Click here to Skip to main content
15,896,111 members
Articles / Programming Languages / C++11
Tip/Trick

Removing Ugly Flags in C++

Rate me:
Please Sign up or sign in to vote.
4.00/5 (13 votes)
18 Oct 2011CPOL 64.1K   6   29
Using the Call Gate idiom to reduce number of boolean flags and state variables.
Let's consider a typical use case.

C++
struct car
{
  car()
    :started_(false)
  {
  }
  ~car()
  {
    stop();
  }

  void start()
  {
    if(started_)
       return;
    do_start();
    started_=true;
  }
  void stop()
  {
    if(!started_)
       return;
    do_stop();
    started_=false;
  }
private:
  bool started_;

  // do actual work
  void do_start();
  void do_stop();
};

Doesn't the 'started_' flag look ugly? It does to me. With the Call Gate idiom, that could be changed to:

C++
struct car
{
  car()
    :start_( boost::bind(&car::do_play, get_this()) )
    ,stop_( boost::bind(&car::do_stop, get_this()) )
  {
    //wire the gates
    start_.wire_on(stop_); //'start' opens the 'stop' gate
    stop_.wire_on(start_); //'stop' opens the 'start' gate
  }
  ~car()
  {
    stop();
  }

  void start()
  {
    start_();
  }
  void stop()
  {
    stop_();
  }

private:
  gate start_;
  gate stop_;

  car* get_this() { return this; }

  // do actual work
  void do_start();
  void do_stop();
};


Replacing only one bool with call gates is probably an overkill, but there is a more interesting sample in Call Gate Idiom, and an actual implementation of the call gates.

License

This article, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)


Written By
United States United States
This member has not yet provided a Biography. Assume it's interesting and varied, and probably something to do with programming.

Comments and Discussions

 
GeneralReason for my vote of 2 What looks ugly to me in the first p... Pin
nv314-Dec-11 4:16
nv314-Dec-11 4:16 
GeneralMy vote of 5: It is a nice way to hide the annoying state ca... Pin
semmel7125-Oct-11 2:06
semmel7125-Oct-11 2:06 
GeneralReason for my vote of 5 Nice! It centralizes the setup of th... Pin
semmel7125-Oct-11 2:02
semmel7125-Oct-11 2:02 
GeneralReason for my vote of 1 Why make it simple when you can make... Pin
YvesDaoust24-Oct-11 23:01
YvesDaoust24-Oct-11 23:01 
GeneralReason for my vote of 3 Replacing ugly Code with bloated ugl... Pin
Johann Anhofer24-Oct-11 10:01
Johann Anhofer24-Oct-11 10:01 
GeneralReason for my vote of 1 The article is way too short to expl... Pin
Wolfgang_Baron18-Oct-11 13:18
professionalWolfgang_Baron18-Oct-11 13:18 
GeneralFor a more complex example, please see the player type at th... Pin
egladysh18-Oct-11 7:06
egladysh18-Oct-11 7:06 
GeneralReason for my vote of 2 No practical application comes easil... Pin
xelous218-Oct-11 3:29
xelous218-Oct-11 3:29 
GeneralReason for my vote of 4 Interesting subject, would love to s... Pin
Julien Villers17-Oct-11 22:32
professionalJulien Villers17-Oct-11 22:32 
GeneralReason for my vote of 4 An interesting idiom. Pin
Jon Summers17-Oct-11 9:33
Jon Summers17-Oct-11 9:33 
QuestionWhy replace an ugly flag with two more ugly objects at the cost of functionality and maintainability? Pin
Stefan_Lang18-Oct-11 3:54
Stefan_Lang18-Oct-11 3:54 
AnswerRe: Why replace an ugly flag with two more ugly objects at the cost of functionality and maintainability? Pin
egladysh18-Oct-11 7:40
egladysh18-Oct-11 7:40 
GeneralRe: Why replace an ugly flag with two more ugly objects at the cost of functionality and maintainability? Pin
Stefan_Lang18-Oct-11 23:26
Stefan_Lang18-Oct-11 23:26 
GeneralRe: Why replace an ugly flag with two more ugly objects at the cost of functionality and maintainability? Pin
xelous219-Oct-11 0:12
xelous219-Oct-11 0:12 
GeneralRe: Why replace an ugly flag with two more ugly objects at the cost of functionality and maintainability? Pin
egladysh19-Oct-11 7:54
egladysh19-Oct-11 7:54 
GeneralRe: Why replace an ugly flag with two more ugly objects at the cost of functionality and maintainability? Pin
Stefan_Lang19-Oct-11 22:49
Stefan_Lang19-Oct-11 22:49 
egladysh wrote:
The wires are not state transitions. The wires don't perform any useful actions


Of course not, and I didn't say that - if you really contributed to boost::statechart you should know what transitions are. They don't perform actions, they merely describe what a state changes to when a particular event happens!

And, no matter what you say, your model is a state machine! The way you chose your naming just obfuscates that fact:

start_ is an object that is somehow related to one state, that for now I will randomly call the stopped state.

stop_ is related to some other state that I will call running.

do_play is the start event.

do_stop is the stop event.

Your call start_.wire_on(stop_); creates a transition from the stopped state to the running state.

Your call stop_.wire_on(start_); creates a transition from the running state to the stopped state.

When you call
C++
start_( boost::bind(&car::do_play, get_this()) )

you bind the start action to a transition - in this case the transition from the stopped state (which is implied by the object state_ to the running state (which is implied by the wiring).

Same for the other boost::bind call.

Now, here, your reduced version of the state machine is inconsistent. What you imply here is that the start_ object is distinctly related to both the stopped state and the transition leading from it that is triggered by the start action! This makes the role of your knob/gate class ambiguous. You'd be better served by separating the state concept from the action concept into two distinct classes.
GeneralRe: Why replace an ugly flag with two more ugly objects at the cost of functionality and maintainability? Pin
egladysh20-Oct-11 6:50
egladysh20-Oct-11 6:50 
GeneralRe: Why replace an ugly flag with two more ugly objects at the cost of functionality and maintainability? Pin
Stefan_Lang21-Oct-11 0:40
Stefan_Lang21-Oct-11 0:40 
GeneralRe: Why replace an ugly flag with two more ugly objects at the cost of functionality and maintainability? Pin
egladysh21-Oct-11 6:38
egladysh21-Oct-11 6:38 
GeneralRe: Why replace an ugly flag with two more ugly objects at the cost of functionality and maintainability? Pin
Stefan_Lang25-Oct-11 4:59
Stefan_Lang25-Oct-11 4:59 
GeneralRe: Why replace an ugly flag with two more ugly objects at the cost of functionality and maintainability? Pin
egladysh25-Oct-11 5:41
egladysh25-Oct-11 5:41 
GeneralRe: Why replace an ugly flag with two more ugly objects at the cost of functionality and maintainability? Pin
Stefan_Lang25-Oct-11 5:58
Stefan_Lang25-Oct-11 5:58 
GeneralRe: Why replace an ugly flag with two more ugly objects at the cost of functionality and maintainability? Pin
egladysh25-Oct-11 7:01
egladysh25-Oct-11 7:01 
GeneralFeedback Mechanism Absent Pin
xelous218-Oct-11 3:26
xelous218-Oct-11 3:26 
GeneralRe: Feedback Mechanism Absent Pin
egladysh18-Oct-11 7:50
egladysh18-Oct-11 7:50 

General General    News News    Suggestion Suggestion    Question Question    Bug Bug    Answer Answer    Joke Joke    Praise Praise    Rant Rant    Admin Admin   

Use Ctrl+Left/Right to switch messages, Ctrl+Up/Down to switch threads, Ctrl+Shift+Left/Right to switch pages.