struct plane
{
Vector3D loc;
float speed;
}
plane biPlane = new plane();
biPlane->IncreaseSpeed(2);
struct and function pointers
Author
Hi Again,
I have a project that can only be done in C. So I am told I can create struct with functions inside and call it similiar to biPlane->IncreaseSpeed(2);
My understanding is each file in a project represent something that is similar like player, enemy, input, display etc. So I will have a file call plane.h
In there do I create a struct
I wish to understand, do I need a implementation file and a header file for plane.
Where do I put the IncreaseSpeed function
How do I create the plane object like
And then increase the speed like
And probably before all this, initialise the speed to zero
Quote:
I wish to understand, do I need a implementation file and a header file for plane
Sure, if you wish.
HINT:
biPlane.IncreaseSpeed(2);
Is synthetic sugar for:
Plane::IncreaseSpeed( &biPlane, 2 );
Author
Please review code. Please correct me, but I believe I have create a struct that contains a member and three methods..kind of...class speaking ;) maybe?
Now any advice how to change this so I can do this below using function pointers. Do I have it all wrong?
#include <stdio.h>struct plane{ float m_speed; void IncreaseSpeed (void) { m_speed++; } void SetSpeed (float speed) { m_speed = speed; } void Initialise(void) { m_speed = 0; }};int main (void){ plane biPlane; biPlane.Initialise(); biPlane.IncreaseSpeed(); printf("m_speed: %f\n", biPlane.m_speed); biPlane.SetSpeed(5.0); printf("m_speed: %f\n", biPlane.m_speed); return 0;}Now any advice how to change this so I can do this below using function pointers. Do I have it all wrong?
biPlane->Initialise();biPlane->IncreaseSpeed();biPlane->SetSpeed(5.0);
Function pointers in structs in C are used more for hacking polymorphic behaviour. Unless that is required here, member functions are far simpler to implement. Code below is deliberately a bit cryptic because this sounds a bit like homework.
would be a simple example of how to implement non-polymorphic member functions in C.
Polymorphic behaviour with function pointers in structs would look more like this:
As _fastcall points out above, this is all really just sort of manually doing what a C++ compiler is most likely doing under the hood.
struct type{ int value;};void t_constructor(struct type *t,int value){ t->value=value;}void t_method(struct type *t,int add){ t->value+=add;}void f(){ type t; t_constructor(&t,10); t_method(&t,23);}would be a simple example of how to implement non-polymorphic member functions in C.
Polymorphic behaviour with function pointers in structs would look more like this:
struct type{ int value; void (*method)(struct type*,int);};void t_method_one(struct type *t,int add){ t->value+=add;}void t_method_two(struct type *t,int sub){ t->value-=sub;}void t_add_constructor(struct type *t,int value){ t->value=value; t->method=t_method_one;}void t_sub_constructor(struct type *t,int value){ t->value=value; t->method=t_method_two;}void poly(struct type *t){ (*t->method)(t,23); // think this is correct syntax, can't remember}void f(){ struct type a,b; t_add_constructor(&a,10); t_sub_constructor(&b,20); poly(&a); poly(&b);}As _fastcall points out above, this is all really just sort of manually doing what a C++ compiler is most likely doing under the hood.
Quote:Original post by BlackDuck
I have a project that can only be done in C. ...
Quote:Original post by BlackDuck
Please review code. Please correct me, but I believe I have create a struct that contains a member and three methods..kind of...class speaking ;) maybe? ...
Maybe I've overlooked something, but it seems me that C and C++ is confused here. The OP seems me to ask for a C solution to mimik some sort of C++ functionality. BlackDuck, please clarify whether just pure C or also C++ is an option for your project.
Author
Pure C..
My tutor mention that I could setup a struct with function pointers to make it behaviour similiar to OO but there is no real need but to make it readable and cleaner.
The project is to make a 3D program to simulate a force (gravity), 3D animation, interaction, some other stuff so struct / function pointers as such is not access but it would make my code more readable so that is why I am asking. i don't mind if the responses are cryptic, as long as it makes sense and it is the direction I wish to implement. At the end the tutor did say that he may have confused things, it has been a while he said. But he mention that I am to put all relate functions and attributes of my plane in a file for itself (maybe a header) inside a struct since I can have functions there too.
Now I only seem to be able to call the function like foo.bar rather than foo->bar
Is there a way?
At the end the goal is to make the code readable and to keep things inside a struct to make it neater.
My tutor mention that I could setup a struct with function pointers to make it behaviour similiar to OO but there is no real need but to make it readable and cleaner.
The project is to make a 3D program to simulate a force (gravity), 3D animation, interaction, some other stuff so struct / function pointers as such is not access but it would make my code more readable so that is why I am asking. i don't mind if the responses are cryptic, as long as it makes sense and it is the direction I wish to implement. At the end the tutor did say that he may have confused things, it has been a while he said. But he mention that I am to put all relate functions and attributes of my plane in a file for itself (maybe a header) inside a struct since I can have functions there too.
Now I only seem to be able to call the function like foo.bar rather than foo->bar
Is there a way?
At the end the goal is to make the code readable and to keep things inside a struct to make it neater.
It's not clear what you're really looking for. There is no way to simulate the C++-style OOP syntax you want in C.
If you want readable code, don't use C (or C++). C is a 40 year old programming language (C++, 30 year old) that was designed during a time when assembly code was seen to be the only legitimate way to program a computer. Don't expect it to be elegant or "clean".
That being said, why can't you simply do it the way a C programmer would do it. Leave your C++ habits with C++ and adopt a C mentality:
If you want readable code, don't use C (or C++). C is a 40 year old programming language (C++, 30 year old) that was designed during a time when assembly code was seen to be the only legitimate way to program a computer. Don't expect it to be elegant or "clean".
That being said, why can't you simply do it the way a C programmer would do it. Leave your C++ habits with C++ and adopt a C mentality:
struct plane{ Vector3D loc; float speed;}void planeNew(plane* p){ // do your initialization here p->speed = 0; p->loc.x = 0; p->loc.y = 0; p->loc.z = 0;}void planeIncreaseSpeed(plane* p, float amount){ p->speed += amount;}...plane players[NUM_PLAYERS];...void setup(){ for (i = 0; i < NUM_PLAYERS; i++) { planeNew(&players); }}...void onSpeedUp(int playerId){ planeIncreaseSpeed(&players[playerId], 2);}
I have to disagree about C++ habits in C stuff.
It is in fact useful to have function pointer members in a struct: think about a GUI structure. Drawing/function/whatever are just pointers, so the GUI will be flexible, and not the immediate mode stuff
It is in fact useful to have function pointer members in a struct: think about a GUI structure. Drawing/function/whatever are just pointers, so the GUI will be flexible, and not the immediate mode stuff
Quote:Original post by szecs
It is in fact useful to have function pointer members in a struct: think about a GUI structure. Drawing/function/whatever are just pointers, so the GUI will be flexible, and not the immediate mode stuff
There's nothing wrong with using function pointers in your structs. If you need polymorphic behavior, function pointers are the correct way to do it.
But the OP isn't looking for polymorphism. He's looking to group state and behavior in his code and a way to pretty up the syntax. This isn't possible in C. (And if it is, it requires unnecessary abuse of the preprocessor).
Quote:Original post by BlackDuckI think it isn't really a question whether to use a dot or an arrow. Even in C++ you have both ways, dependend on whether you have a reference or else a pointer to the class instance. Instead, the exercise is just to declare a struct where function pointers are members, to set such pointers to an actual function, and to invoke it.
Now I only seem to be able to call the function like foo.bar rather than foo->bar
Is there a way?
(A rule in GDnet is not to solve home work. So I suggest to use your search engine of choice and look for "c function pointer". That gives you a plenty of hits. Then put that into a struct. If it didn't compile or execute, then we like to help on source code / error messages / whatever you show us.)
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
