I came across this strange code snippet which compiles fine:
class Car
{
public:
int speed;
};
int main()
{
int Car::*pSpeed = &Car::speed;
return 0;
}
Why does C++ have this pointer to a non-static data member of a class? What is the use of this strange pointer in real code?
IBM has some more documentation on how to use this. Briefly, you're using the pointer as an offset into the class. You can't use these pointers apart from the class they refer to, so:
int Car::*pSpeed = &Car::speed;
Car mycar;
mycar.*pSpeed = 65;
It seems a little obscure, but one possible application is if you're trying to write code for deserializing generic data into many different object types, and your code needs to handle object types that it knows absolutely nothing about (for example, your code is in a library, and the objects into which you deserialize were created by a user of your library). The member pointers give you a generic, semi-legible way of referring to the individual data member offsets, without having to resort to typeless void * tricks the way you might for C structs.
A realworld example of a pointer-to-member could be a more narrow aliasing constructor for std::shared_ptr:
template <typename T>
template <typename U>
shared_ptr<T>::shared_ptr(const shared_ptr<U>, T U::*member);
What that constructor would be good for
assume you have a struct foo:
struct foo {
int ival;
float fval;
};
If you have given a shared_ptr to a foo, you could then retrieve shared_ptr's to its members ival or fval using that constructor:
auto foo_shared = std::make_shared<foo>();
auto ival_shared = std::shared_ptr<int>(foo_shared, &foo::ival);
This would be useful if want to pass the pointer foo_shared->ival to some function which expects a shared_ptr
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/shared_ptr/shared_ptr
You can use an array of pointer to (homogeneous) member data to enable a dual, named-member (i.e. x.data) and array-subscript (i.e. x[idx]) interface.
#include <cassert>
#include <cstddef>
struct vector3 {
float x;
float y;
float z;
float& operator[](std::size_t idx) {
static float vector3::*component[3] = {
&vector3::x, &vector3::y, &vector3::z
};
return this->*component[idx];
}
};
int main()
{
vector3 v = { 0.0f, 1.0f, 2.0f };
assert(&v[0] == &v.x);
assert(&v[1] == &v.y);
assert(&v[2] == &v.z);
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < 3; ++i) {
v[i] += 1.0f;
}
assert(v.x == 1.0f);
assert(v.y == 2.0f);
assert(v.z == 3.0f);
return 0;
}
This is the simplest example I can think of that conveys the rare cases where this feature is pertinent:
#include <iostream>
class bowl {
public:
int apples;
int oranges;
};
int count_fruit(bowl * begin, bowl * end, int bowl::*fruit)
{
int count = 0;
for (bowl * iterator = begin; iterator != end; ++ iterator)
count += iterator->*fruit;
return count;
}
int main()
{
bowl bowls[2] = {
{ 1, 2 },
{ 3, 5 }
};
std::cout << "I have " << count_fruit(bowls, bowls + 2, & bowl::apples) << " apples\n";
std::cout << "I have " << count_fruit(bowls, bowls + 2, & bowl::oranges) << " oranges\n";
return 0;
}
The thing to note here is the pointer passed in to count_fruit. This saves you having to write separate count_apples and count_oranges functions.
You can later access this member, on any instance:
int main()
{
int Car::*pSpeed = &Car::speed;
Car myCar;
Car yourCar;
int mySpeed = myCar.*pSpeed;
int yourSpeed = yourCar.*pSpeed;
assert(mySpeed > yourSpeed); // ;-)
return 0;
}
Note that you do need an instance to call it on, so it does not work like a delegate.
It is used rarely, I've needed it maybe once or twice in all my years.
Normally using an interface (i.e. a pure base class in C++) is the better design choice.
It makes it possible to bind member variables and functions in the uniform manner. The following is example with your Car class. More common usage would be binding std::pair::first and ::second when using in STL algorithms and Boost on a map.
#include <list>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
#include <iterator>
#include <boost/lambda/lambda.hpp>
#include <boost/lambda/bind.hpp>
class Car {
public:
Car(int s): speed(s) {}
void drive() {
std::cout << "Driving at " << speed << " km/h" << std::endl;
}
int speed;
};
int main() {
using namespace std;
using namespace boost::lambda;
list<Car> l;
l.push_back(Car(10));
l.push_back(Car(140));
l.push_back(Car(130));
l.push_back(Car(60));
// Speeding cars
list<Car> s;
// Binding a value to a member variable.
// Find all cars with speed over 60 km/h.
remove_copy_if(l.begin(), l.end(),
back_inserter(s),
bind(&Car::speed, _1) <= 60);
// Binding a value to a member function.
// Call a function on each car.
for_each(s.begin(), s.end(), bind(&Car::drive, _1));
return 0;
}
Suppose you have a structure. Inside of that structure are * some sort of name * two variables of the same type but with different meaning
struct foo {
std::string a;
std::string b;
};
Okay, now let's say you have a bunch of foos in a container:
// key: some sort of name, value: a foo instance
std::map<std::string, foo> container;
Okay, now suppose you load the data from separate sources, but the data is presented in the same fashion (eg, you need the same parsing method).
You could do something like this:
void readDataFromText(std::istream & input, std::map<std::string, foo> & container, std::string foo::*storage) {
std::string line, name, value;
// while lines are successfully retrieved
while (std::getline(input, line)) {
std::stringstream linestr(line);
if ( line.empty() ) {
continue;
}
// retrieve name and value
linestr >> name >> value;
// store value into correct storage, whichever one is correct
container[name].*storage = value;
}
}
std::map<std::string, foo> readValues() {
std::map<std::string, foo> foos;
std::ifstream a("input-a");
readDataFromText(a, foos, &foo::a);
std::ifstream b("input-b");
readDataFromText(b, foos, &foo::b);
return foos;
}
At this point, calling readValues() will return a container with a unison of "input-a" and "input-b"; all keys will be present, and foos with have either a or b or both.
Here's a real-world example I am working on right now, from signal processing / control systems:
Suppose you have some structure that represents the data you are collecting:
struct Sample {
time_t time;
double value1;
double value2;
double value3;
};
Now suppose that you stuff them into a vector:
std::vector<Sample> samples;
... fill the vector ...
Now suppose that you want to calculate some function (say the mean) of one of the variables over a range of samples, and you want to factor this mean calculation into a function. The pointer-to-member makes it easy:
double Mean(std::vector<Sample>::const_iterator begin,
std::vector<Sample>::const_iterator end,
double Sample::* var)
{
float mean = 0;
int samples = 0;
for(; begin != end; begin++) {
const Sample& s = *begin;
mean += s.*var;
samples++;
}
mean /= samples;
return mean;
}
...
double mean = Mean(samples.begin(), samples.end(), &Sample::value2);
Note Edited 2016/08/05 for a more concise template-function approach
And, of course, you can template it to compute a mean for any forward-iterator and any value type that supports addition with itself and division by size_t:
template<typename Titer, typename S>
S mean(Titer begin, const Titer& end, S std::iterator_traits<Titer>::value_type::* var) {
using T = typename std::iterator_traits<Titer>::value_type;
S sum = 0;
size_t samples = 0;
for( ; begin != end ; ++begin ) {
const T& s = *begin;
sum += s.*var;
samples++;
}
return sum / samples;
}
struct Sample {
double x;
}
std::vector<Sample> samples { {1.0}, {2.0}, {3.0} };
double m = mean(samples.begin(), samples.end(), &Sample::x);
EDIT - The above code has performance implications
You should note, as I soon discovered, that the code above has some serious performance implications. The summary is that if you're calculating a summary statistic on a time series, or calculating an FFT etc, then you should store the values for each variable contiguously in memory. Otherwise, iterating over the series will cause a cache miss for every value retrieved.
Consider the performance of this code:
struct Sample {
float w, x, y, z;
};
std::vector<Sample> series = ...;
float sum = 0;
int samples = 0;
for(auto it = series.begin(); it != series.end(); it++) {
sum += *it.x;
samples++;
}
float mean = sum / samples;
On many architectures, one instance of Sample will fill a cache line. So on each iteration of the loop, one sample will be pulled from memory into the cache. 4 bytes from the cache line will be used and the rest thrown away, and the next iteration will result in another cache miss, memory access and so on.
Much better to do this:
struct Samples {
std::vector<float> w, x, y, z;
};
Samples series = ...;
float sum = 0;
float samples = 0;
for(auto it = series.x.begin(); it != series.x.end(); it++) {
sum += *it;
samples++;
}
float mean = sum / samples;
Now when the first x value is loaded from memory, the next three will also be loaded into the cache (supposing suitable alignment), meaning you don't need any values loaded for the next three iterations.
The above algorithm can be improved somewhat further through the use of SIMD instructions on eg SSE2 architectures. However, these work much better if the values are all contiguous in memory and you can use a single instruction to load four samples together (more in later SSE versions).
YMMV - design your data structures to suit your algorithm.
I think you'd only want to do this if the member data was pretty large (e.g., an object of another pretty hefty class), and you have some external routine which only works on references to objects of that class. You don't want to copy the member object, so this lets you pass it around.
Just to add some use cases for @anon's & @Oktalist's answer, here's a great reading material about pointer-to-member-function and pointer-to-member-data.
Here is an example where pointer to data members could be useful:
#include <iostream>
#include <list>
#include <string>
template <typename Container, typename T, typename DataPtr>
typename Container::value_type searchByDataMember (const Container& container, const T& t, DataPtr ptr) {
for (const typename Container::value_type& x : container) {
if (x->*ptr == t)
return x;
}
return typename Container::value_type{};
}
struct Object {
int ID, value;
std::string name;
Object (int i, int v, const std::string& n) : ID(i), value(v), name(n) {}
};
std::list<Object*> objects { new Object(5,6,"Sam"), new Object(11,7,"Mark"), new Object(9,12,"Rob"),
new Object(2,11,"Tom"), new Object(15,16,"John") };
int main() {
const Object* object = searchByDataMember (objects, 11, &Object::value);
std::cout << object->name << '\n'; // Tom
}
One way I've used it is if I have two implementations of how to do something in a class and I want to choose one at run-time without having to continually go through an if statement i.e.
class Algorithm
{
public:
Algorithm() : m_impFn( &Algorithm::implementationA ) {}
void frequentlyCalled()
{
// Avoid if ( using A ) else if ( using B ) type of thing
(this->*m_impFn)();
}
private:
void implementationA() { /*...*/ }
void implementationB() { /*...*/ }
typedef void ( Algorithm::*IMP_FN ) ();
IMP_FN m_impFn;
};
Obviously this is only practically useful if you feel the code is being hammered enough that the if statement is slowing things done eg. deep in the guts of some intensive algorithm somewhere. I still think it's more elegant than the if statement even in situations where it has no practical use but that's just my opnion.
Pointers to classes are not real pointers; a class is a logical construct and has no physical existence in memory, however, when you construct a pointer to a member of a class it gives an offset into an object of the member's class where the member can be found; This gives an important conclusion: Since static members are not associated with any object so a pointer to a member CANNOT point to a static member(data or functions) whatsoever Consider the following:
class x {
public:
int val;
x(int i) { val = i;}
int get_val() { return val; }
int d_val(int i) {return i+i; }
};
int main() {
int (x::* data) = &x::val; //pointer to data member
int (x::* func)(int) = &x::d_val; //pointer to function member
x ob1(1), ob2(2);
cout <<ob1.*data;
cout <<ob2.*data;
cout <<(ob1.*func)(ob1.*data);
cout <<(ob2.*func)(ob2.*data);
return 0;
}
Source: The Complete Reference C++ - Herbert Schildt 4th Edition
Another application are intrusive lists. The element type can tell the list what its next/prev pointers are. So the list does not use hard-coded names but can still use existing pointers:
// say this is some existing structure. And we want to use
// a list. We can tell it that the next pointer
// is apple::next.
struct apple {
int data;
apple * next;
};
// simple example of a minimal intrusive list. Could specify the
// member pointer as template argument too, if we wanted:
// template<typename E, E *E::*next_ptr>
template<typename E>
struct List {
List(E *E::*next_ptr):head(0), next_ptr(next_ptr) { }
void add(E &e) {
// access its next pointer by the member pointer
e.*next_ptr = head;
head = &e;
}
E * head;
E *E::*next_ptr;
};
int main() {
List<apple> lst(&apple::next);
apple a;
lst.add(a);
}
Pointer to members are C++'s type safe equivalent for C's offsetof(), which is defined in stddef.h: Both return the information, where a certain field is located within a class or struct. While offsetof() may be used with certain simple enough classes also in C++, it fails miserably for the general case, especially with virtual base classes. So pointer to members were added to the standard. They also provide easier syntax to reference an actual field:
struct C { int a; int b; } c;
int C::* intptr = &C::a; // or &C::b, depending on the field wanted
c.*intptr += 1;
is much easier than:
struct C { int a; int b; } c;
int intoffset = offsetof(struct C, a);
* (int *) (((char *) (void *) &c) + intoffset) += 1;
As to why one wants to use offsetof() (or pointer to members), there are good answers elsewhere on stackoverflow. One example is here: How does the C offsetof macro work?
Source: Stackoverflow.com