可以将文章内容翻译成中文,广告屏蔽插件可能会导致该功能失效(如失效，请关闭广告屏蔽插件后再试):
问题:
I have a data structure like this:
struct foo { int id; int route; int backup_route; int current_route; } and a function called update() that is used to request changes in it.
update(42, dont_care, dont_care, new_route);
this is really long and if I add something to the structure I have to add a 'dont_care' to EVERY call to update( ... ).
I am thinking about passing it a struct instead but filling in the struct with 'dont_care' beforehand is even more tedious than just spelling it out in the function call. Can I create the struct somewhere with default values of dont care and just set the fields I care about after I declare it as a local variable?
struct foo bar = { .id = 42, .current_route = new_route }; update(&bar); What is the most elegant way to pass just the information I wish to express to the update function?
and I want everything else to default to -1 (the secret code for 'dont care')
回答1:
While macros and/or functions (as already suggested) will work (and might have other positive effects (i.e. debug hooks)), they are more complex than needed. The simplest and possibly most elegant solution is to just define a constant that you use for variable initialisation:
const struct foo FOO_DONT_CARE = { // or maybe FOO_DEFAULT or something dont_care, dont_care, dont_care, dont_care }; ... struct foo bar = FOO_DONT_CARE; bar.id = 42; bar.current_route = new_route; update(&bar);
This code has virtually no mental overhead of understanding the indirection, and it is very clear which fields in bar you set explicitly while (safely) ignoring those you do not set.
回答2:
You can change your secret special value to 0, and exploit C's default structure-member semantics
struct foo bar = { .id = 42, .current_route = new_route }; update(&bar);
will then pass 0 as members of bar unspecified in the initializer.
Or you can create a macro that will do the default initialization for you:
#define FOO_INIT(...) { .id = -1, .current_route = -1, .quux = -1, ## __VA_ARGS__ } struct foo bar = FOO_INIT( .id = 42, .current_route = new_route ); update(&bar);
回答3:
printf()). I would define a function which took an arbitrary number of pairs of arguments, one which specifies the property to be updated, and one which specifies the value. Use an enum or a string to specify the name of the property.
回答4:
Perhaps consider using a preprocessor macro definition instead:
#define UPDATE_ID(instance, id) ({ (instance)->id= (id); }) #define UPDATE_ROUTE(instance, route) ({ (instance)->route = (route); }) #define UPDATE_BACKUP_ROUTE(instance, route) ({ (instance)->backup_route = (route); }) #define UPDATE_CURRENT_ROUTE(instance, route) ({ (instance)->current_route = (route); })
If your instance of (struct foo) is global, then you don't need the parameter for that of course. But I'm assuming you probably have more than one instance. Using the ({ ... }) block is a GNU-ism that that applies to GCC; it is a nice (safe) way to keep lines together as a block. If you later need to add more to the macros, such as range validation checking, you won't have to worry about breaking things like if/else statements and so forth.
This is what I would do, based upon the requirements you indicated. Situations like this are one of the reasons that I started using python a lot; handling default parameters and such becomes a lot simpler than it ever is with C. (I guess that's a python plug, sorry ;-)
回答5:
One pattern gobject uses is a variadic function, and enumerated values for each property. The interface looks something like:
update (ID, 1, BACKUP_ROUTE, 4, -1); /* -1 terminates the parameter list */
Writing a varargs function is easy -- see http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/cclass/int/sx11b.html. Just match up key -> value pairs and set the appropriate structure attributes.
回答6:
Since it looks like that you only need this structure for the update() function, don't use a structure for this at all, it will only obfuscate your intention behind that construct. You should maybe rethink why you are changing and updating those fields and define separate functions or macros for this "little" changes.
e.g.
#define set_current_route(id, route) update(id, dont_care, dont_care, route) #define set_route(id, route) update(id, dont_care, route, dont_care) #define set_backup_route(id, route) update(id, route, dont_care, dont_care)
Or even better write a function for every change case. As you already noticed you don't change every property at the same time, so make it possible to change only one property at a time. This doesn't only improve the readability, but also helps you handling the different cases, e.g. you don't have to check for all the "dont_care" because you know that only the current route is changed.
回答7:
How about something like:
struct foo bar; update(init_id(42, init_dont_care(&bar)));
with:
struct foo* init_dont_care(struct foo* bar) { bar->id = dont_care; bar->route = dont_care; bar->backup_route = dont_care; bar->current_route = dont_care; return bar; }
and:
struct foo* init_id(int id, struct foo* bar) { bar->id = id; return bar; }
and correspondingly:
struct foo* init_route(int route, struct foo* bar); struct foo* init_backup_route(int backup_route, struct foo* bar); struct foo* init_current_route(int current_route, struct foo* bar);
In C++, a similar pattern has a name which I don't remember just now.
EDIT: It's called the Named Parameter Idiom.
回答8:
I'm rusty with structs, so I'm probably missing a few keywords here. But why not start with a global structure with the defaults initialized, copy it to your local variable, then modify it?
An initializer like:
void init_struct( structType * s ) { memcopy(s,&defaultValues,sizeof(structType)); }
Then when you want to use it:
structType foo; init_struct( &foo ); // get defaults foo.fieldICareAbout = 1; // modify fields update( &foo ); // pass to function
回答9:
You could address the problem with an X-Macro
You would change your struct definition into:
#define LIST_OF_foo_MEMBERS \ X(int,id) \ X(int,route) \ X(int,backup_route) \ X(int,current_route) #define X(type,name) type name; struct foo { LIST_OF_foo_MEMBERS }; #undef X
And then you would be able to easily define a flexible function that sets all fields to dont_care.
#define X(type,name) in->name = dont_care; void setFooToDontCare(struct foo* in) { LIST_OF_foo_MEMBERS } #undef X
Following the discussion here, one could also define a default value in this way:
#define X(name) dont_care, const struct foo foo_DONT_CARE = { LIST_OF_STRUCT_MEMBERS_foo }; #undef X
Which translates into:
const struct foo foo_DONT_CARE = {dont_care, dont_care, dont_care, dont_care,};
And use it as in hlovdal answer, with the advantage that here maintenance is easier, i.e. changing the number of struct members will automatically update foo_DONT_CARE. Note that the last "spurious" comma is acceptable.
I first learned the concept of X-Macros when I had to address this problem.
It is extremely flexible to new fields being added to the struct. If you have different data types, you could define different dont_care values depending on the data type: from here, you could take inspiration from the function used to print the values in the second example.
If you are ok with an all int struct, then you could omit the data type from LIST_OF_foo_MEMBERS and simply change the X function of the struct definition into #define X(name) int name;
回答10:
The most elegant way would be to update the struct fields directly, without having to use the update() function - but maybe there are good reasons for using it that don't come across in the question.
struct foo* bar = get_foo_ptr(); foo_ref.id = 42; foo_ref.current_route = new_route;
Or you can, like Pukku suggested, create separate access functions for each field of the struct.
Otherwise the best solution I can think of is treating a value of '0' in a struct field as a 'do not update' flag - so you just create a funciton to return a zeroed out struct, and then use this to update.
struct foo empty_foo(void) { struct foo bar; bzero(&bar, sizeof (struct bar)); return bar; } struct foo bar = empty_foo(); bar.id=42; bar.current_route = new_route; update(&bar);
However, this might not be very feasible, if 0 is a valid value for fields in the struct.
