«

Hi.

Is this bad? Suppose you have something like this:

---
class Shape {
... blah ...
};

class Rectangle : public Shape {
... blah ...
};

class Circle : public Shape {
... blah ...
};

.... blah ...

class Drawing {
private:
... blah ...
std::vector<Shape *> shapeList;
... blah ...
public:
... blah ...
void addShape(Shape *s)
{
shapeList.push_back(s);
}
... blah ...
void doSmth(); // uses the objects in shapeList somehow
... blah ...
};
---

There could arise a situation like this:

---
void someFunction()
{
Drawing drawing;

... blah ...
{
Circle circle(35.0, 55.0, 25.0); // make a circle & (35, 55)
with
// radius 25
drawing.addShape(&circle); // add it to the drawing
// OOPS! circle goes out of scope...!
}

... blah ...

drawing.doSmth(); // BOOM!

... blah ...
}
---

What to do? Now one could, I suppose, change to Circle* circle = new
Circle(35.0, 55.0, 25.0);, but then we need something to take care of
the garbage. Adding a delete() in, say, the destructor for Drawing
might work, but we make some assumptions that may or may not be true,
i.e. one can break it by misusing it, e.g. if one does not use a new
to get the parameter or one forgets that destroying drawing also
destroys circle, etc. Is it a bad idea to rely on the user's
understanding -- to me it doesn't seem so. What should be done?

On Nov 28, 3:16*pm, Leigh Johnston <le...@i42.co.uk> wrote:
> On 28/11/2011 21:44, mike3 wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi.
>
> > Is this bad? Suppose you have something like this:
>
> > ---
> > class Shape {
> > * * * *... blah ...
> > };
>
> > class Rectangle : public Shape {
> > * * * *... blah ...
> > };
>
> > class Circle : public Shape {
> > * * * *... blah ...
> > };
>
> > ... blah ...
>
> > class Drawing {
> > * * * *private:
> > * * * * *... blah ...
> > * * * * *std::vector<Shape *> *shapeList;
> > * * * * *... blah ...
> > * * * *public:
> > * * * * *... blah ...
> > * * * * *void addShape(Shape *s)
> > * * * * *{
> > * * * * * * * shapeList.push_back(s);
> > * * * * *}
> > * * * * *... blah ...
> > * * * * *void doSmth(); // uses the objects in shapeList somehow
> > * * * * *... blah ...
> > };
> > ---
>
> > There could arise a situation like this:
>
> > ---
> > void someFunction()
> > {
> > * * * Drawing drawing;
>
> > * * * ... blah ...
> > * * * {
> > * * * * * Circle circle(35.0, 55.0, 25.0); // make a circle& *(35, 55)
> > with
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * *// radius 25
> > * * * * * drawing.addShape(&circle); * * * // add it tothe drawing
> > * * * * * // OOPS! circle goes out of scope...!
> > * * * }
>
> > * * * ... blah ...
>
> > * * * drawing.doSmth(); // BOOM!
>
> > * * * ... blah ...
> > }
> > ---
>
> > What to do? Now one could, I suppose, change to Circle* circle = new
> > Circle(35.0, 55.0, 25.0);, but then we need something to take care of
> > the garbage. Adding a delete() in, say, the destructor for Drawing
> > might work, but we make some assumptions that may or may not be true,
> > i.e. one can break it by misusing it, e.g. if one does not use a new
> > to get the parameter or one forgets that destroying drawing also
> > destroys circle, etc. Is it a bad idea to rely on the user's
> > understanding -- to me it doesn't seem so. What should be done?
>
> Easy: use std::vector<std::tr1::shared_ptr<Shape> > (pre C++11) or
> std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Shape> > (C++11) instead or take a look at
> the Boost "ptr" containers.
>
> /Leigh

And should the function addShape() be upgraded to use shared_ptr?

And also, though this solves the "garbage collection" issue, it still
seems
the user needs to understand that they must pass an object that's on
the heap,
and that it will be lost when the Drawing object is gone. Is that OK?

On 11/29/11 12:16 PM, mike3 wrote:
> On Nov 28, 3:16 pm, Leigh Johnston<le...@i42.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/11/2011 21:44, mike3 wrote:
>>
>><snip code>
>>
>>> What to do? Now one could, I suppose, change to Circle* circle = new
>>> Circle(35.0, 55.0, 25.0);, but then we need something to take care of
>>> the garbage. Adding a delete() in, say, the destructor for Drawing
>>> might work, but we make some assumptions that may or may not be true,
>>> i.e. one can break it by misusing it, e.g. if one does not use a new
>>> to get the parameter or one forgets that destroying drawing also
>>> destroys circle, etc. Is it a bad idea to rely on the user's
>>> understanding -- to me it doesn't seem so. What should be done?
>>
>> Easy: use std::vector<std::tr1::shared_ptr<Shape> > (pre C++11) or
>> std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Shape> > (C++11) instead or take a look at
>> the Boost "ptr" containers.
>
> And should the function addShape() be upgraded to use shared_ptr?
>
> And also, though this solves the "garbage collection" issue, it still
> seems
> the user needs to understand that they must pass an object that's on
> the heap,
> and that it will be lost when the Drawing object is gone. Is that OK?

Most drawing libraries I've used work this way, the container "owns" the
drawable objects. The simplest solution is to have the Drawing
destructor free all of the Shape objects it owns. So they all assume
the drawable objects are on the heap.

If you want something more complex, such as the same shape in more than
one drawing, then something like a shared_ptr is the solution.

--
Ian Collins

On Nov 28, 5:04*pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/29/11 12:16 PM, mike3 wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 3:16 pm, Leigh Johnston<le...@i42.co.uk> *wrote:
> >> On 28/11/2011 21:44, mike3 wrote:
>
> >><snip code>
>
> >>> What to do? Now one could, I suppose, change to Circle* circle = new
> >>> Circle(35.0, 55.0, 25.0);, but then we need something to take care of
> >>> the garbage. Adding a delete() in, say, the destructor for Drawing
> >>> might work, but we make some assumptions that may or may not be true,
> >>> i.e. one can break it by misusing it, e.g. if one does not use a new
> >>> to get the parameter or one forgets that destroying drawing also
> >>> destroys circle, etc. Is it a bad idea to rely on the user's
> >>> understanding -- to me it doesn't seem so. What should be done?
>
> >> Easy: use std::vector<std::tr1::shared_ptr<Shape> *> *(pre C++11) or
> >> std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Shape> *> *(C++11) instead or take a look at
> >> the Boost "ptr" containers.
>
> > And should the function addShape() be upgraded to use shared_ptr?
>
> > And also, though this solves the "garbage collection" issue, it still
> > seems
> > the user needs to understand that they must pass an object that's on
> > the heap,
> > and that it will be lost when the Drawing object is gone. Is that OK?
>
> Most drawing libraries I've used work this way, the container "owns" the
> drawable objects. *The simplest solution is to have the Drawing
> destructor free all of the Shape objects it owns. *So they all assume
> the drawable objects are on the heap.
>
> If you want something more complex, such as the same shape in more than
> one drawing, then something like a shared_ptr is the solution.
>

So then the requirement of the user to have to explicitly heap
allocate
otherwise bad things could happen is okay?

mike3 wrote:
> On Nov 28, 3:16 pm, Leigh Johnston <le...@i42.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/11/2011 21:44, mike3 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hi.
>>
>>> Is this bad? Suppose you have something like this:
>>
>>> ---
>>> class Shape {
>>> ... blah ...
>>> };
>>
>>> class Rectangle : public Shape {
>>> ... blah ...
>>> };
>>
>>> class Circle : public Shape {
>>> ... blah ...
>>> };
>>
>>> ... blah ...
>>
>>> class Drawing {
>>> private:
>>> ... blah ...
>>> std::vector<Shape *> shapeList;
>>> ... blah ...
>>> public:
>>> ... blah ...
>>> void addShape(Shape *s)
>>> {
>>> shapeList.push_back(s);
>>> }
>>> ... blah ...
>>> void doSmth(); // uses the objects in shapeList somehow
>>> ... blah ...
>>> };
>>> ---
>>
>>> There could arise a situation like this:
>>
>>> ---
>>> void someFunction()
>>> {
>>> Drawing drawing;
>>
>>> ... blah ...
>>> {
>>> Circle circle(35.0, 55.0, 25.0); // make a circle& (35, 55)
>>> with
>>> // radius 25
>>> drawing.addShape(&circle); // add it to the drawing
>>> // OOPS! circle goes out of scope...!
>>> }
>>
>>> ... blah ...
>>
>>> drawing.doSmth(); // BOOM!
>>
>>> ... blah ...
>>> }
>>> ---
>>
>>> What to do? Now one could, I suppose, change to Circle* circle = new
>>> Circle(35.0, 55.0, 25.0);, but then we need something to take care
>>> of the garbage. Adding a delete() in, say, the destructor for
>>> Drawing might work, but we make some assumptions that may or may
>>> not be true, i.e. one can break it by misusing it, e.g. if one does
>>> not use a new to get the parameter or one forgets that destroying
>>> drawing also destroys circle, etc. Is it a bad idea to rely on the
>>> user's understanding -- to me it doesn't seem so. What should be
>>> done?
>>
>> Easy: use std::vector<std::tr1::shared_ptr<Shape> > (pre C++11) or
>> std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Shape> > (C++11) instead or take a look
>> at the Boost "ptr" containers.
>>
>> /Leigh
>
> And should the function addShape() be upgraded to use shared_ptr?
>
> And also, though this solves the "garbage collection" issue, it still
> seems
> the user needs to understand that they must pass an object that's on
> the heap,
> and that it will be lost when the Drawing object is gone. Is that OK?

After the benefit of many years of occasionally revisiting ye olde taxonomy
on geometry problem, I offer the following as general advice and specific
comment for this particular question.

For polymorphic heirarchies, the base class defines how the outside world
interacts with the concrete sub-types. Its role and content deserve much
more thought and effort than simply "...blah...", before diving immediately
into the derived types. Doing so places the proverbial cart before the
horse, as it were.

Further, almost all "solutions" miss the key abstractions, focusing instead
on the relatively meaningless distinction between rectangles, circles, and
pentagons, ad nauseum. The vertex-list, or vertex generation, seems implicit
in every naive implementation, but I've seen little effort to bring it
forward as an explicit, exploitable concept.

Last, the more important distinction from my point of view is the difference
between a spline, and a haphazard shape connected by straight line segments.

On the other hand, if ye olde professor truly did intend for you to focus on
the trivialities of four-sided versus five-sided regular geometric shapes,
stick with his program, however much you might feel above this simplistic
learning. The larger danger is in over-engineering the solution and still
missing the simplistic mark that was placed before you.

==========================

class Shape2D {
public:
Shape2D(Vertex2D originXY);
Shape2D(Vertex2D originXY, Vertex2D scaleXY);
Shape2D(Vertex2D originXY, Vertex2D scaleXY, Scalar rotation);

// Shape2D(const Shape2D &); // default copy is appropriate.
void Draw(Canvas2D &) const;


// void SetColor(Color); // as needed
...

private:
virtual DrawTo(Canvas2D &) const = 0; // abstract

Vertex2D origin;
Vertex2D scale;
Scalar rotationXY;
VertexGen & vertices;
};

On 11/29/11 02:17 PM, mike3 wrote:
> On Nov 28, 5:04 pm, Ian Collins<ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/29/11 12:16 PM, mike3 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 28, 3:16 pm, Leigh Johnston<le...@i42.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 28/11/2011 21:44, mike3 wrote:
>>
>>>> <snip code>
>>
>>>>> What to do? Now one could, I suppose, change to Circle* circle = new
>>>>> Circle(35.0, 55.0, 25.0);, but then we need something to take care of
>>>>> the garbage. Adding a delete() in, say, the destructor for Drawing
>>>>> might work, but we make some assumptions that may or may not be true,
>>>>> i.e. one can break it by misusing it, e.g. if one does not use a new
>>>>> to get the parameter or one forgets that destroying drawing also
>>>>> destroys circle, etc. Is it a bad idea to rely on the user's
>>>>> understanding -- to me it doesn't seem so. What should be done?
>>
>>>> Easy: use std::vector<std::tr1::shared_ptr<Shape> > (pre C++11) or
>>>> std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Shape> > (C++11) instead or take a look at
>>>> the Boost "ptr" containers.
>>
>>> And should the function addShape() be upgraded to use shared_ptr?
>>
>>> And also, though this solves the "garbage collection" issue, it still
>>> seems
>>> the user needs to understand that they must pass an object that's on
>>> the heap,
>>> and that it will be lost when the Drawing object is gone. Is that OK?
>>
>> Most drawing libraries I've used work this way, the container "owns" the
>> drawable objects. The simplest solution is to have the Drawing
>> destructor free all of the Shape objects it owns. So they all assume
>> the drawable objects are on the heap.
>>
>> If you want something more complex, such as the same shape in more than
>> one drawing, then something like a shared_ptr is the solution.
>>
>
> So then the requirement of the user to have to explicitly heap
> allocate
> otherwise bad things could happen is okay?

It's certainly not uncommon. See the Qt documentation for an example.

--
Ian Collins

On Nov 28, 10:44*pm, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Is this bad? Suppose you have something like this:
>
> ---
> class Shape {
> * * * ... blah ...
>
> };
>
> class Rectangle : public Shape {
> * * * ... blah ...
>
> };
>
> class Circle : public Shape {
> * * * ... blah ...
>
> };
>
> ... blah ...
>
> class Drawing {
> * * * private:
> * * * * ... blah ...
> * * * * std::vector<Shape *> shapeList;
> * * * * ... blah ...
> * * * public:
> * * * * ... blah ...
> * * * * void addShape(Shape *s)
> * * * * {
> * * * * * * *shapeList.push_back(s);
> * * * * }
> * * * * ... blah ...
> * * * * void doSmth(); // uses the objects in shapeList somehow
> * * * * ... blah ...};
>
> ---
>
> There could arise a situation like this:
>
> ---
> void someFunction()
> {
> * * *Drawing drawing;
>
> * * *... blah ...
> * * *{
> * * * * *Circle circle(35.0, 55.0, 25.0); // make a circle & (35, 55)
> with
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * // radius 25
> * * * * *drawing.addShape(&circle); * * * // add it to the drawing
> * * * * *// OOPS! circle goes out of scope...!
> * * *}
>
> * * *... blah ...
>
> * * *drawing.doSmth(); // BOOM!
>
> * * *... blah ...}
>
> ---
>
> What to do? Now one could, I suppose, change to Circle* circle = new
> Circle(35.0, 55.0, 25.0);, but then we need something to take care of
> the garbage. Adding a delete() in, say, the destructor for Drawing
> might work, but we make some assumptions that may or may not be true,
> i.e. one can break it by misusing it, e.g. if one does not use a new
> to get the parameter or one forgets that destroying drawing also
> destroys circle, etc. Is it a bad idea to rely on the user's
> understanding -- to me it doesn't seem so. What should be done?

To state the obvious... Your question is relatively unrelated to your
example. It's about probably the most important aspect of C++
programming practice: who or what OWNS objects that are in your code.
IIRC, Stroustroup (and standard? dunno) talk about storage classes:

1. static: objects created at startup (before main) and destroyed at
exit (after main)
2. automatic: objects created inside a block (any {} is a block)
3. dynamic: objects created using new

For 1 and 2, owner is language runtime. For 3, owner is the code
itself, or the programmer. So you, the programmer, have to make rules
and obey them to the letter. That includes your users.

There's NO WAY, whatsoever, to avoid that.

For example, Leigh said use shared_ptr. That's a reasonable advice,
but you or your user still MUST obey the rule that shared_ptr owns the
object and must NOT, ever, do e.g. Shape s; shared_ptr<Shape>(&s);. Of
course, with a shared_ptr, or other smart pointers, it's such a common
knowledge that you can only create them with heap objects, which makes
it a good idea to always use smart pointers for heap objects.

So... You need to make a decision and stick to it. If you e.g. decide
to "take ownership" of a Shape in addShape, it's possibly best to make
it "void addShape(auto_ptr<Shape>)" (or unique_ptr) and benefit from
aforementioned common knowledge. Your users are at fault if they don't
use knowledge .

Goran.

In article <52997172-c9ca-4e1b-aad0->,
mike3 <> wrote:
>class Drawing {
> private:
> ... blah ...
> std::vector<Shape *> shapeList;
> ... blah ...
> public:
> ... blah ...
> void addShape(Shape *s)
> {
> shapeList.push_back(s);
> }
> ... blah ...
> void doSmth(); // uses the objects in shapeList somehow
> ... blah ...
>};

Maybe you want

std::vector<Shape> shapeList;

instead?

"Joe keane" <> wrote in message
news:jb5pvm$prk$...
> In article
> <52997172-c9ca-4e1b-aad0->,
> mike3 <> wrote:
>>class Drawing {
>> private:
>> ... blah ...
>> std::vector<Shape *> shapeList;
>> ... blah ...
>> public:
>> ... blah ...
>> void addShape(Shape *s)
>> {
>> shapeList.push_back(s);
>> }
>> ... blah ...
>> void doSmth(); // uses the objects in shapeList somehow
>> ... blah ...
>>};
>
> Maybe you want
>
> std::vector<Shape> shapeList;
>
> instead?

Direct containment doesn't work for polymorphic heirarchies.

'engage brain before running mouth'