We value your feedback.
Take our survey and automatically be enter to win anyone of the following:
Yeti Cooler, Amazon eGift Card, and Movie eGift Card!
COURSE of the MONTH
14 days, 5 hours left to enrollBecome a Premium Member and unlock a new, free course in leading technologies each month.
Solved
Reliable class design
Posted on 2000-02-27
Hi dudes,
I'm currently on the learning curve of C++. However, many years of regular C programming leave me with the notion that I may be up to some bad habits... I wonder if you could provide any suggestions...
I'm currently working on a simple hex dump class: It works, but is there a smarter, more bulletproof way of doing it? The way I've designed it is that it takes a constant pointer to a constant byte:
myDump.LookAt((reinterpret
Pretty ugly, to say the least. Is it possible to, say, use void pointers to make the LookAt member function accept any type of pointer without the foul casting and no subsequent whining from the compiler?
In addition, the class has these two member functions:
void DumpClass::OutputHex(unsig
void DumpClass::OutputASCII(uns
These take a pointer to a string and output the corresponding hex dump data to that string, eg.
const int nBytesToGet=16;
char outputbuff[64];
DumpClass myDump;
myDump.LookAt(pSomeLoc);
myDump.OutputHex(outputbuf
It troubles me that it is up to the programmer to make sure that the output buffer is big enough to hold the dump output... What would be a better way?
Since this is really 2 questions, I've doubled the points...
Cheers
I'm currently on the learning curve of C++. However, many years of regular C programming leave me with the notion that I may be up to some bad habits... I wonder if you could provide any suggestions...
I'm currently working on a simple hex dump class: It works, but is there a smarter, more bulletproof way of doing it? The way I've designed it is that it takes a constant pointer to a constant byte:
myDump.LookAt((reinterpret
Pretty ugly, to say the least. Is it possible to, say, use void pointers to make the LookAt member function accept any type of pointer without the foul casting and no subsequent whining from the compiler?
In addition, the class has these two member functions:
void DumpClass::OutputHex(unsig
void DumpClass::OutputASCII(uns
These take a pointer to a string and output the corresponding hex dump data to that string, eg.
const int nBytesToGet=16;
char outputbuff[64];
DumpClass myDump;
myDump.LookAt(pSomeLoc);
myDump.OutputHex(outputbuf
It troubles me that it is up to the programmer to make sure that the output buffer is big enough to hold the dump output... What would be a better way?
Since this is really 2 questions, I've doubled the points...
Cheers
[X]
Welcome to Experts Exchange
Add your voice to the tech community where 5M+ people just like you are talking about what matters.
- Help others & share knowledge
- Earn cash & points
- Learn & ask questions
3-
3
6 Comments
>> Pretty ugly, to say the least.
Well, there''s not to much that you can do about this. You are--intentionally--breaki
>> it troubles me that it is up to the programmer
>> to make sure that the output buffer is big
>> enough to hold the dump
>> output... What would be a better way?
Good. It should trouble you. You shoudl be prepared to say goodbye to that sort of code and mor importantly to "char *" strings too! Switch to using a string class, like the STL string. (Or write your own string class, it is a great learnign experience.)
Then make this procedure return a string. The string will be as long as is needed to represent the data. 1 character or 10,000 characters. Much easier for the class's client to use your class that way! And if the string is reference counted, it is still very efficient to return in this manner.
Well, there''s not to much that you can do about this. You are--intentionally--breaki
>> it troubles me that it is up to the programmer
>> to make sure that the output buffer is big
>> enough to hold the dump
>> output... What would be a better way?
Good. It should trouble you. You shoudl be prepared to say goodbye to that sort of code and mor importantly to "char *" strings too! Switch to using a string class, like the STL string. (Or write your own string class, it is a great learnign experience.)
Then make this procedure return a string. The string will be as long as is needed to represent the data. 1 character or 10,000 characters. Much easier for the class's client to use your class that way! And if the string is reference counted, it is still very efficient to return in this manner.
An example of this would be the STL's global getline() function this reads a line from a file and returns it in a string. The string will be as long as is needed to return the line (assuming you don't run out of memory). I might be 0 characters, 1 character, or 10,000 characters.
In your case you would do something like
string DumpClass::OutputHex(int nBytesToGet = 16)
{
string S;
const char *CnvAry = "0123456789ABCDEF";
while (nBytesToGet--)
{
unsigned char Byt = *SomePtr++
if (S.length()) // If this is not the first character.
S += ' '; // Add a space after previous char.
S += CnvAry[(Byt >> 4) & 0x0F];
S+= CnvAry[Byt & 0x0F];
}
return S;
}
Let me know if you have any questions.
In your case you would do something like
string DumpClass::OutputHex(int nBytesToGet = 16)
{
string S;
const char *CnvAry = "0123456789ABCDEF";
while (nBytesToGet--)
{
unsigned char Byt = *SomePtr++
if (S.length()) // If this is not the first character.
S += ' '; // Add a space after previous char.
S += CnvAry[(Byt >> 4) & 0x0F];
S+= CnvAry[Byt & 0x0F];
}
return S;
}
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your prompt answer, which has certainly answered my question (I was afraid you'd recommend using the STL, something I've been a bit lax in learning about).
On the first point about getting rid of the casting: I changed the LookAt parameter type to a constant void pointer and the client no longer needs the cast. Is this a safe thing to do?
On the first point about getting rid of the casting: I changed the LookAt parameter type to a constant void pointer and the client no longer needs the cast. Is this a safe thing to do?
Honestly, I wouldn't recommend rushing into the STL. If you are just starting out try doing some of it yourself. You will learn more and you will also develope an appreciation for the STL if you decide to use it. (I personally don't use it, except to answer questions here.) I do recommend you learn ABOUT it at sometime, but not necessarily at the start. I can't begin to say how important it is to have a good string class and possibly other container classes too, it has so many advantages it would take another 200 points for me to list them, but it doesn't have to be the STL ones.
>> Is this a safe thing to do?
It is not any less safe than what you had. But basically what you are doing is intrinsically unsafe and may cause problems at times--though you really have no choice.
For example, If you are on a protected mode OS, then this design may be used to try access protected memory or invalid memory addresses and this will result in a crash. Like if you allocate an object that is 16 bytes in length and try to display it for a length of 32 bytes you don't know what is in the 16 bytes after the object, it may be a protected memory segment and the OS will termiante your app. Another example might be using this to display the contents of an object that has a virtual base class. Such an object may not be stored in contiquous bytes in memory (i.e. it may be stored in seperate memory blocks with spaces between tham) so this could be displaying garbage (or again protected memory) when it tries to display parts of the object.
>> Is this a safe thing to do?
It is not any less safe than what you had. But basically what you are doing is intrinsically unsafe and may cause problems at times--though you really have no choice.
For example, If you are on a protected mode OS, then this design may be used to try access protected memory or invalid memory addresses and this will result in a crash. Like if you allocate an object that is 16 bytes in length and try to display it for a length of 32 bytes you don't know what is in the 16 bytes after the object, it may be a protected memory segment and the OS will termiante your app. Another example might be using this to display the contents of an object that has a virtual base class. Such an object may not be stored in contiquous bytes in memory (i.e. it may be stored in seperate memory blocks with spaces between tham) so this could be displaying garbage (or again protected memory) when it tries to display parts of the object.
Featured Post
Modern healthcare requires a modern cloud. View this brief video to understand how the Concerto Cloud for Healthcare can help your organization.
Question has a verified solution.
If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question
Templates For Beginners
Or
How To Encourage The Compiler To Work For You
Introduction
This tutorial is targeted at the reader who is, perhaps, familiar with the basics of C++ but would prefer a little slower introduction to the more ad…
C++ Properties
One feature missing from standard C++ that you will find in many other Object Oriented Programming languages is something called a Property (http://www.experts-exchange.com/Programming/Languages/CPP/A_3912-Object-Properties-in-C.ht…
The viewer will learn how to use the return statement in functions in C++. The video will also teach the user how to pass data to a function and have the function return data back for further processing.
The viewer will learn how to user default arguments when defining functions. This method of defining functions will be contrasted with the non-default-argument of defining functions.
Suggested Courses
Course of the Month14 days, 5 hours left to enroll
801 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.
Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.