DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction to OOP With

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction to OOP With Library: Udžbenici Book Number: 16 Main Editor: prof. dr Safet Krkić Technical Review: prof. dr Senad Burak prof. dr Dražena Tomić Language Review: Authors Book Covers: Mirza Hadžikadunić DTP: Authors Copyright © Authors, 2005 FIT Mostar, 2005 Edicions de la Universitat de Leida, 2005 All rights reserved. No part of the contents of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of the copyright owners. Printed by Štamparija "FOJNICA" d.o.o. Fojnica Supported by TEMPUS project CD JEP 16110-2001 CIP Katalogizacija u publikaciji Edicions de la Universitat de Leida Nacionalna i univerzitetska biblioteka Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo 004.42(075.8) RIBO, Josep Maria RIBO, Josep Maria Introduction to OOP with C++ / Introduction to OOP with C++ / Josep Maria Ribo, Ismet Maksumić, Josep Maria Ribo, Ismet Maksumić, Siniša Čehajić – Mostar: Siniša Čehajić – Mostar: Univerzitetska knjiga, 2005. – 333. str: graf. prikazi; 25 cm. – (Biblioteka Udžbenici; knj. 16) Bibliografija: str. 331-332 ISBN 9958-603-22-5 ISBN 84-8409-199-6 1. Maksumić, Ismet 2. Čehajić, Siniša 1. Maksumić, Ismet 2. Čehajić, Siniša COBISS.BH-ID 14230534 Published by Univerzitetska knjiga Mostar, 2005 Edicions de la Universitat de Leida, 2005 Josep Maria Ribó Ismet Maksumić Siniša Čehajić Introduction to OOP with C++ Published by Univerzitetska knjiga Mostar Edicions de la Universitat de Leida, July, 2005 Table of contents Chapter 1: Principles od OOP. Classes. Objects...................................................1 1.1. Modelling concepts.........................................................................................1 1.1.1. Abstract types...........................................................................................2 1.2. Concept of class ..............................................................................................4 1.3. Concept of object ..........................................................................................10 1.3.1. State .......................................................................................................11 1.3.2. Behaviour...............................................................................................11 1.3.3. Identity ...................................................................................................12 1.3.4. Classes vs. objects..................................................................................13 1.3.5. The object orientation programming paradigm......................................14 1.4. Class contracts ..............................................................................................15 1.4.1. Defining a class contract........................................................................16 1.4.2. Preconditions..........................................................................................16 1.4.3. Postconditions........................................................................................20 1.4.4. Class invariants ......................................................................................21 1.4.5. Correctness of a class implementation...................................................23 1.4.6. Example: Contract for the class Date...................................................24 1.5. Detailed class and object definition in C++..................................................26 1.5.1. Private and public members...................................................................29 1.5.2. Operation declaration and implementation ............................................30 1.5.3. Object creation.......................................................................................30 1.5.4. Access to members ................................................................................37 1.5.5. References vs. pointers ..........................................................................39 1.5.6. Splitting class definition into different files...........................................40 1.6. Some (pleasant) consequences of class definition ........................................42 1.7. Guided problems. The class MyString......................................................44 1.7.1. The problem...........................................................................................44 1.7.2. Solution..................................................................................................45 1.7.3. The file Makefile...............................................................................50 1.8. Guided problems. The word counter.............................................................50 1.8.1. The class WordCounter .....................................................................50 1.8.2. A client program ....................................................................................56 1.8.3. The class WordCounterInterface................................................57 Chapter 2: Special members .................................................................................61 2.1. Constructors ..................................................................................................61 2.1.1. Notion of constructors............................................................................61 2.1.2. Constructor overloading.........................................................................64 2.1.3. Default constructor.................................................................................65 2.1.4. Default parameters .................................................................................65 2.1.5. Copy constructor....................................................................................66 2.1.6. Construction call in the creation of arrays of objects.............................71 2.1.7. Creation of temporary objects................................................................71 2.1.8. Dynamic object construction .................................................................72 2.1.9. Construction of dynamic arrays of objects.............................................73 2.1.10. An example ..........................................................................................74 2.2. Destructors ....................................................................................................75 2.2.1. Why are destructors necessary? The garbage .......................................75 2.2.2. The operator delete............................................................................78 2.2.3. Destructors in C++.................................................................................78 2.2.4. Destruction of dynamic objects..............................................................80 2.2.5. Destructors and sharing of identity: warnings .......................................81 2.3. Friend functions and classes .........................................................................83 2.4. Operator overloading ....................................................................................85 2.4.1. Operator = ..............................................................................................85 2.4.2. Operator ==............................................................................................88 2.4.3. Operator []..............................................................................................89 2.4.4. Operator ()..............................................................................................90 2.4.5. Operators << and >>..............................................................................91 2.5. What operations any C++ class should offer ................................................92 2.6. Guided problems. The class MyString......................................................92 2.6.1. Solution: File MyString.h.................................................................93 2.6.2. Solution: File MyString.cpp............................................................93 2.6.3. Solution: File userString.cpp .......................................................97 Chapter 3: Generic classes and functions............................................................99 3.1. Generic classes..............................................................................................99 3.1.1. Implementation of operations out of the template class definition ......102 3.1.2. Templates with more than one template parameter and non-type parameters......................................................................................................103 3.2. Generic functions........................................................................................103 3.2.1. Incorporating functions as template parameters ..................................106 3.2.2. Explicit instantiation of a template function ........................................108 3.3. File organization with templates.................................................................109 3.4. Guided problems: A generic stack..............................................................110 3.4.1. The problem.........................................................................................110 3.4.2. Solution: File Stack.h......................................................................111 3.4.3. Solution: File userStack.cpp........................................................113 Chapter 4: Associations. Composite objects. References .................................117 4.1. Associations, aggregations and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Assertions, Pre/Post- Conditions and Invariants
    9/14/12 Assertions, pre/post- conditions and invariants Section 2.1 in Walls and Mirrors Section 4.5 Rosen Programming as a contract n Specifying what each method does q Specify it in a comment before method's header n Precondition q What is assumed to be true before the method is executed q Caller obligation n Postcondition q Specifies what will happen if the preconditions are met q Method obligation 1 9/14/12 Class Invariants n A class invariant is a condition that all objects of that class must satisfy while it can be observed by clients n What about Points in Cloud? q boundaries? q center? What is an assertion? n An assertion is a statement that says something about the state of your program n Should be true if there are no mistakes in the program //n == 1 while (n < limit) { n = 2 * n; } // what could you state here? 2 9/14/12 What is an assertion? n An assertion is a statement that says something about the state of your program n Should be true if there are no mistakes in the program //n == 1 while (n < limit) { n = 2 * n; } //n >= limit //more? What is an assertion? n An assertion is a statement that says something about the state of your program n Should be true if there are no mistakes in the program //n == 1 while (n < limit) { n = 2 * n; } //n >= limit //n is the smallest power of 2 >= limit 3 9/14/12 assert Using assert: assert n == 1; while (n < limit) { n = 2 * n; } assert n >= limit; When to use Assertions n We can use assertions to guarantee the behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • Sound Invariant Checking Using Type Modifiers and Object Capabilities
    Sound Invariant Checking Using Type Modifiers and Object Capabilities. Isaac Oscar Gariano Victoria University of Wellington [email protected] Marco Servetto Victoria University of Wellington [email protected] Alex Potanin Victoria University of Wellington [email protected] Abstract In this paper we use pre existing language support for type modifiers and object capabilities to enable a system for sound runtime verification of invariants. Our system guarantees that class invariants hold for all objects involved in execution. Invariants are specified simply as methods whose execution is statically guaranteed to be deterministic and not access any externally mutable state. We automatically call such invariant methods only when objects are created or the state they refer to may have been mutated. Our design restricts the range of expressible invariants but improves upon the usability and performance of our system compared to prior work. In addition, we soundly support mutation, dynamic dispatch, exceptions, and non determinism, while requiring only a modest amount of annotation. We present a case study showing that our system requires a lower annotation burden compared to Spec#, and performs orders of magnitude less runtime invariant checks compared to the widely used ‘visible state semantics’ protocols of D, Eiffel. We also formalise our approach and prove that such pre existing type modifier and object capability support is sufficient to ensure its soundness. 2012 ACM Subject Classification Theory of computation → Invariants, Theory of computation → Program verification, Software and its engineering → Object oriented languages Keywords and phrases type modifiers, object capabilities, runtime verification, class invariants Digital Object Identifier 10.4230/LIPIcs.CVIT.2016.23 1 Introduction Object oriented programming languages provide great flexibility through subtyping and arXiv:1902.10231v1 [cs.PL] 26 Feb 2019 dynamic dispatch: they allow code to be adapted and specialised to behave differently in different contexts.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Pattern Interview Questions
    DDEESSIIGGNN PPAATTTTEERRNN -- IINNTTEERRVVIIEEWW QQUUEESSTTIIOONNSS http://www.tutorialspoint.com/design_pattern/design_pattern_interview_questions.htm Copyright © tutorialspoint.com Dear readers, these Design Pattern Interview Questions have been designed specially to get you acquainted with the nature of questions you may encounter during your interview for the subject of Design Pattern. As per my experience good interviewers hardly plan to ask any particular question during your interview, normally questions start with some basic concept of the subject and later they continue based on further discussion and what you answer: What are Design Patterns? Design patterns represent the best practices used by experienced object-oriented software developers. Design patterns are solutions to general problems that software developers faced during software development. These solutions were obtained by trial and error by numerous software developers over quite a substantial period of time. What is Gang of Four GOF? In 1994, four authors Erich Gamma, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson and John Vlissides published a book titled Design Patterns - Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software which initiated the concept of Design Pattern in Software development. These authors are collectively known as Gang of Four GOF. Name types of Design Patterns? Design patterns can be classified in three categories: Creational, Structural and Behavioral patterns. Creational Patterns - These design patterns provide a way to create objects while hiding the creation logic, rather than instantiating objects directly using new opreator. This gives program more flexibility in deciding which objects need to be created for a given use case. Structural Patterns - These design patterns concern class and object composition. Concept of inheritance is used to compose interfaces and define ways to compose objects to obtain new functionalities.
    [Show full text]
  • A Nominal Theory of Objects with Dependent Types
    A Nominal Theory of Objects with Dependent Types Martin Odersky, Vincent Cremet, Christine R¨ockl, Matthias Zenger Ecole´ Polytechnique F´ed´eralede Lausanne INR Ecublens 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland Technical Report IC/2002/070 Abstract Simula 67 [DMN70], whereas virtual or abstract types are present in BETA [MMPN93], as well as more recently in We design and study νObj, a calculus and dependent type gbeta [Ern99], Rune [Tor02] and Scala [Ode02]. An es- system for objects and classes which can have types as mem- sential ingredient of these systems are objects with type bers. Type members can be aliases, abstract types, or new members. There is currently much work that explores types. The type system can model the essential concepts the uses of this concept in object-oriented programming of Java’s inner classes as well as virtual types and family [SB98, TT99, Ern01, Ost02]. But its type theoretic foun- polymorphism found in BETA or gbeta. It can also model dations are just beginning to be investigated. most concepts of SML-style module systems, including shar- As is the case for modules, dependent types are a promis- ing constraints and higher-order functors, but excluding ap- ing candidate for a foundation of objects with type mem- plicative functors. The type system can thus be used as a bers. Dependent products can be used to represent functors basis for unifying concepts that so far existed in parallel in in SML module systems as well as classes in object sys- advanced object systems and in module systems. The paper tems with virtual types [IP02].
    [Show full text]
  • The Contract Pattern Permission Granted to Copy for Plop ’97 Conference
    Copyright 1997, Michel de Champlain The Contract Pattern Permission granted to copy for PLoP ’97 Conference. All other rights reserved. Michel de Champlain Department of Computer Science University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand [email protected] http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/~michel 12 August 1997 Abstract This paper describes the Contract pattern, an idiom that lets you apply assertions to guarantee pre-conditions and post-conditions of methods and invariants on the state of objects. This pattern can be used to develop reliable classes by making the Design by Contract methodology—introduced by Meyer in the specific context of the Eiffel language—available in Java and possibly other object-oriented languages. Intent Provide an implementation of the Design by contract methodology [Meyer88] for developing reliable classes and create robust objects in Java. This programming pattern lets you apply assertions to guarantee the pre-conditions and post-conditions of methods and invariants on the state of objects. Also Known As Design by contract Motivation Sometimes it’s necessary to restrict a class interface because you don’t want to provide all the possible input combinations for all collaborators. One way to achieve this goal is to make minimal and consistent methods that impose pre-conditions on input parameters. Moreover, you might want to ensure the class behavior by imposing post-conditions before methods return. You might also need to make sure that the class is always in a stable state. Such an approach can result in reliable classes to create robust objects. Consider for example a bounded counter that has both a lower and upper bound.
    [Show full text]
  • Introductory Programming in C# Release 1.0
    Introductory Programming in C# Release 1.0 Andrew N. Harrington and George K. Thiruvathukal May 29, 2012 CONTENTS 1 Context 1 1.1 Introduction to the Notes.........................................1 1.2 Comments on Miles Chapter 1......................................1 2 C# Data and Operations 3 2.1 Development Tools............................................3 2.2 Lab Exercise: Editing, Compiling, and Running............................5 2.3 Comments on Miles Simple Data....................................9 2.4 Division and Remainders.........................................9 2.5 Substitutions in Console.WriteLine................................... 10 2.6 Learning to Solve Problems....................................... 12 2.7 Lab: Division Sentences......................................... 15 2.8 Homework: Grade Calculation...................................... 18 3 Defining Functions of your Own 23 3.1 Syntax Template Typography...................................... 23 3.2 A First Function Definition....................................... 23 3.3 Multiple Function Definitions...................................... 25 3.4 Function Parameters........................................... 26 3.5 Multiple Function Parameters...................................... 29 3.6 Returned Function Values........................................ 30 3.7 Two Roles: Writer and Consumer of Functions............................. 32 3.8 Local Scope............................................... 33 3.9 Static Variables.............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Safely Creating Correct Subclasses Without Superclass Code Clyde Dwain Ruby Iowa State University
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2006 Modular subclass verification: safely creating correct subclasses without superclass code Clyde Dwain Ruby Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Computer Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Ruby, Clyde Dwain, "Modular subclass verification: safely creating correct subclasses without superclass code " (2006). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 1877. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/1877 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Modular subclass verification: Safely creating correct subclasses without superclass code by Clyde Dwain Ruby A dissertation submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major: Computer Science Program of Study Committee Gary T. Leavens, Major Professor Samik Basu Clifford Bergman Shashi K. Gadia Jonathan D. H. Smith Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2006 Copyright © Clyde Dwain Ruby, 2006. All rights reserved. UMI Number: 3243833 Copyright 2006 by Ruby, Clyde Dwain All rights reserved. UMI Microform 3243833 Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .
    [Show full text]
  • Designpatternsphp Documentation Release 1.0
    DesignPatternsPHP Documentation Release 1.0 Dominik Liebler and contributors Jul 18, 2021 Contents 1 Patterns 3 1.1 Creational................................................3 1.1.1 Abstract Factory........................................3 1.1.2 Builder.............................................8 1.1.3 Factory Method......................................... 13 1.1.4 Pool............................................... 18 1.1.5 Prototype............................................ 21 1.1.6 Simple Factory......................................... 24 1.1.7 Singleton............................................ 26 1.1.8 Static Factory.......................................... 28 1.2 Structural................................................. 30 1.2.1 Adapter / Wrapper....................................... 31 1.2.2 Bridge.............................................. 35 1.2.3 Composite............................................ 39 1.2.4 Data Mapper.......................................... 42 1.2.5 Decorator............................................ 46 1.2.6 Dependency Injection...................................... 50 1.2.7 Facade.............................................. 53 1.2.8 Fluent Interface......................................... 56 1.2.9 Flyweight............................................ 59 1.2.10 Proxy.............................................. 62 1.2.11 Registry............................................. 66 1.3 Behavioral................................................ 69 1.3.1 Chain Of Responsibilities...................................
    [Show full text]
  • 3. Design by Contract
    3. Design by Contract Oscar Nierstrasz Design by Contract Bertrand Meyer, Touch of Class — Learning to Program Well with Objects and Contracts, Springer, 2009. 2 Bertrand Meyer is a French computer scientist who was a Professor at ETH Zürich (successor of Niklaus Wirth) from 2001-2015. He is best known as the inventor of “Design by Contract”, and as the designer of the Eiffel programming language, which provides built-in for DbC. DbC was first described in a technical report by Meyer in 1986: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_contract Who’s to blame? The components fit but the system does not work. Who’s to blame? The component developer or the system integrator? 3 DbC makes clear the “contract” between a supplier (an object or “component”) and its client. When something goes wrong, the contract states whose fault it is. This simplifies both design and debugging. Why DbC? > Design by Contract —documents assumptions (what do objects expect?) —simplifies code (no special actions for failure) —aids debugging (identifies who’s to blame) 4 As we shall see, DbC improves your OO design in several ways. First, contracts make explicit the assumptions under which an object (supplier) will work correctly. Second, they simplify your code, since no special action is required when things go wrong — the exception handling framework provides the necessary tools. Third, contracts help in debugging since errors are caught earlier, when contracts are violated, not when your program crashes because of an invalid state, and it is clear where to lay the blame for the violation (i.e., in the object or its client).
    [Show full text]
  • FORTH-ICS / TR 381 July 2006 'An Informal Proof on the Contradictory
    FORTH-ICS / TR 381 July 2006 ‘An Informal Proof on the Contradictory Role of Finalizers in a Garbage Collection Context’ Anthony Savidis ABSTRACT Garbage collection in OOP languages provides facilities to hook code that is executed upon object finalization. Semantically, the point in time that finalizer code is executed is not determined by the application logic, but by the garbage collection system. This fact renders a potential mismatch, since application-specific code, i.e. the finalizer implementation, normally affecting program state and control flow, is called automatically at a point in time that is indifferent to the application semantics. Although an analogous situation is observed in event-based systems, since event processors are called-back asynchronously by the underlying system, there is a fundamental difference: while event generation is essentially nondeterministic, originated from external event sources, object destruction is a semantic action that is always decided by applications. In summary, the mismatch is that although applications decide if and when destruction occurs, the garbage collector is responsible to commit the relevant code. We prove that this mismatch is due to the contradictory presence of finalizers in a garbage collection context. Page 1 Introduction Preface This technical report has been also motivated by requests from colleagues to report the informal proof for the contradictory role of finalizers in garbage collection, simply relying on informal common software engineering principles. Additionally, the reporting has been also motivated by arguments that came to my attention via personal communication that either the claim cannot be proved (I assume that “cannot prove” arguments are subject to formal proofs, so such arguments are more weak than the claim they attack), or that the claim is trivial requiring essentially no proof (intuitively true, but does not explain why Java, C#, Python, just to name a few languages, still adopt finalizers).
    [Show full text]
  • The Power of Interoperability: Why Objects Are Inevitable
    The Power of Interoperability: Why Objects Are Inevitable Jonathan Aldrich Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA, USA [email protected] Abstract 1. Introduction Three years ago in this venue, Cook argued that in Object-oriented programming has been highly suc- their essence, objects are what Reynolds called proce- cessful in practice, and has arguably become the dom- dural data structures. His observation raises a natural inant programming paradigm for writing applications question: if procedural data structures are the essence software in industry. This success can be documented of objects, has this contributed to the empirical success in many ways. For example, of the top ten program- of objects, and if so, how? ming languages at the LangPop.com index, six are pri- This essay attempts to answer that question. After marily object-oriented, and an additional two (PHP reviewing Cook’s definition, I propose the term ser- and Perl) have object-oriented features.1 The equiva- vice abstractions to capture the essential nature of ob- lent numbers for the top ten languages in the TIOBE in- jects. This terminology emphasizes, following Kay, that dex are six and three.2 SourceForge’s most popular lan- objects are not primarily about representing and ma- guages are Java and C++;3 GitHub’s are JavaScript and nipulating data, but are more about providing ser- Ruby.4 Furthermore, objects’ influence is not limited vices in support of higher-level goals. Using examples to object-oriented languages; Cook [8] argues that Mi- taken from object-oriented frameworks, I illustrate the crosoft’s Component Object Model (COM), which has unique design leverage that service abstractions pro- a C language interface, is “one of the most pure object- vide: the ability to define abstractions that can be ex- oriented programming models yet defined.” Academ- tended, and whose extensions are interoperable in a ically, object-oriented programming is a primary focus first-class way.
    [Show full text]
  • A Machine-Checked Proof for a Translation of Event-B Machines to JML
    A Machine-Checked Proof for a Translation of Event-B Machines to JML N´estorCata~no1,Camilo Rueda2, and Tim Wahls3 1 EAFIT Unviersity [email protected] 2 Camilo Rueda Pontificia Universidad Javeriana [email protected] 3 Tim Wahls Dickinson College [email protected] Abstract. We present a machine-checked soundness proof of a trans- lation of Event-B to the Java Modeling Language (JML). The transla- tion is based on an operator EB2Jml that maps Event-B events to JML method specifications, and deterministic and non-deterministic assign- ments to JML method post-conditions. This translation has previously been implemented as the EventB2Jml tool. We adopted a taking our own medicine approach in the formalisation of our proof so that Event-B as well as JML are formalised in Event-B and the proof is discharged with the Rodin platform. Hence, for any Event-B substitution (whether an event or an assignment) and for the JML method specification obtained by applying EventB2Jml to the substitution, we prove that the semantics of the JML method specification is simulated by the semantics of the sub- stitution. Therefore, the JML specification obtained as translation from the Event-B substitution is a refinement of the substitution. Our proof includes invariants and the standard Event-B initialising event, but it does not include full machines or Event-B contexts. We assume that the semantics of JML and Event-B operate both on the same initial and final states, and we justify our assumption. Keywords: Event-B, JML, EventB2Jml, Formal Proof, Translation, Rodin 1 Introduction arXiv:1309.2339v1 [cs.SE] 9 Sep 2013 In an earlier work [14], we have proposed a design methodology that combines the use of design-by-contract techniques with JML [36,29,33] and correctness-by- construction techniques with Event-B [1].
    [Show full text]