我有一个名为Camera的类,它在构造函数中打开带有v4l2_open等的摄像头。析构函数执行一些清理并使用v4l2_close关闭文件描述符。
当相机崩溃时,我所做的就是删除对象,然后创建一个新对象:
Camera *camera = new Camera();
(...)
if (crash) {
delete camera;
camera = new Camera();
}
这是C ++中new / delete的正确用法吗?
答案 0 :(得分:6)
不,此处不保证使用new
和delete
。如果您的相机“变坏”并且您希望将其丢弃以支持新相机,只需指定一个新相机即可。
const std::string device {"/dev/cameras/front"}; // whatever
Camera camera {device};
// do something...
if (camera.bad())
camera = Camera {device}; // replace by a new one
您可能希望Camera
课程overload the assignment operator为此工作。由于Camera
类是资源拥有的,因此它不应该是可复制的,而是可移动的。我不知道你是如何与硬件交谈的,所以我做了下面的例子,但它应该给你正确的想法如何实现你的类型。
extern "C"
{
// I have made these up...
int camera_open(const char *);
int camera_close(int);
}
class Camera
{
private:
// Initially set to arbitrary nonsensical values.
std::string device_ {};
int fd_ {-1};
public:
Camera() noexcept
{
}
Camera(const std::string& device) : device_ {device}
{
this->open();
}
~Camera() noexcept
{
try
{
this->close();
}
catch (const std::exception& e)
{
// Cannot throw from a destructor...
std::cerr << e.what() << std::endl;
}
}
Camera(const Camera&) = delete; // not copy-constructible
Camera(Camera&& other) : Camera {}
{
swap(*this, other);
}
Camera& operator=(const Camera&) = delete; // not copy-assignable
Camera&
operator=(Camera&& other) noexcept
{
Camera tmp {};
swap(*this, tmp);
swap(*this, other);
return *this;
}
friend void
swap(Camera& first, Camera& second) noexcept
{
using std::swap;
swap(first.device_, second.device_);
swap(first.fd_, second.fd_);
}
void
reopen()
{
this->close();
this->open();
}
void
open(const std::string& device = "")
{
if (this->fd_ >= 0)
throw std::runtime_error {"camera already open"};
if (!device.empty())
this->device_ = device;
if (this->device_.empty())
throw std::runtime_error {"no associated device"};
this->fd_ = camera_open(this->device_.c_str());
if (this->fd_ < 0)
throw std::runtime_error {"cannot open camera"};
}
void
close()
{
if (this->fd_ >= 0)
{
if (camera_close(this->fd_) != 0)
throw std::runtime_error {"cannot close camera"};
this->fd_ = -1;
}
}
};
但你确定这首先是一个好的设计决定吗?也许相机可以在必要时“重新加载”自己,并且根本没有使用这个实现细节来打扰用户?