Map C++ feature to C
 

Dear friends

Is there a way to embulate C++'s virtual destructors in pure C. IE just
using function pointers.

Many Thanks.

Re: Map C++ feature to C
 

On 06/24/12 08:23 PM, zgene wrote:
> Dear friends

Why is the question completely different form the subject?

> Is there a way to embulate C++'s virtual destructors in pure C. IE just
> using function pointers.

No, because there isn't a way to fully emulate destructors.

--
Ian Collins

Re: Map C++ feature to C
 

On 6/24/2012 4:25 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 06/24/12 08:23 PM, zgene wrote:
>> Dear friends
>
> Why is the question completely different form the subject?
>
>> Is there a way to embulate C++'s virtual destructors in pure C. IE just
>> using function pointers.
>
> No, because there isn't a way to fully emulate destructors.
>

strictly speaking, yes.

but if one allows for the case where the destructor is called via the
object being manually destroyed/"deleted", then it becomes a little
easier: just have it as a method/function-pointer which is called prior
to freeing the memory.

Re: Map C++ feature to C
 

On Jun 24, 9:23*am, zgene <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Dear friends
>
> Is there a way to embulate C++'s virtual destructors in pure C. IE just
> using function pointers.
>
> Many Thanks.

How about something like:

struct Base {
void *destroy(struct Base *this); // needs to be first member
/// more here
};

struct Derived {
struct Base b;
// even more here
};

When you create a Base or a Derived, you set the function pointer to
the correct destructor. Then just before freeing an object, you do:

(p -> destroy) (p);

which will work whether p actually points to a Base or a Derived.

... completely untested, syntax may be wrong as well...

Hope that helps.
Paul.

Re: Map C++ feature to C
 

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 21:25:38 +1200, Ian Collins wrote:

> On 06/24/12 08:23 PM, zgene wrote:
>> Dear friends
>
> Why is the question completely different form the subject?
>
>> Is there a way to embulate C++'s virtual destructors in pure C. IE just
>> using function pointers.
>
> No, because there isn't a way to fully emulate destructors.

I doubt this answer..... do you have any evidence??

Re: Map C++ feature to C
 

On 06/25/12 09:33 AM, zgene wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 21:25:38 +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
>
>> On 06/24/12 08:23 PM, zgene wrote:
>>> Dear friends
>>
>> Why is the question completely different form the subject?
>>
>>> Is there a way to embulate C++'s virtual destructors in pure C. IE just
>>> using function pointers.
>>
>> No, because there isn't a way to fully emulate destructors.
>
> I doubt this answer..... do you have any evidence??

Show me a way to automatically call a function on leaving a scope in C
and we can go from there.

--
Ian Collins

Re: Map C++ feature to C
 

On 06/25/12 06:39 AM, BGB wrote:
> On 6/24/2012 4:25 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 06/24/12 08:23 PM, zgene wrote:
>>> Dear friends
>>
>> Why is the question completely different form the subject?
>>
>>> Is there a way to embulate C++'s virtual destructors in pure C. IE just
>>> using function pointers.
>>
>> No, because there isn't a way to fully emulate destructors.
>>
>
> strictly speaking, yes.
>
> but if one allows for the case where the destructor is called via the
> object being manually destroyed/"deleted", then it becomes a little
> easier: just have it as a method/function-pointer which is called prior
> to freeing the memory.

A "little" easier is the appropriate term. The OP asked for virtual
destructor functionality, which requires some form of virtual dispatch
mechanism. Doable, but ugly.

--
Ian Collins

Re: Map C++ feature to C
 

Paul N於 2012年6月25日星期一UTC+8上�3時19分00秒 寫�：
> On Jun 24, 9:23Â*am, zgene <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > Dear friends
> >
> > Is there a way to embulate C++'s virtual destructors in pure C. IE just
> > using function pointers.
> >
> > Many Thanks.
>
> How about something like:
>
> struct Base {
> void *destroy(struct Base *this); // needs to be first member
> /// more here
> };
>
> struct Derived {
> struct Base b;
> // even more here
> };
>
> When you create a Base or a Derived, you set the function pointer to
> the correct destructor. Then just before freeing an object, you do:
>
> (p -> destroy) (p);
>
> which will work whether p actually points to a Base or a Derived.
>
> ... completely untested, syntax may be wrong as well...
>
> Hope that helps.
> Paul.


Well, that means it might lead to
the results of destroying forrests from time
to time in my understanding
of the object oriented approach in C++.

Re: Map C++ feature to C
 

> Why would you want to do that? If you want to write C++ code, there is
> an excellent language for that - it is called C++. Much better than
> some half-arsed attempt to simulate it in C.

Because C++ may not be allowed (e.g. linux kernel mode) or available (e.g.
linux IAD) for the target platform.

Leo Havmøller.

Re: Map C++ feature to C
 

On Mon, 2012-06-25, Leo Havmøller wrote:
>> Why would you want to do that? If you want to write C++ code, there is
>> an excellent language for that - it is called C++. Much better than
>> some half-arsed attempt to simulate it in C.
>
> Because C++ may not be allowed (e.g. linux kernel mode) or available (e.g.
> linux IAD) for the target platform.

If C++ is disallowed, half-arsed simulations should be, too.
Especially simulations of tricky features like run-time polymorphism.

(Note: I'm not arguing against all uses of function pointers. Just
against unrestricted use of idioms meant to simulate C++ vtables.)

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .