DOCSLIB.ORG

OOD and C++ Section 5: Templates

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
OOD and C++ Section 5: Templates Templates - Generic Programming Decide which algorithms you want: parameterize them so that they work for OOD and C++ a wide-range of types & data structures Section 5: Templates Templates in C++ support generic progarmming Templates provide: •simple way to represent general concepts •simple way to combine concepts Use ‘data-types’ as parameters at compilation Advantage: • more general ‘generic code’ • reuse same code for different data types • less bugs - only implement/debug one piece of code • no overhead on run-time efficiency compared to data specific code Use of Templates Templates in C++ Make the definition of your class as broad as possible! template class declaration: mytemplate.hh template <class DataC> class mytemplate { public: Widely used for container classes: mytemplate(); • Storage independent of data type void function(); • C++ Standard Template Library (Arrays,Lists,…..) protected: int protected_function(); Encapsulation: private: Hide a sophisticated implementation behind a simple double private_data; interface }; template <class DataC>: • specifies a template is being declared • type parameter ‘DataC’ (generic class) will be used • DataC can be any type name: class, built in type, typedef • DataC must contain data/member functions which are used in template implementation. Example - Generic Array Example - Generic Array (cont’d) simple_array.hh template<class DataC> class simple_array { private: #include “simple_array.hh” int size; DataC *array; #include “string.hh” public: void myprogram(){ simple_array(int s); simple_array<int> intarray(100); ~simple_array(); simple_array<double> doublearray(200); DataC& operator[](int i); simple_array<StringC> stringarray(500); }; for (int i(0); i<100; i++) template<class DataC> intarray[i] = i*10; simple_array<DataC>::simple_array(int s) : size(s) { array = new DataC[size]; } // & the rest….. template<class DataC> }; simple_array<DataC>::~simple_array(){ delete [ ] array; } inline template<class DataC> DataC& simple_array<DataC>::operator[](int i){ if (i<0 || i>=size) {cerr << “Error …..\n”; exit(0);} return array[i]; } Template Instantiation Template Instantiation mytemplate.hh template class template<class DataC> class mytemplate { public: Instantiations private: class<int> class<double> class<StringC> …. class< > }; // define my template member functions here (1) Instantiate by declaring a variable myprogram.cc Object code does not exist until template is instantiated #include “mytemplate.hh” •template is included as a header file void myprogram(){ mytemplate<int> it; // instantiate integer version mytemplate<double> dt; // instantiate double version Template is instantiated at compile time }; • No run-time overhead • Instantiation generates code for constructor/destructor & member functions which are used (2) Instantiation via inheritance • ‘Specialisation’ ie define class of a specific type myderivedclass.hh #include “mytemplate.hh Errors in template not detected until instantiation class myderivedclass: public mytemplate<int> { public: Warning: Do not generate different templates for objects with private: only minor differences }; Results in ‘code-bloat’ => big increase in executable size. Template is instantiated when class is compiled => object code Inheritance works as before: derived class sees public/protected Template Constructors & Member Functions Using Templates All constructors/destructors/member functions declared Constructors declare type parameter: class, typedef, struct as before for classes. Member functions are used as before Note: Definition is in the template header file after declaration or in a file .tcc included at end of header file myprogram.cc mytemplate.hh #include “mytemplate.hh” #include “String.hh” // template declaration void myprogram(){ // constructor mytemplate<StringC> ts(100); // constructor template<class DataC> mytemplate<DataC>::mytemplate(args) : // setup member data from args StringC as; { as = ts.function(); // member function // other initialisation } } // function Program instantiates construction and function() template<class DataC> int mytemplate<DataC>::function(){ // perform some operation Object code is only compiled for constructor and function() } Template code for otherfunction() is not compiled // inline function inline template<class DataC> int mytemplate<DataC>::otherfunction(){ // perform operation - no overhead of function call } Only Constructors/Member Functions which are used are instantiated Templates & Inheritance Templates vs. Inheritance Template parameterizes the definition of a class with another class Both mechanism for building • building new types out of existing ones •Code implementing the template is identical for all parameters classes • exploiting commonality Combine templates and inheritance Abstract class (virtual function): defines an interface • template either as base or derived class •Code implementing the abstract class is shared in class hierarchies Examples class Declarations (1) Derive one template from another template<class DataC> class derived: public base<DataC>{ Two approaches are similar: ‘polymorphic’ }; Templates => compile time polymorphism (2) Derive a non-template class from a template Abstract classes => run-time polymorphism class derived: public basetemplate<int>{ }; When to use template vs abstract class? (3) Template class from non-template •use template where no hierachical is required between objects template<class DataC> derivedtemplate: public base{ •if types of objects are not known at compile time use }; classes derived from an abstract base class •if run-time efficienty is a priority use template (no overhead) All common uses of templates + inheritance to build class structures Function Templates More Templates... Specify a generic function (1) Template with multiple parameters •works for a broad range of types •avoids run-time overheads of type checking or virtual function •example associative array swap.hh // function declaration template<class A, class B> class mytemplate { template<class DataC> void swap(DataC& a, DataC& b); }; // function definition template<class DataC> void swap(DataC& a, DataC& b){ DataC temp(a); (2) Templates of Templates a=b; b=temp; •example: array of arrays (2d array) } myprogram.cc template<template<class A> > class mytemplate { #include “swap.hh” }; void myprogram(){ int i(5), j(10); double u(5.5), v(9.8); swap(i,j); // j=5 i=10 swap(u,v); // u=9.8 v=5.5 swap(i,u); // invalid different types - implicit cast } Designing & Implementing Templates Using separate files .hh & .tcc (1) Design your classes to be general ‘generic’ template declaration & implementation is a header file - template is included & compiled when instantiated (2) Use templates to define common code for different single header file mytemplate.hh data types ie container classes //declaration template<class DataC> class mytemplate{ (3) Use templates with inheritance to define specific classes }; with common representations // definition template<class DataC> mytemplate<DataC>::mytemplate(){ (4) Develop template code as a specific type } => for debugging ….. OR (5) Remember: template code for a member function is only compiled when a template is header file for declaration mytemplate.hh instantiated as a specific type template<class DataC> class mytemplate{ }; (6) Use a separate header file template declaration and #include “mytemplate.tcc” // include file for definition implementation .hh & .tcc header file for definition mytemplate.tcc template<class DataC> mytemplate<DataC>::mytemplate(){ } • separates ‘user-interface’ from implementation • simplifies structure (similar to .hh +.cc) • used in examples Example: Lists •List structure: • Node: Stores individual list element data - information we want to store in list next - pointer to next element in list prev - pointer to previous element in list • List: The list itself (constructor/destructor) first - pointer to first Node in list • Iterator: external reference to a node in the list used to move to next/previous node List Node Node Node Node Iterator.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Metaobject Protocols: Why We Want Them and What Else They Can Do
    Metaobject protocols: Why we want them and what else they can do Gregor Kiczales, J.Michael Ashley, Luis Rodriguez, Amin Vahdat, and Daniel G. Bobrow Published in A. Paepcke, editor, Object-Oriented Programming: The CLOS Perspective, pages 101 ¾ 118. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993. © Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher. Metaob ject Proto cols WhyWeWant Them and What Else They Can Do App ears in Object OrientedProgramming: The CLOS Perspective c Copyright 1993 MIT Press Gregor Kiczales, J. Michael Ashley, Luis Ro driguez, Amin Vahdat and Daniel G. Bobrow Original ly conceivedasaneat idea that could help solve problems in the design and implementation of CLOS, the metaobject protocol framework now appears to have applicability to a wide range of problems that come up in high-level languages. This chapter sketches this wider potential, by drawing an analogy to ordinary language design, by presenting some early design principles, and by presenting an overview of three new metaobject protcols we have designed that, respectively, control the semantics of Scheme, the compilation of Scheme, and the static paral lelization of Scheme programs. Intro duction The CLOS Metaob ject Proto col MOP was motivated by the tension b etween, what at the time, seemed liketwo con icting desires. The rst was to have a relatively small but p owerful language for doing ob ject-oriented programming in Lisp. The second was to satisfy what seemed to b e a large numb er of user demands, including: compatibility with previous languages, p erformance compara- ble to or b etter than previous implementations and extensibility to allow further exp erimentation with ob ject-oriented concepts see Chapter 2 for examples of directions in which ob ject-oriented techniques might b e pushed.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Practical Runtime Type Instantiation
    Towards Practical Runtime Type Instantiation Karl Naden Carnegie Mellon University [email protected] Abstract 2. Dispatch Problem Statement Symmetric multiple dispatch, generic functions, and variant type In contrast with traditional dynamic dispatch, the runtime of a lan- parameters are powerful language features that have been shown guage with multiple dispatch cannot necessarily use any static in- to aid in modular and extensible library design. However, when formation about the call site provided by the typechecker. It must symmetric dispatch is applied to generic functions, type parameters check if there exists a more specific function declaration than the may have to be instantiated as a part of dispatch. Adding variant one statically chosen that has the same name and is applicable to generics increases the complexity of type instantiation, potentially the runtime types of the provided arguments. The process for deter- making it prohibitively expensive. We present a syntactic restriction mining when a function declaration is more specific than another is on generic functions and an algorithm designed and implemented for laid out in [4]. A fully instantiated function declaration is applicable the Fortress programming language that simplifies the computation if the runtime types of the arguments are subtypes of the declared required at runtime when these features are combined. parameter types. To show applicability for a generic function we need to find an instantiation that witnesses the applicability and the type safety of the function call so that it can be used by the code. Formally, given 1. Introduction 1. a function signature f X <: τX (y : τy): τr, J K Symmetric multiple dispatch brings with it several benefits for 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Balancing the Eulisp Metaobject Protocol
    Balancing the EuLisp Metaob ject Proto col x y x z Harry Bretthauer and Harley Davis and Jurgen Kopp and Keith Playford x German National Research Center for Computer Science GMD PO Box W Sankt Augustin FRG y ILOG SA avenue Gallieni Gentilly France z Department of Mathematical Sciences University of Bath Bath BA AY UK techniques which can b e used to solve them Op en questions Abstract and unsolved problems are presented to direct future work The challenge for the metaob ject proto col designer is to bal One of the main problems is to nd a b etter balance ance the conicting demands of eciency simplicity and b etween expressiveness and ease of use on the one hand extensibili ty It is imp ossible to know all desired extensions and eciency on the other in advance some of them will require greater functionality Since the authors of this pap er and other memb ers while others require greater eciency In addition the pro of the EuLisp committee have b een engaged in the design to col itself must b e suciently simple that it can b e fully and implementation of an ob ject system with a metaob ject do cumented and understo o d by those who need to use it proto col for EuLisp Padget and Nuyens intended This pap er presents a metaob ject proto col for EuLisp to correct some of the p erceived aws in CLOS to sim which provides expressiveness by a multileveled proto col plify it without losing any of its p ower and to provide the and achieves eciency by static semantics for predened means to more easily implement it eciently The current metaob
    [Show full text]
  • Julia: a Modern Language for Modern ML
    Julia: A modern language for modern ML Dr. Viral Shah and Dr. Simon Byrne www.juliacomputing.com What we do: Modernize Technical Computing Today’s technical computing landscape: • Develop new learning algorithms • Run them in parallel on large datasets • Leverage accelerators like GPUs, Xeon Phis • Embed into intelligent products “Business as usual” will simply not do! General Micro-benchmarks: Julia performs almost as fast as C • 10X faster than Python • 100X faster than R & MATLAB Performance benchmark relative to C. A value of 1 means as fast as C. Lower values are better. A real application: Gillespie simulations in systems biology 745x faster than R • Gillespie simulations are used in the field of drug discovery. • Also used for simulations of epidemiological models to study disease propagation • Julia package (Gillespie.jl) is the state of the art in Gillespie simulations • https://github.com/openjournals/joss- papers/blob/master/joss.00042/10.21105.joss.00042.pdf Implementation Time per simulation (ms) R (GillespieSSA) 894.25 R (handcoded) 1087.94 Rcpp (handcoded) 1.31 Julia (Gillespie.jl) 3.99 Julia (Gillespie.jl, passing object) 1.78 Julia (handcoded) 1.2 Those who convert ideas to products fastest will win Computer Quants develop Scientists prepare algorithms The last 25 years for production (Python, R, SAS, DEPLOY (C++, C#, Java) Matlab) Quants and Computer Compress the Scientists DEPLOY innovation cycle collaborate on one platform - JULIA with Julia Julia offers competitive advantages to its users Julia is poised to become one of the Thank you for Julia. Yo u ' v e k i n d l ed leading tools deployed by developers serious excitement.
    [Show full text]
  • Genericity Vs Inheritance
    s Genericity Versus Inheritance Bertrand Meyer Interactive Software Engineering, Inc., 270 Storke Road, Suite #7, Goleta CA 93117 ABSTRACT with which a software system may be changed to account for modifications of its requirements), reus­ Genericity, as in Ada or ML, and inheritance, as in ability (the ability of a system to be reused, in whole object-oriented languages, are two alternative tech­ or in parts, for the construction of new systems), and niques for ensuring better extendibility, reusability, compatibility (the ease of combining a system with and compatibility of software components. This ar­ others). ticle is a comparative analysis of these two methods. Good answers to these issues are not purely It studies their similarities and differences and as­ technical, but must include economical and mana­ sesses to what extent each may be simulated in a gerial components as well; and their technical as­ language offering only the other. It shows what fea­ pects extend beyond programming language fea­ tures are needed to successfully combine the two ap­ tures' to such obviously relevant concerns as proaches in an object-oriented language that also fea­ specification and design techniques. It would be wrong, tures strong type checking. The discussion introduces however, to underestimate the technical aspects and, the principal aspects of the language EiffePM whose among these, the role played by proper programming design, resulting in part from this study, includes language features: any acceptable solution must in multiple inheritance and a limited form of genericity the end be expressible in terms of programs, and under full static typing. programming languages fundamentally shape the software designers' way of thinking.
    [Show full text]
  • Object Oriented Programming
    Object oriented programming ✔ The main ideas behind object-oriented programming: ✗ the same type of action may be carried out differently on different types of objects • cutting a cake is different from cutting cloth • driving a car is different from driving a bicycle ✗ however, a type of action may involve similar subactions when carried out on similar objects • mailing a letter involves many of the same moves as mailing a postcard • eating at a French restaurant involves many of the same procedures as eating at a Chinese restaurant ✗ a useful way of describing similarities among objects is by describing their place in an object type hierarchy • a Chinese restaurant is a type of Asian restaurant, which is a type of restaurant, which is a type of retail food outlet, which is a type of retail outlet, which is a type of business, ... ✔ So, think about procedures in relation to a hierarchy of object types LANGUAGES FOR AI Page 1 of 14 LEC 9 Object oriented programming ✔ There are two kinds of object-oriented programming perspectives ✗ message-passing systems: “object oriented perspective” • in a message passing system, messages are sent to objects • what happens depends on what the message is, and what type the object is • each object type “knows” what to do (what method to apply) with each message (send starship-1 ‘move-to-andromeda) ✗ generic function systems: “data-driven perspective” • in a generic function system, objects are passed as arguments to generic functions • what happens depends on what the function is, and what type the object is • each generic function “knows” what to do (what method to apply) with each object type (move-to-andromeda starship-1) ✔ The Common LISP Object System is a generic function system LANGUAGES FOR AI Page 2 of 14 LEC 9 The Common LISP Object System (CLOS) ✔ CLOS classes are similar to LISP structure types..
    [Show full text]
  • Commonloops Merging Lisp and Object-Oriented Programming Daniel G
    CommonLoops Merging Lisp and Object-Oriented Programming Daniel G. Bobrow, Kenneth Kahn, Gregor Kiczales, Larry Masinter, Mark Stefik, and Frank Zdybel Xerox Palo Alto Research Center Palo Alto, California 94304 CommonLoops blends object-oriented programming Within the procedure-oriented paradigm, Lisp smoothly and tightly with the procedure-oriented provides an important approach for factoring design of Lisp. Functions and methods are combined programs that is'different from common practice in in a more general abstraction. Message passing is object-oriented programming. In this paper we inuoked via normal Lisp function call. Methods are present the linguistic mechanisms that we have viewed as partial descriptions of procedures. Lisp data developed for integrating these styles. We argue that types are integrated with object classes. With these the unification results in something greater than the integrations, it is easy to incrementally move a program sum of the parts, that is, that the mechanisms needed between the procedure and object -oriented styles. for integrating object-oriented and procedure-oriented approaches give CommonLoops surprising strength. One of the most important properties of CommonLoops is its extenswe use of meta-objects. We discuss three We describe a smooth integration of these ideas that kinds of meta-objects: objects for classes, objects for can work efficiently in Lisp systems implemented on a methods, and objects for discriminators. We argue that wide variety of machines. We chose the Common Lisp these meta-objects make practical both efficient dialect as a base on which to bui|d CommonLoops (a implementation and experimentation with new ideas Common Lisp Object-Oriented Programming System).
    [Show full text]
  • Generic Programming in OCAML
    Generic Programming in OCAML Florent Balestrieri Michel Mauny ENSTA-ParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay Inria Paris [email protected] [email protected] We present a library for generic programming in OCAML, adapting some techniques borrowed from other functional languages. The library makes use of three recent additions to OCAML: generalised abstract datatypes are essential to reflect types, extensible variants allow this reflection to be open for new additions, and extension points provide syntactic sugar and generate boiler plate code that simplify the use of the library. The building blocks of the library can be used to support many approachesto generic programmingthrough the concept of view. Generic traversals are implemented on top of the library and provide powerful combinators to write concise definitions of recursive functions over complex tree types. Our case study is a type-safe deserialisation function that respects type abstraction. 1 Introduction Typed functional programming languages come with rich type systems guaranteeing strong safety prop- erties for the programs. However, the restrictions imposed by types, necessary to banish wrong programs, may prevent us from generalizing over some particular programming patterns, thus leading to boilerplate code and duplicated logic. Generic programming allows us to recover the loss of flexibility by adding an extra expressive layer to the language. The purpose of this article is to describe the user interface and explain the implementation of a generic programming library1 for the language OCAML. We illustrate its usefulness with an implementation of a type-safe deserialisation function. 1.1 A Motivating Example Algebraic datatypes are very suitable for capturing structured data, in particular trees.
    [Show full text]
  • Lect. 15: Object-Oriented Programming in R
    lect15 http://127.0.0.1:8000/lect15.html Lect. 15: Object-oriented programming in R STAT598z: Intro. to computing for statistics Vinayak Rao Department of Statistics, Purdue University In [ ]: options(repr.plot.width=5, repr.plot.height=3) functions: an abstraction to encourage modular code: Reusables block of code Define operations to apply to any input Object-oriented programming is another kind of abstraction Object-oriented programming is another kind of abstraction: Encapsulation: Pack data and functions into classes Polymorphism: Same functions act differently across classes Inheritence: Write child classes without copying parent classes Components of OOP: Classes: A template for an object (e.g. purdue ) Defines ‘properties’ of objects (e.g. name, puid ) Objects An instance of a class (e.g. varao ) Values assigned to properties ( name = ‘vinayak’ ) Methods Functions aware of properties of the object (e.g. isFaculty() ) Why object oriented programming (OOP)? 1 of 5 3/19/19, 12:08 AM lect15 http://127.0.0.1:8000/lect15.html 1) Useful to group variables together An object is basically a list, with the class attribute set A constructor creates objects of a class In [ ]: new_purdue <- function(name, puid, employee ) { obj <- list(name = name, puid = puid, employee = employee) class(obj) <- 'purdue'; return(obj) } varao <- new_purdue('Vinayak', 1234, 'faculty' ) print(varao) Why object oriented programming (OOP)? 2) Tying methods to objects: Increase capability of software without increasing complexity for user (Chambers): e.g. print vs printMatrix
    [Show full text]
  • Common Lisp Object System
    Common Lisp Object System by Linda G. DeMichiel and Richard P. Gabriel Lucid, Inc. 707 Laurel Street Menlo Park, California 94025 (415)329-8400 [email protected] [email protected] with Major Contributions by Daniel Bobrow, Gregor Kiczales, and David Moon Abstract The Common Lisp Object System is an object-oriented system that is based on the concepts of generic functions, multiple inheritance, and method combination. All objects in the Object System are instances of classes that form an extension to the Common Lisp type system. The Common Lisp Object System is based on a meta-object protocol that renders it possible to alter the fundamental structure of the Object System itself. The Common Lisp Object System has been proposed as a standard for ANSI Common Lisp and has been tentatively endorsed by X3J13. Common Lisp Object System by Linda G. DeMichiel and Richard P. Gabriel with Major Contributions by Daniel Bobrow, Gregor Kiczales, and David Moon 1. History of the Common Lisp Object System The Common Lisp Object System is an object-oriented programming paradigm de- signed for Common Lisp. Over a period of eight months a group of five people, one from Symbolics and two each from Lucid and Xerox, took the best ideas from CommonLoops and Flavors, and combined them into a new object-oriented paradigm for Common Lisp. This combination is not simply a union: It is a new paradigm that is similar in its outward appearances to CommonLoops and Flavors, and it has been given a firmer underlying semantic basis. The Common Lisp Object System has been proposed as a standard for ANSI Common Lisp and has been tentatively endorsed by X3J13.
    [Show full text]
  • Multiple Dispatch and Roles in OO Languages: Ficklemr
    Multiple Dispatch and Roles in OO Languages: FickleMR Submitted By: Asim Anand Sinha [email protected] Supervised By: Sophia Drossopoulou [email protected] Department of Computing IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON MSc Project Report 2005 September 13, 2005 Abstract Object-Oriented Programming methodology has been widely accepted because it allows easy modelling of real world concepts. The aim of research in object-oriented languages has been to extend its features to bring it as close as possible to the real world. In this project, we aim to add the concepts of multiple dispatch and first-class relationships to a statically typed, class based langauges to make them more expressive. We use Fickle||as our base language and extend its features in FickleMR . Fickle||is a statically typed language with support for object reclassification, it allows objects to change their class dynamically. We study the impact of introducing multiple dispatch and roles in FickleMR . Novel idea of relationship reclassification and more flexible multiple dispatch algorithm are most interesting. We take a formal approach and give a static type system and operational semantics for language constructs. Acknowledgements I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartful gratitude to DR. SOPHIA DROSSOPOULOU for her guidance and motivation throughout this project. I would also like to thank ALEX BUCKLEY for his time, patience and brilliant guidance in the abscence of my supervisor. 1 Contents 1 Introduction 5 2 Background 8 2.1 Theory of Objects . 8 2.2 Single and Double Dispatch . 10 2.3 Multiple Dispatch . 12 2.3.1 Challenges in Implementation .
    [Show full text]
  • Wide Classes
    Wide Classes Manuel Serrano Universit´e de Nice Sophia-Antipolis 650, route des Colles, B.P. 145 F-06903 Sophia-Antipolis, CEDEX [email protected] http://kaolin.unice.fr/~serrano Abstract. This paper introduces the concepts of wide classes and widen- ing as extensions to the object model of class-based languages such as Java and Smalltalk. Widening allows an object to be temporarily widened, that is transformed into an instance of a subclass, a wide class, and, later on, to be shrunk, that is reshaped to its original class. Wide classes share the main properties of plain classes: they have a name, a superclass, they may be instantiated, they have an associated class predicate and an associated type that may be used to override function definitions. Widening is also useful to implement transient data storage for long- lasting computations. In particular, it helps reducing software data re- tention. This phenomenon arises when the actual data structures used in a program fail to reflect time-dependent properties of values and can cause excessive memory consumption during the execution. Wide classes may be implemented for any dynamically-typed class-based programming language with very few modifications to the existing run- time system. We describe the simple and efficient implementation strat- egy used in the Bigloo runtime system. Keywords: Language implementation, dynamic inheritance, dynamic type checking, instance modification. 1 Introduction Few object-oriented programming languages permit objects to change their na- ture during execution. If an object obj is an instance of a class C at some point of the execution, then obj remains an instance of C for the whole computation.
    [Show full text]