C 结构中的默认值

我有一个这样的数据结构:

struct foo {
int id;
int route;
int backup_route;
int current_route;
}

以及一个名为 update ()的函数，用于请求对其进行更改。

update(42, dont_care, dont_care, new_route);

这真的很长，如果我添加一些东西到结构，我必须添加一个“不 _ care”到每个调用来更新(...)。

我正在考虑将它传递给一个 struct，但是事先用“ don _ care”填充 struct 比仅仅在函数调用中将其拼写出来更加乏味。我是否可以在某个地方创建带有默认值 do nt care 的 struct，并在将其声明为局部变量后只设置我关心的字段？ 

struct foo bar = { .id = 42, .current_route = new_route };
update(&bar);

将我希望表达的信息传递给 update 函数的最优雅的方式是什么？

并且我希望所有其他内容都默认为 -1(“ do nt care”的秘密代码)

159832 次浏览
小开

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.

小开

<stdarg.h> allows you to define variadic functions (which accept an indefinite number of arguments, like 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.

小开

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.

小开

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.

小开

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);
小开

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
小开

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 ;-)

小开
最佳答案

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.

小开

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.

小开

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;


提交答案