13.33
因为我们需要改变Folder本身,所以必须是Folder&
13.34
@pezy
#include <string>
#include <set>
class Folder;
class Message {
friend void swap(Message &, Message &);
friend class Folder;
public:
explicit Message(const std::string &str = ""):contents(str) { }
Message(const Message&);
Message& operator=(const Message&);
~Message();
void save(Folder&);
void remove(Folder&);
void print_debug();
private:
std::string contents;
std::set<Folder*> folders;
void add_to_Folders(const Message&);
void remove_from_Folders();
void addFldr(Folder *f) { folders.insert(f); }
void remFldr(Folder *f) { folders.erase(f); }
};
void swap(Message&, Message&);
class Folder {
friend void swap(Folder &, Folder &);
friend class Message;
public:
Folder() = default;
Folder(const Folder &);
Folder& operator=(const Folder &);
~Folder();
void print_debug();
private:
std::set<Message*> msgs;
void add_to_Message(const Folder&);
void remove_from_Message();
void addMsg(Message *m) { msgs.insert(m); }
void remMsg(Message *m) { msgs.erase(m); }
};
void swap(Folder &, Folder &);
#include <iostream>
void swap(Message &lhs, Message &rhs)
{
using std::swap;
lhs.remove_from_Folders(); // Use existing member function to avoid duplicate code.
rhs.remove_from_Folders(); // Use existing member function to avoid duplicate code.
swap(lhs.folders, rhs.folders);
swap(lhs.contents, rhs.contents);
lhs.add_to_Folders(lhs); // Use existing member function to avoid duplicate code.
rhs.add_to_Folders(rhs); // Use existing member function to avoid duplicate code.
}
// Message Implementation
void Message::save(Folder &f)
{
addFldr(&f); // Use existing member function to avoid duplicate code.
f.addMsg(this);
}
void Message::remove(Folder &f)
{
remFldr(&f); // Use existing member function to avoid duplicate code.
f.remMsg(this);
}
void Message::add_to_Folders(const Message &m)
{
for (auto f : m.folders)
f->addMsg(this);
}
Message::Message(const Message &m)
: contents(m.contents), folders(m.folders)
{
add_to_Folders(m);
}
void Message::remove_from_Folders()
{
for (auto f : folders)
f->remMsg(this);
// The book added one line here: folders.clear(); but I think it is redundant and more importantly, it will cause a bug:
// - In Message::operator=, in the case of self-assignment, it first calls remove_from_Folders() and its folders.clear()
// clears the data member of lhs(rhs), and there is no way we can assign it back to lhs.
// Refer to: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/29308115/protection-again-self-assignment
// - Why is it redundant? As its analogous function Message::add_to_Folders(), Message::remove_from_Folders() should ONLY
// take care of the bookkeeping in Folders but not touch the Message's own data members - makes it much clearer and easier
// to use. As you can see in the 2 places where we call Message::remove_from_Folders(): in Message::operator=, folders.clear()
// introduces a bug as illustrated above; in the destructor ~Message(), the member "folders" will be destroyed anyways, why do
// we need to clear it first?
}
Message::~Message()
{
remove_from_Folders();
}
Message &Message::operator=(const Message &rhs)
{
remove_from_Folders();
contents = rhs.contents;
folders = rhs.folders;
add_to_Folders(rhs);
return *this;
}
void Message::print_debug()
{
std::cout << contents << std::endl;
}
// Folder Implementation
void swap(Folder &lhs, Folder &rhs)
{
using std::swap;
lhs.remove_from_Message();
rhs.remove_from_Message();
swap(lhs.msgs, rhs.msgs);
lhs.add_to_Message(lhs);
rhs.add_to_Message(rhs);
}
void Folder::add_to_Message(const Folder &f)
{
for (auto m : f.msgs)
m->addFldr(this);
}
Folder::Folder(const Folder &f)
: msgs(f.msgs)
{
add_to_Message(f);
}
void Folder::remove_from_Message()
{
for (auto m : msgs)
m->remFldr(this);
}
Folder::~Folder()
{
remove_from_Message();
}
Folder &Folder::operator=(const Folder &rhs)
{
remove_from_Message();
msgs = rhs.msgs;
add_to_Message(rhs);
return *this;
}
void Folder::print_debug()
{
for (auto m : msgs)
std::cout << m->contents << " ";
std::cout << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
return 0;
}
13.35
新的Message可能不会正确的匹配带到Folder中
13.36
@pezy
#include <string>
#include <set>
class Folder;
class Message {
friend void swap(Message &, Message &);
friend class Folder;
public:
explicit Message(const std::string &str = ""):contents(str) { }
Message(const Message&);
Message& operator=(const Message&);
~Message();
void save(Folder&);
void remove(Folder&);
void print_debug();
private:
std::string contents;
std::set<Folder*> folders;
void add_to_Folders(const Message&);
void remove_from_Folders();
void addFldr(Folder *f) { folders.insert(f); }
void remFldr(Folder *f) { folders.erase(f); }
};
void swap(Message&, Message&);
class Folder {
friend void swap(Folder &, Folder &);
friend class Message;
public:
Folder() = default;
Folder(const Folder &);
Folder& operator=(const Folder &);
~Folder();
void print_debug();
private:
std::set<Message*> msgs;
void add_to_Message(const Folder&);
void remove_from_Message();
void addMsg(Message *m) { msgs.insert(m); }
void remMsg(Message *m) { msgs.erase(m); }
};
void swap(Folder &, Folder &);
#include <iostream>
void swap(Message &lhs, Message &rhs)
{
using std::swap;
lhs.remove_from_Folders(); // Use existing member function to avoid duplicate code.
rhs.remove_from_Folders(); // Use existing member function to avoid duplicate code.
swap(lhs.folders, rhs.folders);
swap(lhs.contents, rhs.contents);
lhs.add_to_Folders(lhs); // Use existing member function to avoid duplicate code.
rhs.add_to_Folders(rhs); // Use existing member function to avoid duplicate code.
}
// Message Implementation
void Message::save(Folder &f)
{
addFldr(&f); // Use existing member function to avoid duplicate code.
f.addMsg(this);
}
void Message::remove(Folder &f)
{
remFldr(&f); // Use existing member function to avoid duplicate code.
f.remMsg(this);
}
void Message::add_to_Folders(const Message &m)
{
for (auto f : m.folders)
f->addMsg(this);
}
Message::Message(const Message &m)
: contents(m.contents), folders(m.folders)
{
add_to_Folders(m);
}
void Message::remove_from_Folders()
{
for (auto f : folders)
f->remMsg(this);
// The book added one line here: folders.clear(); but I think it is redundant and more importantly, it will cause a bug:
// - In Message::operator=, in the case of self-assignment, it first calls remove_from_Folders() and its folders.clear()
// clears the data member of lhs(rhs), and there is no way we can assign it back to lhs.
// Refer to: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/29308115/protection-again-self-assignment
// - Why is it redundant? As its analogous function Message::add_to_Folders(), Message::remove_from_Folders() should ONLY
// take care of the bookkeeping in Folders but not touch the Message's own data members - makes it much clearer and easier
// to use. As you can see in the 2 places where we call Message::remove_from_Folders(): in Message::operator=, folders.clear()
// introduces a bug as illustrated above; in the destructor ~Message(), the member "folders" will be destroyed anyways, why do
// we need to clear it first?
}
Message::~Message()
{
remove_from_Folders();
}
Message &Message::operator=(const Message &rhs)
{
remove_from_Folders();
contents = rhs.contents;
folders = rhs.folders;
add_to_Folders(rhs);
return *this;
}
void Message::print_debug()
{
std::cout << contents << std::endl;
}
// Folder Implementation
void swap(Folder &lhs, Folder &rhs)
{
using std::swap;
lhs.remove_from_Message();
rhs.remove_from_Message();
swap(lhs.msgs, rhs.msgs);
lhs.add_to_Message(lhs);
rhs.add_to_Message(rhs);
}
void Folder::add_to_Message(const Folder &f)
{
for (auto m : f.msgs)
m->addFldr(this);
}
Folder::Folder(const Folder &f)
: msgs(f.msgs)
{
add_to_Message(f);
}
void Folder::remove_from_Message()
{
for (auto m : msgs)
m->remFldr(this);
}
Folder::~Folder()
{
remove_from_Message();
}
Folder &Folder::operator=(const Folder &rhs)
{
remove_from_Message();
msgs = rhs.msgs;
add_to_Message(rhs);
return *this;
}
void Folder::print_debug()
{
for (auto m : msgs)
std::cout << m->contents << " ";
std::cout << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
return 0;
}
13.37
@pezy
#include <string>
#include <set>
class Folder;
class Message {
friend void swap(Message &, Message &);
friend class Folder;
public:
explicit Message(const std::string &str = ""):contents(str) { }
Message(const Message&);
Message& operator=(const Message&);
~Message();
void save(Folder&);
void remove(Folder&);
void print_debug();
private:
std::string contents;
std::set<Folder*> folders;
void add_to_Folders(const Message&);
void remove_from_Folders();
void addFldr(Folder *f) { folders.insert(f); }
void remFldr(Folder *f) { folders.erase(f); }
};
void swap(Message&, Message&);
class Folder {
friend void swap(Folder &, Folder &);
friend class Message;
public:
Folder() = default;
Folder(const Folder &);
Folder& operator=(const Folder &);
~Folder();
void print_debug();
private:
std::set<Message*> msgs;
void add_to_Message(const Folder&);
void remove_from_Message();
void addMsg(Message *m) { msgs.insert(m); }
void remMsg(Message *m) { msgs.erase(m); }
};
void swap(Folder &, Folder &);
#include <iostream>
void swap(Message &lhs, Message &rhs)
{
using std::swap;
lhs.remove_from_Folders(); // Use existing member function to avoid duplicate code.
rhs.remove_from_Folders(); // Use existing member function to avoid duplicate code.
swap(lhs.folders, rhs.folders);
swap(lhs.contents, rhs.contents);
lhs.add_to_Folders(lhs); // Use existing member function to avoid duplicate code.
rhs.add_to_Folders(rhs); // Use existing member function to avoid duplicate code.
}
// Message Implementation
void Message::save(Folder &f)
{
addFldr(&f); // Use existing member function to avoid duplicate code.
f.addMsg(this);
}
void Message::remove(Folder &f)
{
remFldr(&f); // Use existing member function to avoid duplicate code.
f.remMsg(this);
}
void Message::add_to_Folders(const Message &m)
{
for (auto f : m.folders)
f->addMsg(this);
}
Message::Message(const Message &m)
: contents(m.contents), folders(m.folders)
{
add_to_Folders(m);
}
void Message::remove_from_Folders()
{
for (auto f : folders)
f->remMsg(this);
// The book added one line here: folders.clear(); but I think it is redundant and more importantly, it will cause a bug:
// - In Message::operator=, in the case of self-assignment, it first calls remove_from_Folders() and its folders.clear()
// clears the data member of lhs(rhs), and there is no way we can assign it back to lhs.
// Refer to: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/29308115/protection-again-self-assignment
// - Why is it redundant? As its analogous function Message::add_to_Folders(), Message::remove_from_Folders() should ONLY
// take care of the bookkeeping in Folders but not touch the Message's own data members - makes it much clearer and easier
// to use. As you can see in the 2 places where we call Message::remove_from_Folders(): in Message::operator=, folders.clear()
// introduces a bug as illustrated above; in the destructor ~Message(), the member "folders" will be destroyed anyways, why do
// we need to clear it first?
}
Message::~Message()
{
remove_from_Folders();
}
Message &Message::operator=(const Message &rhs)
{
remove_from_Folders();
contents = rhs.contents;
folders = rhs.folders;
add_to_Folders(rhs);
return *this;
}
void Message::print_debug()
{
std::cout << contents << std::endl;
}
// Folder Implementation
void swap(Folder &lhs, Folder &rhs)
{
using std::swap;
lhs.remove_from_Message();
rhs.remove_from_Message();
swap(lhs.msgs, rhs.msgs);
lhs.add_to_Message(lhs);
rhs.add_to_Message(rhs);
}
void Folder::add_to_Message(const Folder &f)
{
for (auto m : f.msgs)
m->addFldr(this);
}
Folder::Folder(const Folder &f)
: msgs(f.msgs)
{
add_to_Message(f);
}
void Folder::remove_from_Message()
{
for (auto m : msgs)
m->remFldr(this);
}
Folder::~Folder()
{
remove_from_Message();
}
Folder &Folder::operator=(const Folder &rhs)
{
remove_from_Message();
msgs = rhs.msgs;
add_to_Message(rhs);
return *this;
}
void Folder::print_debug()
{
for (auto m : msgs)
std::cout << m->contents << " ";
std::cout << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
return 0;
}
13.38
@Mooophy The copy and swap is an elegant way when working with dynamicly allocated memory. In the Message class , nothing is allocated dynamically. Thus using this idiom makes no sense and will make it more complicated to implement due to the pointers that point back.