Hacker News

The point of the throwaway account’s comment was to say that you should use C++ class member functions instead of C function pointers in structures, but that is impossible to do in the general case in a sane way, since there is no way to leave a member function unimplemented and then check its status at runtime.

You need to use hacks to shoehorn C++ class member functions into this. In particular, you need stub functions. Then either, call them and have them either return a special error code or throw an exception, or use a custom query function that is implemented by derived classes that lets you find out if a function is a stub or not to allow you to skip calling it. Another idea would be to use thread local storage with setjmp()/longjmp(), which is probably the sanest way of doing this insane idea:

https://godbolt.org/z/4GWdvsz6z

And the C way for comparison:

https://godbolt.org/z/qG3v5zcYc

The idea that the simplest way of approximating what you can do with function pointers in C structures via C++ class member functions is to use TLS and setjmp/longjmp shows what a bad idea it is to use class member functions instead of function pointers for optional functions in the first place.

pjmlp 4 days ago [ - ]

C++ was designed as "Typescript for C" for its time, because sometimes that is exactly the kind of code one needs to write, even if we discourage many of the classical patterns when better alternatives exist.

The same C example compiled in C++23 mode, https://godbolt.org/z/MWa7qqrK7

As for possible alternatives, here is a basic one without taking into consideration virtual mechanics, only to show the principles.

    #include <concepts>

    template <class T>
    concept has_mmap = requires (T obj)
    {
        { obj.mmap() } -> std::convertible_to<int>;

    };

    class VFS {
    public:
        VFS() = default;
        virtual ~VFS() = default;
    };

    class ExampleFS : public VFS {
        // mmap not available
    };

    class ExampleWithMMAP : public VFS {
    public:

        int mmap() {
            return 0;
        } 
    };

    int main() {
        ExampleFS fs;
        ExampleWithMMAP fsWithMMAP;

        /*
        <source>: In function 'int main()':
        <source>:33:19: error: 'class ExampleFS' has no member named 'mmap'
         40 |         return fs.mmap();
            |    
        */
        if constexpr (has_mmap<ExampleFS>) {
            return fs.mmap();
        }

        // ExampleWithMMAP has mmap(), just call it without issues
        if constexpr (has_mmap<ExampleWithMMAP>) {
            return fsWithMMAP.mmap();
        }

        // want to use the variable name instead of the type?
        if constexpr (has_mmap<decltype(fsWithMMAP)>) {
            return fsWithMMAP.mmap();
        }
    }

-- https://godbolt.org/z/cjcbrzT3z

Naturally it is possible to be a bit even more creative, and moreso with C++26 reflection.

ryao 3 days ago [ - ]

  The same C example compiled in C++23 mode, https://godbolt.org/z/MWa7qqrK7

Everyone knows this. The original comment was saying not to do this (even in C++) and use C++ classes instead. I was making the point that is a bad idea. You seem to have not understood that.