Passing along function parameters

Hey!

Just a note to start, this is cross-posted from gamedev.

I've started theorizing a timer class. I will be using SDL's timer functionality, and basically what I would love to do is have my program start having SDL tick away once I initialize the class, and then let the user start a new timer (not an SDL timer), and end it, allowing me to just compare how many ticks there were from SDL_GetTicks() at the beginning and the end of the user timer.

Here's what I have:

Code:

---

#ifndef SGE_TIMER_CLASS
#define SGE_TIMER_CLASS

struct timer
{
        Uint32                startTime;
        Uint32                endTime;
}

class timer
{
        public:
                timer();
                ~timer();
               
                void start(string tstartName);
                int end(string tendName);
        private:
};

timer::timer()
{
        SDL_GetTicks();
}

timer::~timer()
{
       
}

void timer::start(string tstartName)
{
        // This is where we run into problems
        // were actually creating a new timer with the name 'newtName'
        // not newtName's variable set above
        if(tstartName == NULL)
        {
                timer tstartName;
                tstartName.startTime = SDL_GetTicks();
        }
       
        else
        {
                // log error of timer's existance
        }
}

int timer::end(string tendName)
{
        // Again, we have naming problems here
        // pertaining to the variables used for the name
        if(tendName != NULL)
        {
                timer tendName;
                Uint32 startTicks = tendName.startTime;
                tend.endTime = SDL_GetTicks() - ticks;
        }
       
        else
        {
                // Again, log error of timer's existance
        }
}

#endif

---

Thing is, as you can see by my comments, I want to create a new type out of my structure with the name passed in the function, but it's set up to use the variables name!

What do I need to do to use the variable passed as the name for the new structure?

Thanks! Hopefully everybody can understand my stupidity :)

FlyingIsFun1217

PS: For those that aren't familiar with SDL, SDL_GetTicks() returns a 32 bit unsigned integer.

You can't create an object using a string as it's name. Instead you should create the Timer objects as needed:

Code:

---

Timer t;
t.start();
//...
cout << "Elapsed time: " << t.end();

---

Hmmm :/

Well, what my ultimate goal is, is to let the person using my API say, "hey, start a timer with this ID", and then come back later (possibly after starting many such timers), and say, "oh yeah, I want to stop the one timer I started, and see how much time has passed".

Guess what I'm shooting for is some way for the user to set the timer's ID. Can this be done in the way I described? I just remember that wxWidgets seemed to allow the user to say, "I want to create this listbox, with this ID.

FlyingIsFun1217

The usual approach for a class is for it to be an object that actually services itself, providing public access methods. Like a car, it's an object which you can use an manipulate but everything that goes on to make the car drives when you press the pedestal is handled internally.

So, you can create one timer object for each timer you want and give it a proper name. When the class constructs, the timer begins (alternatively you can also make it start the timer when you call a member function like start). And when the timer class destructs, it stops the timer (you can also make a member function that allows you to stop them).

If this doesn't sound feasible to you, then perhaps you shouldn't be using a class for your timer. Global functions are always possible.

You mean just using the class constructor and destructor to start and stop (respectively) the timer? I originally had this idea, but ran into the problem of whether or not I could have multiple SDL_GetTicks() timers going at once.

I'll check again about the different SDL timer methods and see if I can't start multiple timers.

Thanks!
FlyingIsFun1217

Try using a reference to the same sdl timer then, or do you actually need multiple sdl timers during runtime?

The way I see it you're using a timer you've created, so as long as you always compare that timer with a reference to the single sdl timer you shouldn't have any problems.

EDIT: Nevermind i dont think I understood the question I think :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingIsFun1217

You mean just using the class constructor and destructor to start and stop (respectively) the timer? I originally had this idea, but ran into the problem of whether or not I could have multiple SDL_GetTicks() timers going at once.

---

The idea I'm trying to give you is that each class should only hold one timer and if you need more timers, you should create more instances of the class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

you should create more instances of the class.

---

But doing that only makes other code very messy, if I'm understanding you right:

Code:

---

timer Instance1;
timer Instance2;
timer Instance3;
timer Instance4;

Instance1.returnTime();
Instance2.returnTime();
Instance3.returnTime();
Instance4.returnTime();

---

I think it would be pretty evil to make the user do this, when what I'm shooting for is something like:

Code:

---

timer tInstance;

tInstance.start("gameroundTimer");
tInstance.stop("gameroundTimer");

---

I basically, REALLY want to avoid creating ton's of class instances, which brings me back to a way to let the user store an ID for a timer so that only one instance is needed, and ID's can be easily tracked by the user.

Maybe I should look into the way that wxWidgets does it?

Thanks again!
FlyingIsFun1217

The thing you don't seem to realize is that a timer and a class that lets you create and manipulate multiple timers are two different things.

I don't see anything particularly evil in the "evil" example except you could give better names to the multiple timers (like Timer GameRoundTimer etc).

I just think it looks a whole lot cleaner to give one instance, and let the user create many timers with different ID's.

Before I give up on this method, there's not possible way to do this at all?

Thanks again!
FlyingIsFun1217

I think you may want something like this:

Code:

---


class TimerManager {   
    class Timer {
        Uint32                startTime;
        Uint32                endTime;
        Timer():startTime(0),endTime(0){}
        void start();
        int end();
    }
    map<string, Timer> m_timers;
    public:
        void start(string tName){
            //this will create a new timer if it doesn't exist.
            m_timers[tName].start();
        }
        int end(string tName){
            map<string, Timer>::iterator itr = m_timers[tstartName);
            if( itr == m_timers.end() )
                throw TimerDoesNotExistException();
            int result = itr->end();
            m_timer.erase(itr);
            return result;
        }
}

---

Quote:

---

I just think it looks a whole lot cleaner to give one instance, and let the user create many timers with different ID's.

---

What are all these timers used for and where? Does all the code and every function and class need to know about all the timers?

I can't see why you think the first approach is necessarily cleaner.

Code:

---

TimerManager timers;
timers.start("timer1");
timers.start("timer2");
timers.stop("timer2");
timers.stop("timer1");

//vs
Timer timer1;
Timer timer2;
timer2.stop();
timer1.stop();

---

Quote:

---

Before I give up on this method, there's not possible way to do this at all?

---

Of course there is. Firstly you probably shouldn't call a class that doesn't time but stores timers a timer. Then it might contain a std::map<std::string, Timer>.

Or just skip that entire class and just use a map to store timer objects.
Each timer object should work independently and expose methods to manipulate its state without the need of a helper class.

Thanks again for the help, I really do appreciate it.

The main reason that I want to keep the amount of class instances down is because this would be for a game, something which I want to keep nice and clean.

It looks like map could be useful, but... I've never encountered it before :(
Does anybody have a nice tut that explains the concept?

Thanks again!
FlyingIsFun1217

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingIsFun1217

Thanks again for the help, I really do appreciate it.

The main reason that I want to keep the amount of class instances down is because this would be for a game, something which I want to keep nice and clean.

---

That is not an excuse! You use as many instances as you need. IF implemented correctly, then it would take up the same amount of memory as a single instance of one class with multiple timers.

Quote:

---

It looks like map could be useful, but... I've never encountered it before :(
Does anybody have a nice tut that explains the concept?

Thanks again!
FlyingIsFun1217

---

It's called std::map. There may be a tutorial on the site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

That is not an excuse!

---

No, but it helps me keep track of what's going on easier.

I'll search for the map function. Strange I've never seen it if it's so common... :/

FlyingIsFun1217

----------EDIT----------
Ok, I found it. It's STL, which I haven't much worked with, explaining why I haven't seen it.

I am, probably to Elysia's disproval, going to go with the map function, as it seems to be exactly what I am looking for. I'll post results later.

FlyingIsFun1217

I don't disapprove std::map, I like it much more if you use std::map and store instances of classes which contains a single timer rather than a single instance of a class to store multiple timers. That almost defeats the purpose of a class.
Here's a tutorial of std::map:
http://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/stl/stlmap.html