I am developing logging class and it loos like below now, my question here is I would like to avoid situation to call this class methods multiple times in same time - as I've read when I have static class or even static method (not exactly whole class) it can be call only once in time. Is this true and whether my class would pass the concept to avoid multi accessing - lets say in case of multithreading case - if one task would try to call statuc method when there is already some other trad using it.
public static class Log {
public static string EngineName { get; set; }
private static List<String> logdata = new List<string>();
public static void LogMessage(string msg, ELogflag flag, string title = "") {
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
A static function can be called in relation to a particular object by a statement such as the following:
aBox.Afunction(10);
The function has no access to the non-static members of aBox. The same function could also be called without reference to an object. In this case, the statement would be:
CBox::Afunction(10);
where CBox is the class name. Using the class name and the scope resolution operator tells the compiler to which class Afunction() belongs."
1. Is that mean that Do() is only available for use by Dog itself because Dog is 'oryginal' Dog, and if i create new dogs - instances of oryginal Dog (dog1, dog2 ...) they cant access because Do is only available fo 'oryginal' one? Is that correct thinking?
2. If i would want to have something common (e.g value) for all dogs is that good way to create static field/method for Dog instead of non-static once then all instances of Dog would access Dog static member to get/change it? Just stupid example: static method GetAmountOfLegs() which return 4 Then all instances can take/call that value from Dog. Is that correct thinking?
I am working on one application that requires extensive logging so I want to create a log file of each day during execution.
I tried easylogging++ but i am unable to use into multiple files. If i try to use in other file. I get compilation errors of using same functions or methods already defined.
How can i use macro to hide the implementation of logging in one class to other ??
So, according to standard the temporary objects should not be destroyed before full expression execution (expression whitch is not a part of another expression).
The question is: is StreamLogger() << "foo1" << "foo2" << "foo3"; full expression or not?
...I do NOT want to do this...too much chaos. I understand in C++11, I could do something with int like to_string, and that would make the "string" + int + "string" to work.
I have a class containing a map member that I want to initialize at declaration time. I know I can do it in the cpp file but I'm having a problem with the order of initialization (static initialization order fiasco).
My questions are:
Is it possible that the scenario in which, the Test's constructor's implementation and the map initialization instruction are in the same cpp file and constructor is called when the map is not initialized yet, could happen?
Is it possible to initialize the map in class like I did? I get these errors:
in-class initialization of static data member 'std::map<std::basic_string<char>, Test*> Test::a' of incomplete type temporary of non-literal type 'std::map<std::basic_string<char>, Test*>' in a constant expression
If yes, does this initialization resolve the static initialization order fiasco?
class Test { public: static std::map<std::string, Test*> a = {};//this is an error Test(std::string ID) {
If I need a static pointer to a class that is used globally(multiple files), and I only want to allocate memory once.
One way is to create a function that returns a static pointer of type class and call it where ever you need this pointer. My question is there another way to do this like with a header file and include the header file where you need to use the object of type class.
static class* function { static class c; if (c == NULL) { c = new class; } return c }
class Element { public: .. virtual unsigned NumberOfNodes() = 0;
[Code] ....
Is it possible to implement this better? All the element stuff can be static, but this is not possible with the abstract class. I want to have Mesh independent of a specific element. With the code above, if I have multiple meshes I have one instance of an element, e.g., Triangle for each mesh. Although they are all exactly the same.
i have this rather large class, which (in a way) somehow resembles a custom dialog control). This control is supposed to display data, which it does just fine. To do so, it maintains a
byte settings[10];
array, which holds information on how to display the data.
There are multiple ways to represent this custom set of data.In order to remain flexible in representing it, i thought of implementing some sort of DisplayProvider, which can be registered to the base class and provides that settings byte array.
Preferably, i would now have a set of static const instances of this provider.Using a struct would work nicely here:
The problem: The DisplayProvider would have to do some pre-processing, before handing over control to the base class, which then does the main work.I would end up with something like this:
PHP Code:
class DispalyProvider { baseclass* owner; int settings[10]; void PreProcessing(...);//ends up calling the owner.Processing(...) function };
The main thing here is, that i dont really see a way to create a stock of default "static const DisplayProvder = {...}"s, as i could when using a struct.
I have a little problem with template classes and their specialization. Here is a short example:
template <typename T> struct A{ // some typedefs
[Code]....
The above example is not compiling, because of the assignment of the const static double. Double needs a constructor, but that doesn't work (or seems not to work) with static.
I'm not sure, if it works at all in C++ that way. All I want is a template struct with some typedefs and a constant which is different for different specializations. Don't think it has to be static, but that would be better style, wouldn't it?
I have a non-MFC static library which I share between a number of different projects, some non-MFC and some MFC. Currently the static library uses a typedef of std::wstring and std::string for UNICODE and non-UNICODE builds.
After discovering it's possible to use CString in non-MFC applications, by including atlstr.h header, I decided I'd rather that than using stl strings and having to keep converting between the different types. However, I seem to be struggling with linker errors when linking the library with a MFC application.
Can I create a non-MFC static library using CString from atlstr.h and link it with a MFC application?
"You cannot initialize the static data member in the class definition — that’s simply a blueprint for an object and initializing values for members are not allowed. You don’t want to initialize it in a constructor, because you want to increment it every time the constructor is called so the count of the number of objects created is accumulated."
Why don't you want to initialize it in a constructor?
Edit: Because every time it is called it will set it back to 0 or whatever the initializing value.
A have two classes, one inheriting the other, and the parent class being abstract (I plan on adding more child classes in the future). For reasons I won't bother mentioning, I'm making use of an STL container as a way for me to access all of the child objects in the heap. I've done so by making use of a map, with key type int and value type being a pointer to the parent class:
//PARENT.H class Parent { protected: static int n; static std::map<int, Parent*> map; public: virtual void pureVirtual() = 0;
[code]....
The Problem:In line 5 of Parent.cpp, initializing the value of the element to new Child won't work, as according to the compiler, the Child class hasn't been declared yet, and including Child.h into the Parent.h only opens an even bigger can of worms.I also can't initialize it as new Parent, seeing as the parent class is an abstract one.
The Question:Is there a way I can initialize the static map properly. Making the Parent class abstract is not an option.
For example, in a header file A.h, I define an abstract class,
Code:
// A.h class A { public: virtual void foo() = 0; private: static int _x; };
How'd I initialize static member data _x?Normally, we initialize a static member data in a cpp file. However, there is not cpp file for A.h. If I intialize _x in header file, there will be linker errors like mulitple defined symbols. What is appropriate way to do that?
I have a class having static member.I have get and set methods which will Get and Set Values to this variable. In a multithreaded application does it have any thread safety issues.
Class a { static int b; void Set (int c); int Get(); };
#include <list> #ifdef TICKABLE_EXPORTS //Automatically defined by MSVS #define DLL __declspec(dllexport) #else #define DLL __declspec(dllimport) #pragma comment(lib, "Tickable.lib") #endif
class DLL Tickable{
[Code] ....
error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "private: static class std::list<class Tickable*,SKIPPED BITS> Tickable::subs" HUGE_SYMBOL_LIST PATHTickable.obj
I know with such a tiny and insignificant class the dll export seems pointless but this class is actually intended to be a .lib ONLY. But it is derived from by .dll style classes, and through inheritance this error is the exact same as what appears in the derived class, I just imagine that the cut down version would be easier to work with.
Is it possible to hold either a static variable in a dll which is of a dynamic type, OR would it be possible to reference an external variable which is static throughout the instances and this variable can be chucked away in a namespace of mine somewhere?
I suppose my only other option (if this is possible) would be to define a maximum instance number and create a standard array of pointers but this could both waste so much memory when not in use and cause problems if I need more memory.
Basically I want to create a base class which defines a static data member so that its automatically redeclared as the same static data member in the derived class.
class A{ protected: static derivable int val; // A::val }
class B : public A{ // static derivable int val is already here // A::val AND B::val }
This seems impossible to me but I'm wondering if perhaps there's a way to add modifiers to the compiler to do this (or preferably something MUCH simpler)...
I am writing my program on C++ language. I have one promblem. I need to set signal handler for my process. As the signal is related with the process on system level I have faced the problem.
My program consists several classes. They are connected together. But it doesn't metter in this case. The problem is that I need to access to member and methods of the class from my signal handler. For instance , I have class named Foo at it has some members and methods.
So from my handler I need to call its function and change members.
I understand that compiler should know that this class instances will exist during all program execution.
I have tried to set static member class Foo instance in another class , but this didn't solve the problem.
What is correct approach to do this. How to correctly implement signal handling in such case.
Here is example of my code
Code: class MyContainer{ private: std::vector<Foo> container; public: int removeFromContainer(Foo* aFoo) {
