derived2's dance function */
}
void derived2_jump(struct derived2 *d, int how_high)
{
/* implementation of derived2's jump function */
}
struct base_vtable derived2_vtable =
{
&derived2_dance,
&derived2_jump
};
void derived2_init(struct derived2 *d)
{
d->super.vtable = &derived2_vtable;
/* init base members d->super.foo */
/* init derived1 members d->foo */
}
int main(void)
{
/* OK! We're done with our declarations, now we can finally do some
polymorphism in C */
struct derived1 d1;
derived1_init(&d1);
struct derived2 d2;
derived2_init(&d2);
struct base *b1_ptr = (struct base *)&d1;
struct base *b2_ptr = (struct base *)&d2;
base_dance(b1_ptr); /* calls derived1_dance */
base_dance(b2_ptr); /* calls derived2_dance */
base_jump(b1_ptr, 42); /* calls derived1_jump */
base_jump(b2_ptr, 42); /* calls derived2_jump */
return 0;
}
And that's how you do polymorphism in C. It ain't pretty, but it does the job. There are some sticky issues involving pointer casts between base and derived classes, which are safe as long as the base class is the first member of the derived class. Multiple inheritance is much harder - in that case, in order to case between base classes other than the first, you need to manually adjust your pointers based on the proper offsets, which is really tricky and error-prone.
Another (tricky) thing you can do is change the dynamic type of an object at runtime! You just reassign it a new vtable pointer. You can even selectively change some of the virtual functions while keeping others, creating new hybrid types. Just be careful to create a new vtable instead of modifying the global vtable, otherwise you'll accidentally affect all objects of a given type.
I once worked with a C library that was implemented in a way that struck me as quite elegant. They had written, in C, a way to define objects, then inherit from them so that they were as extensible as a C++ object. The basic idea was this:
Each object had its own file
Public functions and variables are defined in the .h file for an object
Private variables and functions were only located in the .c file
To "inherit" a new struct is created with the first member of the struct being the object to inherit from
Inheriting is difficult to describe, but basically it was this:
struct vehicle {
int power;
int weight;
}
Then in another file:
struct van {
struct vehicle base;
int cubic_size;
}
Then you could have a van created in memory, and being used by code that only knew about vehicles:
struct van my_van;
struct vehicle *something = &my_van;
vehicle_function( something );
It worked beautifully, and the .h files defined exactly what you should be able to do with each object.
C Object System (COS) sounds promising (it's still in alpha version). It tries to keep minimal the available concepts for the sake of simplicity and flexibility: uniform object oriented programming including open classes, metaclasses, property metaclasses, generics, multimethods, delegation, ownership, exceptions, contracts and closures. There is a draft paper (PDF) that describes it.
Exception in C is a C89 implementation of the TRY-CATCH-FINALLY found in other OO languages. It comes with a testsuite and some examples.
Both by Laurent Deniau, which is working a lot on OOP in C.
The GNOME desktop for Linux is written in object-oriented C, and it has an object model called "GObject" which supports properties, inheritance, polymorphism, as well as some other goodies like references, event handling (called "signals"), runtime typing, private data, etc.
It includes preprocessor hacks to do things like typecasting around in the class hierarchy, etc. Here's an example class I wrote for GNOME (things like gchar are typedefs):
Class Source
Class Header
Inside the GObject structure there's a GType integer which is used as a magic number for GLib's dynamic typing system (you can cast the entire struct to a "GType" to find it's type).
Slightly off-topic, but the original C++ compiler, Cfront, compiled C++ to C and then to assembler.
Preserved here.
If you think of methods called on objects as static methods that pass an implicit 'this' into the function it can make thinking OO in C easier.
For example:
String s = "hi";
System.out.println(s.length());
becomes:
string s = "hi";
printf(length(s)); // pass in s, as an implicit this
Or something like that.
I used to do this kind of thing in C, before I knew what OOP was.
Following is an example, which implements a data-buffer which grows on demand, given a minimum size, increment and maximum size. This particular implementation was "element" based, which is to say it was designed to allow a list-like collection of any C type, not just a variable length byte-buffer.
The idea is that the object is instantiated using the xxx_crt() and deleted using xxx_dlt(). Each of the "member" methods takes a specifically typed pointer to operate on.
I implemented a linked list, cyclic buffer, and a number of other things in this manner.
I must confess, I have never given any thought on how to implement inheritance with this approach. I imagine that some blend of that offered by Kieveli might be a good path.
dtb.c:
#include <limits.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
static void dtb_xlt(void *dst, const void *src, vint len, const byte *tbl);
DTABUF *dtb_crt(vint minsiz,vint incsiz,vint maxsiz) {
DTABUF *dbp;
if(!minsiz) { return NULL; }
if(!incsiz) { incsiz=minsiz; }
if(!maxsiz || maxsiz<minsiz) { maxsiz=minsiz; }
if(minsiz+incsiz>maxsiz) { incsiz=maxsiz-minsiz; }
if((dbp=(DTABUF*)malloc(sizeof(*dbp))) == NULL) { return NULL; }
memset(dbp,0,sizeof(*dbp));
dbp->min=minsiz;
dbp->inc=incsiz;
dbp->max=maxsiz;
dbp->siz=minsiz;
dbp->cur=0;
if((dbp->dta=(byte*)malloc((vuns)minsiz)) == NULL) { free(dbp); return NULL; }
return dbp;
}
DTABUF *dtb_dlt(DTABUF *dbp) {
if(dbp) {
free(dbp->dta);
free(dbp);
}
return NULL;
}
vint dtb_adddta(DTABUF *dbp,const byte *xlt256,const void *dtaptr,vint dtalen) {
if(!dbp) { errno=EINVAL; return -1; }
if(dtalen==-1) { dtalen=(vint)strlen((byte*)dtaptr); }
if((dbp->cur + dtalen) > dbp->siz) {
void *newdta;
vint newsiz;
if((dbp->siz+dbp->inc)>=(dbp->cur+dtalen)) { newsiz=dbp->siz+dbp->inc; }
else { newsiz=dbp->cur+dtalen; }
if(newsiz>dbp->max) { errno=ETRUNC; return -1; }
if((newdta=realloc(dbp->dta,(vuns)newsiz))==NULL) { return -1; }
dbp->dta=newdta; dbp->siz=newsiz;
}
if(dtalen) {
if(xlt256) { dtb_xlt(((byte*)dbp->dta+dbp->cur),dtaptr,dtalen,xlt256); }
else { memcpy(((byte*)dbp->dta+dbp->cur),dtaptr,(vuns)dtalen); }
dbp->cur+=dtalen;
}
return 0;
}
static void dtb_xlt(void *dst,const void *src,vint len,const byte *tbl) {
byte *sp,*dp;
for(sp=(byte*)src,dp=(byte*)dst; len; len--,sp++,dp++) { *dp=tbl[*sp]; }
}
vint dtb_addtxt(DTABUF *dbp,const byte *xlt256,const byte *format,...) {
byte textÝ501¨;
va_list ap;
vint len;
va_start(ap,format); len=sprintf_len(format,ap)-1; va_end(ap);
if(len<0 || len>=sizeof(text)) { sprintf_safe(text,sizeof(text),"STRTOOLNG: %s",format); len=(int)strlen(text); }
else { va_start(ap,format); vsprintf(text,format,ap); va_end(ap); }
return dtb_adddta(dbp,xlt256,text,len);
}
vint dtb_rmvdta(DTABUF *dbp,vint len) {
if(!dbp) { errno=EINVAL; return -1; }
if(len > dbp->cur) { len=dbp->cur; }
dbp->cur-=len;
return 0;
}
vint dtb_reset(DTABUF *dbp) {
if(!dbp) { errno=EINVAL; return -1; }
dbp->cur=0;
if(dbp->siz > dbp->min) {
byte *newdta;
if((newdta=(byte*)realloc(dbp->dta,(vuns)dbp->min))==NULL) {
free(dbp->dta); dbp->dta=null; dbp->siz=0;
return -1;
}
dbp->dta=newdta; dbp->siz=dbp->min;
}
return 0;
}
void *dtb_elmptr(DTABUF *dbp,vint elmidx,vint elmlen) {
if(!elmlen || (elmidx*elmlen)>=dbp->cur) { return NULL; }
return ((byte*)dbp->dta+(elmidx*elmlen));
}
dtb.h
typedef _Packed struct {
vint min; /* initial size */
vint inc; /* increment size */
vint max; /* maximum size */
vint siz; /* current size */
vint cur; /* current data length */
void *dta; /* data pointer */
} DTABUF;
#define dtb_dtaptr(mDBP) (mDBP->dta)
#define dtb_dtalen(mDBP) (mDBP->cur)
DTABUF *dtb_crt(vint minsiz,vint incsiz,vint maxsiz);
DTABUF *dtb_dlt(DTABUF *dbp);
vint dtb_adddta(DTABUF *dbp,const byte *xlt256,const void *dtaptr,vint dtalen);
vint dtb_addtxt(DTABUF *dbp,const byte *xlt256,const byte *format,...);
vint dtb_rmvdta(DTABUF *dbp,vint len);
vint dtb_reset(DTABUF *dbp);
void *dtb_elmptr(DTABUF *dbp,vint elmidx,vint elmlen);
PS: vint was simply a typedef of int - I used it to remind me that it's length was variable from platform to platform (for porting).
I think what Adam Rosenfield posted is the correct way of doing OOP in C. I'd like to add that what he shows is the implementation of the object. In other words the actual implementation would be put in the .c file, while the interface would be put in the header .h file. For example, using the monkey example above:
The interface would look like:
//monkey.h
struct _monkey;
typedef struct _monkey monkey;
//memory management
monkey * monkey_new();
int monkey_delete(monkey *thisobj);
//methods
void monkey_dance(monkey *thisobj);
You can see in the interface .h file you are only defining prototypes. You can then compile the implementation part " .c file" into a static or dynamic library. This creates encapsulation and also you can change the implementation at will. The user of your object needs to know almost nothing about the implementation of it. This also places focus on the overall design of the object.
It's my personal belief that oop is a way of conceptualizing your code structure and reusability and has really nothing to do with those other things that are added to c++ like overloading or templates. Yes those are very nice useful features but they are not representative of what object oriented programming really is.
ffmpeg (a toolkit for video processing) is written in straight C (and assembly language), but using an object-oriented style. It's full of structs with function pointers. There are a set of factory functions that initialize the structs with the appropriate "method" pointers.
If you really thinks catefully, even standard C library use OOP - consider FILE * as an example: fopen() initializes an FILE * object, and you use it use member methods fscanf(), fprintf(), fread(), fwrite() and others, and eventually finalize it with fclose().
You can also go with the pseudo-Objective-C way which is not difficult as well:
typedef void *Class;
typedef struct __class_Foo
{
Class isa;
int ivar;
} Foo;
typedef struct __meta_Foo
{
Foo *(*alloc)(void);
Foo *(*init)(Foo *self);
int (*ivar)(Foo *self);
void (*setIvar)(Foo *self);
} meta_Foo;
meta_Foo *class_Foo;
void __meta_Foo_init(void) __attribute__((constructor));
void __meta_Foo_init(void)
{
class_Foo = malloc(sizeof(meta_Foo));
if (class_Foo)
{
class_Foo = {__imp_Foo_alloc, __imp_Foo_init, __imp_Foo_ivar, __imp_Foo_setIvar};
}
}
Foo *__imp_Foo_alloc(void)
{
Foo *foo = malloc(sizeof(Foo));
if (foo)
{
memset(foo, 0, sizeof(Foo));
foo->isa = class_Foo;
}
return foo;
}
Foo *__imp_Foo_init(Foo *self)
{
if (self)
{
self->ivar = 42;
}
return self;
}
// ...
To use:
int main(void)
{
Foo *foo = (class_Foo->init)((class_Foo->alloc)());
printf("%d\n", (foo->isa->ivar)(foo)); // 42
foo->isa->setIvar(foo, 60);
printf("%d\n", (foo->isa->ivar)(foo)); // 60
free(foo);
}
This is what may be resulted from some Objective-C code like this, if a pretty-old Objective-C-to-C translator is used:
#interface Foo : NSObject
{
int ivar;
}
- (int)ivar;
- (void)setIvar:(int)ivar;
#end
#implementation Foo
- (id)init
{
if (self = [super init])
{
ivar = 42;
}
return self;
}
#end
int main(void)
{
Foo *foo = [[Foo alloc] init];
printf("%d\n", [foo ivar]);
[foo setIvar:60];
printf("%d\n", [foo ivar]);
[foo release];
}
My recommendation: keep it simple. One of the biggest issues I have is maintaining older software (sometimes over 10 years old). If the code is not simple, it can be difficult. Yes, one can write very useful OOP with polymorphism in C, but it can be difficult to read.
I prefer simple objects that encapsulate some well-defined functionality. A great example of this is GLIB2, for example a hash table:
GHastTable* my_hash = g_hash_table_new(g_str_hash, g_str_equal);
int size = g_hash_table_size(my_hash);
...
g_hash_table_remove(my_hash, some_key);
The keys are:
Simple architecture and design pattern
Achieves basic OOP encapsulation.
Easy to implement, read, understand, and maintain
I'm a bit late to the party here but I like to avoid both macro extremes - too many or too much obfuscates code, but a couple obvious macros can make the OOP code easier to develop and read:
/*
* OOP in C
*
* gcc -o oop oop.c
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <math.h>
struct obj2d {
float x; // object center x
float y; // object center y
float (* area)(void *);
};
#define X(obj) (obj)->b1.x
#define Y(obj) (obj)->b1.y
#define AREA(obj) (obj)->b1.area(obj)
void *
_new_obj2d(int size, void * areafn)
{
struct obj2d * x = calloc(1, size);
x->area = areafn;
// obj2d constructor code ...
return x;
}
// --------------------------------------------------------
struct rectangle {
struct obj2d b1; // base class
float width;
float height;
float rotation;
};
#define WIDTH(obj) (obj)->width
#define HEIGHT(obj) (obj)->height
float rectangle_area(struct rectangle * self)
{
return self->width * self->height;
}
#define NEW_rectangle() _new_obj2d(sizeof(struct rectangle), rectangle_area)
// --------------------------------------------------------
struct triangle {
struct obj2d b1;
// deliberately unfinished to test error messages
};
#define NEW_triangle() _new_obj2d(sizeof(struct triangle), triangle_area)
// --------------------------------------------------------
struct circle {
struct obj2d b1;
float radius;
};
#define RADIUS(obj) (obj)->radius
float circle_area(struct circle * self)
{
return M_PI * self->radius * self->radius;
}
#define NEW_circle() _new_obj2d(sizeof(struct circle), circle_area)
// --------------------------------------------------------
#define NEW(objname) (struct objname *) NEW_##objname()
int
main(int ac, char * av[])
{
struct rectangle * obj1 = NEW(rectangle);
struct circle * obj2 = NEW(circle);
X(obj1) = 1;
Y(obj1) = 1;
// your decision as to which of these is clearer, but note above that
// macros also hide the fact that a member is in the base class
WIDTH(obj1) = 2;
obj1->height = 3;
printf("obj1 position (%f,%f) area %f\n", X(obj1), Y(obj1), AREA(obj1));
X(obj2) = 10;
Y(obj2) = 10;
RADIUS(obj2) = 1.5;
printf("obj2 position (%f,%f) area %f\n", X(obj2), Y(obj2), AREA(obj2));
// WIDTH(obj2) = 2; // error: struct circle has no member named width
// struct triangle * obj3 = NEW(triangle); // error: triangle_area undefined
}
I think this has a good balance, and the errors it generates (at least with default gcc 6.3 options) for some of the more likely mistakes are helpful instead of confusing. The whole point is to improve programmer productivity no?
#include "triangle.h"
#include "rectangle.h"
#include "polygon.h"
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
Triangle tr1= CTriangle->new();
Rectangle rc1= CRectangle->new();
tr1->width= rc1->width= 3.2;
tr1->height= rc1->height= 4.1;
CPolygon->printArea((Polygon)tr1);
printf("\n");
CPolygon->printArea((Polygon)rc1);
}
Output:
6.56
13.12
Here is a show of what is OO programming with C.
This is real, pure C, no preprocessor macros. We have inheritance,
polymorphism and data encapsulation (including data private to classes or objects).
There is no chance for protected qualifier equivalent, that is,
private data is private down the innheritance chain too.
But this is not an inconvenience because I don't think it is necessary.
CPolygon is not instantiated because we only use it to manipulate objects
of down the innheritance chain that have common aspects but different
implementation of them (Polymorphism).
If I were going to write OOP in C I would probably go with a pseudo-Pimpl design. Instead of passing pointers to structs, you end up passing pointers to pointers to structs. This makes the content opaque and facilitates polymorphism and inheritance.
The real problem with OOP in C is what happens when variables exit scope. There are no compiler-generated destructors and that can cause issues. Macros can possibly help, but it is always going to be ugly to look at.
I'm also working on this based on a macro solution. So it is for the bravest only, I guess ;-) But it is quite nice already, and I'm already working on a few projects on top of it.
It works so that you first define a separate header file for each class. Like this:
#define CLASS Point
#define BUILD_JSON
#define Point__define \
METHOD(Point,public,int,move_up,(int steps)) \
METHOD(Point,public,void,draw) \
\
VAR(read,int,x,JSON(json_int)) \
VAR(read,int,y,JSON(json_int)) \
To implement the class, you create a header file for it and a C file where you implement the methods:
METHOD(Point,public,void,draw)
{
printf("point at %d,%d\n", self->x, self->y);
}
In the header you created for the class, you include other headers you need and define types etc. related to the class. In both the class header and in the C file you include the class specification file (see the first code example) and an X-macro. These X-macros (1,2,3 etc.) will expand the code to the actual class structs and other declarations.
To inherit a class, #define SUPER supername and add supername__define \ as the first line in the class definition. Both must be there. There is also JSON support, signals, abstract classes, etc.
To create an object, just use W_NEW(classname, .x=1, .y=2,...). The initialization is based on struct initialization introduced in C11. It works nicely and everything not listed is set to zero.
To call a method, use W_CALL(o,method)(1,2,3). It looks like a higher order function call but it is just a macro. It expands to ((o)->klass->method(o,1,2,3)) which is a really nice hack.
See Documentation and the code itself.
Since the framework needs some boilerplate code, I wrote a Perl script (wobject) that does the job. If you use that, you can just write
class Point
public int move_up(int steps)
public void draw()
read int x
read int y
and it will create the class specification file, class header, and a C file, which includes Point_impl.c where you implement the class. It saves quite a lot of work, if you have many simple classes but still everything is in C. wobject is a very simple regular expression based scanner which is easy to adapt to specific needs, or to be rewritten from scratch.
Another way to program in an object oriented style with C is to use a code generator which transforms a domain specific language to C. As it's done with TypeScript and JavaScript to bring OOP to js.
I'd suggest you to try out COOP
It features Classes, Inheritance, Exceptions, Memory management, its own Unit Testing Framework for C, and more.
All of this while maintaining type safety and (many parts of the) intellisence!
And, yes, it uses Macro magics to do it.
#Adam Rosenfield has a very good explanation of how to achieve OOP with C
Besides, I would recommend you to read
1) pjsip
A very good C library for VoIP. You can learn how it achieves OOP though structs and function pointer tables
2) iOS Runtime
Learn how iOS Runtime powers Objective C. It achieves OOP through isa pointer, meta class
For me object orientation in C should have these features:
Encapsulation and data hiding (can be achieved using structs/opaque pointers)
Inheritance and support for polymorphism (single inheritance can be achieved using structs - make sure the abstract base is not instantiable)
Constructor and destructor functionality (not easy to achieve)
Type checking (at least for user-defined types as C doesn't enforce any)
Reference counting (or something to implement RAII)
Limited support for exception handling (setjmp and longjmp)
On top of the above it should rely on ANSI/ISO specifications and should not rely on compiler-specific functionality.
Look at http://ldeniau.web.cern.ch/ldeniau/html/oopc/oopc.html. If nothing else reading through the documentation is an enlightening experience.
If you need to write a little code
try this: https://github.com/fulminati/class-framework
#include "class-framework.h"
CLASS (People) {
int age;
};
int main()
{
People *p = NEW (People);
p->age = 10;
printf("%d\n", p->age);
}
The open-source Dynace project does exactly that. It's at https://github.com/blakemcbride/Dynace
I have managed to implement inheritance and polymorphism in C.
I can do single inheritance with virtual tables and I can implement multiple interfaces with a technique where the struct that implements an interface simply creates the interface struct by giving it its own methods and a pointer to itself. The interface struct then calls these methods and, among other parameters, it passes them the pointer to the struct which created the implementation of the interface.
When it comes to inheriting non abstract classes, I have achieved that with virtual tables, I have already explained inheritance with virtual tables in this answer. The code from that answer doesn't allow implementation of multiple interfaces. In this answer however, I changed my code so that it allows implementation of multiple interfaces. Here is the entire code that I posted on github. I will post the code here as well but maybe it is more readable on github, as I put the code in multiple files.
Here is the code, I have structs Zivotinja, Pas, Automobil and the struct MozeProizvestiZvuk. This last struct is an interface. Pas and Automobil implement it. Struct Pas also inherits from Zivotinja.
Here is the code for the main function
Pas *pas = Pas_new_sve(4, 20, "some dog name");
MozeProizvestiZvuk *mozeProizvestiZvuk = pas->getMozeProizvestiZvuk(pas);
mozeProizvestiZvuk->proizvediZvuk(mozeProizvestiZvuk->strukturaKojuMetodeInterfejsaKoriste);
mozeProizvestiZvuk->proizvediZvuk(mozeProizvestiZvuk->strukturaKojuMetodeInterfejsaKoriste);
printf("number of times it made noise = %d\n", mozeProizvestiZvuk->getKolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk(mozeProizvestiZvuk->strukturaKojuMetodeInterfejsaKoriste));
Automobil *automobil = Automobil_new("Sandero", 2009);
MozeProizvestiZvuk *zvukAutomobil = automobil->getMozeProizvestiZvuk(automobil);
for(int i=0; i<3; i++){
zvukAutomobil->proizvediZvuk(zvukAutomobil->strukturaKojuMetodeInterfejsaKoriste);
}
printf("number of times it made noise = %d\n", zvukAutomobil->getKolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk(zvukAutomobil->strukturaKojuMetodeInterfejsaKoriste));
Zivotinja *zivotinja = Zivotinja_new(10);
zivotinja->vTable->ispisiPodatkeOZivotinji(zivotinja);
zivotinja->vTable->obrisi(&zivotinja);
Zivotinja *pasKaoZivotinja = Pas_new_sve(5, 50, "Milojko");
pasKaoZivotinja->vTable->ispisiPodatkeOZivotinji(pasKaoZivotinja);
int godine = pasKaoZivotinja->vTable->dajGodine(pasKaoZivotinja);
printf("age of the dog which was upcasted to an animal = %d \n", godine);
pasKaoZivotinja->vTable->obrisi(&pasKaoZivotinja);
Here is the MozeProizvestiZvuk.h file
#ifndef MOZE_PROIZVESTI_ZVUK_H
#define MOZE_PROIZVESTI_ZVUK_H
typedef struct MozeProizvestiZvukStruct{
void (*proizvediZvuk)(void *strukturaKojuMetodeInterfejsaKoriste);
unsigned int (*getKolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk)(void *strukturaKojaImplementiraInterfejs);
void *strukturaKojuMetodeInterfejsaKoriste;
}MozeProizvestiZvuk;
#endif
Here is the Automobil struct which implements this interface.
#include"MozeProizvestiZvuk.h"
#include<stdlib.h>
typedef struct AutomobilStruct{
const char *naziv;
int godinaProizvodnje;
unsigned int kolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk;
MozeProizvestiZvuk* (*getMozeProizvestiZvuk)(struct AutomobilStruct *_this);
}Automobil;
MozeProizvestiZvuk* Automobil_getMozeProizvestiZvuk(Automobil *automobil);
Automobil* Automobil_new(const char* naziv, int godiste){
Automobil *automobil = (Automobil*) malloc(sizeof(Automobil));
automobil->naziv = naziv;
automobil->godinaProizvodnje = godiste;
automobil->kolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk = 0;
automobil->getMozeProizvestiZvuk = Automobil_getMozeProizvestiZvuk;
return automobil;
}
void Automobil_delete(Automobil **adresaAutomobilPointera){
free(*adresaAutomobilPointera);
*adresaAutomobilPointera = NULL;
}
unsigned int Automobil_getKolikoJeZvukovaProizveo(Automobil *automobil){
return automobil->kolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk;
}
void Automobil_proizvediZvuk(Automobil *automobil){
printf("Automobil koji se zove %s, godiste %d proizvodi zvuk. \n", automobil->naziv, automobil->godinaProizvodnje);
automobil->kolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk++;
}
MozeProizvestiZvuk* Automobil_getMozeProizvestiZvuk(Automobil *automobil){
MozeProizvestiZvuk *mozeProizvestiZvuk = (MozeProizvestiZvuk*) malloc(sizeof(MozeProizvestiZvuk));
mozeProizvestiZvuk->strukturaKojuMetodeInterfejsaKoriste = automobil;
mozeProizvestiZvuk->proizvediZvuk = Automobil_proizvediZvuk;
mozeProizvestiZvuk->getKolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk = Automobil_getKolikoJeZvukovaProizveo;
return mozeProizvestiZvuk;
}
Here is the Zivotinja struct, this struct doesn't inherit from anything, neither does it implement any interfaces, but the struct Pas will inherit from Zivotinja.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
typedef struct ZivotinjaVTableStruct{
void (*ispisiPodatkeOZivotinji)(void *zivotinja);
int (*dajGodine) (void *zivotinja);
} ZivotinjaVTable;
typedef struct ZivotinjaStruct{
ZivotinjaVTable *vTable;
int godine;
} Zivotinja;
void ispisiPodatkeOOvojZivotinji(Zivotinja* zivotinja){
printf("Ova zivotinja ima %d godina. \n", zivotinja->godine);
}
int dajGodineOveZivotinje(Zivotinja *z){
return z->godine;
}
void Zivotinja_obrisi(Zivotinja **adresaPointeraKaZivotinji){
Zivotinja *zivotinjaZaBrisanje = *adresaPointeraKaZivotinji;
free(zivotinjaZaBrisanje);
*adresaPointeraKaZivotinji = NULL;
}
struct ZivotinjaVTableStruct zivotinjaVTableGlobal = {Zivotinja_obrisi, ispisiPodatkeOOvojZivotinji, dajGodineOveZivotinje};
Zivotinja* Zivotinja_new(int godine){
ZivotinjaVTable *vTable = &zivotinjaVTableGlobal;
Zivotinja *z = (Zivotinja*) malloc(sizeof(Zivotinja));
z->vTable = vTable;
z->godine = godine;
}
And finally, here is the struct Pas which inherits from Zivotinja and implements MozeProizvestiZvuk interface.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<stdbool.h>
#include"Zivotinja.h"
#include"MozeProizvestiZvuk.h"
typedef struct PasVTableStruct{
bool (*obrisi)(void **Pas);
void (*ispisiPodatkeOZivotinji)(void *Pas);
int (*dajGodine) (void *Pas);
bool (*daLiJeVlasnikStariji) (void *Pas);
} PasVTable;
typedef struct PasStruct{
PasVTable *vTable;
int godine;
const char* vlasnik;
int godineVlasnika;
unsigned int kolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk;
MozeProizvestiZvuk* (*getMozeProizvestiZvuk)(struct PasStruct *_this);
} Pas;
MozeProizvestiZvuk* Pas_getMozeProizvestiZvuk(Pas *_this);
void ispisiPodatkeOPsu(void *pasVoid){
Pas *pas = (Pas*)pasVoid;
printf("Pas ima %d godina, vlasnik se zove %s, vlasnik ima %d godina. \n", pas->godine, pas->vlasnik, pas->godineVlasnika);
}
int dajGodinePsa(void *pasVoid){
Pas *pas = (Pas*) pasVoid;
return pas->godine;
}
bool daLiJeVlasnikStariji(Pas *pas){
return pas->godineVlasnika >= pas->godine;
}
void Pas_obrisi(Pas **adresaPointeraPsa){
Pas *pasZaBrisanje = *adresaPointeraPsa;
free(pasZaBrisanje);
*adresaPointeraPsa = NULL;
}
struct PasVTableStruct pasVTableGlobal = {
Pas_obrisi,
ispisiPodatkeOPsu,
dajGodinePsa,
daLiJeVlasnikStariji
};
Pas* Pas_new(int godine){
Pas *z = (Pas*) malloc(sizeof(Pas));
z->godine = godine;
z->kolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk = 0;
z->vTable = (&pasVTableGlobal);
z->getMozeProizvestiZvuk = Pas_getMozeProizvestiZvuk;
return z;
}
Pas *Pas_new_sve(int godine, int godineVlasnika, char* imeVlasnika){
Pas *pas = (Pas*) malloc(sizeof(Pas));
pas->kolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk = 0;
pas->godine = godine;
pas->godineVlasnika = godineVlasnika;
pas->vlasnik = imeVlasnika;
pas->vTable = &pasVTableGlobal;
pas->getMozeProizvestiZvuk = Pas_getMozeProizvestiZvuk;
return pas;
}
unsigned int Pas_getBrojZvukova(Pas *_this){
return _this->kolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk;
}
void Pas_proizvediZvuk(Pas *_this){
printf("Pas godina %d, vlasnika %s je proizveo zvuk.\n", _this->godine, _this->vlasnik);
_this->kolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk++;
}
MozeProizvestiZvuk* Pas_getMozeProizvestiZvuk(Pas *_this){
MozeProizvestiZvuk *mozeProizvestiZvuk = (MozeProizvestiZvuk*) malloc(sizeof(MozeProizvestiZvuk));
mozeProizvestiZvuk->getKolikoPutaJeProizveoZvuk = Pas_getBrojZvukova;
mozeProizvestiZvuk->proizvediZvuk = Pas_proizvediZvuk;
mozeProizvestiZvuk->strukturaKojuMetodeInterfejsaKoriste = _this;
return mozeProizvestiZvuk;
}

Resources