views:

4604

answers:

9
A: 

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.

Pukku
I believe its called a constructor.
Unknown
No, I meant the thing that you can do:update(bar.init_id(42).init_route(5).init_backup_route(66));
Pukku
It seems to be called "chained Smalltalk-style initialization", at least here: http://www.cct.lsu.edu/~rguidry/ecl31docs/api/org/eclipse/ui/internal/components/framework/FactoryMap.html
Pukku
+4  A: 

<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.

Matt J
A: 

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.

gnud
yes, the call has to go over a network
Arthur Ulfeldt
-1 is the 'do not update' value. I called that 'dont care'
Arthur Ulfeldt
A network is a good reason =) But if -1 is the 'dont care' value, then just restucture the empty_foo() function, and use that approach?
gnud
+1  A: 

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.

John Millikin
+3  A: 

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);
jpalecek
Does FOO_INIT work? The compiler should complain, I think, if you initialize the same member twice.
Jonathan Leffler
I've tried it with gcc and it didn't complain. Also, I haven't found anything against it in the standard, in fact, there's one example where the overwriting is specifically mentioned.
jpalecek
A: 

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
Steven Fisher
+1  A: 

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 ;-)

digijock
+14  A: 

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 mentally overhead of understanding the indirection and it is very clear what fields in bar you explicit set while (safely) ignoring those you do not set.

hlovdal
Another bonus of this approach is that it does not rely on an C99 features to work.
D.Shawley
When I changed to this 500 lines "fell out" of the project. Wish I could up-vote twice on this one!
Arthur Ulfeldt
+2  A: 

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.

quinmars
some cases will change 3 of them in the same call.
Arthur Ulfeldt
You can have this sequence: set_current_rout(id, route); set_route(id, route); apply_change(id); or similar. What I think is that you can have one function call for every setter. And do the real calculation (or what ever) at a later point.
quinmars