当对象表示硬件组件时,我应该使用指向对象还是对象的指针?
Should I use a pointer to an object or an object when the object represents an hardware component?
我有一个名为 Camera 的 class,它在构造函数中使用 v4l2_open 等打开相机。析构函数进行一些清理并使用 v4l2_close.
关闭文件描述符
当相机崩溃时,我做的是删除对象,然后创建一个新对象:
Camera *camera = new Camera();
(...)
if (crash) {
delete camera;
camera = new Camera();
}
这是 C++ 中 new/delete 的正确用法之一吗?
不,这里不保证使用 new
和 delete
。如果您的相机“变坏”并且您希望处理掉它以换一台新相机,只需分配一个新相机即可。
const std::string device {"/dev/cameras/front"}; // whatever
Camera camera {device};
// do something...
if (camera.bad())
camera = Camera {device}; // replace by a new one
您可能需要 Camera
class 的 overload the assignment operator 才能正常工作。由于 Camera
class 是资源拥有的,它不应该是可复制的,而是可移动的。我不知道你是如何与硬件对话的,所以我对下面的例子做了一些改进,但它应该能让你正确地了解如何实现你的类型。
extern "C"
{
// I have made these up...
int camera_open(const char *);
int camera_close(int);
}
class Camera
{
private:
// Initially set to arbitrary nonsensical values.
std::string device_ {};
int fd_ {-1};
public:
Camera() noexcept
{
}
Camera(const std::string& device) : device_ {device}
{
this->open();
}
~Camera() noexcept
{
try
{
this->close();
}
catch (const std::exception& e)
{
// Cannot throw from a destructor...
std::cerr << e.what() << std::endl;
}
}
Camera(const Camera&) = delete; // not copy-constructible
Camera(Camera&& other) : Camera {}
{
swap(*this, other);
}
Camera& operator=(const Camera&) = delete; // not copy-assignable
Camera&
operator=(Camera&& other) noexcept
{
Camera tmp {};
swap(*this, tmp);
swap(*this, other);
return *this;
}
friend void
swap(Camera& first, Camera& second) noexcept
{
using std::swap;
swap(first.device_, second.device_);
swap(first.fd_, second.fd_);
}
void
reopen()
{
this->close();
this->open();
}
void
open(const std::string& device = "")
{
if (this->fd_ >= 0)
throw std::runtime_error {"camera already open"};
if (!device.empty())
this->device_ = device;
if (this->device_.empty())
throw std::runtime_error {"no associated device"};
this->fd_ = camera_open(this->device_.c_str());
if (this->fd_ < 0)
throw std::runtime_error {"cannot open camera"};
}
void
close()
{
if (this->fd_ >= 0)
{
if (camera_close(this->fd_) != 0)
throw std::runtime_error {"cannot close camera"};
this->fd_ = -1;
}
}
};
但是您首先确定这真的是一个好的设计决策吗?也许相机可以在必要时“重新加载”自己,而不用用这个实现细节来打扰用户?
我有一个名为 Camera 的 class,它在构造函数中使用 v4l2_open 等打开相机。析构函数进行一些清理并使用 v4l2_close.
关闭文件描述符当相机崩溃时,我做的是删除对象,然后创建一个新对象:
Camera *camera = new Camera();
(...)
if (crash) {
delete camera;
camera = new Camera();
}
这是 C++ 中 new/delete 的正确用法之一吗?
不,这里不保证使用 new
和 delete
。如果您的相机“变坏”并且您希望处理掉它以换一台新相机,只需分配一个新相机即可。
const std::string device {"/dev/cameras/front"}; // whatever
Camera camera {device};
// do something...
if (camera.bad())
camera = Camera {device}; // replace by a new one
您可能需要 Camera
class 的 overload the assignment operator 才能正常工作。由于 Camera
class 是资源拥有的,它不应该是可复制的,而是可移动的。我不知道你是如何与硬件对话的,所以我对下面的例子做了一些改进,但它应该能让你正确地了解如何实现你的类型。
extern "C"
{
// I have made these up...
int camera_open(const char *);
int camera_close(int);
}
class Camera
{
private:
// Initially set to arbitrary nonsensical values.
std::string device_ {};
int fd_ {-1};
public:
Camera() noexcept
{
}
Camera(const std::string& device) : device_ {device}
{
this->open();
}
~Camera() noexcept
{
try
{
this->close();
}
catch (const std::exception& e)
{
// Cannot throw from a destructor...
std::cerr << e.what() << std::endl;
}
}
Camera(const Camera&) = delete; // not copy-constructible
Camera(Camera&& other) : Camera {}
{
swap(*this, other);
}
Camera& operator=(const Camera&) = delete; // not copy-assignable
Camera&
operator=(Camera&& other) noexcept
{
Camera tmp {};
swap(*this, tmp);
swap(*this, other);
return *this;
}
friend void
swap(Camera& first, Camera& second) noexcept
{
using std::swap;
swap(first.device_, second.device_);
swap(first.fd_, second.fd_);
}
void
reopen()
{
this->close();
this->open();
}
void
open(const std::string& device = "")
{
if (this->fd_ >= 0)
throw std::runtime_error {"camera already open"};
if (!device.empty())
this->device_ = device;
if (this->device_.empty())
throw std::runtime_error {"no associated device"};
this->fd_ = camera_open(this->device_.c_str());
if (this->fd_ < 0)
throw std::runtime_error {"cannot open camera"};
}
void
close()
{
if (this->fd_ >= 0)
{
if (camera_close(this->fd_) != 0)
throw std::runtime_error {"cannot close camera"};
this->fd_ = -1;
}
}
};
但是您首先确定这真的是一个好的设计决策吗?也许相机可以在必要时“重新加载”自己,而不用用这个实现细节来打扰用户?