Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
Lil_Lloyd

Unity Enforcing inherited classes without pure virtual functions?

This topic is 1980 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Hi again dear community, I have another conundrum for which that I request your counsel. Heavy sounding introductions aside, I think this should be an easy to answer question.

 

In the realms of OOP there is a tendency to 'over generalise'. I like to use abstract classes but to derive super specific use cases from them. In this case, I have a 'static mesh' class that I'm rather proud of, because it's one of the few things I've coded myself that works as expected. I'm sure many programmers have similar classes in their collection. 

 

Up until now I've been merely playing around with the staticMesh class, setting shaders and shader uniforms in calling code and then calling the 'render' function from the calling code. However, now that my codebase is scaling up in terms of sophistication, I would like to create specific classes that inherit from staticMesh like "palmTreeMesh" that will use a vertexBasedLighting shader (no significant specular term to speak of)

and so will use a render function as follows:

 

//pseudo code!

void PalmTree::Render()
{
  glUseProgram(texturedShader->getHandle());
  texturedShader->UpdateUniforms("MVPMatrix",someValue);
  texturedShader->UpdateUniforms("Time",someValue);

  StaticMesh::Render();
}

StaticMesh::Render() has no business having its code cut and pasted into several different files, it's great how it is.

 

So the main crux of my inquiry is thus:

StaticMesh::Render is not 'pure virtual' so static mesh is not a abstract class. However I'd like to enforce use of inherited, specific meshes

and not messy, lazy code where everything is done in a calling class. How do I do this? Just use a pure virtual 'stub' like so:

 

class BaseClass
{
public:
  virtual void DoSomething();
  virtual void Stub() = 0;
};

class Derived : public BaseClass
{
public:
  void DoSomething();
  void Stub() {};      //declaration and definition of 'stub'
};

 

 

Or is there another alternative to this? Thanks in advance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Here's one common approach:
class Widget
{
public:
    void DoSomeStuff()
    {
        CommonBeginningStuff();
        InternalStuff();
        CommonFinishingStuff();
    }

protected:
    virtual void InternalStuff() { }

private:
    void CommonBeginningStuff();
    void CommonFinishingStuff();
};

class SpecificWidget : public Widget
{
protected:
    virtual void InternalStuff()
    {
        // Specificity goes here!
    }
};

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could make the base class constructor protected; then only inherited classes can access the base class' constructor, so no non-derived classes can construct the base class. Constructing a MyBase directly then gives the warning: "'MyBase::MyBase()' is protected".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another way would be to mark the destructor of StaticMesh pure virtual, but also provide an implementation.

 

class StaticMesh
{
   virtual ~StaticMesh() =0
   {}
}

 

This forces people to implement derived classes for StaticMesh.

 

Yet another option would be to mark StaticMesh::Render as pure virtual (again leaving the implementation of it intact). This forces inheritors to override Render but still allows them to call the base implementation, although some people will find this confusing.

 

Personally, I'd go with ApochPiQs solution as it communicates the intent most clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another way would be to mark the destructor of StaticMesh pure virtual, but also provide an implementation.

...

 

Yet another option would be to mark StaticMesh::Render as pure virtual (again leaving the implementation of it intact). This forces inheritors to override Render but still allows them to call the base implementation, although some people will find this confusing.

 

That's pretty odd! Is that valid C++? huh.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another way would be to mark the destructor of StaticMesh pure virtual, but also provide an implementation.

...

 

Yet another option would be to mark StaticMesh::Render as pure virtual (again leaving the implementation of it intact). This forces inheritors to override Render but still allows them to call the base implementation, although some people will find this confusing.

 

That's pretty odd! Is that valid C++? huh.png

Sure. There's nothing with pure virtual functions that stops you from providing an implementation and calling it.

 

In fact, a pure virtual destructor is required to have an implementation and to have it called. Not required by the language syntax, but a derived class' destructor will call its base class' destructor. If you don't provide an implementation for the destructor, you'll get an undefined external symbol linker error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty odd! Is that valid C++? huh.png

Sure. There's nothing with pure virtual functions that stops you from providing an implementation and calling it.
 
In fact, a pure virtual destructor is required to have an implementation and to have it called. Not required by the language syntax, but a derived class' destructor will call its base class' destructor. If you don't provide an implementation for the destructor, you'll get an undefined external symbol linker error.


That was my opinion as well. I'd read before that it was valid, just obscure, but I just checked my copy of the C++03 standard and now I'm not sure.

 

 

C++ Standard - section10.2
[Note:a function declaration cannot provide both a pure-specifier and a definition—end note]
[Example:
struct C {
virtual void f() = 0 { }; //ill-formed
};
—end example]

Any language standard experts care to clarify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It means that you cannot put both the definition and the pure specifier on the declaration, not that a pure function cannot be defined. Solution:
struct C {
    virtual void f() = 0;
};

void C::f() {
}
edit: And yeah, that was new to me, actually. I thought you could do both, but MSVC doesn't complain about it even with language extensions disabled. Looks like G++ is doing the right thing though. Edited by Brother Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've followed swift coder's advice - namely PalmTree HAS a mesh and a shader. Actually makes everything less of a headache than what I was trying. Interesting discussion though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
  • Advertisement
  • Popular Tags

  • Similar Content

    • By RoKabium Games
      Been a bit quiet recently, but we've been busy bug fixing and tweaking things... Now we have lots more 'Particle effects' in the game, specifically here the Flamethrower and Enemy attacks!
    • By Alexander_Vovk
      Hello Guys!
      Please share your experience, where is it better to find sales manager  specialists for indie team of 6 + people(remotely)?
      Maybe someone has a good experience of cooperation with finding projects through sale managers(USA and Canada)?
        
      In our team more than 6 developers. We are working since 2014 now we are looking for projects mainly on upWork and Unity Connect.
      But that's not enough 
      This is the site of our team https://www.sixteensq.com/             
                                                 https://www.behance.net/Dezignw136f
      Thank you
      Best Regards
      Alex Vovk
      Co-Founder of Sixteen Squares
      Alexander_Vovk@outlook.com
       
    • By JoshuaFraser
      Hi and thanks for reading, I have an issue with this reactive crosshair script, everything works fine until I start changing the offset. Give the script a go and you will see what I mean, when I do SetOffset(0f); it doesnt always set back to the origional state, if anyone can spot a fix I'd be super appreciative!
      using System.Collections; using System.Collections.Generic; using UnityEngine; public class ReactiveCrosshair : MonoBehaviour { [SerializeField] GameObject c_limb_prefab; private float center_offset = 0f; private float current_offset = 0f; private float max_offset = .5f; private int number_of_limbs = 4; private float limb_length = .05f; private float limb_width = .005f; private List<GameObject> c_limbs = new List<GameObject>(); public void SetupCrosshair(){ for (int i = 0; i < number_of_limbs; i++) { GameObject line_go = (GameObject)Instantiate (c_limb_prefab); line_go.transform.SetParent (this.transform); Vector3 limb_pos = new Vector3 (0f,0f,0f); //line_go.transform.position = limb_pos; line_go.transform.localPosition = limb_pos; LineRenderer line = line_go.GetComponent<LineRenderer>(); line.startWidth = limb_width; line.positionCount = 2; line.SetPosition (0, line_go.transform.localPosition + new Vector3(center_offset, 0f, 0f)); line.SetPosition (1, line_go.transform.localPosition + new Vector3(center_offset + limb_length, 0f, 0f)); line.useWorldSpace = false; c_limbs.Add(line_go.gameObject); } if (c_limbs != null) { OrientLimbs (); SetOffset (0f); } } public void OrientLimbs(){ for (int i = 0; i < c_limbs.Count; i++) { float rotation_step = 360f / (float)c_limbs.Count; c_limbs [i].transform.RotateAround (c_limbs[i].transform.position, c_limbs[i].transform.forward, 90f + (rotation_step * (float)i)); } } public void SetOffset(float _current_spread){ float offset = Mathf.Lerp (0f, max_offset, _current_spread); for (int i = 0; i < number_of_limbs; i++) { if (offset > current_offset) { Vector3 pos = c_limbs [i].transform.position + (c_limbs [i].transform.TransformDirection (Vector3.right) * offset); c_limbs [i].transform.position = pos; } if (offset < current_offset) { Vector3 pos = c_limbs [i].transform.position - (c_limbs [i].transform.TransformDirection (Vector3.right) * offset); c_limbs [i].transform.position = pos; } } Debug.Log ("SetOffset() offset: " + offset.ToString () + " _current_spread: " + _current_spread.ToString() + " localPos: " + c_limbs[1].transform.localPosition); current_offset = offset; } }  
    • By Erik Nivala
      So, as the title says i am trying to figure out a good way sync all that information with other players in Unity. My problem is that i can't come up with a good solution since i am used to creating classes for everything e.g. attachments are its own class and then the weapon would save a reference to that attachment. But since you can't send custom classes over [Command] & [ClientRPC] i am a little stuck. A solution for this would be giving each attachment for a slot a unique ID and then passing the ID to other player but i feel like that is very error prone if other ppl add a new attachment or the IDs get mixed up.
      Is there a "standard" way that this is usually done that i am missing?
      I am fairly new to programming so any help is appreciated!
    • By MintyLyton
      I'm looking for any team / people that need a programmer for their project. I'm looking to expand my portfolio which you can see Here. I'm more experienced with Unity but I can spend the time to learn new Engines if that's your preference. I have worked on Unreal Engine 4 before but I might take some time to re-learn it, if the project requires it. Feel free to DM here or use the contact info on my website. 
    • By ethancodes
      I'm working on a system for my game that will allow the player to stack pick ups in a queue. As one pick up expires, the next automatically activates. I'm having an issue though where if I pick up the first one, it activates fine, but if i pick up a second directly after it, it overrides the first one, activates the second one, and then once it has run it's course, everything goes back to normal gameplay, no first pick up. I'm not sure why this is happening. Hopefully someone can spot what I'm doing wrong in my code.
      Here is the code for the pick up manager:
      // Update is called once per frame void Update () { if (pickUpQueue.Count != 0 && !pickUpActive) { pickUpActive = true; pickUpQueue[0].ActivatePickUp(); } DeactivatePickUp(); } void DeactivatePickUp () { if (pickUpQueue.Count != 0 && pickUpActive) { Destroy (pickUpQueue [0]); pickUpQueue.RemoveAt (0); pickUpActive = false; } } And here is the PickUp:
      public override void ActivatePickUp () { ball.GetComponent<Ball>().Speed = 2.0f; //increase ball speed... ball.GetComponent<Ball>().StartCoroutine(timer); //...set time that power up is active }  
      There is also a Base Pick Up:
      public void OnCollisionEnter2D (Collision2D collision) { Vector2 tweak = new Vector2 (Random.Range(0f, 0.2f),Random.Range(0f, 0.2f)); this.gameObject.GetComponent<Rigidbody2D>().velocity += tweak; //if the pickup makes contact with the paddle or ball.... if (collision.gameObject.tag == "Paddle" || collision.gameObject.tag == "Ball") { GameObject.FindObjectOfType<GameManager>().GetComponent<PickUpManager>().pickUpQueue.Add(this); Destroy(gameObject); //...and finally destroy power up object } } As a side note, I am trying to find a solution to this that will work for all of my pickups. Some pickups are ammo based, some are timed. 
    • By D34DPOOL
      Edit Your Profile D34DPOOL 0 Threads 0 Updates 0 Messages Network Mod DB GameFront Sign Out Add jobEdit jobDeleteC# Programmer for a Unity FPS at Anywhere   Programmers located Anywhere.
      Posted by D34DPOOL on May 20th, 2018
      Hello, my name is Mason, and I've been working on a Quake style arena shooter about destroying boxes on and off for about a year now. I have a proof of concept with all of the basic features, but as an artist with little programming skill I've reached the end of my abilities as a programmer haha. I need someone to help fix bugs, optomize code, and to implent new features into the game. As a programmer you will have creative freedom to suggest new features and modes to add into the game if you choose to, I'm usually very open to suggestions :).
      What is required:
      Skill using C#
      Experience with Unity
      Experience using UNET (since it is a multiplayer game), or the effort and ability to learn it
      Compensation:
      Since the game currently has no funding, we can split whatever revenue the game makes in the future. However if you would perfer I can create 2D and/or 3D assets for whatever you need in return for your time and work.
      It's a very open and chill enviornment, where you'll have relative creative freedom. I hope you are interested in joining the team, and have a good day!
       
      To apply email me at mangemason@yahoo.com
    • By davejones
      Is there a way to automatically change the start position of an animation? I have a bunch of animations set up on 3D models in unity. The issue is that I need to move the 3D models, however when I do so the animation start positions are not updated and I have to do it manually.

      Changing the transform of key frames is time consuming with the amount of animations I have, so I was wondering if there was a way to do it automatically?
    • By MoreLion
      hey all! We are looking for members for our Unity horror game! 
      Here’s the story:
      After a deadly virus plunges the world into chaos killing 85% of the human population there are now what they call “zones” these zones are watched very closely by the surviving government, people are checked every day for the virus, even if you touch the spit or any human waste or fluids of the victim who is infected, you will die. But one day, people in the west zone start to go missing, 1 woman goes outside the walls to uncover the mystery, is there more to the virus than meets the eye?, That is where your story starts.
      This game is not a long development game, I have loads other game ideas,
      I will also allow you to have a bit of creative freedom if you wish to add or share a idea!
      And no, it’s not a zombie game lol I feel like zombie games are too generic, in this game you will encounter terrifying beasts!
      There is some concept art one of our concept artists have made
      If interested email liondude12@gmail.com
    • By Canadian Map Makers
      GOVERNOR is a modernized version of the highly popular series of “Caesar” games. Our small team has already developed maps, written specifications, acquired music and performed the historical research needed to create a good base for the programming part of the project.

      Our ultimate goal is to create a world class multi-level strategic city building game, but to start with we would like to create some of the simpler modules to demonstrate proof of concept and graphical elegance.

       

      We would like programmers and graphical artists to come onboard to (initially) create:

      A module where Province wide infrastructure can be built on an interactive 3D map of one of the ancient Roman Provinces.
      A module where city infrastructure can be built on a real 3D interactive landscape.
      For both parts, geographically and historically accurate base maps will be prepared by our team cartographer. Graphics development will be using Blender. The game engine will be Unity.

       

      More information, and examples of the work carried out so far can be found at http://playgovernor.com/ (most of the interesting content is under the Encyclopedia tab).

       

      This project represents a good opportunity for upcoming programmers and 3D modeling artists to develop something for their portfolios in a relatively short time span, working closely with one of Canada’s leading cartographers. There is also the possibility of being involved in this project to the point of a finished game and commercial success! Above all, this is a fun project to work on.

       

      Best regards,

      Steve Chapman (Canadian Map Makers)

       
  • Advertisement
  • Popular Now

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      631383
    • Total Posts
      2999688
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

Participate in the game development conversation and more when you create an account on GameDev.net!

Sign me up!