I am using the Arduino IDE to write code and am trying to understand the namespace stuff.
My thought is, is there a way to shorten the many places (in my code) where I have things like:
Serial.print("a="); Serial.print(a); Serial.print(" b="); Serial.println(b);
to something shorter like:
S.print(...
or
sprint(...
Can it be done?
I tried using String concatenation but it is very limited and expensive. That is just adding one
String s;
to my code at the global level increased the download size by 1482 bytes. And you can't do something like:
Serial.print("a=" + a); Serial.println(" b=" + b);
because it cant handle starting a concatenation with a literal string.
Any thoughts welcome.
Arduino uses the C++ language. It is not considered good practice, but you could use a preprocessor macro:
#define sprint Serial.print
You could use a pointer and member de-reference operator, like this:
HardwareSerial *my_device;
void setup()
{
my_device->begin(9600);
delay(100);
}
void loop()
{
if (my_device->available())
{
int r = my_device->read();
// etc.
}
}
Related
Now I understand that Defining is to Types as Declaring is to Variables. But which one (Declare or Define) do functions/procedures/methods/subroutines fall under? Or do they have their own terminology?
In C and C++ you can declare a function (a function prototype) like this:
int function(int);
And then you can define it later, say, at the end of the file:
int function(int param) {
printf("This is the param: %d", param);
return 0;
}
So you can say that functions in C and C++ can fit into the terminology of both types and variables. It depends on the language you're using too, but this how I learned it.
Here is a variadic template that prints parameters.
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
void Output() {
std::cout<<std::endl;
}
template<typename First, typename ... Strings>
void Output(First arg, const Strings&... rest) {
std::cout<<arg<<" ";
Output(rest...);
}
int main() {
Output("I","am","a","sentence");
Output("Let's","try",1,"or",2,"digits");
Output(); //<- I do not want this to compile, but it does.
return 0;
}
Is there a way to get this functionality without having the "no parameter" call work, and without having to write two functions every time?
You might want to keep the separation of the first and the rest of the parameters, you can use:
template<typename First, typename ... Rest>
void Output(First&& first, Rest&&... rest) {
std::cout << std::forward<First>(first);
int sink[]{(std::cout<<" "<<std::forward<Rest>(rest),0)... };
(void)sink; // silence "unused variable" warning
std::cout << std::endl;
}
Note that I used perfect forwarding to avoid copying any parameters. The above has the additional benefit to avoid recursion and therefore is likely to produce better (faster) code.
The way I wrote sink also guarantees that the expressions expanded from rest are evaluated left-to-right - which is important when compared to the naïve approach of just writing a helper function template<typename...Args>void sink(Args&&...){}.
Live example
Call the function from a forwarding type function and have a static_assert like this:
template <typename ... Args>
void forwarder(Args ... args) {
static_assert(sizeof...(args),"too small");
Output(args...);
}
As far as I see there are two questsions:
How to avoid Output() calls with no parameters.
Is there a simpler way to end the compile time recursion?
My solution to item 1 is as follows:
template<typename T>
void Output(const T & string) {
std::cout<<string<<std::endl;
}
template<typename First, typename ... Strings>
void Output(const First & arg, const Strings & ... rest) {
std::cout<<arg<<" ";
Output(rest...);
}
Basically, instead of ending the recursion when the template list is empty, I end it when it only contains one type. There is one difference between the above and the code from the question: if does not output any space after the last item. Instead it just outputs the newline.
For question number two see the answer by Daniel Frey above. I really liked this solution, although it took some time to grasp it (and I upvoted the answer). At the same time I find that it makes the code harder to read/understand and therefore harder to maintain. Currently I would not not use that solution in anything but small personal code snippets.
The problem involved a JAVA call to a C-function (API) which returned a pointer-to-pointer as an argout argument. I was trying to call the C API from JAVA and I had no way to modify the API.
Using SWIG typemap to pass pointer-to-pointer:
Here is another approach using typemaps. It is targetting Perl, not Java, but the concepts are the same. And I finally managed to get it working using typemaps and no helper functions:
For this function:
typedef void * MyType;
int getblock( int a, int b, MyType *block );
I have 2 typemaps:
%typemap(perl5, in, numinputs=0) void ** data( void * scrap )
{
$1 = &scrap;
}
%typemap(perl5, argout) void ** data
{
SV* tempsv = sv_newmortal();
if ( argvi >= items ) EXTEND(sp,1);
SWIG_MakePtr( tempsv, (void *)*$1, $descriptor(void *), 0);
$result = tempsv;
argvi++;
}
And the function is defined as:
int getblock( int a, int b, void ** data );
In my swig .i file. Now, this passes back an opaque pointer in the argout typemap, becaust that's what useful for this particular situation, however, you could replace the SWIG_MakePtr line with stuff to actually do stuff with the data in the pointer if you wanted to. Also, when I want to pass the pointer into a function, I have a typemap that looks like this:
%typemap(perl5, in) void * data
{
if ( !(SvROK($input)) croak( "Not a reference...\n" );
if ( SWIG_ConvertPtr($input, (void **) &$1, $1_descriptor, 0 ) == -1 )
croak( "Couldn't convert $1 to $1_descriptor\n");
}
And the function is defined as:
int useblock( void * data );
In my swig .i file.
Obviously, this is all perl, but should map pretty directly to Java as far as the typemap architecture goes. Hope it helps...
[Swig] Java: Using C helper function to pass pointer-to-pointer
The problem involved a JAVA call to a C-function (API) which returned a pointer-to-pointer as an argout argument. I was trying to call the C API from JAVA and I had no way to modify the API.
The API.h header file contained:
extern int ReadMessage(HEADER **hdr);
The original C-call looked like:
HEADER *hdr;
int status;
status = ReadMessage(&hdr);
The function of the API was to store data at the memory location specified by the pointer-to-pointer.
I tried to use SWIG to create the appropriate interface file. SWIG.i created the file SWIGTYPE_p_p_header.java from API.h. The problem is the SWIGTYPE_p_p_header constructor initialized swigCPtr to 0.
The JAVA call looked like:
SWIGTYPE_p_p_header hdr = new SWIGTYPE_p_p_header();
status = SWIG.ReadMessage(hdr);
But when I called the API from JAVA the ptr was always 0.
I finally gave up passing the pointer-to-pointer as an input argument. Instead I defined another C-function in SWIG.i to return the pointer-to-pointer in a return value. I thought it was a Kludge ... but it worked!
You may want to try this:
SWIG.i looks like:
// return pointer-to-pointer
%inline %{
HEADER *ReadMessageHelper() {
HEADER *hdr;
int returnValue;
returnValue = ReadMessage(&hdr);
if (returnValue!= 1) hdr = NULL;
return hdr;
}%}
The inline function above could leak memory as Java won't take ownership of the memory created by ReadMessageHelper, since the HEADER instance iscreated on the heap.
The fix for the memory leak is to define ReadMessageHelper as a newobject in order for Java to take control of the memory.
%newobject ReadMessageHelper();
JAVA call now would look like:
HEADER hdr;
hdr = SWIG.ReadMessageHelper();
If you are lucky, as I was, you may have another API available to release the message buffer. In which case, you wouldn’t have to do the previous step.
William Fulton, the SWIG guru, had this to say about the approach above:
“I wouldn't see the helper function as a kludge, more the simplest solution to a tricky problem. Consider what the equivalent pure 100% Java code would be for ReadMessage(). I don't think there is an equivalent as Java classes are passed by reference and there is no such thing as a reference to a reference, or pointer to a pointer in Java. In the C function you have, a HEADER instances is created by ReadMessage and passed back to the caller. I don't see how one can do the equivalent in Java without providing some wrapper class around HEADER and passing the wrapper to the ReadMessage function. At the end of the day, ReadMessage returns a newly created HEADER and the Java way of returning newly created objects is to return it in the return value, not via a parameter.”
I'm starting work on an Objective-C++ project, getting a feel for how the synthesis of the two languages feels before I do any heavy-duty design. I am very intrigued by how Automated Reference Counting has been integrated with C++: we get the equivalent of smart pointers for NSObjects that handle retain/release properly in STL containers (cf. David Chisnall's article at http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1745876&seqNum=3).
I want to use STL map as a typesafe mapping from NSStrings to C++ values. I can declare a mapping as
std::map<NSString*, MyType> mapping
With ARC, this mapping handles the memory management properly. But it doesn't follow NSString value semantics properly, because it's using pointer comparisons instead of -[NSString compare:].
What's the best way to get an STL map to use string comparison instead of pointer comparison?
Should I try to specialize std::less<NSString*>?
Should I declare an explicit comparator like std::map<NSString*, MyType, MyCompare>?
Should I wrap the NSString* keys in a smart pointer that implements operator<?
You'd want a custom comparison object that calls NSString's compare function, something like this:
#include <functional>
#include <map>
struct CompareNSString: public std::binary_function<NSString*, NSString*, bool> {
bool operator()(NSString* lhs, NSString* rhs) const {
if (rhs != nil)
return (lhs == nil) || ([lhs compare: rhs] == NSOrderedAscending);
else
return false;
}
};
std::map<NSString*, MyType, CompareNSString> mapping;
pointer comparisons of unmanaged NSString instances are fine, if they are all NSString literals. iow, this would work in MRC under those conditions, provided of course there are no duplicate string values, and value is what is being compared.
if not, see Ross' generally more useful answer (+1).
What does "Overloaded"/"Overload" mean in regards to programming?
It means that you are providing a function (method or operator) with the same name, but with a different signature.
For example:
void doSomething();
int doSomething(string x);
int doSomething(int a, int b, int c);
Basic Concept
Overloading, or "method overloading" is the name of the concept of having more than one methods with the same name but with different parameters.
For e.g. System.DateTime class in c# have more than one ToString method. The standard ToString uses the default culture of the system to convert the datetime to string:
new DateTime(2008, 11, 14).ToString(); // returns "14/11/2008" in America
while another overload of the same method allows the user to customize the format:
new DateTime(2008, 11, 14).ToString("dd MMM yyyy"); // returns "11 Nov 2008"
Sometimes parameter name may be the same but the parameter types may differ:
Convert.ToInt32(123m);
converts a decimal to int while
Convert.ToInt32("123");
converts a string to int.
Overload Resolution
For finding the best overload to call, compiler performs an operation named "overload resolution". For the first example, compiler can find the best method simply by matching the argument count. For the second example, compiler automatically calls the decimal version of replace method if you pass a decimal parameter and calls string version if you pass a string parameter. From the list of possible outputs, if compiler cannot find a suitable one to call, you will get a compiler error like "The best overload does not match the parameters...".
You can find lots of information on how different compilers perform overload resolution.
A function is overloaded when it has more than one signature. This means that you can call it with different argument types. For instance, you may have a function for printing a variable on screen, and you can define it for different argument types:
void print(int i);
void print(char i);
void print(UserDefinedType t);
In this case, the function print() would have three overloads.
It means having different versions of the same function which take different types of parameters. Such a function is "overloaded". For example, take the following function:
void Print(std::string str) {
std::cout << str << endl;
}
You can use this function to print a string to the screen. However, this function cannot be used when you want to print an integer, you can then make a second version of the function, like this:
void Print(int i) {
std::cout << i << endl;
}
Now the function is overloaded, and which version of the function will be called depends on the parameters you give it.
Others have answered what an overload is. When you are starting out it gets confused with override/overriding.
As opposed to overloading, overriding is defining a method with the same signature in the subclass (or child class), which overrides the parent classes implementation. Some language require explicit directive, such as virtual member function in C++ or override in Delphi and C#.
using System;
public class DrawingObject
{
public virtual void Draw()
{
Console.WriteLine("I'm just a generic drawing object.");
}
}
public class Line : DrawingObject
{
public override void Draw()
{
Console.WriteLine("I'm a Line.");
}
}
An overloaded method is one with several options for the number and type of parameters. For instance:
foo(foo)
foo(foo, bar)
both would do relatively the same thing but one has a second parameter for more options
Also you can have the same method take different types
int Convert(int i)
int Convert(double i)
int Convert(float i)
Just like in common usage, it refers to something (in this case, a method name), doing more than one job.
Overloading is the poor man's version of multimethods from CLOS and other languages. It's the confusing one.
Overriding is the usual OO one. It goes with inheritance, we call it redefinition too (e.g. in https://stackoverflow.com/users/3827/eed3si9n's answer Line provides a specialized definition of Draw().