How to do unordered containers of inherited objects in C++ - c++

The problem in question is related to the question and discussion found in this SO thread.
The problem is essentially as follows, I have an abstract class called players. Then I have two classes attackers and defenders. Now, I would like to have an unordered container (map, set, etc.) containing all players. For that I need a hash function (which is not the issue as both attackers and defenders have names) and an equality function. The latter is the problem. As discussed in the linked SO thread, it seems to be bad practice to inherit operator== and I can see why.
I now wonder what the idiomatic solution to my problem is. Is it to just have two containers? One for players and one for attackers? Are there other solutions?
Edit:
Yes, I am talking about unordered_* containers. I am aware that I would need to store pointers in the containers rather than objects themselves. For example, I'd have a container std::unordered_set<std::shared_ptr<players>> all_players.

When you instantiate your map, you can specify a comparator:
template< class InputIt >
map( InputIt first, InputIt last,
const Compare& comp = Compare(), /// << this here
const Allocator& alloc = Allocator() );
Reference: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/map/map
Then, you don't need to define the equality operator. In any case, in order to store polymorphic objects in a map, you'll need to store pointers.
So, you would need a comparator anyway, in order to compare the objects, not the pointer values.

In order to store multiple different types in the same container, you have to take advantage of polymorphism.
Polymorphism requires you to use pointers to objects instead of actual objects. That's because C/C++ doesn't allow you to make arrays of multiple different types. The best way to do that in modern C++ is to use std::unique_ptr or std::shared_ptr from #include <memory>
To make a polymorphic container you'll need the following:
A common base struct/class that all of your types inherit from.
Some way to interface with subtype-specific methods/members.
This can be a virtual method in the base object, a member of the base object, or you can also use typeid to figure out what type something is at runtime.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <memory>
#include <typeinfo>
struct base {
virtual ~base() = default;
virtual int GetValue() const = 0;
};
struct A : base {
int a;
A(const int v) : a{ v } {}
int GetValue() const override { return a; }
void doSomething() const { std::cout << "Hello World!"; }
};
struct B : base {
int b;
int mult;
B(const int v, const int mult) : b{ v }, mult{ mult } {}
int GetValue() const override { return b * mult; }
void doSomethingElse() const { std::cout << "!dlroW olleH"; }
};
int main()
{
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<base>> vec;
vec.emplace_back(std::make_unique<A>(5)); //< insert an object of type A
vec.emplace_back(std::make_unique<B>(8, 2)); //< insert an object of type B
for (const auto& it : vec) {
std::cout << it->GetValue() << '\t';
if (typeid(*it.get()) == typeid(A)) {
((A*)it.get())->doSomething();
}
else if (typeid(*it.get()) == typeid(B)) {
((B*)it.get())->doSomethingElse();
}
std::cout << std::endl;
}
}
Outputs:
5 Hello World!
16 !dlroW olleH

You need a hash function-object that looks through your pointers. The base class can have non-virtual implementations, or equivalently you can have the hasher inspect the public members.
class players {
public:
size_t hash() const;
friend bool operator==(const player & lhs, const player & rhs);
};
using std::unique_ptr<players> players_ptr;
struct players_hash {
size_t operator()(const players_ptr & ptr) { return ptr->hash(); }
};
struct players_equal {
bool operator()(const players_ptr & lhs, const players_ptr & rhs) { return *lhs == *rhs; }
};
std::unordered_set<players_ptr, players_hash, players_equal> all_players;

Related

Turning vector of shared_ptr into vector of shared_ptr to const

Let
class A
{
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<int>> v_;
};
Now I'd like to add access to v_ using two public member functions
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<int>> const & v() { return v_; }
and
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<int const> const & v() const { TODO }
I cannot replace TODO with return v_; though.
One option would be to not return a reference but a copy. Apart from the obvious performance penalty, this would also make the interface somewhat less desirable.
Another option is to make TODO equal to return reinterpret_cast<std::vector<std::shared_ptr<int const>> const &>(v_);
My question is, is this undefined behavior? Or, alternatively, is there a better option, preferably without using reinterpret_cast?
A way to avoid copying the container is to provide transform iterators that transform the element on dereference:
#include <vector>
#include <memory>
#include <boost/iterator/transform_iterator.hpp>
class A
{
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<int> > v_;
struct Transform
{
template<class T>
std::shared_ptr<T const> operator()(std::shared_ptr<T> const& p) const {
return p;
}
};
public:
A() : v_{std::make_shared<int>(1), std::make_shared<int>(2)} {}
using Iterator = boost::transform_iterator<Transform, std::vector<std::shared_ptr<int> >::const_iterator>;
Iterator begin() const { return Iterator{v_.begin()}; }
Iterator end() const { return Iterator{v_.end()}; }
};
int main() {
A a;
// Range access.
for(auto const& x : a)
std::cout << *x << '\n';
// Indexed access.
auto iterator_to_second_element = a.begin() + 1;
std::cout << **iterator_to_second_element << '\n';
}
Putting aside the discussion of whether or not you should return a reference to a member...
std::vector already propagates its own const qualifier to the references, pointee's and iterators it returns. The only hurdle is making it propagate further to the pointee type of the std::shared_ptr. You can use a class like std::experimental::propagate_const (that will hopefully be standardized) to facilitate that. It will do as its name implies, for any pointer or pointer-like object it wraps.
class A
{
using ptr_type = std::experimental::propagate_const<std::shared_ptr<int>>;
std::vector<ptr_type> v_;
};
Thus TODO can become return v_;, and any access to the pointees (like in the range-based for you wish to support) will preserve const-ness.
Only caveat is that it's a moveable only type, so copying out an element of the vector will require a bit more work (for instance, by calling std::experimental::get_underlying) with the element type of the vector itself.

Virtually turn vector of struct into vector of struct members

I have a function that takes a vector-like input. To simplify things, let's use this print_in_order function:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
template <typename vectorlike>
void print_in_order(std::vector<int> const & order,
vectorlike const & printme) {
for (int i : order)
std::cout << printme[i] << std::endl;
}
int main() {
std::vector<int> printme = {100, 200, 300};
std::vector<int> order = {2,0,1};
print_in_order(order, printme);
}
Now I have a vector<Elem> and want to print a single integer member, Elem.a, for each Elem in the vector. I could do this by creating a new vector<int> (copying a for all Elems) and pass this to the print function - however, I feel like there must be a way to pass a "virtual" vector that, when operator[] is used on it, returns this only the member a. Note that I don't want to change the print_in_order function to access the member, it should remain general.
Is this possible, maybe with a lambda expression?
Full code below.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
struct Elem {
int a,b;
Elem(int a, int b) : a(a),b(b) {}
};
template <typename vectorlike>
void print_in_order(std::vector<int> const & order,
vectorlike const & printme) {
for (int i : order)
std::cout << printme[i] << std::endl;
}
int main() {
std::vector<Elem> printme = {Elem(1,100), Elem(2,200), Elem(3,300)};
std::vector<int> order = {2,0,1};
// how to do this?
virtual_vector X(printme) // behaves like a std::vector<Elem.a>
print_in_order(order, X);
}
It's not really possible to directly do what you want. Instead you might want to take a hint from the standard algorithm library, for example std::for_each where you take an extra argument that is a function-like object that you call for each element. Then you could easily pass a lambda function that prints only the wanted element.
Perhaps something like
template<typename vectorlike, typename functionlike>
void print_in_order(std::vector<int> const & order,
vectorlike const & printme,
functionlike func) {
for (int i : order)
func(printme[i]);
}
Then call it like
print_in_order(order, printme, [](Elem const& elem) {
std::cout << elem.a;
});
Since C++ have function overloading you can still keep the old print_in_order function for plain vectors.
Using member pointers you can implement a proxy type that will allow you view a container of objects by substituting each object by one of it's members (see pointer to data member) or by one of it's getters (see pointer to member function). The first solution addresses only data members, the second accounts for both.
The container will necessarily need to know which container to use and which member to map, which will be provided at construction. The type of a pointer to member depends on the type of that member so it will have to be considered as an additional template argument.
template<class Container, class MemberPtr>
class virtual_vector
{
public:
virtual_vector(const Container & p_container, MemberPtr p_member_ptr) :
m_container(&p_container),
m_member(p_member_ptr)
{}
private:
const Container * m_container;
MemberPtr m_member;
};
Next, implement the operator[] operator, since you mentioned that it's how you wanted to access your elements. The syntax for dereferencing a member pointer can be surprising at first.
template<class Container, class MemberPtr>
class virtual_vector
{
public:
virtual_vector(const Container & p_container, MemberPtr p_member_ptr) :
m_container(&p_container),
m_member(p_member_ptr)
{}
// Dispatch to the right get method
auto operator[](const size_t p_index) const
{
return (*m_container)[p_index].*m_member;
}
private:
const Container * m_container;
MemberPtr m_member;
};
To use this implementation, you would write something like this :
int main() {
std::vector<Elem> printme = { Elem(1,100), Elem(2,200), Elem(3,300) };
std::vector<int> order = { 2,0,1 };
virtual_vector<decltype(printme), decltype(&Elem::a)> X(printme, &Elem::a);
print_in_order(order, X);
}
This is a bit cumbersome since there is no template argument deduction happening. So lets add a free function to deduce the template arguments.
template<class Container, class MemberPtr>
virtual_vector<Container, MemberPtr>
make_virtual_vector(const Container & p_container, MemberPtr p_member_ptr)
{
return{ p_container, p_member_ptr };
}
The usage becomes :
int main() {
std::vector<Elem> printme = { Elem(1,100), Elem(2,200), Elem(3,300) };
std::vector<int> order = { 2,0,1 };
auto X = make_virtual_vector(printme, &Elem::a);
print_in_order(order, X);
}
If you want to support member functions, it's a little bit more complicated. First, the syntax to dereference a data member pointer is slightly different from calling a function member pointer. You have to implement two versions of the operator[] and enable the correct one based on the member pointer type. Luckily the standard provides std::enable_if and std::is_member_function_pointer (both in the <type_trait> header) which allow us to do just that. The member function pointer requires you to specify the arguments to pass to the function (non in this case) and an extra set of parentheses around the expression that would evaluate to the function to call (everything before the list of arguments).
template<class Container, class MemberPtr>
class virtual_vector
{
public:
virtual_vector(const Container & p_container, MemberPtr p_member_ptr) :
m_container(&p_container),
m_member(p_member_ptr)
{}
// For mapping to a method
template<class T = MemberPtr>
auto operator[](std::enable_if_t<std::is_member_function_pointer<T>::value == true, const size_t> p_index) const
{
return ((*m_container)[p_index].*m_member)();
}
// For mapping to a member
template<class T = MemberPtr>
auto operator[](std::enable_if_t<std::is_member_function_pointer<T>::value == false, const size_t> p_index) const
{
return (*m_container)[p_index].*m_member;
}
private:
const Container * m_container;
MemberPtr m_member;
};
To test this, I've added a getter to the Elem class, for illustrative purposes.
struct Elem {
int a, b;
int foo() const { return a; }
Elem(int a, int b) : a(a), b(b) {}
};
And here is how it would be used :
int main() {
std::vector<Elem> printme = { Elem(1,100), Elem(2,200), Elem(3,300) };
std::vector<int> order = { 2,0,1 };
{ // print member
auto X = make_virtual_vector(printme, &Elem::a);
print_in_order(order, X);
}
{ // print method
auto X = make_virtual_vector(printme, &Elem::foo);
print_in_order(order, X);
}
}
You've got a choice of two data structures
struct Employee
{
std::string name;
double salary;
long payrollid;
};
std::vector<Employee> employees;
Or alternatively
struct Employees
{
std::vector<std::string> names;
std::vector<double> salaries;
std::vector<long> payrollids;
};
C++ is designed with the first option as the default. Other languages such as Javascript tend to encourage the second option.
If you want to find mean salary, option 2 is more convenient. If you want to sort the employees by salary, option 1 is easier to work with.
However you can use lamdas to partially interconvert between the two. The lambda is a trivial little function which takes an Employee and returns a salary for him - so effectively providing a flat vector of doubles we can take the mean of - or takes an index and an Employees and returns an employee, doing a little bit of trivial data reformatting.
template<class F>
struct index_fake_t{
F f;
decltype(auto) operator[](std::size_t i)const{
return f(i);
}
};
template<class F>
index_fake_t<F> index_fake( F f ){
return{std::move(f)};
}
template<class F>
auto reindexer(F f){
return [f=std::move(f)](auto&& v)mutable{
return index_fake([f=std::move(f),&v](auto i)->decltype(auto){
return v[f(i)];
});
};
}
template<class F>
auto indexer_mapper(F f){
return [f=std::move(f)](auto&& v)mutable{
return index_fake([f=std::move(f),&v](auto i)->decltype(auto){
return f(v[i]);
});
};
}
Now, print in order can be rewritten as:
template <typename vectorlike>
void print(vectorlike const & printme) {
for (auto&& x:printme)
std::cout << x << std::endl;
}
template <typename vectorlike>
void print_in_order(std::vector<int> const& reorder, vectorlike const & printme) {
print(reindexer([&](auto i){return reorder[i];})(printme));
}
and printing .a as:
print_in_order( reorder, indexer_mapper([](auto&&x){return x.a;})(printme) );
there may be some typos.

Using Boost.Range in C++ interfaces

I have a polymorphic interface
struct Interface {
Interface(SomeType& other)
: range([=](){ return other.my_range(); }), /*...*/ {}
Interface(SomeOtherType& other)
: range([=](){ return other.some_range(); }), /*...*/ {}
const std::function<Range(void)> range;
/// ...
};
The elements in both ranges are of the same type (e.g. int), but the types returned by my_range() and by some_range() are different, e.g. one can be a filtered counting range and the other a transformed filtered counting range. For the interface I need a single Range type.
I've tried using boost::any_range but the performance is significantly worse. I would like to avoid having to copy the range elements into a vector and returning the vector instead.
Are there any alternatives to any_range and copying?
Kind of, but not really.
You want to access data sequentially when you don't know how it's stored. You have three options:
Copy the data into a container with known format (the "return vector" option).
Use compile-time polymorphism to choose the correct access method (the way std algorithms do it, not possible due to you using an interface).
Use runtime polymorphism to choose the correct access method.
So the second is not possible due to the constraint that you want to use an interface. The first and the third both come with overhead.
The obvious way of doing the third thing is any_range. But it's not the only way, depending on what you want to do. The problem with any_range is that in a simple for-each loop, there are three virtual calls for every element: the increment, the comparison, and the dereference.
As long as all you want to do is simple for-each iteration, you could reduce the overhead to one virtual call by implementing the loop on the interface level:
struct Interface {
Interface(SomeType& other)
: traverse([=](std::function<void(int)> body) {
for (int i : other.my_range()) body(i);
}) {}
const std::function<void (std::function<void(int)>)> traverse;
};
Of course that only works as long as the ways you use the range are very limited.
If there are only known 2 known types (or fixed number of types), then alternative could be Boost.Variant. Here is sample usage:
#include <boost/variant.hpp>
#include <functional>
struct SomeType
{
typedef int range_t;
range_t my_range() const { return 1; }
};
struct SomeOtherType
{
typedef double range_t;
range_t some_range() const { return 3.14; }
};
typedef std::function<SomeType::range_t (void)> SomeTypeRange;
typedef std::function<SomeOtherType::range_t (void)> SomeOtherTypeRange;
typedef boost::variant<SomeTypeRange, SomeOtherTypeRange> Range;
struct Interface
{
Interface(const SomeType& other)
: range( SomeTypeRange([=](){ return other.my_range(); }) ) {}
Interface(const SomeOtherType& other)
: range( SomeOtherTypeRange([=](){ return other.some_range(); }) ) {}
Range range;
};
struct print_me_visitor : public boost::static_visitor<void>
{
public:
void operator()( const SomeTypeRange& i_st ) const
{
std::cout << "SomeTypeRange: " << i_st() << std::endl;
}
void operator()( const SomeOtherTypeRange& i_sot ) const
{
std::cout << "SomeOtherTypeRange: " << i_sot() << std::endl;
}
};
int main()
{
SomeType st;
SomeOtherType sot;
Interface i1( st );
Interface i2( sot );
boost::apply_visitor( print_me_visitor(), i1.range );
boost::apply_visitor( print_me_visitor(), i2.range );
return 0;
}

passing a class method as opposed to a function in std::sort

Within a class, I am trying to sort a vector, by passing a method of the same class. But it gives errors at the time of compilation. Can anyone tell what the problem is? Thank you!
it gives the following error:
argument of type bool (Sorter::)(D&, D&)' does not matchbool (Sorter::*)(D&, D&)'
I have also tried using sortBynumber(D const& d1, D const& d2)
#include<vector>
#include<stdio.h>
#include<iostream>
#include<algorithm>
class D {
public:
int getNumber();
D(int val);
~D(){};
private:
int num;
};
D::D(int val){
num = val;
};
int D::getNumber(){
return num;
};
class Sorter {
public:
void doSorting();
bool sortByNumber(D& d1, D& d2);
std::vector<D> vec_D;
Sorter();
~Sorter(){};
private:
int num;
};
Sorter::Sorter(){
int i;
for ( i = 0; i < 10; i++){
vec_D.push_back(D(i));
}
};
bool Sorter::sortByNumber(D& d1, D& d2){
return d1.getNumber() < d2.getNumber();
};
void Sorter::doSorting(){
std::sort(vec_D.begin(), vec_D.end(), this->sortByNumber);
};
int main(){
Sorter s;
s.doSorting();
std::cout << "\nPress RETURN to continue...";
std::cin.get();
return 0;
}
Make Sorter::sortByNumber static. Since it doesn't reference any object members, you won't need to change anything else.
class Sorter {
public:
static bool sortByNumber(const D& d1, const D& d2);
...
};
// Note out-of-class definition does not repeat static
bool Sorter::sortByNumber(const D& d1, const D& d2)
{
...
}
You should also use const references as sortByNumber should not be modifying the objects.
Unless you have a really good reason to do otherwise, just define operator< for the type of items you're sorting, and be done with it:
class D {
int val;
public:
D(int init) : val(init) {}
bool operator<(D const &other) { return val < other.val; }
};
class sorter {
std::vector<D> vec_D;
public:
void doSorting() { std::sort(vec_d.begin(), vec_D.end()); }
};
The way you're writing your sorter class depends on knowing a lot about the internals of the D class, to the point that they're practically a single class (e.g., it looks like neither can do much of anything without the other).
At a guess, your sorter may be a somewhat stripped-down version of your real code. The SortByNumber makes it sound like the original code might support a number of different kinds of keys, something like:
class D {
std::string name;
int height;
int weight;
// ...
};
and you'd want to be able to sort D objects by name, height, or weight. In a case like that, the comparisons are really still related to the D class, so I'd probably put them into a common namespace:
namespace D {
class D {
std::string name;
int height;
int weight;
public:
friend class byWeight;
friend class byHeight;
friend class byName;
// ...
};
struct byWeight {
bool operator()(D const &a, D const &b) {
return a.weight < b.weight;
}
};
struct byHeight {
bool operator()(D const &a, D const &b) {
return a.height < b.height;
}
};
struct byName {
bool operator()(D const &a, D const &b) {
return a.name < b.name;
}
};
}
Then sorting would look something like:
std::vector<D::D> vec_D;
// sort by height:
std::sort(vec_D.begin(), vec_D.end(), D::byHeight());
// sort by weight:
std::sort(vec_D.begin(), vec_D.end(), D::byWeight());
// sort by name:
std::sort(vec_D.begin(), vec_D.end(), D::byName());
Note that this does not use free functions. For this kind of purpose, a functor is generally preferable. I've also used a namespace to show the association between the object being sorted and the different ways of sorting it. You could make them nested classes instead, but I'd generally prefer the common namespace (keep coupling as loose as reasonable).
In any case, I would not give access to the raw data (even read-only access) via the object's public interface if it could be avoided (and in this case, it can be).
I see no reason for sortByNumber() to be a member function. When it's a member function it gains access to things it doesn't need (and therefore shouldn't have access to). Either extract the method and refactor it into a function object:
struct sortByNumber {
bool operator()(const D& d1, const D& d2) const {
return d1.getNumber() < d2.getNumber();
}
};
or make it a free function. Given the choice you should prefer a function object, because that makes it possible for the compiler to inline the code if it so chooses. Then, you can sort like so:
std::sort(vec_D.begin(), vec_D.end(), sortByNumber());
That said, you can get the code to compile as is like so, with boost::bind():
std::sort(vec_D.begin(), vec_D.end(),
boost::bind(&Sorter::sortByNumber, this, _1, _2));
You will need the boost libraries for that to work, and you will need to #include <boost/bind.hpp>.
I don't see any reason to make sortByNumber as a member function of class Sorter. You can do the sorting much more easily avoiding all the ugly bind code if you make it a free function. Also, you should use const wherever it is applicable in the code. Following is the example of doing it using free function:
First change the int getNumber() to const function as int getNumber() const;
Then write your free function sortByNumber again taking parameters by const reference.
bool sortByNumber(const D& d1, const D& d2);
You can call sort as :
std::sort(vec_D.begin(), vec_D.end(), sortByNumber);

How to implement sorting method for a c++ priority_queue with pointers

My priority queue declared as:
std::priority_queue<*MyClass> queue;
class MyClass {
bool operator<( const MyClass* m ) const;
}
is not sorting the items in the queue.
What is wrong? I would not like to implement a different (Compare) class.
Answer summary:
The problem is, the pointer addresses are sorted. The only way to avoid this is a class that 'compares the pointers'.
Now implemented as:
std::priority_queue<*MyClass, vector<*MyClass>, MyClass::CompStr > queue;
class MyClass {
struct CompStr {
bool operator()(MyClass* m1, MyClass* m2);
}
}
Give the que the Compare functor ptr_less.
If you want the ptr_less to be compatible with the rest of the std library (binders, composers, ... ):
template<class T>
struct ptr_less
: public binary_function<T, T, bool> {
bool operator()(const T& left, const T& right) const{
return ((*left) <( *right));
}
};
std::priority_queue<MyClass*, vector<MyClass*>, ptr_less<MyClass*> > que;
Otherwise you can get away with the simplified version:
struct ptr_less {
template<class T>
bool operator()(const T& left, const T& right) const {
return ((*left) <( *right));
}
};
std::priority_queue<MyClass*, vector<MyClass*>, ptr_less > que;
The operator <() you have provided will compare a MyClass object with a pointer to a MyClass object. But your queue contains only pointers (I think). You need a comparison function that takes two pointers as parameters.
All this is based on some suppositions - please post your actual code, using copy and paste.
Since your priority_queue contains only pointer values, it will use the default comparison operator for the pointers - this will sort them by address which is obviously not what you want. If you change the priority_queue to store the class instances by value, it will use the operator you defined. Or, you will have to provide a comparison function.
Not sure about the priority queue stuff because I've never used it but to do a straight sort, you can do this:
class A
{
friend struct ComparePtrToA;
public:
A( int v=0 ):a(v){}
private:
int a;
};
struct ComparePtrToA
{
bool operator()(A* a1, A* a2) {return a1->a < a2->a;}
};
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
vector<A*> someAs;
someAs.push_back(new A(1));
someAs.push_back(new A(3));
someAs.push_back(new A(2));
sort( someAs.begin(), someAs.end(), ComparePtrToA() );
}
Note the memory leaks, this is only an example...
Further note: This is not intended to be an implementation of priority queue! The vector is simply an example of using the functor I created to compare two objects via their pointers. Although I'm aware of what a priority queue is and roughly how it works, I have never used the STL features that implement them.
Update: I think TimW makes some valid points. I don't know why he was downvoted so much. I think my answer can be improved as follows:
class A
{
public:
A( int v=0 ):a(v){}
bool operator<( const A& rhs ) { return a < rhs.a; }
private:
int a;
};
struct ComparePtrToA
{
bool operator()(A* a1, A* a2) {return *a1 < *a2;}
};
which is cleaner (especially if you consider having a container of values rather than pointers - no further work would be necessary).