Objects and members

[mickey]

Hi,
I have a class:

class myClass {
    int number;
    void incrNumber() {number++; }
    void something();
};
myclass c[3];
 
myClass::something() {
  //here i'd like make something such as myClass[3].incrNumber();
}

class myClass {
    int number;
    void incrNumber() {number++; }
    void something();
};
myclass c[3];

myClass::something() {
  //here i'd like make something such as myClass[3].incrNumber();
}

To copy to clipboard, switch view to plain text mode 

Is there a way to modify the state of an instance of object only (and only one) from a method of myClass?
Thanks.

[yop]

class myClass {
    myClass(){++index;}
    myClass(const myClass&){++index;}
    ~myClass(){--index;}
    int number;
    void incrNumber() {number++; }
    void something();
 
    private:
    static size_t index;
};
 
size_t myClass::index=0;
 
myClass::something() {
    //here i'd like make something such as myClass[3].incrNumber();
    if(index==3)
        incrNumber();
}

class myClass {
    myClass(){++index;}
    myClass(const myClass&){++index;}
    ~myClass(){--index;}
    int number;
    void incrNumber() {number++; }
    void something();

    private:
    static size_t index;
};

size_t myClass::index=0;

myClass::something() {
    //here i'd like make something such as myClass[3].incrNumber();
    if(index==3)
        incrNumber();
}

To copy to clipboard, switch view to plain text mode 

You'll see some obvious things left out such as uninitialized number var in the ctor but you get the idea. You'll have to be extra carerfull on how many objects are also created behind your back as they will be indexed too. I did not create a copy constructor to avoid indexing compiler generated objects.
[Edit]...witch is plain wrong as the destructor will decrease the index, I modified the source to also have a copy constructor.

[mickey]

thanks...Is there only this way? Is what I want to do a thing to avoid?
Thanks.

[Codepoet]

yop, your code will not work:

myClass::something() {
    //here i'd like make something such as myClass[3].incrNumber();
    if(index==3)
        incrNumber();
}

myClass::something() {
    //here i'd like make something such as myClass[3].incrNumber();
    if(index==3)
        incrNumber();
}

To copy to clipboard, switch view to plain text mode 

Here you check index == 3, but index is a static member. When there are exactly three instances any call to something will call incrNumber.

mickey, you need here another mechanism: One static member for the current count of objects and some kind of management which instances exist (use as an ID their adresses or another unique ID) plus a class local member with the ID if you do not use the address. The real problem comes now - which is instance number 3? Imagine you created 5 instances and then delete (maybe they only left scope) instances 0 and 3. What now? In my appoach you could ask the static instance management but how should it decide which instance is number 3?
This gets even more complicated if you have threads.


Can you tell us what you need or want to do in more detail? It seems to me, that this approach is somewhat difficult.

[wysota]

Maybe something like this will do:

class xyz {
public:
  static xyz *create(){ return new xyz(); }; 
  ~xyz(){ int ind = xyz::_instances.indexOf(this); xyz::_instances[ind]=0; }
  void doSomething(uint ind){ 
    if(xyz::_instances.size()<=ind || xyz::_instances.value(ind)==0) 
      return; 
    xyz::_instances[ind]->inc();
  }
private:
  xyz(){ xyz::_instances << this; ref = 0; };
  static QList<xyz*> _instances;
  void inc(){ ref++; }
  int ref;
};

class xyz {
public:
  static xyz *create(){ return new xyz(); }; 
  ~xyz(){ int ind = xyz::_instances.indexOf(this); xyz::_instances[ind]=0; }
  void doSomething(uint ind){ 
    if(xyz::_instances.size()<=ind || xyz::_instances.value(ind)==0) 
      return; 
    xyz::_instances[ind]->inc();
  }
private:
  xyz(){ xyz::_instances << this; ref = 0; };
  static QList<xyz*> _instances;
  void inc(){ ref++; }
  int ref;
};

To copy to clipboard, switch view to plain text mode 

This makes sure you can't create an object on stack and stores all instances of the class in the class itself.

Edit: In the destructor the pointer in the list should be zeroed and a check for null pointer should be made before dereferencing it. I'll adjust the code...

[yop]

Here you check index == 3, but index is a static member. When there are exactly three instances any call to something will call incrNumber.

Yeap you're right I was thinking of something to count the instances of the class and this was the natural way, but unsusable... What about this one?

class myClass {
public:
    myClass():perInstanceIndex(allClassesIndex){++allClassesIndex;}
    myClass(const myClass&):perInstanceIndex(allClassesIndex){++allClassesIndex;}
    ~myClass(){--allClassesIndex;}
    int number;
    void incrNumber() {number++; }
    void something();
 
private:
    static size_t allClassesIndex;
    size_t perInstanceIndex;
};
 
size_t myClass::allClassesIndex=0;
 
myClass::something() {
    //here i'd like make something such as myClass[3].incrNumber();
    if(perInstanceIndex==3)
        incrNumber();
}

class myClass {
public:
    myClass():perInstanceIndex(allClassesIndex){++allClassesIndex;}
    myClass(const myClass&):perInstanceIndex(allClassesIndex){++allClassesIndex;}
    ~myClass(){--allClassesIndex;}
    int number;
    void incrNumber() {number++; }
    void something();

private:
    static size_t allClassesIndex;
    size_t perInstanceIndex;
};

size_t myClass::allClassesIndex=0;

myClass::something() {
    //here i'd like make something such as myClass[3].incrNumber();
    if(perInstanceIndex==3)
        incrNumber();
}

To copy to clipboard, switch view to plain text mode 

[Codepoet]

@yoy: Somewhat better but the destructor will "kill" you You could end up with several instances having the same ID. I like wysota's solution but that will only work for "small" numbers of long living objects.

@mickey: can you write us more details about what you want to do or did we already solve your problem?

[yop]

@yoy: Somewhat better but the destructor will "kill" you You could end up with several instances having the same ID. I like wysota's solution but that will only work for "small" numbers of long living objects.

True again, I 'll give up on this

[mickey]

hi, I'm sorry for not fast reply.
I have 3 instances (a,b,c) of MyWidget class. I'd like a function of widget 'a' that change the state of 'b' and 'c'
I can use a variable index++ and an if (index==1) then....but after recognize the widget 'a', I must call a particular function member of widget 'b' and 'c'.
(but using index++: Are the order of the constructors the same every time???).