• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
SelethD

Calling object constructors without using new

12 posts in this topic

In C++ I am wondering if this is possible or not.

I have an object... MyObject
it has a constructor MyObject::MyObject(string objName){ }

Suppose I need to use this object, within another class....

class OtherClass
{
MyObject obj1;
MyObject obj2;
}

This will give me an error, because its wanting it to look like...

class OtherClass
{
MyObject obj1("first name");
MyObject obj2("second name");
}

However, I wont know what first name, and second name are until later in the program

I could do this.....

class OtherClass
{
MyObject* obj1;
MyObject* obj2;
}
... then later on ....
OtherClass otherClass; otherClass.obj1 = new MyObject("first name"); etc.....

But I would really like to have the actual object, and not a ptr to an object.
Is it possible, or am I forced to use pointers.

Thanks.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keep the objects as objects and not pointers, and use an initializer list in the constructor of OtherClass.

EDIT: By the way, the syntax you think the compiler wants wouldn't work... Edited by Álvaro
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One quick solution could be to rewrite the class to not take any parameters, set a default value in the constructor and then use set-functions to change to the correct name once you know it.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OtherClass::setName(MyObject& whichObjectsNameToChange, std::string Name, WhichNameToPut)
{
whichObjectsNameToChange.name = WhichNameToPut;
}
Simple no?
or have each object have setName function

EDIT:
May downvoters explain why they disagree with set function? Edited by BaneTrapper
-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oooooh, I see....
So, its sort of like when you create a constructor for a derived class from a base class. With the dreivedClass : baseClass

Thanks so much.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='BaneTrapper' timestamp='1354565039' post='5006746']
OtherClass::setName(MyObject& whichObjectsNameToChange, std::string Name, WhichNameToPut)
{
whichObjectsNameToChange.name = WhichNameToPut;
}
Simple no?
or have each object have setName function

EDIT:
May downvoters explain why they disagree with set function?
[/quote]

Trivial accessors and mutators are wasted code.

Also, two-phase construction is usually a massive anti-pattern.

You should always create your objects in a sane state, and always maintain that sanity by upholding class invariants. Use of trivial mutators means you have violated encapsulation in most cases, and use of two-phase construction is fundamentally counter to this goal in and of itself.


(There are times when two-phase construction is acceptable. This is not one of them.)
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='ApochPiQ' timestamp='1354574719' post='5006811']
Trivial accessors and mutators are wasted code.

Also, two-phase construction is usually a massive anti-pattern.

You should always create your objects in a sane state, and always maintain that sanity by upholding class invariants. Use of trivial mutators means you have violated encapsulation in most cases, and use of two-phase construction is fundamentally counter to this goal in and of itself.


(There are times when two-phase construction is acceptable. This is not one of them.)
[/quote]

I've moved to the pattern of having the ctor establish sanity and then having an initialize() or load() function (depending on the class type) to actually initialize the object for use. Basically I'm avoiding 'work' in the ctor because it's been so problematic in the past and makes error control nasty looking. I still allow for simple initial values to be passed to ctors in cases where it doesn't create work, though. Mainly I guess I just feel uncomfortable in cases where I've got several automatics in a class and that a single one of them throwing in its ctor during the composing class' ctor will create increasingly nasty try/catch blocks in ctor chains. Would you recommend against this or does that make sense?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typically I only try to catch std::bad_alloc and return an error code from the offending function. Other exceptions I'm leaving unhandled for now, though I may place a try/catch in my main at a later point just to pop an error message.

I may actually switch to just disabling exceptions since I honestly preferred it when allocators returned NULL instead of throwing. I guess I'll think about it some more.

I've gotten comfortable with RAII and that's gone a long way in alleviating exception related stress issues (my fingernails have grown back!) but the ctors calling ctors calling ctors was becoming pretty crazy in terms of nasty looking ctor chains that felt really brittle. Not being able to return a code from a ctor is the real problem for me. If I know that some process may fail (file not found, memory not allocated, etc) then there's no way to communicate failure down the ctor chain without using exceptions. RAII helps with the problem of not having dangling resources when the failure happens, but it doesn't provide a way to communicate the failure down the chain.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='ApochPiQ' timestamp='1354574719' post='5006811']
Trivial accessors and mutators are wasted code.

Also, two-phase construction is usually a massive anti-pattern.

You should always create your objects in a sane state, and always maintain that sanity by upholding class invariants. Use of trivial mutators means you have violated encapsulation in most cases, and use of two-phase construction is fundamentally counter to this goal in and of itself.


(There are times when two-phase construction is acceptable. This is not one of them.)
[/quote]
Kind of you, much to learn i have.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Khatharr' timestamp='1354587090' post='5006907']
Typically I only try to catch std::bad_alloc and return an error code from the offending function. Other exceptions I'm leaving unhandled for now, though I may place a try/catch in my main at a later point just to pop an error message.

I may actually switch to just disabling exceptions since I honestly preferred it when allocators returned NULL instead of throwing. I guess I'll think about it some more.[/quote]
I feel bound to ask why. I don't think I have ever experienced legitimately running into std::bad_alloc. For me it only ever happened as a side effect of a bug that really should be dealt with directly or trying to process a huge dataset not as out-of-core as it was planned to be.
I don't really understand returning an error code either. If something goes wrong because no more continuous memory is available then the most sensible thing to do is A) giving up, because this machine does not seem to have to resources we need, or B) catching the exception at a sensible location and calling as many "clear your caches NOW" as possible. Sure, I can do that with an error code but why should I bother propagating that up the callstack if the exception can do exactly that automatically?
Mobile phones and other embedded devices might be something else but in my (admittedly limited) experience they seem to prefer telling you in some other way if you start getting too memory-greedy for them and even then an std::bad_alloc should not really happen.

Edit: and if you really want a non-throwing behavior from new, why don't you use [url=http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/new/nothrow/]std::nothrow[/url]? Edited by BitMaster
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for what you mentioned about memory recovery that's why I'm considering it rather than having already done it.

As for nothrow - and this is the best reason ever (only half sarcastic here) - I don't like the syntax.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0