Related
Is there a "proper" way to implement higher order functions in C.
I'm mostly curious about things like portability and syntax correctness here and if there are more than one ways what the merits and flaws are.
Edit:
The reason I want to know how to create higher order functions are that I have written a system to convert PyObject lists (which you get when calling python scripts) into a list of C structures containing the same data but organized in a way not dependant on the python.h libraries. So my plan is to have a function which iterates through a pythonic list and calls a function on each item in the list and places the result in a list which it then returns.
So this is basically my plan:
typedef gpointer (converter_func_type)(PyObject *)
gpointer converter_function(PyObject *obj)
{
// do som stuff and return a struct cast into a gpointer (which is a void *)
}
GList *pylist_to_clist(PyObject *obj, converter_func_type f)
{
GList *some_glist;
for each item in obj
{
some_glist = g_list_append(some_glist, f(item));
}
return some_glist;
}
void some_function_that_executes_a_python_script(void)
{
PyObject *result = python stuff that returns a list;
GList *clist = pylist_to_clist(result, converter_function);
}
And to clearify the question: I want to know how to do this in safer and more correct C. I would really like to keep the higher order function style but if that is frowned upon I greatly appreciate ways to do this some other way.
Technically, higher-order functions are just functions that take or return functions. So things like qsort are already higher-order.
If you mean something more like the lambda functions found in functional languages (which is where higher order functions really become useful), those are quite a bit harder and can't be done naturally in current standard C. They're just not part of the language. Apple's blocks extension is the best candidate. It only works in GCC (and LLVM's C compiler), but they are really useful. Hopefully something like that will catch on. Here's a few relevant resources:
Apple's documentation on the feature (references some Apple-specific technologies and also addresses Objective-C, but the core block stuff is part of their extensionto C)
Here's a good intro on blocks
Cocoa for Scientists' overview of C blocks
The big problem with implementing higher-order functions in C is that to do anything non-trivial you need closures, which are function pointers augmented with data structures containing local variables they have access to. Since the whole idea behind closures is to capture local variables and pass those along with the function pointer, it's hard to do without compiler support. And even with compiler support it's hard to do without garbage collection because variables can exist outside of their scope, making it hard to figure out when to free them.
This is an answer to the question: how to compose functions in C, which is redirected here.
You can create a data structure to implement a list data type.
that structure can contain function pointers.
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<malloc.h>
typedef (*fun)();
typedef struct funList { fun car; struct funList *cdr;} *funList;
const funList nil = NULL;
int null(funList fs){ return nil==fs; }
fun car(funList fs)
{
if(!null(fs)) return fs->car;
else
{
fprintf(stderr,"error:can't car(nil) line:%d\n",__LINE__);
exit(1);
}
}
funList cdr(funList ls)
{ if(!null(ls)) return ls->cdr;
else
{
fprintf(stderr,"error:can't cdr(nil) line:%d\n",__LINE__);
exit(1);
}
}
funList cons(fun f, funList fs)
{ funList ls;
ls=(funList) malloc(sizeof(struct funList));
if(NULL==ls)
{
fprintf(stderr,"error:can't alloc mem for cons(...) line:%d\n",__LINE__);
exit(1);
}
ls->car=f;
ls->cdr=fs;
return ls;
}
we can write a function comp which applies a list of functions:
type_2 comp(funList fs, type_1 x)
{
return (null(fs)) ? x : car(fs)(comp(cdr(fs),x));
}
An example of how it works. We use (f g h) as a short notation for cons(f,cons(g,cons(h,nil))), which is applied to a given argument x:
comp((f g h),x)
=
f(comp((g h),x))
=
f(g(comp((h),x)))
=
f(g(h(comp(nil,x))))
=
f(g(h(x)))
if you had used the polymorphic list type in a typed language like SML or Haskell the type of comp should be:
comp :: ([a -> a],a) -> a
because in that context all the members in a list have the same type.
C can be more flexible in this sense. Maybe something like
typedef void (*fun)();
or
typedef (*fun)();
you should see what the C manual say about this. And be sure that all contiguous functions have compatible types.
The functions to compose should be pure, i.e. without side effects nor free variables.
In straight c, this is really only done through function pointers, which are both a pain and not meant for this type of thing (which is partially why they are a pain). Blocks (or closures, according to non-apple) are fantastic for this, though. They compile in gcc-4.x or something, and icc something, but regardless thats what you're looking for. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any good tutorials online, but suffice to say it works something like this:
void iterate(char *str, int count, (^block)(str *)){
for(int i = 0; i < count; i++){
block(list[i]);
}
}
main() {
char str[20];
iterate(str, 20, ^(char c){
printf("%c ", c);
});
int accum = 0;
iterate(someList, 20, ^(char c){
accum += c;
iterate(str, 20, ^(char c){
printf("%c ", c);
});
});
}
obviously this code is pointless, but it it prints each character of a string (str) with a space in between it, then adds all of the characters together into accum, and every time it does it prints out the list of characters again.
Hope this helps. By the way, blocks are very visible in Mac OS X Snow Leopard api-s, and I believe are in the forthcoming C++0x standard, so they're not really that unusual.
If you're keen on doing this in plain C, you need to remember to include the option to pass in a context pointer from the caller of the functor (the higher-order function) to the function passed in. This lets you simulate enough of a closure that you can make things work easily enough. What that pointer points to... well, that's up to you, but it should be a void* in the functor's API (or one of the many aliases for it, such as gpointer in the GLib world or ClientData in the Tcl C API).
[EDIT]: To use/adapt your example:
typedef gpointer (converter_func_type)(gpointer,PyObject *)
gpointer converter_function(gpointer context_ptr,PyObject *obj)
{
int *number_of_calls_ptr = context_ptr;
*number_of_calls_ptr++;
// do som stuff and return a struct cast into a gpointer (which is a void *)
}
GList *pylist_to_clist(PyObject *obj, converter_func_type f, gpointer context_ptr)
{
GList *some_glist;
for each item in obj
{
some_glist = g_list_append(some_glist, f(context_ptr,item));
}
return some_glist;
}
void some_function_that_executes_a_python_script(void)
{
int number_of_calls = 0;
PyObject *result = python stuff that returns a list;
GList *clist = pylist_to_clist(result, converter_function, &number_of_calls);
// Now number_of_calls has how often converter_function was called...
}
This is a trivial example of how to do it, but it should show you the way.
Practically any interesting higher order function application requires closures, which in C entails the laborous and error-prone routine of manually defining and filling struct function arguments.
It's very difficult to do in straight C. It's more possible in C++ (see functors tutorial or Boost's bind and function libraries). Finally, C++0x adds native support for lambda functions, which takes care for you of capturing in closure all of the variables that your funcion depends on.
If you want to create higher order functions, don't use C. There are C solutions to your problem. They may not be elegant, or they may be more elegant that you realize.
[Edit] I suggested that the only way to achieve this was to use a scripting language. Others have called me out on it. So, I'm replacing that suggestion with this: [/Edit]
What are you trying to achieve? If you want to mimic closures, use a language that supports them (you can tie into Ruby, lua, javascript, etc through libraries). If you want to use callbacks, function pointers are ok. Function pointers combine the most dangerous areas of C (pointers and the weak type system), so be careful. Function pointer declarations are not fun to read, either.
You find some C libraries using function pointers because they have to. If you're writing a library, maybe you need to use them, too. If you're just using them within your own code, you're probably not thinking in C. You're thinking in lisp or scheme or ruby or ... and trying to write it in C. Learn the C way.
Is there any way to get a pointer to the current function, maybe through gcc extensions or some other trickery?
Edit I'm curious whether it is possible to get the function pointer without ever explicitly using the function's name. I thought I had a good reason for wanting this, realized that I didn't really, but am still curious if it is possible.
This isn't especially portable, but should work on at least some platforms (i.e., Linux and OSX, where I can check the documentation; it definitely doesn't work on Windows which lacks the API):
#include <dlfcn.h>
// ...
void *handle = dlopen(NULL, RTLD_LAZY);
void *thisfunction = handle ? dlsym(handle, __FUNCTION__) : NULL;
if (handle) dlclose(handle); // remember to close!
There are a number of other less-portable shortcuts that work on some platforms but not others. This is also not fast; cache it (e.g., in a local static variable) if you need speed.
No. In a three-letter answer. In C++ member functions you can have a "this" pointer that does something similar, but there's nothing equivalent in C.
However, since you can't define anonymous functions, there's little need for such a feature.
I realise this is likely not what you're after... but it still answers your question as it is currently phrased:
void someFunction()
{
void (*self)() = someFunction;
}
(Of course, here you could just as well use the identifier someFunction directly in most cases, instead of the function pointer self.)
If, however, you are looking for a means to do the same when you don't know what the current function is called (how could you ever get in such a situation, I wonder?), then I don't know a standard-compliant, portable way of doing this.
Looks like this has been asked before on SO, here is an interesting answer that I have not tested:
Get a pointer to the current function in C (gcc)?
Anyway, there are some interesting extensions, with gcc extensions, are you familiar with the __FUNCTION__ macro?
See what you think about this (this will just get you a string with the name of the function:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
void printme(char *foo)
{
printf("%s says %s\n", __FUNCTION__, foo);
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
printme("hey");
return 0;
}
Is there a "proper" way to implement higher order functions in C.
I'm mostly curious about things like portability and syntax correctness here and if there are more than one ways what the merits and flaws are.
Edit:
The reason I want to know how to create higher order functions are that I have written a system to convert PyObject lists (which you get when calling python scripts) into a list of C structures containing the same data but organized in a way not dependant on the python.h libraries. So my plan is to have a function which iterates through a pythonic list and calls a function on each item in the list and places the result in a list which it then returns.
So this is basically my plan:
typedef gpointer (converter_func_type)(PyObject *)
gpointer converter_function(PyObject *obj)
{
// do som stuff and return a struct cast into a gpointer (which is a void *)
}
GList *pylist_to_clist(PyObject *obj, converter_func_type f)
{
GList *some_glist;
for each item in obj
{
some_glist = g_list_append(some_glist, f(item));
}
return some_glist;
}
void some_function_that_executes_a_python_script(void)
{
PyObject *result = python stuff that returns a list;
GList *clist = pylist_to_clist(result, converter_function);
}
And to clearify the question: I want to know how to do this in safer and more correct C. I would really like to keep the higher order function style but if that is frowned upon I greatly appreciate ways to do this some other way.
Technically, higher-order functions are just functions that take or return functions. So things like qsort are already higher-order.
If you mean something more like the lambda functions found in functional languages (which is where higher order functions really become useful), those are quite a bit harder and can't be done naturally in current standard C. They're just not part of the language. Apple's blocks extension is the best candidate. It only works in GCC (and LLVM's C compiler), but they are really useful. Hopefully something like that will catch on. Here's a few relevant resources:
Apple's documentation on the feature (references some Apple-specific technologies and also addresses Objective-C, but the core block stuff is part of their extensionto C)
Here's a good intro on blocks
Cocoa for Scientists' overview of C blocks
The big problem with implementing higher-order functions in C is that to do anything non-trivial you need closures, which are function pointers augmented with data structures containing local variables they have access to. Since the whole idea behind closures is to capture local variables and pass those along with the function pointer, it's hard to do without compiler support. And even with compiler support it's hard to do without garbage collection because variables can exist outside of their scope, making it hard to figure out when to free them.
This is an answer to the question: how to compose functions in C, which is redirected here.
You can create a data structure to implement a list data type.
that structure can contain function pointers.
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<malloc.h>
typedef (*fun)();
typedef struct funList { fun car; struct funList *cdr;} *funList;
const funList nil = NULL;
int null(funList fs){ return nil==fs; }
fun car(funList fs)
{
if(!null(fs)) return fs->car;
else
{
fprintf(stderr,"error:can't car(nil) line:%d\n",__LINE__);
exit(1);
}
}
funList cdr(funList ls)
{ if(!null(ls)) return ls->cdr;
else
{
fprintf(stderr,"error:can't cdr(nil) line:%d\n",__LINE__);
exit(1);
}
}
funList cons(fun f, funList fs)
{ funList ls;
ls=(funList) malloc(sizeof(struct funList));
if(NULL==ls)
{
fprintf(stderr,"error:can't alloc mem for cons(...) line:%d\n",__LINE__);
exit(1);
}
ls->car=f;
ls->cdr=fs;
return ls;
}
we can write a function comp which applies a list of functions:
type_2 comp(funList fs, type_1 x)
{
return (null(fs)) ? x : car(fs)(comp(cdr(fs),x));
}
An example of how it works. We use (f g h) as a short notation for cons(f,cons(g,cons(h,nil))), which is applied to a given argument x:
comp((f g h),x)
=
f(comp((g h),x))
=
f(g(comp((h),x)))
=
f(g(h(comp(nil,x))))
=
f(g(h(x)))
if you had used the polymorphic list type in a typed language like SML or Haskell the type of comp should be:
comp :: ([a -> a],a) -> a
because in that context all the members in a list have the same type.
C can be more flexible in this sense. Maybe something like
typedef void (*fun)();
or
typedef (*fun)();
you should see what the C manual say about this. And be sure that all contiguous functions have compatible types.
The functions to compose should be pure, i.e. without side effects nor free variables.
In straight c, this is really only done through function pointers, which are both a pain and not meant for this type of thing (which is partially why they are a pain). Blocks (or closures, according to non-apple) are fantastic for this, though. They compile in gcc-4.x or something, and icc something, but regardless thats what you're looking for. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any good tutorials online, but suffice to say it works something like this:
void iterate(char *str, int count, (^block)(str *)){
for(int i = 0; i < count; i++){
block(list[i]);
}
}
main() {
char str[20];
iterate(str, 20, ^(char c){
printf("%c ", c);
});
int accum = 0;
iterate(someList, 20, ^(char c){
accum += c;
iterate(str, 20, ^(char c){
printf("%c ", c);
});
});
}
obviously this code is pointless, but it it prints each character of a string (str) with a space in between it, then adds all of the characters together into accum, and every time it does it prints out the list of characters again.
Hope this helps. By the way, blocks are very visible in Mac OS X Snow Leopard api-s, and I believe are in the forthcoming C++0x standard, so they're not really that unusual.
If you're keen on doing this in plain C, you need to remember to include the option to pass in a context pointer from the caller of the functor (the higher-order function) to the function passed in. This lets you simulate enough of a closure that you can make things work easily enough. What that pointer points to... well, that's up to you, but it should be a void* in the functor's API (or one of the many aliases for it, such as gpointer in the GLib world or ClientData in the Tcl C API).
[EDIT]: To use/adapt your example:
typedef gpointer (converter_func_type)(gpointer,PyObject *)
gpointer converter_function(gpointer context_ptr,PyObject *obj)
{
int *number_of_calls_ptr = context_ptr;
*number_of_calls_ptr++;
// do som stuff and return a struct cast into a gpointer (which is a void *)
}
GList *pylist_to_clist(PyObject *obj, converter_func_type f, gpointer context_ptr)
{
GList *some_glist;
for each item in obj
{
some_glist = g_list_append(some_glist, f(context_ptr,item));
}
return some_glist;
}
void some_function_that_executes_a_python_script(void)
{
int number_of_calls = 0;
PyObject *result = python stuff that returns a list;
GList *clist = pylist_to_clist(result, converter_function, &number_of_calls);
// Now number_of_calls has how often converter_function was called...
}
This is a trivial example of how to do it, but it should show you the way.
Practically any interesting higher order function application requires closures, which in C entails the laborous and error-prone routine of manually defining and filling struct function arguments.
It's very difficult to do in straight C. It's more possible in C++ (see functors tutorial or Boost's bind and function libraries). Finally, C++0x adds native support for lambda functions, which takes care for you of capturing in closure all of the variables that your funcion depends on.
If you want to create higher order functions, don't use C. There are C solutions to your problem. They may not be elegant, or they may be more elegant that you realize.
[Edit] I suggested that the only way to achieve this was to use a scripting language. Others have called me out on it. So, I'm replacing that suggestion with this: [/Edit]
What are you trying to achieve? If you want to mimic closures, use a language that supports them (you can tie into Ruby, lua, javascript, etc through libraries). If you want to use callbacks, function pointers are ok. Function pointers combine the most dangerous areas of C (pointers and the weak type system), so be careful. Function pointer declarations are not fun to read, either.
You find some C libraries using function pointers because they have to. If you're writing a library, maybe you need to use them, too. If you're just using them within your own code, you're probably not thinking in C. You're thinking in lisp or scheme or ruby or ... and trying to write it in C. Learn the C way.
I am trying to do something like the following
enum types {None, Bool, Short, Char, Integer, Double, Long, Ptr};
int main(int argc, char ** args) {
enum types params[10] = {0};
void* triangle = dlopen("./foo.so", RTLD_LAZY);
void * fun = dlsym(triangle, ars[1]);
<<pseudo code>>
}
Where pseudo code is something like
fun = {}
for param in params:
if param == None:
fun += void
if param == Bool:
fun += Boolean
if param == Integer:
fun += int
...
returnVal = fun.pop()
funSignature = returnval + " " + funName + "(" + Riffle(fun, ",") + ")"
exec funSignature
Thank you
Actually, you can do nearly all you want. In C language (unlike C++, for example), the functions in shared objects are referenced merely by their names. So, to find--and, what is most important, to call--the proper function, you don't need its full signature. You only need its name! It's both an advantage and disadvantage --but that's the nature of a language you chose.
Let me demonstrate, how it works.
#include <dlfcn.h>
typedef void* (*arbitrary)();
// do not mix this with typedef void* (*arbitrary)(void); !!!
int main()
{
arbitrary my_function;
// Introduce already loaded functions to runtime linker's space
void* handle = dlopen(0,RTLD_NOW|RTLD_GLOBAL);
// Load the function to our pointer, which doesn't know how many arguments there sould be
*(void**)(&my_function) = dlsym(handle,"something");
// Call something via my_function
(void) my_function("I accept a string and an integer!\n",(int)(2*2));
return 0;
}
In fact, you can call any function that way. However, there's one drawback. You actually need to know the return type of your function in compile time. By default, if you omit void* in that typedef, int is assumed as return type--and, yes, it's a correct C code. The thing is that the compiler needs to know the size of the return type to operate the stack properly.
You can workaround it by tricks, for example, by pre-declaring several function types with different sizes of return types in advance and then selecting which one you actually are going to call. But the easier solution is to require functions in your plugin to return void* or int always; the actual result being returned via pointers given as arguments.
What you must ensure is that you always call the function with the exact number and types of arguments it's supposed to accept. Pay closer attention to difference between different integer types (your best option would be to explicitly cast arguments to them).
Several commenters reported that the code above is not guaranteed to work for variadic functions (such as printf).
What dlsym() returns is normally a function pointer - disguised as a void *. (If you ask it for the name of a global variable, it will return you a pointer to that global variable, too.)
You then invoke that function just as you might using any other pointer to function:
int (*fun)(int, char *) = (int (*)(int, char *))dlsym(triangle, "function");
(*fun)(1, "abc"); # Old school - pre-C89 standard, but explicit
fun(1, "abc"); # New school - C89/C99 standard, but implicit
I'm old school; I prefer the explicit notation so that the reader knows that 'fun' is a pointer to a function without needing to see its declaration. With the new school notation, you have to remember to look for a variable 'fun' before trying to find a function called 'fun()'.
Note that you cannot build the function call dynamically as you are doing - or, not in general. To do that requires a lot more work. You have to know ahead of time what the function pointer expects in the way of arguments and what it returns and how to interpret it all.
Systems that manage more dynamic function calls, such as Perl, have special rules about how functions are called and arguments are passed and do not call (arguably cannot call) functions with arbitrary signatures. They can only call functions with signatures that are known about in advance. One mechanism (not used by Perl) is to push the arguments onto a stack, and then call a function that knows how to collect values off the stack. But even if that called function manipulates those values and then calls an arbitrary other function, that called function provides the correct calling sequence for the arbitrary other function.
Reflection in C is hard - very hard. It is not undoable - but it requires infrastructure to support it and discipline to use it, and it can only call functions that support the infrastructure's rules.
The Proper Solution
Assuming you're writing the shared libraries; the best solution I've found to this problem is strictly defining and controlling what functions are dynamically linked by:
Setting all symbols hidden
for example clang -dynamiclib Person.c -fvisibility=hidden -o libPerson.dylib when compiling with clang
Then using __attribute__((visibility("default"))) and extern "C" to selectively unhide and include functions
Profit! You know what the function's signature is. You wrote it!
I found this in Apple's Dynamic Library Design Guidelines. These docs also include other solutions to the problem above was just my favorite.
The Answer to your Question
As stated in previous answers, C and C++ functions with extern "C" in their definition aren't mangled so the function's symbols simply don't include the full function signature. If you're compiling with C++ without extern "C" however functions are mangled so you could demangle them to get the full function's signature (with a tool like demangler.com or a c++ library). See here for more details on what mangling is.
Generally speaking it's best to use the first option if you're trying to import functions with dlopen.
I came across the following function signature and I wondered if this (the ellipsis, or "...") is some kind of polymorphism?
#include <fcntl.h>
int fcntl(int fd, int cmd, ... );
Thanks in advance.
It's a variable argument list.
That is a variadic function. See stdarg.h for more details.
The ... means that you can pass any number of arguments to this function, as other commenters have already mentioned. Since the optional arguments are not typed, the compiler cannot check the types and you can technically pass in any argument of any type.
So does this mean you can use this to implement some kind of polymorphic function? (I.e., a function that performs some operation based on the type of its arguments.)
No.
The reason you cannot do this, is because you cannot at runtime inspect the types of the arguments passed in. The function reading in the variable argument list is expected to already know the types of the optional arguments it is going to receive.
In case of a function that really is supposed to be able to take any number of arguments of any type (i.e., printf), the types of the arguments are passed in via the format string. This means that the caller has to specify the types it is going to pass in at every invocation, removing the benefit of polymorphic functions (that the caller doesn't have to know the types either).
Compare:
// Ideal invocation
x = multiply(number_a, number_b)
y = multiply(matrix_a, matrix_b)
// Standard C invocation
x = multiply_number(number_a, number_b)
y = multiply_matrix(matrix_a, matrix_b)
// Simulated "polymorphism" with varargs
x = multiply(T_NUMBER, number_a, number_b)
y = multiply(T_MATRIX, matrix_a, matrix_b)
You have to specify the type before the varargs function can do the right thing, so this gains you nothing.
No, that's the "ellipsis" you're seeing there, assuming you're referring to the ... part of the declaration.
Basically it says that this function takes an unknown number of arguments after the first two that are specified there.
The function has to be written in such a way that it knows what to expect, otherwise strange results will ensue.
For other functions that support this, look at the printf function and its variants.
Does C support polymorphism?
No, it doesn't.
However there are several libraries, such as Python C API, that implements a rough variant of polymorphism using structs and pointers. Beware that compiler cannot perform appropriate type checking in most cases.
The tecnhique is simple:
typedef struct {
char * (*to_string)();
} Type;
#define OBJ_HEADER Type *ob_type
typedef struct {
OBJ_HEADER;
} Object;
typedef struct {
OBJ_HEADER;
long ival;
} Integer;
typedef struct {
OBJ_HEADER;
char *name;
char *surname;
} Person;
Integer and Person get a Type object with appropriate function pointers (e.g. to functions like integer_to_string and person_to_string).
Now just declare a function accepting an Object *:
void print(Object *obj) {
printf("%s", obj->type->to_string());
}
now you can call this function with both an Integer and a Person:
Integer *i = make_int(10);
print((Object *) i);
Person *p = make_person("dfa");
print((Object *) p);
EDIT
alternatively you can declare i and p as Object *; of course make_int and make_person will allocate space for Integer and Person and do the appropriate cast:
Object *
make_integer(long i) {
Integer *ob = malloc(sizeof(Integer));
ob->ob_type = &integer_type;
ob->ival = i;
return (Object *) ob;
}
NB: I cannot compile these examples rigth now, please doublecheck them.
I came across the following function signature and I wondered if this (the ellipsis, or "...") is some kind of polymorphism?
yes, it is a primitive form of polymorphism. With only one function signature you are able to pass various structures. However the compiler cannot help you with detecting type errors.
Adding to what's been said: C supports polymorphism through other means. For example, take the standard library qsort function which sorts data of arbitrary type.
It is able to do so by means of untyped (void) pointers to the data. It also needs to know the size of the data to sort (provided via sizeof) and the logic that compares the objects' order. This is accomplished by passing a function pointer to the qsort function.
This is a prime example of runtime polymorphism.
There are other ways to implement object-oriented behaviour (in particular, virtual function calls) by managing the virtual function tables manually. This can be done by storing function pointers in structures and passing them around. Many APIs do so, e.g. the WinAPI, which even uses advanced aspects of object orientation, e.g. base class call dispatch (DefWindowProc, to simulate calling the virtual method of the base class).
I assume you are referring to the ellipsis (...)? If so this indicates that 0 or more parameters will follow. It is called varargs, defined in stdarg.h
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/kb57fad8.aspx
printf uses this functionality. Without it you wouldn't be able to keep adding parameters to the end of the function.
C supports a crude form of Polymorphism. I.e. a type being able to appear and behave as another type. It works in a similar was as in C++ under the hood (relying on memory being aligned) but you have to help the compiler out by casting. E.g. you can define a struct:
typedef struct {
char forename[20];
char surname[20];
} Person;
And then another struct:
typedef struct {
char forename[20];
char surname[20];
float salary;
char managername[20];
} Employee;
Then
int main (int argc, int *argv)
{
Employee Ben;
setpersonname((Person *) &Ben);
}
void setpersonname(Person *person)
{
strcpy(person->forename,"Ben");
}
The above example shows Employee being used as a Person.
No, it is a function that is taking variable number of arguments.
That is not technically polymorphism. fcntl takes variable number of arguments & that is the reason for the ... similar to printf function.
C neither supports function overloading - which is a type of ad-hoc polymorphism based on compile-time types - nor multiple dispatch (ie overloading based on runtime types).
To simulate function overloading in C, you have to create multiple differently named functions. The functions' names often contain the type information, eg fputc() for characters and fputs() for strings.
Multiple dispatch can be implemented by using variadic macros. Again, it's the programmer's job to provide the type information, but this time via an extra argument, which will be evaluated at runtime - in contrast to the compile-time function name in case of the approach given above. The printf() family of functions might not be the best example for multiple dispatch, but I can't think of a better one right now.
Other approaches to multiple dispatch using pointers instead of variadic functions or wrapping values in structures to provide type annotations exist.
The printf declaration in the standard library is
int printf(const char*, ...);
Think about that.
You can write code that supports Polymorphic behavior in C, but the ... (ellipsis) is not going to be much help. That is for variable arguments to a function.
If you want polymorphic behavior you can use, unions and structures to construct a data structure that has a "type" section and variable fields depending on type. You can also include tables of function pointers in the structures. Poof! You've invented C++.
Yes C Do support the polymorphism
the Code which we write in the C++ using virtual to implement the polymorphism
if first converted to a C code by Compiler (one can find details here).
It's well known that virtual functionality in C++ is implemented using function pointers.