• 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
rpiller

Container and storing non pointers

4 posts in this topic

I'm confused as to why the object in my containers isn't reflecting the changes I make when I get the object by ref and call a function that changes that objects internal data member value. I know that I can store pointers in the container and return pointers from the Storage class but I was curious as to why returning references doesn't work the way I'm thinking it would.

 

 

class AI : public Component
{
private:
    int testing;
public:
    AI() { testing = 2;}
    AI(int id) : Component(id) { testing = 5;}
    virtual void Update()
    {
    }
 
    void SetTesting(int v) { testing = v; }
    int GetTesting() { return testing; }
};
 
//--------------------------------
 
template<class T>
class Storage
{
private:
    map<int, T> data;
public:
    T& Add(Object& obj)
    {
        int id = obj.GetID();
 
        // make sure this object can only have 1 of this type
        if(data.find(id) == data.end())
        { 
            data[id] = T(obj.GetID());
        }
 
        return data[id];
    }
 
    T& Get(Object& obj)
    {
        return data[obj.GetID()];
    }
 
    void Update()
    {
        map<int, T>::iterator iter;
 
        for(iter = data.begin(); iter != data.end(); ++iter)
            (*iter).second.Update();
    }
};
 
//--------------------------------
 
int main()
{
    Storage<AI> ai;
 
    Object o1;
 
    AI a1 = ai.Add(o1);    // get the reference of the AI object
    a1.SetTesting(10);    // change it's internal member variable to 10
 
    // however at this point if I mouse over ai it's still showing the internal variable as 5. I would think that because .Add() returned a reference to the object in the container that any changes I make would be done to that object in the container
 
    return 0;
}
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't grab a reference..

AI a1 = a1.Add(o1);

is making a copy.  While "add" returns a reference value, since a1 isn't also a reference value it will use the copy-constructor AI(const AI &other) to construct a copy called a1.

 

You want to do:

AI &a1 = a1.Add(o1);

to have a reference. Since that way, a1 is of the type "reference to an AI", and can hold the exact reference that "add" returned.

Edited by KulSeran
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't change the key value for an object in a map, that would invalidate it. If you want to change the key, erase the object change the key and put it back in again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks KulSeran, I missed that, or assumed since the return type had & in it that it would either give me an error or auto convert on the variable I was assigning it to.

 

 

Why is it when I step through the adding of my object to the container the ctor of AI with the parameter is called first, then the default ctor called? I assume my T(obj.GetID()) calls the one with the parameter and the container itself is calling the default one, and then is my explicit object getting copied into the container? If so, how deep is this coping because it seems to auto copy my int variable but what if I had other objects being created inside AI, would it copy all that too? This maybe seems to be the biggest downfall to storing non pointers. I originally was thinking not using pointers in the container would allocate on the stack but seems containers allocate the actual object it contains on the heap anyway, so to avoid copying and 2 ctors getting called seems like storing pointers would be the way to go anyway.

Edited by rpiller
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it when I step through the adding of my object to the container the ctor of AI with the parameter is called first, then the default ctor called? I assume my T(obj.GetID()) calls the one with the parameter and the container itself is calling the default one, and then is my explicit object getting copied into the container? If so, how deep is this coping because it seems to auto copy my int variable but what if I had other objects being created inside AI, would it copy all that too? This maybe seems to be the biggest downfall to storing non pointers. I originally was thinking not using pointers in the container would allocate on the stack but seems containers allocate the actual object it contains on the heap anyway, so to avoid copying and 2 ctors getting called seems like storing pointers would be the way to go anyway.

A deep copy of an object would typically deep copy all its members as well. If the members also have members, they would be deep copied as well. This goes on recursively for as long as members have other members themselves. And assuming your copy constructor/assignment don't do things like reference counted resource management or copy-on-write magic and such by "virtually" copying the resource instead, of course.

 

You seem to think that not using pointers means the object ends up on the stack. This is not correct. An object ends up where it is allocated. If you allocate an object with new, then the members of that object is also allocated as a part of the parent object. In this case, the map allocates its copy of the value you put into it dynamically, so the object will not be on the stack.

 

Storing a container of values does require copying them into the container, but, especially for linear containers such as the vector, this is often vastly superior to pointers as you gain cache locality since all objects are stored linearly in memory. Storing pointers means another level of pointer indirection any time you want to access an object in the container, and that can be expensive. You often add an object just once, but access it many times. If you then trade efficiency in adding the object for accessing it, you have made the wrong decision if copying it is not too expensive compared to how often you access it.

2

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