Wednesday, 31 August 2011

Boost: a retrospective (part 4) - the Curious

In part 2 and part 3 I talked about the best and the worst (in my opinion, naturally) of Boost. Here are some interesting things which don't fall into either of those categories.

Boost Units

Does it make you uneasy to use the same type - say float or double - to represent a whole bunch of things which are fundamentally different, like length, time, volume? Or related but measured differently, like millimeters, feet and miles? It has always made me vaguely uncomfortable, and of course it has led to some spectacular disasters (not mine!). But doing something about it would be a lot of work. Defining, say, a millimeter class would be easy, but handling all the legitimate operations involving more than one unit would just bury you.

Enter Boost Units, which has a completely generic understanding of all these things. All of the meta-arithmetic, like knowing that distance divided by time gives speed, is done at compile time using some very heavyweight template metaprogramming. But you don't need to know about that. You just declare d, t and v as furlongs, fortnights and furlongs_per_fortnight respectively, and dividing d by t gives you v. Simple. Define t2 as seconds and assign it to t2, and seconds will automagically be converted to fortnights (slightly more than a million to one - so one microfortnight is conveniently close to a second, a fact used in one obscure corner of DEC's VMS operating system).

I put this in the "curious" category, rather than the "good", only because I've never had a chance to use it myself, being a systems kind of a person rather than say a mechanical engineer. But if I ever get round to rewriting my robotics code in C++, I will certainly use it.

Shared Pointer

Memory leaks are the bane of C programming, along with buffer overflow. They can be largely avoided in C++ by using auto_ptr to represent ownership of a structure. But this breaks down if there is not a single owner, for example if an object needs to be passed on to another function and then forgotten. It's just about guaranteed that a program that works this way will have leaks, even if they only occur in obscure error conditions.

Reference counts are a partial solution, but they just replace one problem with another since now everyone has to be disciplined about adjusting them. And of course they-re intrusive - the object has to have a reference count, and know to delete itself when the count drops to zero.

boost::shared_ptr tries to provide a solution to this, by keeping a behind-the-scenes reference count object. On the face of it, it looks perfect. If you are dealing with all-new code, and you keep solid discipline about never using a regular C-style pointer to the objects, maybe it even is perfect. I've used it for managing buffer pools.

I put this in the "curious" category because of what happens if you have to deal with a less structured environment. You can extract the raw pointer easily enough, to pass to a function that expects it. As long as that function never expects to take ownership, that's fine. Above all it must never delete the object, obviously. But there's a more subtle problem. If you have code which uses a mixture of raw pointers and shared_ptr's, there's a risk of creating a second shared_ptr from a raw pointer. And that is catastrophic, because now there are two reference counts, and whichever one goes to zero first will delete the object, leaving the other with a dangling reference and, microseconds or days later, a mysterious segfault. Guess how I know.

Proponents of the class would obviously argue that this is something you should simply never do, that you should have the discipline to avoid. But if you had perfect discipline, you wouldn't need the class in the first place - you could just remember at all times who controls the object, and be sure they delete it if they need to. So really all it has done is replace one way to shoot yourself in the foot with another.

Really the only solution to this is to keep the reference count in the object. Boost provides a class called intrusive_ptr which supports this, but I find the approach kind of backwards. I preferred to write my own base class for the referenced object. More on that in another post.


The "sentry" is a programming paradigm for making sure that you undo everything you do, extending the "resource acquisition is initialisation" paradigm. The "do" part is done in the constructor of a sentry object, the "undo" part in its destructor. This ensures that the "undo" will always happen, even in the face of exceptions, return or break statements and so on. The classic example is locking, and indeed boost::thread provides a mutex::scoped_lock class which does exactly this.

But there are many other use cases, and the details of the do/undo operation vary quite a bit. For example, it's common in C to have a function that sets an attribute value, returning the previous value. The undo operation is to call the same function, with the saved value.

It's easy to write a sentry class for some particular case, like the mutex lock. It's not hard to write a generic sentry for a particular kind of do/undo - and indeed I have written a bunch of these.

But it seems to me that what would be ideal would be a generic sentry template class, that would figure out from the template arguments what kind of do/undo it is dealing with. This is beyond my own template metaprogramming skills, or at least beyond the learning investment I'm willing to make. But it does seem odd that it isn't part of Boost.


There are often times where it would be convenient  to have a small, anonymous function - for example, the ordering function passed to a sort operator. Java and Python both provide ways to do this, which in computer science is called a "lambda function". The new version of the language, C++0x, also supports this.

But until that's available, C++ requires you to explicitly define a function, generally nowhere near the place where it's used. This just makes code harder to read and maintain.

boost::lambda is an ingenious attempt at solving the problem, pushing template metaprogramming to its utmost limits. The basic idea is to define a placeholder for a parameter. Then, simply using the placeholder implicitly declares a lambda function. Conventionally, the placeholders are "_1", "_2", etc. Simply writing "_1*2" generates a function that returns twice its argument - regardless of the type of the argument you supply later, as long as it supports multiplication of course. For trivial functions like this, Lambda works very nicely. (Although boost::bind also uses this syntax, and inexplicably, the two trip over each other. There's a workaround, by #defining an alternative syntax for lambda. But it's odd that Boost let this slip by).

Unfortunately, C++ doesn't provide a clean syntactic way to do a lot of things that ought to be very natural, like calling overloaded functions. So, although the authors have put a huge effort into trying to make language features work, in the end Lambda is more of a curiosity than a general purpose facility. I've used it to construct arbitrary combinations of filter functions based on user-supplied criteria, for which it did the job nicely and much more simply than any alternative I could think of. But you need to find the right application.

No comments: