«

I would like to design an object using class. How can this class
contain 10 member functions. Put 10 member functions into member
function pointer array.
One member function uses switch to call 10 member functions. Can
switch be replaced to member function pointer array?
Please provide me an example of source code to show smart pointer
inside class. Thanks....

On Jun 28, 3:07 am, Immortal Nephi <Immortal_Ne...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> I would like to design an object using class. How can this class
> contain 10 member functions. Put 10 member functions into member
> function pointer array.
> One member function uses switch to call 10 member functions. Can
> switch be replaced to member function pointer array?

Yes, but why? What controls the choice? On the whole member
function pointers are awkward and complex; a number of otherwise
competent C++ programmers seem to have problems with them,
because of the syntax. I use them from time to time, but my
experience has been that as the class evolves, they end up being
replaced by "agents", small stand-alone objects which call the
function (and possibly contain additional data).

Anyway, supposing the calling function receives an int:

void
MyClass::dispatch( int key )
{
static void (MyClass::* const table[])() =
{
&MyClass::f1,
&MyClass::f2,
// ...
} ;
assert( key >= 0 && key < size( table ) ) ;
(this->*table[ key ])() ;
}


> Please provide me an example of source code to show smart
> pointer inside class. Thanks....

You mean something like:

class MyClass
{
private:
std::auto_ptr< Something > myPtr ;
} ;

? (Replace std::auto_ptr with smart pointer of choice.)

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

On Jun 28, 2:23*am, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 3:07 am, Immortal Nephi <Immortal_Ne...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > * * *I would like to design an object using class. *How can this class
> > contain 10 member functions. *Put 10 member functions into member
> > function pointer array.
> > * * *One member function uses switch to call 10 member functions. *Can
> > switch be replaced to member function pointer array?
>
> Yes, but why? *What controls the choice? *On the whole member
> function pointers are awkward and complex; a number of otherwise
> competent C++ programmers seem to have problems with them,
> because of the syntax. *I use them from time to time, but my
> experience has been that as the class evolves, they end up being
> replaced by "agents", small stand-alone objects which call the
> function (and possibly contain additional data).

Thank you very much for your assistance. Yes, you do answer my
question right. Can you please describe what you mean "agents"?

Member Function Pointer Array is ideal for CPU's Opcode emulator like
dispatch() or fetch().

> Anyway, supposing the calling function receives an int:
>
> * * void
> * * MyClass::dispatch( int key )
> * * {
> * * * * static void (MyClass::* const table[])() =
> * * * * {
> * * * * * * &MyClass::f1,
> * * * * * * &MyClass::f2,
> * * * * * * // ...
> * * * * } ;
> * * * * assert( key >= 0 && key < size( table ) ) ;
> * * * * (this->*table[ key ])() ;
> * * }

dispatch() function as above makes sense. Many C programmers tell
that C++ class is slower. They want to stick global variable and
global functions for performance reason.

According to my research, global functions have *direct* memory. The
member functions have *indirect* memory. It means that member
function must receive memory address from *this pointer* before member
function can be called.

C++ programmers wants to convert global variable and global function
into C++ class. They say that C++ class is about 25% slower
performance than C style source code because extra instruction needs
to access indirection.

It is the time to start designing CPU's opcode emulator on C++ class.
They expect faster Intel / AMD CPUs or other machines with the speed
of 4 GHz and beyond.

Desinging class is a lot of easier to reduce debugging time and less
prone error.

Do you agree to continue using C++ style language today?

> > Please provide me an example of source code to show smart
> > pointer inside class. *Thanks....
>
> You mean something like:
>
> * * class MyClass
> * * {
> * * private:
> * * * * std::auto_ptr< Something > myPtr ;
> * * } ;

No. it does not what I mean. I thought that smart pointer is meant to
be pointer table of member function arrays. You can drop this issue.
Never mind...

> James Kanze (GABI Software) * * * * * *

I am curious what do you call "GABI Software"? Anyway...Thanks...

On Jun 28, 6:55 pm, Immortal Nephi <Immortal_Ne...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2:23 am, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 3:07 am, Immortal Nephi <Immortal_Ne...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > > I would like to design an object using class. How can this class
> > > contain 10 member functions. Put 10 member functions into member
> > > function pointer array.
> > > One member function uses switch to call 10 member functions. Can
> > > switch be replaced to member function pointer array?

> > Yes, but why? What controls the choice? On the whole member
> > function pointers are awkward and complex; a number of otherwise
> > competent C++ programmers seem to have problems with them,
> > because of the syntax. I use them from time to time, but my
> > experience has been that as the class evolves, they end up being
> > replaced by "agents", small stand-alone objects which call the
> > function (and possibly contain additional data).

> Thank you very much for your assistance. Yes, you do answer
> my question right. Can you please describe what you mean
> "agents"?

Small stand-alone objects, which (probably) call the funnction
actually desired. The advantage of this, as opposed to pointers
to member functions, is that the objects can contain additional
data. Thus, you can add cases where two keys call the same
function, but with different arguments.

Agents will generally all derive from a common abstract base
class, with a single function which performs the desired
operation. The array will be of pointers to this base class.
It requires a little bit more typing to set up, but it's a lot
more flexible, and for most C++ programmers that I've
encountered, a lot more readable.

> Member Function Pointer Array is ideal for CPU's Opcode
> emulator like dispatch() or fetch().

> > Anyway, supposing the calling function receives an int:

> > void
> > MyClass::dispatch( int key )
> > {
> > static void (MyClass::* const table[])() =
> > {
> > &MyClass::f1,
> > &MyClass::f2,
> > // ...
> > } ;
> > assert( key >= 0 && key < size( table ) ) ;
> > (this->*table[ key ])() ;
> > }

> dispatch() function as above makes sense. Many C programmers
> tell that C++ class is slower. They want to stick global
> variable and global functions for performance reason.

> According to my research, global functions have *direct*
> memory. The member functions have *indirect* memory. It
> means that member function must receive memory address from
> *this pointer* before member function can be called.
>
> C++ programmers wants to convert global variable and global
> function into C++ class. They say that C++ class is about 25%
> slower performance than C style source code because extra
> instruction needs to access indirection.

> It is the time to start designing CPU's opcode emulator on C++
> class. They expect faster Intel / AMD CPUs or other machines
> with the speed of 4 GHz and beyond.

I'm not really sure I understand. An emulator, today, doesn't
emulate single instructions; it emulates blocks of code. And
its speed is determined by the size of the blocks, and how
effectively it can deduce the actual semantics of the block, and
convert that into native code.

> Desinging class is a lot of easier to reduce debugging time
> and less prone error.

> Do you agree to continue using C++ style language today?

I'm in favor of using the most effective tool to do the job.
For large projects, C++ is certainly one of the leading
candidates---another possibility might include Ada 95. I can't
imagine any situation where one would select C, however.

[...]
> > James Kanze (GABI Software)

> I am curious what do you call "GABI Software"?

It's the name I trade under. (I'm a freelance professional,
providing services on a contract basis.)

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

On Jun 28, 1:39*pm, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 6:55 pm, Immortal Nephi <Immortal_Ne...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 2:23 am, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 28, 3:07 am, Immortal Nephi <Immortal_Ne...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > * * *I would like to design an object using class. *How can this class
> > > > contain 10 member functions. *Put 10 member functions into member
> > > > function pointer array.
> > > > * * *One member function uses switch to call 10 member functions. *Can
> > > > switch be replaced to member function pointer array?
> > > Yes, but why? *What controls the choice? *On the whole member
> > > function pointers are awkward and complex; a number of otherwise
> > > competent C++ programmers seem to have problems with them,
> > > because of the syntax. *I use them from time to time, but my
> > > experience has been that as the class evolves, they end up being
> > > replaced by "agents", small stand-alone objects which call the
> > > function (and possibly contain additional data).
> > Thank you very much for your assistance. *Yes, you do answer
> > my question right. *Can you please describe what you mean
> > "agents"?
>
> Small stand-alone objects, which (probably) call the funnction
> actually desired. *The advantage of this, as opposed to pointers
> to member functions, is that the objects can contain additional
> data. *Thus, you can add cases where two keys call the same
> function, but with different arguments.
>
> Agents will generally all derive from a common abstract base
> class, with a single function which performs the desired
> operation. *The array will be of pointers to this base class.
> It requires a little bit more typing to set up, but it's a lot
> more flexible, and for most C++ programmers that I've
> encountered, a lot more readable.

If you want to use small stand-alone object without using class, you
can only create one object at this time. The flexibaility is less on
C style language.

Class is ideal to show multiple objects. You can use class to define
more than one object. Think of class CPU { public: }. Create an
array of four CPU objects. You can expect four CPU objects to run at
the same time like four emulators are running.

> > Member Function Pointer Array is ideal for CPU's Opcode
> > emulator like dispatch() or fetch().
> > > Anyway, supposing the calling function receives an int:
> > > * * void
> > > * * MyClass::dispatch( int key )
> > > * * {
> > > * * * * static void (MyClass::* const table[])() =
> > > * * * * {
> > > * * * * * * &MyClass::f1,
> > > * * * * * * &MyClass::f2,
> > > * * * * * * // ...
> > > * * * * } ;
> > > * * * * assert( key >= 0 && key < size( table ) ) ;
> > > * * * * (this->*table[ key ])() ;
> > > * * }
> > dispatch() function as above makes sense. *Many C programmers
> > tell that C++ class is slower. *They want to stick global
> > variable and global functions for performance reason.
> > According to my research, global functions have *direct*
> > memory. *The member functions have *indirect* memory. *It
> > means that member function must receive memory address from
> > *this pointer* before member function can be called.
>
> > C++ programmers wants to convert global variable and global
> > function into C++ class. *They say that C++ class is about 25%
> > slower performance than C style source code because extra
> > instruction needs to access indirection.
> > It is the time to start designing CPU's opcode emulator on C++
> > class. *They expect faster Intel / AMD CPUs or other machines
> > with the speed of 4 GHz and beyond.
>
> I'm not really sure I understand. *An emulator, today, doesn't
> emulate single instructions; it emulates blocks of code. *And
> its speed is determined by the size of the blocks, and how
> effectively it can deduce the actual semantics of the block, and
> convert that into native code.

I am sorry that you misunderstand. I do not talk about emulator. I
talk about indirect memory and direct memory. C++ Compiler translates
class and *this pointer* into native x86 machine language. You can
take a look at disassembler. You will see *lea instruction* and *mov
instruction*.

Global variables and global functions use *direct memory* so you can
see *mov instruction*. Member variables and member functions inside
class use *this pointer*. The class needs to read *this pointer*
before it can access member variable or member function. *lea
instruction* is the *this pointer* and *mov instruction* is the member
variable or member function.

I recall that class is 25% performance slower than C style language
because it has extra instruction to be fetched like lea instruction.

On Jun 29, 1:20 am, Immortal Nephi <Immortal_Ne...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 1:39 pm, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 6:55 pm, Immortal Nephi <Immortal_Ne...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 28, 2:23 am, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 28, 3:07 am, Immortal Nephi <Immortal_Ne...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > > I would like to design an object using class. How can this class
> > > > > contain 10 member functions. Put 10 member functions into member
> > > > > function pointer array.
> > > > > One member function uses switch to call 10 member functions. Can
> > > > > switch be replaced to member function pointer array?
> > > > Yes, but why? What controls the choice? On the whole member
> > > > function pointers are awkward and complex; a number of otherwise
> > > > competent C++ programmers seem to have problems with them,
> > > > because of the syntax. I use them from time to time, but my
> > > > experience has been that as the class evolves, they end up being
> > > > replaced by "agents", small stand-alone objects which call the
> > > > function (and possibly contain additional data).
> > > Thank you very much for your assistance. Yes, you do answer
> > > my question right. Can you please describe what you mean
> > > "agents"?

> > Small stand-alone objects, which (probably) call the funnction
> > actually desired. The advantage of this, as opposed to pointers
> > to member functions, is that the objects can contain additional
> > data. Thus, you can add cases where two keys call the same
> > function, but with different arguments.

> > Agents will generally all derive from a common abstract base
> > class, with a single function which performs the desired
> > operation. The array will be of pointers to this base class.
> > It requires a little bit more typing to set up, but it's a lot
> > more flexible, and for most C++ programmers that I've
> > encountered, a lot more readable.

> If you want to use small stand-alone object without using
> class, you can only create one object at this time. The
> flexibaility is less on C style language.

> Class is ideal to show multiple objects. You can use class to
> define more than one object. Think of class CPU { public: }.
> Create an array of four CPU objects. You can expect four CPU
> objects to run at the same time like four emulators are
> running.

If you have an array, you have multiple objects. All we're
talking about is the type of the object.

Of course, with agents, you do introduce an additional level of
indirection; the array contains pointers to objects, and not the
objects themselves, since we need pointers for polymorphism to
work. Which is the additional typing I referred to. It pays
off in added flexibility, however---and to top it off, it's
usually a bit faster.

> > > Member Function Pointer Array is ideal for CPU's Opcode
> > > emulator like dispatch() or fetch().
> > > > Anyway, supposing the calling function receives an int:
> > > > void
> > > > MyClass::dispatch( int key )
> > > > {
> > > > static void (MyClass::* const table[])() =
> > > > {
> > > > &MyClass::f1,
> > > > &MyClass::f2,
> > > > // ...
> > > > } ;
> > > > assert( key >= 0 && key < size( table ) ) ;
> > > > (this->*table[ key ])() ;
> > > > }
> > > dispatch() function as above makes sense. Many C programmers
> > > tell that C++ class is slower. They want to stick global
> > > variable and global functions for performance reason.
> > > According to my research, global functions have *direct*
> > > memory. The member functions have *indirect* memory. It
> > > means that member function must receive memory address from
> > > *this pointer* before member function can be called.

> > > C++ programmers wants to convert global variable and
> > > global function into C++ class. They say that C++ class
> > > is about 25% slower performance than C style source code
> > > because extra instruction needs to access indirection. It
> > > is the time to start designing CPU's opcode emulator on
> > > C++ class. They expect faster Intel / AMD CPUs or other
> > > machines with the speed of 4 GHz and beyond.

> > I'm not really sure I understand. An emulator, today,
> > doesn't emulate single instructions; it emulates blocks of
> > code. And its speed is determined by the size of the
> > blocks, and how effectively it can deduce the actual
> > semantics of the block, and convert that into native code.

> I am sorry that you misunderstand. I do not talk about
> emulator. I talk about indirect memory and direct memory.
> C++ Compiler translates class and *this pointer* into native
> x86 machine language. You can take a look at disassembler.
> You will see *lea instruction* and *mov instruction*.

> Global variables and global functions use *direct memory* so
> you can see *mov instruction*. Member variables and member
> functions inside class use *this pointer*. The class needs to
> read *this pointer* before it can access member variable or
> member function.

With any decent compiler, the this pointer will be in memory,
and on most machines, a based access will be at least as fast,
if not faster, than a direct access. At least on my Sun Sparc,
accessing member variables is faster than accessing global
variables. (The Intel architecture is a bit hindered here by a
lack of registers, so most compilers will only put the this
pointer into a register when optimization is turned on. On the
other hand, no one is going to be using the Intel architecture
if performance is an issue.)

> *lea instruction* is the *this pointer* and *mov instruction*
> is the member variable or member function.

> I recall that class is 25% performance slower than C style
> language because it has extra instruction to be fetched like
> lea instruction.

You recall wrong. If two programs do the same thing, and
performance is an issue, C++ always wins (compared to C, at
least), because of better encapsulation.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34