In the code, why is (10 != i) calling == instead of !=? The other two call !=
#include <iostream>
class Integer
{
int x;
public:
bool
operator== (const Integer &i)
{
std::cout << "==";
return x == i.x;
}
bool
operator!= (const Integer &i)
{
std::cout << "!=";
return x != i.x;
}
Integer (int t = 0) { x = t; }
};
int
main ()
{
Integer i;
std::cout << (i != i) << '\n'; // calls !=
std::cout << (i != 100) << '\n'; // calls !=
std::cout << (10 != i) << '\n'; // calls ==
}
Prior to C++20, you'd need to add two free functions for the comparison where the int is on the left-hand side:
bool operator==(int lhs, const Integer& rhs) {
return rhs == lhs;
}
bool operator!=(int lhs, const Integer& rhs) {
return rhs != lhs;
}
You should also make the member comparison operators const qualified:
class Integer {
public:
//...
bool operator==(const Integer &i) const { // note const
std::cout << "==";
return x == i.x;
}
bool operator!=(const Integer &i) const { // note const
std::cout << "!=";
return x != i.x;
}
//...
};
You could also remove the member operators to simplify things. Now the left-hand side int will be implicitly converted to Integer and then compared with the right-hand side:
class Integer {
int x;
public:
Integer(int t = 0) : x{t} {}
friend bool operator==(const Integer& lhs, const Integer& rhs) {
return rhs.x == lhs.x;
}
friend bool operator!=(const Integer& lhs, const Integer& rhs) {
return !(rhs == lhs);
}
};
Since you've tagged this C++20, you can let operator== do all the work. See Default comparisons. It'll be used for operator!= too.
class Integer {
int x;
public:
bool operator==(const Integer &i) const {
std::cout << "==";
return x == i.x;
}
Integer(int t = 0) : x{t} {}
};
... and it'll correctly show that it used operator== for all your != comparisons (and negated it).
More from Defaulted equality comparison:
A class can define operator== as defaulted, with a return value of bool. This will generate an equality comparison of each base class and member subobject, in their declaration order. Two objects are equal if the values of their base classes and members are equal. The test will short-circuit if an inequality is found in members or base classes earlier in declaration order.
Per the rules for operator==, this will also allow inequality testing
This means that you will in fact get away with the below only since C++20:
class Integer {
int x;
public:
bool operator==(const Integer &i) const = default;
Integer(int t = 0) : x{t} {}
};
or even better, get all the comparison operators for free by defaulting the spaceship operator <=>:
class Integer {
int x;
public:
auto operator<=>(const Integer &i) const = default;
Integer(int t = 0) : x{t} {}
};
There are two new additions to C++20 that made this possible (note that your code doesn't compile in earlier standard versions).
Compiler will attempt to replace a != b with !(a == b) if there is no suitable != for these arguments.
If there is no suitable a == b, compiler will attempt b == a as well.
So, what happens - compiler first notices that it doesn't know how to compare 10 != i, so it tries !(10 == i). There is still no suitable comparison, so it tries !(i == 10) and it can finally be done using your implicit constructor to convert 10 to Integer.
It can be easily verified by adding more info to debug print:
bool
operator== (const Integer &i) const
{
std::cout << x << "==" << i.x << ' ';
return x == i.x;
}
will print 0==10 1 in the last line (see it online).
As noticed in comments, you don't even need operator !=, due to aforementioned behaviour C++20 compiler will automatically convert any such call to operator ==.
Related
I would like to add an option to make a chained comparison on objects of MyClass. For example:
MyClass one;
MyClass two;
MyClass three;
/*....*/
if (one == two == three){
/*....*/
}
So that if all are equal it will return true, else it will return false.
I currently have this operator overload that works fine when comparing only two instances of MyClass:
bool operator==(const MyClass &other);
I understand that one==two==three is equal to ((one==two)==three) so I guess that should change my operator== to be something like:
MyClass& operator==(const MyClass &other);
But I couldn't manage to understand how to complete this in order to be able to compare more than two instances in a row (chained).
As pointed out in comments, it's not good to break the usual semantics in such a way. The Principle of least Astonishment should be followed as mentioned.
But I couldn't manage to understand how to complete this in order to be able to compare more than two instances in a row (chained).
Not that I think it's really a good idea to do so1, but here's a working solution:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class MyClass {
public:
MyClass(int x_) : x(x_), isfalse(false) {}
const MyClass& operator==(const MyClass& rhs) const {
if(!isfalse && x == rhs.x) {
return rhs;
}
return FalseInst;
}
operator bool() const {
return !isfalse;
}
private:
int x;
MyClass() : x(), isfalse(true) {}
const bool isfalse;
static MyClass FalseInst;
};
MyClass MyClass::FalseInst;
int main()
{
MyClass one(1);
MyClass two(1);
MyClass three(1);
if(one == two == three) {
cout << "Yay!" << endl;
}
MyClass four(1);
MyClass five(0);
MyClass six(0);
if(!(four == (five == six))) {
cout << "Yay!" << endl;
}
}
Live Demo
1) Note the warning issued by the compiler.
As a purely theoretical problem, here is a way to solve it:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class A {
public:
int x;
A(int x = 0) : x(x) {}
struct Cmp {
const A *ptr;
mutable bool val;
operator bool() const {
return val;
}
const Cmp &operator == (const A &other) const {
return other == *this;
}
};
bool isEqualTo (const A &other) const {
return x == other.x;
}
Cmp operator == (const A &other) const {
return {this, isEqualTo(other)};
}
const Cmp &operator == (const Cmp &other) const {
//other.val = other.val && (*this == *other.ptr).val;
other.val &= other.ptr->isEqualTo(*this);
return other;
}
};
int main() {
cout << (A(10) == A(10) == A(10)) << endl;
cout << (A(10) == A(9) == A(10)) << endl;
return 0;
}
I was going through code... I found a template class which is declared as shown below.
template <class T>
class tType
{
public:
T value;
T operator=(T val){ value = val; return value; }
tType<T> operator=(tType<T> &val){ value = val.value; return *this; }
operator T(){ return value; }
};
I also found operator overloaded like below...
******1******
template <class T>
bool operator==(T& val, tType<T>& tval) { return(val == tval.value); }
I didn't understand when the above operator gets called... cos when I did...
int main(void)
{
tType<int> x;
x = 5;
if (5 == x)
{
cout << "Both are equal" << endl;
}
return 0;
}
The above said operator was not getting called... and was still working... I also wrote below code for testing and the below code snippet is getting called...
template<class T>
bool operator==(int x, tType<T>& val) { return (x == val.value); }
I wasn't to know who to call *****1*****
It's right that the reason your operator== isn't called is because of the missing const identifier. In this case, the literal 5 is unable to be passed as a variable reference for the paramater T& val. But, that's not quite the whole story.
As you point out, the code still compiles and runs even though the function isn't being called.
The reason your code still works is because of the conversion operator: operator T(){ return value; }.
A conversion operator allows implicit casts from one type to another. For example:
struct Number {
Number(int x) : value(x) { }
operator int() { return value; }
private:
int value;
};
int main() {
Number n(5);
int x = n; // 5 -- operator int() at work
int y = n + x; // 10 -- operator int() at work
Number z = x + y; // 15 -- Number(int) at work
cout << x <<" "<< y <<" "<< z << endl;
return 0;
}
Here, operator int() allows n to convert into an int for assignment to x and to convert to an int for addition with x (the resultant int is then assigned to y), while the unary constructor Number(int) allows the result of x + y to convert back to a Number.
In your code, 5 == x still compiles because the tType<int> x is converted into an int via its operator int() member function, and then that resultant int is compared against the literal 5.
However, this probably isn't a very good design for a class. For example, in order to compare two tType<T>s, a cast into T will be required for one of them.
template <class T>
bool operator==(const T& val, const tType<T>& tval) {
cout << "operator==(const T& val, const tType<T>& tval) was called." << endl;
return(val == tval.value);
}
//...
cout << ( tType<int>() == tType<int>() ) << endl; // calls operator==(const T&, const tType<T>&)
You would rather have an operator== for two tType<T>s.
Another even bigger problem is that this is not symmetric:
cout << (x1 == 5) << endl; // calls operator==(int,int) (the built-in function)
Yikes!
To address all of these, there is a very straightforward design solution. This is taken from Scott Meyers' book Effective C++ Third Edition (a phenomenal book).
Instead of converting back to a T with a conversion operator, the class should include an implicit unary constructor to convert T's up to tType<T>s, and should declare exactly one operator== for tType<T>s:
template <class T>
class tType
{
public:
tType<T>(const T &val) : value(val) { } // unary non-explicit constructor
tType<T> operator=(const tType<T> &val){ value = val.value; return *this; } // only need one
T val() { return value; }
private:
T value; // Note also value is private (encapsulation)
};
template<class T>
bool operator==(const tType<T>& a, const tType<T>& b) { return ( a.val() == b.val() ); }
The important changes:
Added a constructor that takes a single value; this allows converting Ts into tTypes.
Removed the assignment operator taking Ts (because now we can convert them to tTypes.
Only have one equality operator and it takes two const tType<T>&s, meaning operator== can handle any combination of Ts and tType<T>s (or, even better, anything convertible into either of those).
The == operator attempts to bind non-const references to the arguments - values like "5" are not amenable to that... the parameters should be const:
template <class T>
bool operator==(const T& val, const tType<T>& tval) { return val == tval.value; }
As that will still only support e.g. 5 == my_tType and not my_tType == 5, you may want to also provide...
template <class T>
bool operator==(const tType<T>& tval, const T& val) { return val == tval.value; }
...and for my_tType1 == my_tType2...
template <class T>
bool operator==(const tType<T>& tval1, const tType<T>& tval2) {
return tval1.value == tval2.value; }
This gives you maximum control of the comparisons. An alternative is to allow implicit construction of a tType from a T argument, but implicit construction and conversion operators are generally discouraged these days - they can lead to ambiguities and accidental creation of temporaries that can be hard to debug. A topic for another question....
When you say "The above said operator was not getting called... and was still working" - what was actually happening was that tType::operator T() (which returns value;) was being implicitly called, returning an int that could be compared - as an int - to 5. Hence - you had a comparison, but not using the custom operator==. This is a normal result of finding the "best match" for a function call.
Change the function
template <class T>
bool operator==(T& val, tType<T>& tval) { return(val == tval.value); }
to
template <class T>
bool operator==(T const& val, tType<T> const& tval) { return(val == tval.value); }
or
template <class T>
bool operator==(T val, tType<T> tval) { return(val == tval.value); }
Your function was not getting called since 5 cannot be converted to int&.
I have such code
class Number
{
int m_value;
public :
Number(const int value) :
m_value(value)
{
}
operator const int() const
{
return m_value;
}
int GetValue() const
{
return m_value;
}
};
bool operator==(const Number& left, const Number& right)
{
return left.GetValue() == right.GetValue();
}
class Integer
{
int m_value;
public :
Integer(const int value) :
m_value(value)
{
}
operator const int() const
{
return m_value;
}
bool operator==(const Integer& right) const
{
return m_value == right.m_value;
}
bool operator==(const int right) const
{
return m_value == right;
}
int GetValue() const
{
return m_value;
}
};
bool operator==(const int left, const Integer& right)
{
return left == right.GetValue();
}
int main()
{
Number n1 = 1;
Number n2 = 1;
int x3 = 1;
n1 == n2;
n1 == x3; // error C2666: 'operator ==' : 3 overloads have similar conversions
x3 == n1; // error C2666: 'operator ==' : 2 overloads have similar conversions
Integer i4 = 1;
Integer i5 = 1;
i4 == i5;
i4 == x3;
x3 == i4;
return 0;
}
For class Number I have two errors as shown in the code above. For class Integer everything is OK. The problem is, I want to keep in resulting class single-parameter constructor, cast operator and equality operations (MyClass == int, int == MyClass, MyClass == MyClass), but I want to implement only one version of operator== as in class Number. I don't see any way to do this. Is that even possible or I must have all three implementations as in class Integer? I know why I get these errors I just don't like the solution I have.
In class Number you define a conversion operator to int and your constructor allows converting an int to a Number. Therefore, when comparing a Number n and an int x for equality, ambiguity arises: should the compiler invoke the built-in operator == for ints and convert n to an int, or should it rather pick your operator and convert x to a Number? Both conversions are equally good, and it can't choose one.
So yes you have to define three versions, or add a template operator which can perfectly match the type of all arguments and forward to your operator explicitly, like this one (but you most likely want to guard it with some enable_if to limit its applicability only to the appropriate T and U):
template<typename T, typename U> // beware: this will match anything. to be constrained
bool operator == (T n, U const& u)
{
return (Number(n) == Number(u));
}
You can define only one operator== as member function:
bool operator==(const int& right) const
{
std::cout << "custom\n";
return this->GetValue() == right;
}
Then,
n1==n2: n2 will be converted to int and custom operator will be used.
n1 == n3: custom operator will be used
n3==n1: built-in operator will be used
Note, that you want your operator== be const to be able to compare constant Numbers
In C++11 you can make operator int explicit.
Another approach would be to use SFINAE to have a template == that works for one or more Number args, but that is using a bazooka to kill an ant.
I remeber C++ Primer tells us operator< should be non-member function, and I always obey the rule. But now I want to know the reason.
I wrote following code:
#include <iostream>
using std::cout;
using std::endl;
struct Point1
{
int x, y;
Point1(const int a, const int b): x(a), y(b) { }
};
inline bool operator<(const Point1& lhs, const Point1& rhs)
{
return lhs.x < rhs.x || (lhs.x == rhs.x && lhs.y < rhs.y);
}
struct Point2
{
int x, y;
Point2(const int a, const int b): x(a), y(b) { }
bool operator<(const Point2& rhs)
{
return x < rhs.x || (x == rhs.x && y < rhs.y);
}
};
int main()
{
Point1 a(1, 2), b(1, 3);
cout << (a < b) << " " << (b < a) << endl;
Point2 c(2, 3), d(2, 4);
cout << (c < d) << " " << (d < c) << endl;
}
In this case, It seems they don't make difference and member function seems much simpler.
But in this case:
#include <iostream>
using std::cout;
using std::endl;
// Usually I write it for comparing floats
class Float1
{
long double _value;
public:
static const long double EPS = 1e-8;
Float1(const long double value): _value(value) { }
const long double Get() const { return _value; }
};
inline bool operator<(const Float1& lhs, const Float1& rhs)
{
return rhs.Get() - lhs.Get() > Float1::EPS;
}
inline bool operator<(const Float1& lhs, const long double rhs)
{
return rhs - lhs.Get() > Float1::EPS;
}
class Float2
{
long double _value;
public:
static const long double EPS = 1e-8;
Float2(const long double value): _value(value) { }
const long double Get() const { return _value; }
bool operator<(const Float2& rhs)
{
return rhs._value - _value > Float2::EPS;
}
bool operator<(const long double rhs)
{
return rhs - _value > Float2::EPS;
}
};
int main()
{
Float1 x(3.14);
Float2 y(2.17);
long double zero = .0;
cout << (x < zero) << " " << (zero < x) << endl;
//cout << (y < zero) << " " << (zero < y) << endl; Compile Error!
}
Both (x < zero) and (zero < x) work! (is long double converted to Float?)
But (zero < y) don't, because zero is not a Float.
You see, in first case, member function costs less code length, and in second case, non-member function makes comparing easier. So I want to know
In first case, should I use member function instead of non-member function?
Why C++ Primer suggests binary operators be non-member function?
Is there any other case that member function and non-member function make difference?
Thanks for helping!
I think the basic answer is that non-member functions play better with implicit conversion. So if you can write your binary operator as a non-member function, you should.
The question can be answered in different levels. In the highest level, from a design standpoint, operator< is a binary operator. It is no more of an operation on the left hand side that it is on the right. Member functions, on the other hand are bound to the first argument, they are an operation on the first type.
From a technical point of view, and going right to the C++ language, this comes down to what you already noticed: member functions are not symmetric with respect to the types. That lack of symmetry means that an operator< declared as a member function can only be applied when the left hand side is of the type that contains the member. No conversions can be applied before a member operator is called. On the other hand, because free functions are not more bound to the first argument than they are for the second, the free function operator< will be picked up by ADL whenever any of the two arguments is of the appropriate type, allowing the same conversions to the first and second arguments.
As a non-member the comparison operator works also for derived class (left hand side) arguments.
EDIT: and as #jonathan points out in a comment, it also allows value conversions, such as e.g. an int left hand side argument.
If constructors and conversion operators are not explicit, such conversions can allow meaningless and probably unintended code, e.g. comparing a T instance to 5.
How would one implement a ternary comparison operator to determine, for example, the boolean value of a < b < c?
Solution:
When coding a comparison, have the return type be a comparison object that can chain additional comparisons, but is implicitly convertible to a bool. This can even (kind of) work with types that weren't coded with this intent, simply by casting them to the comparison type manually.
Implementation:
template<class T>
class comparison {
const bool result;
const T& last;
public:
comparison(const T& l, bool r=true) :result(r), last(l) {}
operator bool() const {return result;}
comparison operator<(const T& rhs) const {return comparison(rhs, (result && last<rhs));}
comparison operator<=(const T& rhs) const {return comparison(rhs, (result && last<=rhs));}
comparison operator>(const T& rhs) const {return comparison(rhs, (result && last>rhs));}
comparison operator>=(const T& rhs) const {return comparison(rhs, (result && last>=rhs));}
};
A useful example:
#include <iostream>
int main() {
//testing of chained comparisons with int
std::cout << (comparison<int>(0) < 1 < 2) << '\n';
std::cout << (comparison<int>(0) < 1 > 2) << '\n';
std::cout << (comparison<int>(0) > 1 < 2) << '\n';
std::cout << (comparison<int>(0) > 1 > 2) << '\n';
}
Output:
1
0
0
0
Note: This was created by Mooing Duck, and a compiled, more robust example can be found on http://ideone.com/awrmK
Why do you need an operator?
inline bool RangeCheck(int a, int b, int c)
{
return a < b && b < c;
}
or:
#define RANGE_CHECK(a, b, c) (((a) < (b)) && ((b) < (c)))