Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Journal of Aardvajk

Varadic templates and signals/slots

Posted by , 03 June 2014 - - - - - - · 609 views

Been playing around with a typesafe signal/slot system (yes another one) using varadic templates tonight. Its so much cleaner than the existing approaches pre-C++0x. It's a real demonstration of the usefulness of this awesome new feature:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <string>

template<class... Args> class Signal;

template<class... Args> class AbstractSlot
{
public:
    virtual ~AbstractSlot();

    virtual void add(Signal<Args...> *s){ v.push_back(s); }
    virtual void remove(Signal<Args...> *s){ auto i = v.begin(); while(i != v.end()){ if(*i == s) i = v.erase(i); else ++i; } }

    virtual void call(Args... args) = 0;

private:
    std::vector<Signal<Args...>*> v;
};

template<class T, class... Args> class Slot : public AbstractSlot<Args...>
{
public:
    Slot(T *t, void(T::*f)(Args...)) : t(t), f(f) { }

    virtual void call(Args... args){ (t->*f)(args...); }

private:
    T *t;
    void(T::*f)(Args...);
};

template<class... Args> class Signal
{
public:
    ~Signal(){ for(auto i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); ++i) (*i)->remove(this); }

    void connect(AbstractSlot<Args...> &s){ v.push_back(&s); s.add(this); }
    void disconnect(AbstractSlot<Args...> *s){ auto i = v.begin(); while(i != v.end()){ if(*i == s) i = v.erase(i); else ++i; } }

    void operator()(Args... args){ for(auto i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); ++i) (*i)->call(args...); }

private:
    std::vector<AbstractSlot<Args...>*> v;
};

template<class... Args> AbstractSlot<Args...>::~AbstractSlot()
{
    for(auto i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); ++i) (*i)->disconnect(this);
}
Some usage
class Thing
{
public:
    Thing(const std::string &name) : name(name) { }

    void f1(){ std::cout << name << " f1\n"; }
    void f2(int a){ std::cout << name << " f2 " << a << "\n"; }
    void f3(float f, char c){ std::cout << name << " f3 " << f << " " << c << "\n"; }

    std::string name;
};

int main()
{
    Thing f("One");
    Thing g("Two");

    Slot<Thing, int> s1(&f, &Thing::f2);
    Slot<Thing, int> s2(&g, &Thing::f2);

    Signal<int> x1;

    x1.connect(s1);
    x1.connect(s2);

    Signal<float, char> x2;

    Slot<Thing, float, char> s4(&f, &Thing::f3);
    x2.connect(s4);

    x2(123.4f, 'x');

    if(true)
    {
        Thing h("Three");
        Slot<Thing, int> s3(&h, &Thing::f2);

        x1.connect(s3);

        x1(100);

        std::cout << "END OF SCOPE\n";
    }

    x1(230375);
}

You can even do this:
    Signal<> x3;
    Slot<Thing> s5(&f, &Thing::f1);
    x3.connect(s5);

    x3();
So you have a completely uniform way of defining and calling things, without any of the hackery we used to have to rely on for this stuff.

Excellent. Jolly good.

EDIT:

Also, it seems if you make a non-type-dependant base class for Slot, you can do this:
class Slots
{
public:
    Slots(){ }
    ~Slots(){ for(auto i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); ++i) delete *i; }

    template<class T, class... Args> void connect(T *t, void(T::*f)(Args...), Signal<Args...> &s){ v.push_back(new Slot<T, Args...>(t, f, s)); }

private:
    std::vector<BaseSlot*> v;
};
Then rather than have a separate object for each slot in the owning class, you can just do:
class SomeProvider
{
public:
    Signal<int, const std::string&> signal;
    Signal<char> other;
};

class Thing
{
public:
    Thing(SomeProvider &provider);

private:
    void f(int i, const std::string &s){ }
    void g(char c){ }

    Slots slots;
};

Thing::Thing(SomeProvider &provider)
{
    slots.connect(this, &Thing::f, provider.signal);
    slots.connect(this, &Thing::g, provider.other);
}

So you only have one object, and the compiler (GCC in my case) appears to be able to deduce all of the types in the statement so no need for any template specification at the point of use, which is nice.

(I'm aware I need to implement the rule of three for these classes by the way, just an example).


Improved Edge Shimmy

Posted by , 01 June 2014 - - - - - - · 460 views



Decided to rip out the grab and shimmy system and start again because the previous version was buggy and wouldn't cope with corners very well. It is important to me to maintain a smooth velocity as you shimmy from one shape to another and this was impossible with the old system.

The approach now is to use a single point of contact, a fixed offset from the player's position. When the character is jumping or falling, this position is polled to see if it is within an epsilon of an edge and if so, the player is locked to that position and goes into the grab state.

A nominal "width" is defined for the player (0.25f) which is the distance from this point to each hand. When the grab is initiated, the grab subsystem uses the physics broadphase to look up the edges (if any) to the left and right of the current edge and stores these for easy look up.

As the player approaches the ends of the edge, the subsystem looks to see if there is an adjacent edge and locks the player to end - width if not so you can't sort of float with one hand in mid air.

If there is an adjacent edge, if the current shimmy step takes you beyond the end of the current edge, the subsystem figures out how much you went beyond the end of the edge, sets the current edge to the adjacent edge (doing a new left/right adjacent lookup) and projects you along the new edge from the appropriate end by the amount you went over the previous edge.

So as you shimmy from one edge to another, the velocity remains perfectly smooth and constant.

The final touch is that when you are in grab or shimmy mode, your rotation is set to be facing the opposite of the normal of the current edge. The subsystem checks if you are closer than the "width" to the end of the current edge and if so, and if there is an adjacent edge, it takes your current distance from the end and divides it by the "width" to get a t value that can be plugged into an interpolate method, taking the current edge normal, the next edge normal and this t value to get an interpolated direction.

In English, as you approach a join between edges and shimmy past onto the new edge, your facing direction smoothly changes. You can see this in the video as you move around the corners.

Its all organised into its own little subsystem code-wise. State machines are an excellent way to compartmentalise complex character controllers and I highly recommend it as an approach. Grab and shimmy is completely non-dependant on any other parts of the character controller so as I add new behaviours, it won't cause any complication, no matter how complex it is internally.

At the moment, there is no further collision detection or response while in grab and shimmy modes, so you'd shimmy right through a solid shape if it was in your way, but this should be easy enough to deal with. I can probably just take the separation vector returned by the physics subsystem and project it back along the edge normal to get a resolved position here.

Thanks for reading as usual.





June 2014 »

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Recent Entries

Recent Entries