Construct chains of pairs of numbers with one common member - c++

I need to construct a chain of pair of numbers where:
In each pair, the first one is smaller than the second
In order to form a chain between two consecutive nodes, they must have one number in common. In other words, the link (a,b) -- (c,d) can be made if and only if either a==c, b==c, a==d or b==d
A pair cannot be made of the same number. In other words, if (a,b) exists, then a!=b
This may look like a Longest increasing subsequence but I actually want to chain consecutive pairs that have one equal member.
Example:
Initial list (unordered):
(0,1)
(2,3)
(1,6)
(4,6)
(8,9)
(2,8)
Result:
----- chain #1
(0,1)
(1,6)
(4,6)
----- chain #2
(2,3)
(2,8)
(8,9)
I could do an algorithm that will iterate over the entire list for each cell (O(n^2)), but I want to make it faster and I have the flexibility of ordering my initial array in any way I want (std::set, std::map, std::unordered_map, etc.). My list is made of tens of thousands of pairs so I need an efficient solution in terms of processing time.

You can solve it in O(N * log(N)) when you manage two lists, one sorted with respect to first the other sorted with respect to second.
The code has some duplication that I didnt bother to clean up yet.
#include <iostream>
#include <list>
#include <algorithm>
#include <tuple>
#include <any>
struct pair_and_iter {
int first;
int second;
std::any other_iter;
};
struct compare_first {
bool operator()(int x,pair_and_iter p){ return x < p.first; }
bool operator()(pair_and_iter p, int x){ return p.first < x; }
};
struct compare_second {
bool operator()(int x,pair_and_iter p){ return x < p.second; }
bool operator()(pair_and_iter p, int x){ return p.second < x; }
};
template <typename Iter,typename Comp>
Iter my_find(Iter first,Iter last,int x, Comp comp) {
auto it = std::lower_bound(first,last,x,comp);
if (it != last && (!comp(x,*it) && !comp(*it,x))){
return it;
} else {
return last;
}
}
int main() {
std::list<pair_and_iter> a {{0,1},{2,3},{1,6},{4,6},{8,9},{2,8}};
std::list<pair_and_iter> b;
for (auto it = a.begin(); it != a.end(); ++it){
b.push_back({it->first,it->second,it});
it->other_iter = std::prev(b.end());
}
a.sort([](const auto& x,const auto& y){
return std::tie(x.first,x.second) < std::tie(y.first,y.second); });
b.sort([](const auto& x,const auto& y){
return std::tie(x.second,x.first) < std::tie(y.second,y.first); });
std::vector<std::vector<pair_and_iter>> result;
std::vector<pair_and_iter> current_result;
current_result.push_back(a.front());
auto current = current_result.begin();
b.erase(std::any_cast<std::list<pair_and_iter>::iterator>(current->other_iter));
a.erase(a.begin());
while (a.size() && b.size()) {
// look for an element with same first
auto it = my_find(a.begin(),a.end(),current->first,compare_first{});
if (it == a.end()) {
// look for element where current->second == elem.first
it = my_find(a.begin(),a.end(),current->second,compare_first{});
}
if (it != a.end()){
current_result.push_back(*it);
current = std::prev(current_result.end());
b.erase(std::any_cast<std::list<pair_and_iter>::iterator>(it->other_iter));
a.erase(it);
continue;
}
// look for element with current->first == elem.second
it = my_find(b.begin(),b.end(),current->first,compare_second{});
if (it == b.end()) {
// look for element with same second
it = my_find(b.begin(),b.end(),current->second,compare_second{});
}
if (it != b.end()) {
current_result.push_back(*it);
current = std::prev(current_result.end());
a.erase(std::any_cast<std::list<pair_and_iter>::iterator>(it->other_iter));
b.erase(it);
continue;
}
// no matching element found
result.push_back(current_result);
current_result.clear();
current_result.push_back(a.front());
current = current_result.begin();
b.erase(std::any_cast<std::list<pair_and_iter>::iterator>(current->other_iter));
a.erase(a.begin());
}
result.push_back(current_result);
for (const auto& chain : result){
for (const auto& elem : chain){
std::cout << elem.first << " " << elem.second << "\n";
}
std::cout << "\n";
}
}
Output:
0 1
1 6
4 6
2 3
2 8
8 9
I used std::list because it has stable iterators and constant time erase. std::any for type erasure because each list contains iterators to the other list. a is sorted with respect to first and b is sorted with respect to second. Hence std::lower_bound can be used to to find a match in O(logN). A single linear search is traded against 2 binary searchs to find either current->first or current->second in a first of a and 2 binary searchs to find either current->first or current->second in a second of b. In total it is O(N log(N)) for sorting plus O( log(N) + log(N-1) + log(N-2) + .... log(1)) which equals O(log( n! )) if I am not mistaken.
PS: You didn't mention that you are looking for a longest chain, and this algorithm is not finding the longest chain. It just picks the first element of the remaining ones and uses the next element it finds to continue the chain.

Related

How do iterators map/know their current position or element

Consider the following code example :
#include <vector>
#include <numeric>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iterator>
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
int main()
{
std::vector<int> v(10, 2);
std::partial_sum(v.cbegin(), v.cend(), v.begin());
std::cout << "Among the numbers: ";
std::copy(v.cbegin(), v.cend(), std::ostream_iterator<int>(std::cout, " "));
std::cout << '\n';
if (std::all_of(v.cbegin(), v.cend(), [](int i){ return i % 2 == 0; })) {
std::cout << "All numbers are even\n";
}
if (std::none_of(v.cbegin(), v.cend(), std::bind(std::modulus<int>(),
std::placeholders::_1, 2))) {
std::cout << "None of them are odd\n";
}
struct DivisibleBy
{
const int d;
DivisibleBy(int n) : d(n) {}
bool operator()(int n) const { return n % d == 0; }
};
if (std::any_of(v.cbegin(), v.cend(), DivisibleBy(7))) {
std::cout << "At least one number is divisible by 7\n";
}
}
If we look at this part of the code :
if (std::all_of(v.cbegin(), v.cend(), [](int i){ return i % 2 == 0; })) {
std::cout << "All numbers are even\n";
}
which is fairly easy to understand. It iterates over those vector elements , and finds out i%2==0 , whether they are completely divisible by 2 or not , hence finds out they're even or not.
Its for loop counterpart could be something like this :
for(int i = 0; i<v.size();++i){
if(v[i] % 2 == 0) areEven = true; //just for readablity
else areEven = false;
}
In this for loop example , it is quiet clear that the current element we're processing is i since we're actually accessing v[i]. But how come in iterator version of same code , it maps i or knows what its current element is that we're accessing?
How does [](int i){ return i % 2 == 0; }) ensures/knows that i is the current element which iterator is pointing to.
I'm not able to makeout that without use of any v.currently_i_am_at_this_posiition() , how is iterating done. I know what iterators are but I'm having a hard time grasping them. Thanks :)
Iterators are modeled after pointers, and that's it really. How they work internally is of no interest, but a possible implementation is to actually have a pointer inside which points to the current element.
Iterating is done by using an iterator object
An iterator is any object that, pointing to some element in a range of
elements (such as an array or a container), has the ability to iterate
through the elements of that range using a set of operators (with at
least the increment (++) and dereference (*) operators).
The most obvious form of iterator is a pointer: A pointer can point to
elements in an array, and can iterate through them using the increment
operator (++).
and advancing it through the set of elements. The std::all_of function in your code is roughly equivalent to the following code
template< class InputIt, class UnaryPredicate >
bool c_all_of(InputIt first, InputIt last, UnaryPredicate p)
{
for (; first != last; ++first) {
if (!p(*first)) {
return false; // Found an odd element!
}
}
return true; // All elements are even
}
An iterator, when incremented, keeps track of the currently pointed element, and when dereferenced it returns the value of the currently pointed element.
For teaching's and clarity's sake, you might also think of the operation as follows (don't try this at home)
bool c_all_of(int* firstElement, size_t numberOfElements, std::function<bool(int)> evenTest)
{
for (size_t i = 0; i < numberOfElements; ++i)
if (!evenTest(*(firstElement + i)))
return false;
return true;
}
Notice that iterators are a powerful abstraction since they allow consistent elements access in different containers (e.g. std::map).

Output over unique elements of `std::multiset` and their frequency using std:: algorithm in C++ (no loops)

I have the following multiset in C++:
template<class T>
class CompareWords {
public:
bool operator()(T s1, T s2)
{
if (s1.length() == s2.length())
{
return ( s1 < s2 );
}
else return ( s1.length() < s2.length() );
}
};
typedef multiset<string, CompareWords<string>> mySet;
typedef std::multiset<string,CompareWords<string>>::iterator mySetItr;
mySet mWords;
I want to print each unique element of type std::string in the set once and next to the element I want to print how many time it appears in the list (frequency), as you can see the functor "CompareWord" keeps the set sorted.
A solution is proposed here, but its not what I need, because I am looking for a solution without using (while,for,do while).
I know that I can use this:
//gives a pointer to the first and last range or repeated element "word"
auto p = mWords.equal_range(word);
// compute the distance between the iterators that bound the range AKA frequency
int count = static_cast<int>(std::distance(p.first, p.second));
but I can't quite come up with a solution without loops?
Unlike the other solutions, this iterates over the list exactly once. This is important, as iterating over a structure like std::multimap is reasonably high overhead (the nodes are distinct allocations).
There are no explicit loops, but the tail-end recursion will be optimized down to a loop, and I call an algorithm that will run a loop.
template<class Iterator, class Clumps, class Compare>
void produce_clumps( Iterator begin, Iterator end, Clumps&& clumps, Compare&& compare) {
if (begin==end) return; // do nothing for nothing
typedef decltype(*begin) value_type_ref;
// We know runs are at least 1 long, so don't bother comparing the first time.
// Generally, advancing will have a cost similar to comparing. If comparing is much
// more expensive than advancing, then this is sub optimal:
std::size_t count = 1;
Iterator run_end = std::find_if(
std::next(begin), end,
[&]( value_type_ref v ){
if (!compare(*begin, v)) {
++count;
return false;
}
return true;
}
);
// call our clumps callback:
clumps( begin, run_end, count );
// tail end recurse:
return produce_clumps( std::move(run_end), std::move(end), std::forward<Clumps>(clumps), std::forward<Compare>(compare) );
}
The above is a relatively generic algorithm. Here is its use:
int main() {
typedef std::multiset<std::string> mySet;
typedef std::multiset<std::string>::iterator mySetItr;
mySet mWords { "A", "A", "B" };
produce_clumps( mWords.begin(), mWords.end(),
[]( mySetItr run_start, mySetItr /* run_end -- unused */, std::size_t count )
{
std::cout << "Word [" << *run_start << "] occurs " << count << " times\n";
},
CompareWords<std::string>{}
);
}
live example
The iterators must refer to a sorted sequence (with regards to the Comparator), then the clumps will be passed to the 3rd argument together with their length.
Every element in the multiset will be visited exactly once with the above algorithm (as a right-hand side argument to your comparison function). Every start of a clump will be visited (length of clump) additional times as a left-hand side argument (including clumps of length 1). There will be exactly N iterator increments performed, and no more than N+C+1 iterator comparisons (N=number of elements, C=number of clumps).
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
#include <set>
#include <iterator>
#include <string>
int main()
{
typedef std::multiset<std::string> mySet;
typedef std::multiset<std::string>::iterator mySetItr;
mySet mWords;
mWords.insert("A");
mWords.insert("A");
mWords.insert("B");
mySetItr it = std::begin(mWords), itend = std::end(mWords);
std::for_each<mySetItr&>(it, itend, [&mWords, &it] (const std::string& word)
{
auto p = mWords.equal_range(word);
int count = static_cast<int>(std::distance(p.first, p.second));
std::cout << word << " " << count << std::endl;
std::advance(it, count - 1);
});
}
Outputs:
A 2
B 1
Live demo link.
Following does the job without explicit loop using recursion:
void print_rec(const mySet& set, mySetItr it)
{
if (it == set.end()) {
return;
}
const auto& word = *it;
auto next = std::find_if(it, set.end(),
[&word](const std::string& s) {
return s != word;
});
std::cout << word << " appears " << std::distance(it, next) << std::endl;
print_rec(set, next);
}
void print(const mySet& set)
{
print_rec(set, set.begin());
}
Demo

Standard library partition algorithm

I wrote this partition function:
template <class I, class P> I partition(I beg, I end, P p)
{
I first = beg;
while(beg != end) {
if(!p(*beg))
beg++;
else {
// if(beg != first) - EDIT: add conditional to prevent swapping identical elements
std::swap(*beg, *first);
first++;
beg++;
}
}
return first;
}
I've tested it with a few outputs and I haven't found anything wrong with it.
The standard library partition function is equivalent to:
template <class BidirectionalIterator, class UnaryPredicate>
BidirectionalIterator partition (BidirectionalIterator first,
BidirectionalIterator last, UnaryPredicate pred)
{
while (first!=last) {
while (pred(*first)) {
++first;
if (first==last) return first;
}
do {
--last;
if (first==last) return first;
} while (!pred(*last));
swap (*first,*last);
++first;
}
return first;
}
The latter seems much more complicated and has nested loops. Is there something wrong with my version? If not why the more complicated version?
Here is some output using the following predicate:
bool greaterthantwo(double val)
{
return val > 2;
}
MAIN
std::vector<double> test{1,2,3,4,2,5,6,7,4,8,2,4,10};
std::vector<double>::iterator part = ::partition(test.begin(), test.end(), greaterthantwo);
for(const auto &ref:test)
std::cout << ref << " ";
std::cout << std::endl;
for(auto it = part; it != test.end(); it++)
std::cout << *it << " ";
std::cout << std::endl;
OUTPUT
3 4 5 6 7 4 8 4 10 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 1
Your version is close to Nico Lomuto partition. Such partition works on ForwardIterators and is semi-stable (first part is stable, which can be useful in some circumstances).
Version from implementation of standard library which you quoted is close to partition described by C. A. R. Hoare at his paper "Quicksort". It works on BidirectionalIterators, and does not imply any stability.
Let's compare them on following case:
FTTTT
Forward partition will proceed like this:
FTTTT
TFTTT
TTFTT
TTTFT
TTTTF
resulting in swap on each iteration except first, while Bidirectional partition will go thru following permutations:
FTTTT
TTTTF
resulting only in one swap for all iterations.
Moreover, in general case Bidirectional will do N/2 swaps at maximum, while Forward version can do up to ~N swaps.
std::partition in C++98/03 works on BidirectionalIterators, but in C++11 they relaxed requirements to ForwardIterators (though, it doesn't have to be semi-stable). Complexity requirements:
Complexity: If ForwardIterator meets the requirements for a BidirectionalIterator, at most (last -first) / 2 swaps are done; otherwise at most last - first swaps are done. Exactly last - first applications of the predicate are done.
As you can see, implementations of standard library most likely will use Lomuto's partition for ForwardIterators and Hoare's partition for BidirectionalIterators.
Alexander Stepanov discuses partition problem in his Notes on Programming and in Elements of Programming co-authored with Paul McJones
Live Demo
#include <initializer_list>
#include <forward_list>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
#include <iterator>
#include <list>
using namespace std;
int counter = 0;
struct T
{
int value;
T(int x = 0) : value(x) {}
T(const T &x)
{
++counter;
value = x.value;
}
T &operator=(const T &x)
{
++counter;
value = x.value;
return *this;
}
};
auto pred = [](const T &x){return x.value;};
template<typename Container>
void test()
{
Container l = {0, 1, 1, 1, 1};
counter = 0;
partition(begin(l), end(l), pred);
cout << "Moves count: " << counter << endl;
}
int main()
{
test<forward_list<T>>();
test<list<T>>();
}
Output is:
Moves count: 12
Moves count: 3
(swap is 3 moves)
Your function has a serious defect. It swaps each element that satisfies the predicate with itself if initial elements of the sequence satisfy the predicate.
From STL partition description
Complexity
Linear in the distance between first and last: Applies pred to each element, and possibly swaps some of them (if the iterator type is a bidirectional, at most half that many swaps, otherwise at most that many).
In your implementation you swap more.

Storing set of non-overlapping ranges and finding whether a value is present in any one of the ranges strictly

I have a set of ranges :
Range1 ---- (0-10)
Range2 ---- (15-25)
Range3 ---- (100-1000) and likewise.
I would like to have only the bounds stored since storing large ranges , it would be efficient.
Now I need to search for a number , say 14 . In this case, 14 is not present in any of the ranges whereas (say a number) 16 is present in one of the ranges.
I would need a function
bool search(ranges, searchvalue)
{
if searchvalues present in any of the ranges
return true;
else
return false;
}
How best can this be done ? This is strictly non-overlapping and the important criteria is that the search has to be most efficient.
One possibility is to represent ranges as a pair of values and define a suitable comparison function. The following should consider one range less than another if its bounds are smaller and there is no overlap. As a side effect, this comparison function doesn't let you store overlapping ranges in the set.
To look up an integer n, it can be treated as a range [n, n]
#include <set>
#include <iostream>
typedef std::pair<int, int> Range;
struct RangeCompare
{
//overlapping ranges are considered equivalent
bool operator()(const Range& lhv, const Range& rhv) const
{
return lhv.second < rhv.first;
}
};
bool in_range(const std::set<Range, RangeCompare>& ranges, int value)
{
return ranges.find(Range(value, value)) != ranges.end();
}
int main()
{
std::set<Range, RangeCompare> ranges;
ranges.insert(Range(0, 10));
ranges.insert(Range(15, 25));
ranges.insert(Range(100, 1000));
std::cout << in_range(ranges, 14) << ' ' << in_range(ranges, 16) << '\n';
}
The standard way to handle this is through so called interval trees. Basically, you augment an ordinary red-black tree with additional information so that each node x contains an interval x.int and the key of x is the low endpoint, x.int.low, of the interval. Each node x also contains a value x.max, which is the maximum value of any interval endpoint stored in the subtree rooted at x. Now you can determine x.max given interval x.int and the max values of node x’s children as follows:
x.max = max(x.int.high, x.left.max, x.right.max)
This implies that, with n intervals, insertion and deletion run in O(lg n) time. In fact, it is possible to update the max attributes after a rotation in O(1) time. Here is how to search for an element i in the interval tree T
INTERVAL-SEARCH(T, i)
x = T:root
while x is different from T.nil and i does not overlap x.int
if x.left is different from T.nil and x.left.max is greater than or equal to i.low
x = x.left
else
x = x.right
return x
The complexity of the search procedure is O(lg n) as well.
To see why, see CLRS Introduction to algorithms, chapter 14 (Augmenting Data Structures).
You could put something together based on std::map and std::map::upper_bound:
Assuming you have
std::map<int,int> ranges; // key is start of range, value is end of range
You could do the following:
bool search(const std::map<int,int>& ranges, int searchvalue)
{
auto p = ranges.upper_bound(searchvalue);
// p->first > searchvalue
if(p == ranges.begin())
return false;
--p; // p->first <= searchvalue
return searchvalue >= p->first && searchvalue <= p->second;
}
I'm using C++11, if you use C++03, you'll need to replace "auto" by the proper iterator type.
EDIT: replaced pseudo-code inrange() by explicit expression in return statement.
A good solution can be as the following. It is O(log(n)).
A critical condition is non overlapping ranges.
#include <set>
#include <iostream>
#include <assert.h>
template <typename T> struct z_range
{
T s , e ;
z_range ( T const & s,T const & e ) : s(s<=e?s:e), e(s<=e?e:s)
{
}
};
template <typename T> bool operator < (z_range<T> const & x , z_range<T> const & y )
{
if ( x.e<y.s)
return true ;
return false ;
}
int main(int , char *[])
{
std::set<z_range<int> > x;
x.insert(z_range<int>(20,10));
x.insert(z_range<int>(30,40));
x.insert(z_range<int>(5,9));
x.insert(z_range<int>(45,55));
if (x.find(z_range<int>(15,15)) != x.end() )
std::cout << "I have it" << std::endl ;
else
std::cout << "not exists" << std::endl ;
}
If you have ranges ri = [ai, bi]. You could sort all the ai and put them into an array and search for x having x >= ai and ai minimal using binary search.
After you found this element you have to check whether x <= bi.
This is suitable if you have big numbers. If, on the other hand, you have either a lot of memory or small numbers, you can think about putting those ranges into a bool array. This may be suitable if you have a lot of queries:
bool ar[];
ar[0..10] = true;
ar[15..25] = true;
// ...
bool check(int searchValues) {
return ar[searchValues];
}
Since the ranges are non-overlapping the only thing left to do is performing a search within the range that fit's the value. If the values are ordered within the ranges, searching is even simpler. Here is a summary of search algorithms.
With respect to C++ you also can use algorithms from STL or even functions provided by the containers, e. g. set::find.
So, this assumes the ranges are continous (i.e range [100,1000] contains all numbers between 100 and 1000):
#include <iostream>
#include <map>
#include <algorithm>
bool is_in_ranges(std::map<int, int> ranges, int value)
{
return
std::find_if(ranges.begin(), ranges.end(),
[&](std::pair<int,int> pair)
{
return value >= pair.first && value <= pair.second;
}
) != ranges.end();
}
int main()
{
std::map<int, int> ranges;
ranges[0] = 10;
ranges[15] = 25;
ranges[100] = 1000;
std::cout << is_in_ranges(ranges, 14) << '\n'; // 0
std::cout << is_in_ranges(ranges, 16) << '\n'; // 1
}
In C++03, you'd need a functor instead of a lambda function:
struct is_in {
is_in(int x) : value(x) {}
bool operator()(std::pair<int, int> pair)
{
return value >= pair.first && value <= pair.second;
}
private:
int value;
};
bool is_in_ranges(std::map<int, int> ranges, int value)
{
return
std::find_if(ranges.begin(), ranges.end(), is_in(value)) != ranges.end();
}

Find nearest points in a vector

Given a sorted vector with a number of values, as in the following example:
std::vector<double> f;
f.pushback(10);
f.pushback(100);
f.pushback(1000);
f.pushback(10000);
I'm looking for the most elegant way to retrieve for any double d the two values that are immediately adjacent to it. For example, given the value "45", I'd like this to return "10" and "100".
I was looking at lower_bound and upper_bound, but they don't do what I want. Can you help?
EDIT: I've decided to post my own anser, as it is somewhat a composite of all the helpful answers that I got in this thread. I've voted up those answers which I thought were most helpful.
Thanks everyone,
Dave
You can grab both values (if they exist) in one call with equal_range(). It returns a std::pair of iterators, with first being the first location and second being the last location in which you could insert the value passed without violating ordering. To strictly meet your criteria, you'd have to decrement the iterator in first, after verifying that it wasn't equal to the vector's begin().
You can use STL's lower_bound to get want you want in a few lines of code. lower_bound uses binary search under the hood, so your runtime is O(log n).
double val = 45;
double lower, upper;
std::vector<double>::iterator it;
it = lower_bound(f.begin(), f.end(), val);
if (it == f.begin()) upper = *it; // no smaller value than val in vector
else if (it == f.end()) lower = *(it-1); // no bigger value than val in vector
else {
lower = *(it-1);
upper = *it;
}
You could simply use a binary search, which will run in O(log(n)).
Here is a Lua snippet (I don't have time to do it in C++, sorry) which does what you want, except for limit conditions (that you did not define anyway) :
function search(value, list, first, last)
if not first then first = 1; last = #list end
if last - first < 2 then
return list[first], list[last]
end
local median = math.ceil(first + (last - first)/2)
if list[median] > value then
return search(value, list, first, median)
else
return search(value, list, median, last)
end
end
local list = {1,10,100,1000}
print(search(arg[1] + 0, list))
It takes the value to search from the command line :
$ lua search.lua 10 # didn't know what to do in this case
10 100
$ lua search.lua 101
100 1000
$ lua search.lua 99
10 100
I'm going to post my own anser, and vote anyone up that helped me to reach it, since this is what I'll use in the end, and you've all helped me reach this conclusion. Comments are welcome.
std::pair<value_type, value_type> GetDivisions(const value_type& from) const
{
if (m_divisions.empty())
throw 0; // Can't help you if we're empty.
std::vector<value_type>::const_iterator it =
std::lower_bound(m_divisions.begin(), m_divisions.end(), from);
if (it == m_divisions.end())
return std::make_pair(m_divisions.back(), m_divisions.back());
else if (it == m_divisions.begin())
return std::make_pair(m_divisions.front(), m_divisions.front());
else
return std::make_pair(*(it - 1), *(it));
}
What if (in your case) d is less than the first element or more than the last? And how to deal with negative values? By the way: guaranteeing that your "d" lives between the first and the last value of your vector you can do like that:
// Your initializations
std::vector<double>::const_iterator sit = f.begin();
double upper, lower;
Here is the rest:
while ( *sit < d ) // if the element is still less than your d
++sit; // increase your iterator
upper = *sit; // here you get the upper value
lower = *(--sit); // and here your lower
Elegant enough? :/
You could do a search in your vector for your value (which would tell you where your value would be if it were in the vector) and then return the value before and after that location. So searching for 45 would tell you it should be at index=1 and then you would return 0 and 1 (depending on your implementation of the search, you'll either get the index of the smaller value or the index of the larger value, but this is easy to check with a couple boundary conditions). This should be able to run in O(log n) where n is the number of elements in your vector.
I would write something like this, didn't test if this compiles, but you get the idea:
template <typename Iterator>
std::pair<Iterator, Iterator> find_best_pair(Iterator first, Iterator last, const typename Iterator::value_type & val)
{
std::pair<Iterator, Iterator> result(last, last);
typename Iterator::difference_type size = std::distance(first, last);
if (size == 2)
{
// if the container is of size 2, the answer is the two elements
result.first = first;
result.first = first;
++result.first;
}
else
{
// must be of at lease size 3
if (size > 2)
{
Iterator second = first;
++second;
Iterator prev_last = last;
--prev_last;
Iterator it(std::lower_bound(second, last, val));
if (it != last)
{
result.first = it;
result.second = it;
if (it != prev_last)
{
// if this is not the previous last
// then the answer is (it, it + 1)
++result.second;
}
else
{
// if this the previous last
// then the answer is (it - 1, it)
--result.first;
}
}
}
}
return result;
}
I wrote up this little function, which seems to fit the more general case you wanted. I haven't tested it totally, but I did write a little test code (included).
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
template <class RandomAccessIt, class Container, class T>
std::pair<RandomAccessIt, RandomAccessIt> bracket_range(RandomAccessIt begin, RandomAccessIt end, Container& c, T val)
{
typename Container::iterator first;
typename Container::iterator second;
first = std::find(begin, end, val);
//Find the first value after this by iteration
second = first;
if (first == begin){ // Found the first element, so set this to end to indicate no lower values
first = end;
}
else if (first != end && first != begin) --first; //Set this to the first value before the found one, if the value was found
while (second != end && *second == val) ++second;
return std::make_pair(first,second);
}
int main(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
std::vector<int> values;
std::pair<std::vector<int>::iterator, std::vector<int>::iterator> vals;
for (int i = 1; i < 9; ++i) values.push_back(i);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i){
vals = bracket_range(values.begin(), values.end(),values, i);
if (vals.first == values.end() && vals.second == values.end()){ // Not found at all
std::cout << i << " is not in the container." << std::endl;
}
else if (vals.first == values.end()){ // No value lower
std::cout << i << ": " << "None Lower," << *(vals.second) << std::endl;
}
else if (vals.second == values.end()) { // No value higher
std::cout << i << ": " << *(vals.first) << ", None Higher" << std::endl;
}
else{
std::cout << i << ": " << *(vals.first) << "," << *(vals.second) << std::endl;
}
}
return 0;
}
Based on the code that tunnuz posted, here you have some improvements regarding bound checking:
template<typename T>
void find_enclosing_values(const std::vector<T> &vec, const T &value, T &lower, T &upper, const T &invalid_value)
{
std::vector<T>::const_iterator it = vec.begin();
while (it != vec.end() && *it < value)
++it;
if(it != vec.end())
upper = *it;
else
upper = invalid_value;
if(it == vec.begin())
lower = invalid_value;
else
lower = *(--it);
}
Example of usage:
std::vector<int> v;
v.push_back(3);
v.push_back(7);
v.push_back(10);
int lower, upper;
find_enclosing_values(v, 4, lower, upper, -1);
std::cout<<"lower "<<lower<<" upper "<<upper<<std::endl;
If you have the ability to use some other data structure (not a vector), I'd suggest a B-tree. If you data is unchanging, I believe you can retrieve the result in constant time (logarithmic time at the worst).