I want to do some object-oriented style programming in C using polymorphism, where my interface class contains a pointer to a table of functions. Example something like:
/* Implement polymorphism in C, Linux kernel-style */
struct statement {
const struct statement_ops *ops;
struct list_head list; /* when on master input list */
void *private; /* pointer to type-specific data */
};
struct statement_ops {
int (*analyse)(void *private, int pc);
int (*get_binary_size)(void *private);
};
void user(void)
{
struct statement *s = make_a_statement();
if (s->ops->analyse(s->private, foo))
blah blah;
}
I'd like to be able to write something without explicitly passing s->private into every "method". Any ideas? Some macro tricks maybe?
If this is part of the public interface, you can add accessor functions. A hidden benefit is that you can do sanity checks and other work in the accessor. (Note I called the "this" pointer "o", as in "object". I prefer it that way for consistency.)
int statement_analyse (struct statement *o, int pc)
{
assert(pc >= 0);
int ret = o->ops->analyse(o->private, pc);
assert(ret >= 0);
return ret;
}
You can now call this without the explicit passing of "private".
void user(void)
{
struct statement *s = make_a_statement();
if (statement_analyse(s, foo))
blah blah;
}
While it may seem that this provides no benefit, because you still have to implement the accessors, assuming that you want a well defined and robust interface, the accessor functions are the only sane place to put the assertions and the interface documentation. In fact, if you write good assertions, the assertions themselves help document the interface. And once you add sanity checks in the accessors, you don't have to add them in the actual methods they call.
Of course, this approach only makes sense when the function called via the function pointer will be something provided by the user, or in some other way can be different things. If there's a single analyse() method that will always do the same thing, you can simply implement a statement_analyse() that directly does what it needs to do.
Small note: when doing OOP, I prefer to typedef the structs and give them CamelCase names. I use this convention as a way of telling that the struct is opaque and should only be accessed via its public interface. It also looks nicer, though that is subjective. I also prefer having the user allocate the memory for the struct itself, as opposed to the constructor malloc'ing it. That avoids having to handle malloc failure, and makes the program a little bit more efficient.
typedef struct {
...
} Statement;
void Statement_Init (Statement *o);
int Statement_Analyse (Statement *o, int pc);
Unfortunately, writing your methods to allow the passing of a self or this object is the only way to achieve this in C.
You can use macro tricks to hide part of it, but at that point it's not really C any more.
As the other answers say, there is no way to do this without calling the function with the appropriate pointer, but (as Williham Totland suggests) you could use macros to streamline the calls (requires a compiler with variadic macro support):
// macro_call.c
#define C_ARGS(stmnt, func, ...) (stmnt)->ops->func((stmnt)->private, ...)
#define C_NOARGS(stmnt, func) (stmnt)->ops->func((stmnt)->private)
C_ARGS(s, analyse, 1);
C_ARGS(s, lots_of_args, 1, 2, 3, 4);
C_NOARGS(s, no_args);
(The C is for "call".)
Doing the preprocessing on that (via gcc -E macro_call.c) gives:
(s)->ops->analyse((s)->private, 1);
(s)->ops->lots_of_args((s)->private, 1, 2, 3, 4);
(s)->ops->no_args((s)->private);
This is similar to the accessor function version: the macro version is slightly more flexible in some ways, but it is also less safe and could lead to subtle errors and mistakes.
There are two macros because passing no extra arguments to C_ARGS would result in s->ops->func(s->private, ), I think it is possible to fix this, but it is awkward and would require significantly more code (empty __VA_ARGS__ are notoriously hard to deal with).
Related
If I have this setup:
#include <stdlib.h>
#define NEW_FOO ((foo_t*)malloc(sizeof(foo_t)))
void foo_func(void);
typedef struct {
void (*foo) (void);
} foo_t;
int main(void) {
foo_t *a = NEW_FOO;
foo_t *b = NEW_FOO;
a->foo = foo_func;
b->foo = foo_func;
a->foo();
b->foo();
}
void foo_func(void) {
// determine wheter a or b was called?
}
Can I then find out, wheter a or b was the caller of foo_func, strictly without a parameter like self, this, ...?
The return address should be on the stack, so you should be able to identify the caller somehow, no?
I thought of a possible approach (it builds upon the idea above): The first time the foo_func is called (maybe through an initialization function, but let's leave that out to keep it simple) through a->foo(), store the address of struct a in some sort of array of pointers, I would assume. Same with b->foo(). Then, anytime that a->foo() or b->foo() is called, you would compare the address of the caller struct with the contents in the array to identify wheter it was a or b that called foo_func().
It's just that I have no Idea if and/or how that is possible, so if anyone of you could help me with this, I would be very glad!
I guess you're annoyed about the unsightliness of constructions like:
a->foo (a, arg0, arg1);
b->bar (b, arg0);
Unfortunately, the style of programming you've adopted does force this style on you, if you want to implement a simulation of polymorphic methods. Maybe you can implement a set of macros so you can write something like:
METHOD_CALL2 (foo, a, arg0, arg1);
METHOD_CALL1 (bar, b, arg0);
and so not have to repeat the "object" names a, b, etc., in the call. I've seen this done as well but, in my view, it doesn't look any prettier, and I'm sure it's no more maintainable.
As this is C, not C++, in the end you're going to have to have some way to pass your equivalent of this to the "methods" in your implementation. You might be able to disguise it with macros and variable-length argument lists, but it's going to have to happen somehow.
But why worry? This is idiomatic C code -- every application and library that takes an object-oriented approach to C will be using constructions of the form you want to avoid. People will understand what you're doing. Trying to disguise it will not make your code easier to follow, I suspect.
Sometimes it is useful to cast function callbacks without.
For example, we may have a function to duplicate some data:
struct MyStruct *my_dupe_fn(const struct MyStruct *s)
But pass it as a generic callback:
typedef void *(*MyGenericCopyCallback)(void *key);
Eg: ensure_key_in_set(my_set, my_key, (MyGenericCopyCallback)my_dupe_fn);
Since the difference between const struct MyStruct * and void * is not going to cause problems in this case, it won't cause any bugs (at least in the function call its self).
However, if later on an arguments added to my_dupe_fn, this could cause a bug which wouldn't give a compiler warning.
Is there a way to cast a function, but still show warnings if the arguments or return values are different sizes?
Obligatory disclaimer: of course C isn't *safe*, but ways to prevent potential bugs in a widely used language are still useful.
You say "won't cause any bugs", however it causes undefined behaviour to call a function through a function pointer with incompatible return types or parameter types, even in your example code.
If you want to rely on undefined behaviour then that's your risk to take. Relying on UB has a tendency to cause bugs sooner or later. A better idea would be to re-design the callback interface to not rely on undefined behaviour. For example, only use functions of the correct type as the callback function.
In your example this might be:
typedef void *MyCallback(void *key); // style: avoid pointer typedefs
struct MyStruct *my_dupe_fn(const struct MyStruct *s)
{ ... }
void *my_dupe_fn_callback(void *s)
{
return my_dupe_fn(s);
}
void generic_algorithm(MyCallback *callback)
{
// ....
ensure_key_in_set(my_set, my_key, callback);
// ....
}
// elsewhere
generic_algorithm(my_dupe_fn_callback);
Note the lack of casts. Managing a style policy of not using any function casts is simpler than a policy of allowing certain types.
If you are using gcc and are not afraid of using helpful extensions, you might have a look at plan9-extensions. In combination with anonymous struct fields (standard since C99) as the first field, they allow to build a type-hierarchy with static functions, etc. Avoids tons of casts in my code and makes it much more readable.
Not sure, but according to the gcc documentation, the MS-compiler supports some (all?) these features, too. No warranty for that, however.
That later error is coming from two pieces of code that say the same thing getting out of sync -- the first where you define the type of my_dupe_fn, and the second where you cast the generic callback pointer back to its original type.
This is where DRY (do not repeat yourself) comes in. The whole point is to only say something once, so that you can't later come back and change only one instance.
In this case, you'd want to typedef the type of a pointer to my_dupe_fn, preferably very close to where you declare the function itself, to help ensure that the typedef always changes along with the function signiture itself.
The compiler is never going to catch this for you as long as it thinks that it is just dealing with a generic void pointer.
Unfortunately you typically have to forgo some of this compile-time safety if you're using C. You might get a warning at best, but if you have a design that is uniformly casting function pointers this way, you're likely to ignore or outright disable them. Instead you want to place your emphasis on achieving safe coding standards. What you can't guarantee by force, you can encourage strongly by policy.
I would suggest, if you can afford it, to start by casting arguments and return values rather than whole function pointers. A flexible representation is like so:
typedef void* GenericFunction(int argc, void** args);
This emulates the ability to have variadic callbacks, and you can uniformly do runtime safety checks in debug builds, e.g., to make sure that the number of arguments matches the assumptions:
void* MyCallback(int argc, void** args)
{
assert(argc == 2);
...
return 0;
}
If you need more safety than this for the individual arguments being passed and can afford a typically-small cost of an extra pointer per argument with a slightly bulky structured solution, you can do something like this:
struct Variant
{
void* ptr;
const char* type_name;
};
struct Variant to_variant(void* ptr, const char* type_name)
{
struct Variant new_var;
new_var.ptr = ptr;
new_var.type_name = type_name;
return new_var;
}
void* from_variant(struct Variant* var, const char* type_name)
{
assert(strcmp(var->type_name, type_name) == 0 && "Type mismatch!");
return var->ptr;
}
void* pop_variant(struct Variant** args, const char* type_name)
{
struct Variant* var = *args;
assert(var->ptr && "Trying to pop off the end of the argument stack!");
assert(strcmp(var->type_name, type_name) == 0 && "Type mismatch!");
++*args;
return var->ptr;
}
With macros like so:
#define TO_VARIANT(val, type) to_variant(&val, #type);
#define FROM_VARIANT(var, type) *(type*)from_variant(&var, #type);
#define POP_VARIANT(args, type) *(type*)pop_variant(&args, #type);
typedef struct Variant* GenericFunction(struct Variant* args);
Example callback:
struct Variant* MyCallback(struct Variant* args)
{
// `args` is null-terminated.
int arg1 = POP_VARIANT(args, int);
float arg2 = POP_VARIANT(args, float);
...
return 0;
}
A side benefit is what you can see in your debugger when you trace into MyCallback through those type_name fields.
This kind of thing can be useful if your codebase supports callbacks into dynamically-typed scripting languages, since scripting languages should not be doing type casts in their code (typically they're meant to be a bit on the safer side). The type names can then be used to automatically convert the arguments into the scripting language's native types dynamically using those type_name fields.
Mostly for fun, I've decided to write my own minimal test framework for my C code. I use a basic struct for the test information, create an array of test structs and then iterate over them to run all the tests. This amounts to a very small amount of work for a fairly elegant (imho) solution.
However, the one thing that is a little annoying is that I cannot figure out how to define functions as function pointers instead of defining the function and then creating a function pointer later.
I have the following (which works just fine):
typedef int (* test_p) (void);
struct test {
char * desc;
test_p func;
};
int
example_test (void) {
puts("This is a test");
return 0;
}
void
run_test (char * test_name, test_p test) {
printf("Testing %s\t\t\t[ PEND ]\r", test_name);
char * test_result = (test() ? "FAIL" : "PASS");
printf("Testing %s\t\t\t[ %s ]\n", test_name, test_result);
}
int
main (void) {
struct test test_list [] = {
{ "example test", (test_p )example_test }
};
for ( int i = 0; i < 1; i ++ ) {
run_test(test_list[i].desc, test_list[i].func);
}
return 0;
}
However, I am hoping I can remove the need for the casting in the struct and instead define the function as being a function pointer from the beginning. The following is an example of how I would like this to work (assuming many of the same things as above):
test_p
example_test = {
puts("This is a test");
return 0;
}
If I could do something like this, then in the struct, I could simply have the func field be example_test rather than (test_p )example_test. Is this (or something like it) possible? If not, is there a reason why not (If that reason is simply "because it wasn't added to the language", that's fine)?
A function pointer is one kind of thing and a function is another kind of thing so you can't really make the latter be the former. But if you use a function name where a function pointer is expected, that produces a pointer to the function, so you can just remove the unnecessary cast, as WhozCraig said in the first comment above. You write
If I could do something like this, then in the struct, I could simply have the func field be example_test rather than (test_p )example_test.
You can do that, with example_test defined just as it is in your current code ... did you try that?
You can also forward declare a function, like so:
typedef int test_func(void); // note no indirection
typedef test_func* test_p;
test_func example_test;
It would be nice if you could use that sort of syntax when you define the function, as in your attempted syntax, but there's simply no way to do that in C ... you have to explicitly provide the return type and parameter list.
Another detail is that, when you invoke the function pointed to by a function pointer, you don't have to dereference it ... that's why you were able to write
test()
instead of
(*test)()
although the latter also works. (In fact, because the deference is stripped, (********test)() also works ... but only do that if you're trying to win an obfuscation contest.)
What you are describing is a kind of meta-programming. Rather than writing code to explicitly solve the problem, you are concerned with a kind of syntactic structure that will allow you to define a whole raft of test functions without unnecessary cruft.
In Lisp you would use macros. In C++ you might use templates and/or lambdas. In C you use macros.
So you need to write a macro that:
takes a name and descriptive text as arguments
defines a static variable of type function (created from that name using token pasting)
defines a function (using a name created by token pasting)
[edit] At this point you have achieved the goal: you have created the function and given it a name that is (only) a function pointer, and you can use that name in your struct without a cast. I would suggest one additional step, the macro also:
adds the variable/function and descriptive text to a list of functions to be tested.
Then your boilerplate loop iterates over the structure calling each function and reporting the results using the descriptive text. Problem solved.
Some people don't like macros, but they are ideally suited to this situation, and there is no other way to do it in C. I did something just like this before making the move to C++.
Sometimes, in C, you do this:
typedef struct foo {
unsigned int some_data;
} foo; /* btw, foo_t is discouraged */
To use this new type in an OO-sort-of-way, you might have alloc/free pairs like these:
foo *foo_alloc(/* various "constructor" params */);
void foo_free(foo *bar);
Or, alternatively init/clear pairs (perhaps returning error-codes):
int foo_init(foo *bar, /* and various "constructor" params */);
int foo_clear(foo *bar);
I have seen the following idiom used, in particular in the MPFR library:
struct foo {
unsigned int some_data;
};
typedef struct foo foo[1]; /* <- notice, 1-element array */
typedef struct foo *foo_ptr; /* let's create a ptr-type */
The alloc/free and init/clear pairs now read:
foo_ptr foo_alloc(/* various "constructor" params */);
void foo_free(foo_ptr bar);
int foo_init(foo_ptr bar, /* and various "constructor" params */);
int foo_clear(foo_ptr bar);
Now you can use it all like this (for instance, the init/clear pairs):
int main()
{
foo bar; /* constructed but NOT initialized yet */
foo_init(bar); /* initialize bar object, alloc stuff on heap, etc. */
/* use bar */
foo_clear(bar); /* clear bar object, free stuff on heap, etc. */
}
Remarks: The init/clear pair seems to allow for a more generic way of initializing and clearing out objects. Compared to the alloc/free pair, the init/clear pair requires that a "shallow" object has already been constructed. The "deep" construction is done using init.
Question: Are there any non-obvious pitfalls of the 1-element array "type-idiom"?
This is very clever (but see below).
It encourages the misleading idea that C function arguments can be passed by reference.
If I see this in a C program:
foo bar;
foo_init(bar);
I know that the call to foo_init does not modify the value of bar. I also know that the code passes the value of bar to a function when it hasn't initialized it, which is very probably undefined behavior.
Unless I happen to know that foo is a typedef for an array type. Then I suddenly realize that foo_init(bar) is not passing the value of bar, but the address of its first element. And now every time I see something that refers to type foo, or to an object of type foo, I have to think about how foo was defined as a typedef for a single-element array before I can understand the code.
It is an attempt to make C look like something it's not, not unlike things like:
#define BEGIN {
#define END }
and so forth. And it doesn't result in code that's easier to understand because it uses features that C doesn't support directly. It results in code that's harder to understand (especially to readers who know C well), because you have to understand both the customized declarations and the underlying C semantics that make the whole thing work.
If you want to pass pointers around, just pass pointers around, and do it explicitly. See, for example, the use of FILE* in the various standard functions defined in <stdio.h>. There is no attempt to hide pointers behind macros or typedefs, and C programmers have been using that interface for decades.
If you want to write code that looks like it's passing arguments by reference, define some function-like macros, and give them all-caps names so knowledgeable readers will know that something odd is going on.
I said above that this is "clever". I'm reminded of something I did when I was first learning the C language:
#define EVER ;;
which let me write an infinite loop as:
for (EVER) {
/* ... */
}
At the time, I thought it was clever.
I still think it's clever. I just no longer think that's a good thing.
The only advantage to this method is nicer looking code and easier typing. It allows the user to create the struct on the stack without dynamic allocation like so:
foo bar;
However, the structure can still be passed to functions that require a pointer type, without requiring the user to convert to a pointer with &bar every time.
foo_init(bar);
Without the 1 element array, it would require either an alloc function as you mentioned, or constant & usage.
foo_init(&bar);
The only pitfall I can think of is the normal concerns associated with direct stack allocation. If this in a library used by other code, updates to the struct may break client code in the future, which would not happen when using an alloc free pair.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
Assuming I have to use C (no C++ or object oriented compilers) and I don't have dynamic memory allocation, what are some techniques I can use to implement a class, or a good approximation of a class? Is it always a good idea to isolate the "class" to a separate file? Assume that we can preallocate the memory by assuming a fixed number of instances, or even defining the reference to each object as a constant before compile time. Feel free to make assumptions about which OOP concept I will need to implement (it will vary) and suggest the best method for each.
Restrictions:
I have to use C and not an OOP
because I'm writing code for an
embedded system, and the compiler and
preexisting code base is in C.
There is no dynamic memory allocation
because we don't have enough memory
to reasonably assume we won't run out
if we start dynamically allocating
it.
The compilers we work with have no problems with function pointers
That depends on the exact "object-oriented" feature-set you want to have. If you need stuff like overloading and/or virtual methods, you probably need to include function pointers in structures:
typedef struct {
float (*computeArea)(const ShapeClass *shape);
} ShapeClass;
float shape_computeArea(const ShapeClass *shape)
{
return shape->computeArea(shape);
}
This would let you implement a class, by "inheriting" the base class, and implementing a suitable function:
typedef struct {
ShapeClass shape;
float width, height;
} RectangleClass;
static float rectangle_computeArea(const ShapeClass *shape)
{
const RectangleClass *rect = (const RectangleClass *) shape;
return rect->width * rect->height;
}
This of course requires you to also implement a constructor, that makes sure the function pointer is properly set up. Normally you'd dynamically allocate memory for the instance, but you can let the caller do that, too:
void rectangle_new(RectangleClass *rect)
{
rect->width = rect->height = 0.f;
rect->shape.computeArea = rectangle_computeArea;
}
If you want several different constructors, you will have to "decorate" the function names, you can't have more than one rectangle_new() function:
void rectangle_new_with_lengths(RectangleClass *rect, float width, float height)
{
rectangle_new(rect);
rect->width = width;
rect->height = height;
}
Here's a basic example showing usage:
int main(void)
{
RectangleClass r1;
rectangle_new_with_lengths(&r1, 4.f, 5.f);
printf("rectangle r1's area is %f units square\n", shape_computeArea(&r1));
return 0;
}
I hope this gives you some ideas, at least. For a successful and rich object-oriented framework in C, look into glib's GObject library.
Also note that there's no explicit "class" being modelled above, each object has its own method pointers which is a bit more flexible than you'd typically find in C++. Also, it costs memory. You could get away from that by stuffing the method pointers in a class structure, and invent a way for each object instance to reference a class.
I had to do it once too for a homework. I followed this approach:
Define your data members in a
struct.
Define your function members that
take a pointer to your struct as
first argument.
Do these in one header & one c.
Header for struct definition &
function declarations, c for
implementations.
A simple example would be this:
/// Queue.h
struct Queue
{
/// members
}
typedef struct Queue Queue;
void push(Queue* q, int element);
void pop(Queue* q);
// etc.
///
If you only want one class, use an array of structs as the "objects" data and pass pointers to them to the "member" functions. You can use typedef struct _whatever Whatever before declaring struct _whatever to hide the implementation from client code. There's no difference between such an "object" and the C standard library FILE object.
If you want more than one class with inheritance and virtual functions, then it's common to have pointers to the functions as members of the struct, or a shared pointer to a table of virtual functions. The GObject library uses both this and the typedef trick, and is widely used.
There's also a book on techniques for this available online - Object Oriented Programming with ANSI C.
C Interfaces and Implementations: Techniques for Creating Reusable Software, David R. Hanson
http://www.informit.com/store/product.aspx?isbn=0201498413
This book does an excellent job of covering your question. It's in the Addison Wesley Professional Computing series.
The basic paradigm is something like this:
/* for data structure foo */
FOO *myfoo;
myfoo = foo_create(...);
foo_something(myfoo, ...);
myfoo = foo_append(myfoo, ...);
foo_delete(myfoo);
you can take a look at GOBject. it's an OS library that give you a verbose way to do an object.
http://library.gnome.org/devel/gobject/stable/
I will give a simple example of how OOP should be done in C. I realize this thread is from 2009 but would like to add this anyway.
/// Object.h
typedef struct Object {
uuid_t uuid;
} Object;
int Object_init(Object *self);
uuid_t Object_get_uuid(Object *self);
int Object_clean(Object *self);
/// Person.h
typedef struct Person {
Object obj;
char *name;
} Person;
int Person_init(Person *self, char *name);
int Person_greet(Person *self);
int Person_clean(Person *self);
/// Object.c
#include "object.h"
int Object_init(Object *self)
{
self->uuid = uuid_new();
return 0;
}
uuid_t Object_get_uuid(Object *self)
{ // Don't actually create getters in C...
return self->uuid;
}
int Object_clean(Object *self)
{
uuid_free(self->uuid);
return 0;
}
/// Person.c
#include "person.h"
int Person_init(Person *self, char *name)
{
Object_init(&self->obj); // Or just Object_init(&self);
self->name = strdup(name);
return 0;
}
int Person_greet(Person *self)
{
printf("Hello, %s", self->name);
return 0;
}
int Person_clean(Person *self)
{
free(self->name);
Object_clean(self);
return 0;
}
/// main.c
int main(void)
{
Person p;
Person_init(&p, "John");
Person_greet(&p);
Object_get_uuid(&p); // Inherited function
Person_clean(&p);
return 0;
}
The basic concept involves placing the 'inherited class' at the top of the struct. This way, accessing the first 4 bytes in the struct also accesses the first 4 bytes in the 'inherited class' (assuming non-crazy optimizations). Now, when the pointer of the struct is cast to the 'inherited class', the 'inherited class' can access the 'inherited values' in the same way it would access its members normally.
This and some naming conventions for constructors, destructors, allocation, and deallocation functions (I recommend _init, _clean, _new, and _free) will get you a long way.
As for Virtual functions, use function pointers in the struct, possibly with Class_func(...); wrapper too.
As for (simple) templates, add a size_t parameter to determine size, require a void* pointer, or require a 'class' type with just the functionality you care about. (e.g. int GetUUID(Object *self); GetUUID(&p);)
Use a struct to simulate the data members of a class. In terms of method scope you can simulate private methods by placing the private function prototypes in the .c file and the public functions in the .h file.
GTK is built entirely on C and it uses many OOP concepts. I have read through the source code of GTK and it is pretty impressive, and definitely easier to read. The basic concept is that each "class" is simply a struct, and associated static functions. The static functions all accept the "instance" struct as a parameter, do whatever then need, and return results if necessary. For Example, you may have a function "GetPosition(CircleStruct obj)". The function would simply dig through the struct, extract the position numbers, probably build a new PositionStruct object, stick the x and y in the new PositionStruct, and return it. GTK even implements inheritance this way by embedding structs inside structs. pretty clever.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <uchar.h>
/**
* Define Shape class
*/
typedef struct Shape Shape;
struct Shape {
/**
* Variables header...
*/
double width, height;
/**
* Functions header...
*/
double (*area)(Shape *shape);
};
/**
* Functions
*/
double calc(Shape *shape) {
return shape->width * shape->height;
}
/**
* Constructor
*/
Shape _Shape() {
Shape s;
s.width = 1;
s.height = 1;
s.area = calc;
return s;
}
/********************************************/
int main() {
Shape s1 = _Shape();
s1.width = 5.35;
s1.height = 12.5462;
printf("Hello World\n\n");
printf("User.width = %f\n", s1.width);
printf("User.height = %f\n", s1.height);
printf("User.area = %f\n\n", s1.area(&s1));
printf("Made with \xe2\x99\xa5 \n");
return 0;
};
In your case the good approximation of the class could be the an ADT. But still it won't be the same.
My strategy is:
Define all code for the class in a separate file
Define all interfaces for the class in a separate header file
All member functions take a "ClassHandle" which stands in for the instance name (instead of o.foo(), call foo(oHandle)
The constructor is replaced with a function void ClassInit(ClassHandle h, int x, int y,...) OR ClassHandle ClassInit(int x, int y,...) depending on the memory allocation strategy
All member variables are store as a member of a static struct in the class file, encapsulating it in the file, preventing outside files from accessing it
The objects are stored in an array of the static struct above, with predefined handles (visible in the interface) or a fixed limit of objects that can be instantiated
If useful, the class can contain public functions that will loop through the array and call the functions of all the instantiated objects (RunAll() calls each Run(oHandle)
A Deinit(ClassHandle h) function frees the allocated memory (array index) in the dynamic allocation strategy
Does anyone see any problems, holes, potential pitfalls or hidden benefits/drawbacks to either variation of this approach? If I am reinventing a design method (and I assume I must be), can you point me to the name of it?
Also see this answer and this one
It is possible. It always seems like a good idea at the time but afterwards it becomes a maintenance nightmare. Your code become littered with pieces of code tying everything together. A new programmer will have lots of problems reading and understanding the code if you use function pointers since it will not be obvious what functions is called.
Data hiding with get/set functions is easy to implement in C but stop there. I have seen multiple attempts at this in the embedded environment and in the end it is always a maintenance problem.
Since you all ready have maintenance issues I would steer clear.
My approach would be to move the struct and all primarily-associated functions to a separate source file(s) so that it can be used "portably".
Depending on your compiler, you might be able to include functions into the struct, but that's a very compiler-specific extension, and has nothing to do with the last version of the standard I routinely used :)
The first c++ compiler actually was a preprocessor which translated the C++ code into C.
So it's very possible to have classes in C.
You might try and dig up an old C++ preprocessor and see what kind of solutions it creates.
Do you want virtual methods?
If not then you just define a set of function pointers in the struct itself. If you assign all the function pointers to standard C functions then you will be able to call functions from C in very similar syntax to how you would under C++.
If you want to have virtual methods it gets more complicated. Basically you will need to implement your own VTable to each struct and assign function pointers to the VTable depending on which function is called. You would then need a set of function pointers in the struct itself that in turn call the function pointer in the VTable. This is, essentially, what C++ does.
TBH though ... if you want the latter then you are probably better off just finding a C++ compiler you can use and re-compiling the project. I have never understood the obsession with C++ not being usable in embedded. I've used it many a time and it works is fast and doesn't have memory problems. Sure you have to be a bit more careful about what you do but its really not that complicated.
C isn't an OOP language, as your rightly point out, so there's no built-in way to write a true class. You're best bet is to look at structs, and function pointers, these will let you build an approximation of a class. However, as C is procedural you might want to consider writing more C-like code (i.e. without trying to use classes).
Also, if you can use C, you can probally use C++ and get classes.