Is there anything like C++ default object method - c++

I have the following templated merge sort program:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <string>
// trying to create a default method call
class CInstance {
private:
std::string str_;
public:
CInstance(const std::string& str) : str_(str) {}
bool const operator>(const CInstance& that){ return (this->str_.size() > that.str_.size());}
};
template<class T>
class CObj {
private:
T val;
public:
CObj(const T n) : val(n) {}
T Get() { return val; }
};
template<class T>
using vcobj = std::vector<CObj<T>>;
template<class T>
void display(vcobj<T>& v) {
for (auto &i : v) {
std::cout << i.Get() << " ";
}
std::cout << "\n";
}
template<class T>
vcobj<T> Merge(vcobj<T>& lv, vcobj<T>& rv) {
vcobj<T> ret;
auto lsize = lv.size();
auto rsize = rv.size();
unsigned int lpin = 0,
rpin = 0;
while(lpin < lsize && rpin < rsize) {
if(lv.at(lpin).Get() > rv.at(rpin).Get()) {
ret.emplace_back(rv.at(rpin).Get());
rpin++;
}
else {
ret.emplace_back(lv.at(lpin).Get());
lpin++;
}
}
for (auto i=lpin; i<lsize; i++) {
ret.emplace_back(lv.at(i).Get());
}
for (auto i=rpin; i<rsize; i++) {
ret.emplace_back(rv.at(i).Get());
}
return ret;
}
template<class T>
vcobj<T> Sort(const vcobj<T>& v) {
vcobj<T> ret;
auto size = v.size();
if(size == 0) {
return ret;
}
if(size > 1) {
auto mid = size / 2;
vcobj<T> l(v.begin(), v.begin()+mid);
auto lv = Sort(l);
vcobj<T> r(v.begin()+mid, v.end());
auto rv = Sort(r);
ret = Merge(lv, rv);
}
else {
ret = v;
}
return ret;
}
int main() {
{
vcobj<int> v = {4, 5, 2, 1, 9, 6, 10, 8, 15, 3, 7};
display(v);
auto sorted = Sort(v);
display(sorted);
}
{
vcobj<float> v = {0.01, 0.001, 0.002, 0.009, 0.010, 0.0003, 0.00001};
display(v);
auto sorted = Sort(v);
display(sorted);
}
{
vcobj<std::string> v = {{"pineapple"}, {"jackfruit"}, {"mango"}, {"apple"}, {"banana"}};
display(v);
auto sorted = Sort(v);
display(sorted);
}
// causing problem
{
vcobj<CInstance> v = {{"pineapple"}, {"jackfruit"}, {"mango"}, {"apple"}, {"banana"}};
display(v);
auto sorted = Sort(v);
display(sorted);
}
return 0;
}
In all of the above types, I can simply call the object and it extracts the data which looks like calling a default get() method. Is there a way to make objects of class CInstance trigger a methos, when used just alone.
example:
I could do something like
CInstance obj;
std::cout << obj;
And that will call a default method in CInstance what every it may be.

As already mentioned in the other answer you can create your own operator<< function:
std::ostream & operator<<(std::ostream &stream, const CInstance &obj) {
// stream << whatever you want to output
return stream;
}
You could also define a conversion operator. But you should think twice before you use them. They can lead to problems that are not easy to debug, especially when explicit is omitted. You generally should not use those for logging/debugging purposes. If your type represents a string and you use it to allow an easy conversion to an std::string then it might be fine.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
class CInstance {
std::string str_ = "test";
public:
explicit operator const std::string () const { return str_; }
};
int main() {
CInstance obj;
std::cout << (std::string)obj << std::endl;
return 0;
}
If you can guarantee that the lifetime of the returned const char * is still valid after the call you could also do something like (but I would avoid that solution):
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
class CInstance {
std::string str_ = "test";
public:
operator const char *() const { return str_.c_str(); }
};
int main() {
CInstance t;
std::cout << t << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Personally, I would go with the first solution. But that really depends if you actually have a string representation of CInstance or if you want to display something for debugging purposes in a different format. I however would avoid the last non-explicit version with the const char * conversion operator.

In this exact case, you define an operator<< method like so:
std::ostream & operator<<(std::ostream &stream, const CInstance &obj) {
... output obj however you want to the stream. For instance:
stream << obj.getAge();
return stream;
}

Related

Unify the express of a complex number in initializer list and istream field

As an old c99 person, I was often stubled upon the curly brakets initialization. In the `initializer_list`, I have to use {r, i} for a complex number. On the other hand, I have to use (r, i) for `complex` in the istream field. Here, I cut a part of my class that is able to run and give examples under codeblock 20.03 with MinGW 8.1.0.
#ifndef __tMatrix_class__
#define __tMatrix_class__
#include <iostream>
#include <initializer_list>
#include <iomanip>
#include <complex>
#include <sstream>
template <typename T> class tMatrix
{
public:
T *ptr;
int col, row, size;
inline T* begin() const {return ptr;}
inline T* end() const {return this->ptr + this->size;}
inline T operator()(const int i, const int j) const { return ptr[i*col+j]; } // r-value
inline T&operator()(const int i, const int j) { return ptr[i*col+j]; } //l-value
inline tMatrix(): col{0}, row{0}, size{0}, ptr{0} {;}
tMatrix(const int i, const int j): col(j), row(i), size(i*j) {
ptr = new T [this->size] ; }
tMatrix(const std::initializer_list< std::initializer_list<T> > s):tMatrix<T>(s.size(), s.begin()->size())
{
int j = 0;
for (const auto& i : s) { std::copy (i.begin(), i.end(), ptr + j*col); ++j ; }
}
tMatrix(const tMatrix<T>&a) : tMatrix<T>(a.row, a.col)
{
std::copy(a.begin(), a.end(), this->ptr);
}
tMatrix<T>& operator=(tMatrix<T>&&a)
{
this->col = a.col;
this->row = a.row;
delete [] this->ptr;
this->ptr = a.ptr;
a.ptr = nullptr;
return *this;
}
tMatrix<T>& operator=(const tMatrix<T>&a)
{
if (col==a.cpl && row==a.row) std::copy(a.begin(), a.end(), this->ptr);
else { tMatrix<T>&&v(a); *this = std::move(v);}
return *this;
}
tMatrix<T>& operator=(const std::initializer_list<std::initializer_list<T> > a)
{
tMatrix<T> &&v = a;
*this = std::move(v);
return *this;
}
~tMatrix() {delete [] this->ptr;}
void operator<<(const char*s)
{
std::stringstream ss;
ss.str(s);
for (int i=0; i<this->size; i++){
if (ss.good()) ss >> this->ptr[i];
else return;
}
}
}; //end of class tMatrix
template <typename X> std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream&p, const tMatrix<X>&a)
{
p << std::fixed;
for (int i=0; i<a.row; i++) {
for (int j=0; j <a.col; j++) p << std::setw(12) << a(i, j);
p << std::endl;
}
return p;
}
using CMPLX = std::complex<double>;
using iMatrix = tMatrix<int>;
using rMatrix = tMatrix<double>;
using cMatrix = tMatrix< CMPLX >;
#endif
int main()
{
cMatrix cx(2,2);
cx = { { {1,2},{3,4} }, { {5,6}, {7,8} } };
std::cout << cx << std::endl;
cx << "(1,2) (3,4)";
std::cout << cx << std::endl;
return 0;
}
The above code renders correct format of complex number, and prints
$ ./ttt_mtx_init_fin_tmp.exe
(1.000000,2.000000)(3.000000,4.000000)
(5.000000,6.000000)(7.000000,8.000000)
(1.000000,2.000000)(3.000000,4.000000)
(5.000000,6.000000)(7.000000,8.000000)
But if I use the `()` in the initializer_list and `{}` in the istream filed, the results are all wrong. If I chagned the relavant part of main() to :
cx = { { (1,2),(3,4) }, { (5,6), (7,8) } };
std::cout << cx << std::endl;
cx << "{1,2} {3,4}";
std::cout << cx << std::endl;
Which renders all wrong values (compared with above):
$ ./ttt_mtx_init_fin_tmp.exe
(2.000000,0.000000)(4.000000,0.000000)
(6.000000,0.000000)(8.000000,0.000000)
(2.000000,0.000000)(4.000000,0.000000)
(6.000000,0.000000)(8.000000,0.000000)
I found it is rather confusion. So, my questions: is there a way to make these two expressions a same form? Many thanks for any helps.
I do not know any way to make std::istream::operator>> use { and } for std::complex, but if you are fine with using a helper, then you can replace the () in the input with {} and forward the input to the original operator>>:
#include <iostream>
#include <complex>
#include <sstream>
#include <algorithm>
template <typename T>
struct complex_reader {
std::complex<T>& target;
};
template <typename T>
complex_reader<typename T::value_type> get_complex_reader(T& t){ return {t};}
template <typename T>
std::istream& operator>>(std::istream& in,complex_reader<T> cr){
std::string input;
std::getline(in,input,'}'); // read till `}`
std::replace(input.begin(),input.end(),'{','(');
input += ')';
std::stringstream ss{input};
ss >> cr.target; // call the original >>
return in;
}
int main()
{
std::stringstream ss{"{2,2}"};
std::complex<double> x;
ss >> get_complex_reader(x);
std::cout << x;
}
Output:
(2,2)
However, you would have to write a similar helper to get consistent output (you may not provide an operator<< for std::complex<T> directly). Also note that the above implementation is a little simplistic. It reads from the stream until it encounters a }. For invalid input this may result in undesired effects and more sophisticated input validation is required.
Note that the operator>> takes the complex_helper by value to allow passing temporaries. Thats fine, because the member is a (non-const) reference.
This is not an answer, but a reasoning of my choice. After a series of cross conversions with `largest_prime_is_463035818`, I figured out what is my best choice for now (many thanks to his time and patience). A bottom line is becoming clear to me that I will not alter the input format of istream that is too much changed for pratical purpose, since file input is the major method to fetch data for a large matrix.
Under this constrain, I try to make the appearance of initializer_list as friendly as possible. I did some experiments, and found that the complex_literals expression is acceptable by initializer_list. And it looks ok to me.
using namespace std::complex_literals;
int main()
{
cMatrix cx(3,2);
cx = { { 1+2.2j , 4j}, { 5.3+6.5j , 8.3j}, {8.3, 5.6+4j} };
std::cout << cx << std::endl;
cx << " (1,2) (3,4) (5,6) (7,8) (2.3, 3.4) (2,7.8) ";
std::cout << cx << std::endl;
return 0;
}
And it works.
$ ./a.exe
(1.000000,2.200000) (0.000000,4.000000)
(5.300000,6.500000) (0.000000,8.300000)
(8.300000,0.000000) (5.600000,4.000000)
(1.000000,2.000000) (3.000000,4.000000)
(5.000000,6.000000) (7.000000,8.000000)
(2.300000,3.400000) (2.000000,7.800000)
Thank you for your patience, and please let me know if there are better ways.

character string to bitset in C++

I am still kind of new to C++ and am trying to figure out what I am not able to pass a value correctly to a bitset, at least I suspect that is what the problem is.
I wrote a small function to assist in flipping the bits of a hex value to reverse the endian. So example would be input 0x01 and it would return 0x80.
This is the code I wrote.
int flipBits(char msd, char lsd) {
char ch[5];
sprintf_s(ch, "0x%d%d", msd, lsd);
char buffer[5];
strncpy_s(buffer, ch, 4);
cout << ch << endl;
cout << buffer << endl;
bitset<8> x(buffer);
bitset<8> y;
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
y[i] = x[7 - i];
}
cout << y << endl; // print the reversed bit order
int b = y.to_ulong(); // convert the binary to int
cout << b << endl; // print the int
cout << hex << b << endl; // print the hex
return b;
}
I tried adding the strncpy because I thought maybe the null terminator from sprintf was not working properly with the bitset. If in the line
bitset<8> x(buffer);
I replace buffer with a hex value, say for example 0x01, then it works and prints out 0x80 as I would expect, but if I try to pass in the value with the buffer it doesn't work.
We can write a stl-like container wrapper such that we can write:
int main() {
std::bitset<8> x(0x01);
auto container = make_bit_range(x);
std::reverse(container.begin(), container.end());
std::cout << x << std::endl;
}
and expect the output:
10000000
full code:
#include <iostream>
#include <bitset>
#include <algorithm>
template<std::size_t N>
struct bit_reference {
bit_reference(std::bitset<N>& data, int i) : data_(data), i_(i) {}
operator bool() const { return data_[i_]; }
bit_reference& operator=(bool x) {
data_[i_] = x;
return *this;
}
std::bitset<N>& data_;
int i_;
};
template<std::size_t N>
void swap(bit_reference<N> l, bit_reference<N> r) {
auto lv = bool(l);
auto rv = bool(r);
std::swap(lv, rv);
l = lv;
r = rv;
}
template<std::size_t N>
struct bit_range {
using bitset_type = std::bitset<N>;
bit_range(bitset_type &data) : data_(data) {}
struct iterator {
using iterator_category = std::bidirectional_iterator_tag;
using value_type = bit_reference<N>;
using difference_type = int;
using pointer = value_type *;
using reference = value_type &;
iterator(bitset_type &data, int i) : data_(data), i_(i) {}
bool operator==(iterator const &r) const { return i_ == r.i_; }
bool operator!=(iterator const &r) const { return i_ != r.i_; }
iterator &operator--() {
return update(i_ - 1);
}
iterator &operator++() {
return update(i_ + 1);
}
value_type operator*() const {
return bit_reference<N>(data_, i_);
}
private:
auto update(int pos) -> iterator & {
i_ = pos;
return *this;
}
private:
bitset_type &data_;
int i_;
};
auto begin() const { return iterator(data_, 0); }
auto end() const { return iterator(data_, int(data_.size())); }
private:
bitset_type &data_;
};
template<std::size_t N>
auto make_bit_range(std::bitset<N> &data) {
return bit_range<N>(data);
}
int main() {
std::bitset<8> x(0x01);
auto container = make_bit_range(x);
std::reverse(container.begin(), container.end());
std::cout << x << std::endl;
}
also plenty of fun algorithms here: Best Algorithm for Bit Reversal ( from MSB->LSB to LSB->MSB) in C

How can I use function in C++ to create a sequence?

My goal is to create an immutable function (functional programming) using "accumulate" in C++. I created a dummy list that generates 1's based on the position I send, which will be 6. So the list at the start contains {1,1,1,1,1,1}. I tried using accumulate to somehow use the information on this list and make the fibonacci sequence into a new list. The result has to be {1,1,2,3,5,8}
Here is what I have.
list<int> immutableFibonacci(int position)
{
const size_t fixedListSize(position);
list<int> newList(position, int(1));
list<int> copyList;
list<int>::iterator it = newList.begin();
if (position <=2)
{
return newList; //returns {1,1} or {1}
}
while (position>0)
{
advance(it, 1);
sum = accumulate(newList.begin(),it, 0);
copyList.push_back(sum);
position--;
}
return copyList;
}
What I have so far will return copyList as {1,2,3,4,5,6}. Can someone please push me in the right direction on what to do? I tried researching quite a bit.
this method creates a 'container-like' object which exposes iterators via begin() and end()
#include <iterator>
#include <iostream>
struct fib_iterator : std::iterator<std::forward_iterator_tag, long long>
{
fib_iterator(std::size_t torun = 0) : to_run(torun) {}
value_type operator*() const {
return value();
}
fib_iterator& operator++()
{
--to_run;
switch(preamble)
{
case 2:
--preamble;
return *this;
case 1:
--preamble;
return *this;
}
auto next = value();
x = y;
y = next;
return *this;
}
value_type value() const
{
switch(preamble)
{
case 2:
return 0;
case 1:
return 1;
}
return x + y;
}
bool operator==(const fib_iterator& r) const {
return to_run == r.to_run;
}
bool operator!=(const fib_iterator& r) const {
return to_run != r.to_run;
}
long long x = 0;
long long y = 1;
std::size_t preamble = 2;
std::size_t to_run;
};
struct fibonacci_sequence
{
fibonacci_sequence(std::size_t length) : length_(length) {}
fib_iterator begin() const { return { length_ }; }
fib_iterator end() const { return { }; }
std::size_t length_;
};
int main()
{
for (auto i : fibonacci_sequence(50))
std::cout << i << ", ";
std::cout << '\n';
}
sample output:
0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987,
1597, 2584, 4181, 6765, 10946, 17711, 28657, 46368, 75025, 121393,
196418, 317811, 514229, 832040, 1346269, 2178309, 3524578, 5702887,
9227465, 14930352, 24157817, 39088169, 63245986, 102334155, 165580141,
267914296, 433494437, 701408733, 1134903170, 1836311903, 2971215073,
4807526976, 7778742049,
How about this:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <numeric>
#include <string>
#include <functional>
int main()
{
std::vector<int> v{1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1};
std::vector<int> s = std::accumulate(v.begin(), v.end(),std::vector<int>{},
[](const std::vector<int>& a, int b)
{
std::vector<int> d = a;
if(a.size()<2)
{
d.push_back(1);
}
else
{
auto start = d.rbegin();
auto first = *start;
start++;
auto second = *start;
d.push_back(first+second);
}
return d;
});
std::cout << "Fibo: " <<'\n';
for( auto c : s )
{
std::cout << c << "-";
}
std::cout << '\n';
}
But I also think it is a bit too much overhead, for something that simple.
EDIT: Remember to compile that with: g++ --std=c++14 fibo.cpp -o fibo.
EDIT: If you don't want to use the lambda function look here: How can I modify this Fibonacci code in C++ to use a function instead of lambda?

implement iterator on every elements of value containers against each key of map using boost iterator

How to implement an iterator of just on values of a map/unordered_map using boost::iterator_adaptor? I've tried following code but it does not work because of the line with comment.
Is there a solution to avoid the problem?
The question here is slightly different from map_values adapter example shown in boost code as here the value field in map is another container like list or vector and the requirement here is to iterate over all elements of those lists for every key of the map.
The deref of iterator is of type of value_type of those list/vector.The end of iterator is the end of list of last key
#include <vector>
#include <boost/unordered_map.hpp>
#include <cassert>
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/iterator/iterator_adaptor.hpp>
class DS {
public:
DS() : _map() {}
~DS() {
for (Map::iterator it = _map.begin(); it != _map.end(); ++it) {
delete (it->second);
}
}
void add(int key_, const std::vector< int > &value_)
{
IntList *ptr = new IntList(value_);
assert(ptr);
_map.insert(Map::value_type(key_, ptr));
}
private:
typedef std::vector< int > IntList;
typedef boost::unordered_map< int, IntList* > Map;
Map _map;
public:
class KeyIter : public boost::iterator_adaptor< KeyIter,
Map::const_iterator,
int,
boost::forward_traversal_tag,
int>
{
public:
KeyIter() : KeyIter::iterator_adaptor_() {}
private:
friend class DS;
friend class boost::iterator_core_access;
explicit KeyIter(Map::const_iterator it) : KeyIter::iterator_adaptor_(it) {}
explicit KeyIter(Map::iterator it) : KeyIter::iterator_adaptor_(it) {}
int dereference() const { return this->base()->first; }
};
class ValueIter : public boost::iterator_adaptor< ValueIter,
Map::const_iterator,
int,
boost::forward_traversal_tag,
int>
{
public:
ValueIter()
: ValueIter::iterator_adaptor_()
, _lIt()
{}
private:
friend class DS;
friend class boost::iterator_core_access;
explicit ValueIter(Map::const_iterator it)
: ValueIter::iterator_adaptor_(it)
, _lIt()
, _mIt(it)
{
IntList *pt = it->second; // <<-- issue here is I can't find if I've already reached the end of the map
if (pt) {
_lIt = it->second->begin();
}
}
int dereference() const { return *_lIt; }
void increment()
{
if (_lIt == _mIt->second->end()) {
++_mIt;
_lIt = _mIt->second->begin();
} else {
++_lIt;
}
}
IntList::iterator _lIt;
Map::const_iterator _mIt;
};
KeyIter beginKey() const { return KeyIter(_map.begin()); }
KeyIter endKey() const { return KeyIter(_map.end()); }
ValueIter beginValue() const { return ValueIter(_map.begin()); }
ValueIter endValue() const { return ValueIter(_map.end()); }
};
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
DS ds;
std::vector< int > v1;
v1.push_back(10);
v1.push_back(30);
v1.push_back(50);
ds.add(90, v1);
std::vector< int > v2;
v2.push_back(20);
v2.push_back(40);
v2.push_back(60);
ds.add(120, v2);
std::cout << "------------ keys ---------------" << std::endl;
for (DS::KeyIter it = ds.beginKey(); it != ds.endKey(); ++it) {
std::cout << (*it) << std::endl;
}
std::cout << "------------ values ---------------" << std::endl;
// std::cout << (*(ds.beginValue())) << std::endl;
for (DS::ValueIter it = ds.beginValue(); it != ds.endValue(); ++it) {
std::cout << (*it) << std::endl;
}
return 0;
}
Implemented in c++11. You should be able to do the conversion to boost/c++03 fairly simply.
This iterator is FORWARD ONLY and it's quite fragile (see the comparison operator).
user discretion advised.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <unordered_map>
typedef std::vector< int > IntList;
typedef std::unordered_map< int, IntList* > Map;
struct whole_map_const_iterator
{
using C1 = IntList;
using C2 = Map;
using I1 = C1::const_iterator;
using I2 = C2::const_iterator;
using value_type = I1::value_type;
using reference = I1::reference;
whole_map_const_iterator(I2 i2) : _i2(i2) {}
bool operator==(const whole_map_const_iterator& r) const {
if (_i2 != r._i2)
return false;
if (deferred_i1 && r.deferred_i1)
return true;
if (deferred_i1 != r.deferred_i1)
return false;
return _i1 == r._i1;
}
bool operator!=(const whole_map_const_iterator& r) const { return !(*this == r); }
reference operator*() const {
check_deferred();
return *_i1;
}
void check_deferred() const {
if (deferred_i1) {
_i1 = _i2->second->begin();
_i1limit = _i2->second->end();
deferred_i1 = false;
}
}
void go_next()
{
check_deferred();
if (++_i1 == _i1limit) {
++_i2;
deferred_i1 = true;
}
}
whole_map_const_iterator& operator++() {
go_next();
return *this;
}
whole_map_const_iterator operator++(int) {
auto result = *this;
go_next();
return result;
}
I2 _i2;
mutable I1 _i1 = {}, _i1limit = {};
mutable bool deferred_i1 = true;
};
IntList a { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
IntList b { 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 };
Map m { { 1, &a }, { 2, &b } };
int main()
{
using namespace std;
auto from = whole_map_const_iterator(m.begin());
auto to = whole_map_const_iterator(m.end());
for ( ; from != to ; ++from) {
std::cout << *from << std::endl;
}
return 0;
}
example output:
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
For bonus points, answer this question:
Q: Why all that damn complication over the deferred flag?

Is it possible to define a variable that can be set only once?

I know of const, that can't be changed after creation. But I was wondering if there is a way to declare a variable that you set only once and after that, can't overwrite.
In my code, I would like to avoid the bool variable by having an nFirst that, once set to nIdx, can't be set to the new value of nIdx.
My code:
int nFirst = 0;
int nIdx = 0;
bool bFound = false;
BOOST_FOREACH(Foo* pFoo, aArray)
{
if (pFoo!= NULL)
{
pFoo->DoSmth();
if (!bFound)
{
nFirst= nIdx;
bFound = true;
}
}
nIdx++;
}
Pretty easy to roll your own.
template<typename T>
class SetOnce
{
public:
SetOnce(T init) : m_Val(init)
{}
SetOnce<T>& operator=(const T& other)
{
std::call_once(m_OnceFlag, [&]()
{
m_Val = other;
});
return *this;
}
const T& get() { return m_Val; }
private:
T m_Val;
std::once_flag m_OnceFlag;
};
Then just use the wrapper class for your variable.
SetOnce<int> nFirst(0);
nFirst= 1;
nFirst= 2;
nFirst= 3;
std::cout << nFirst.get() << std::endl;
Outputs:
1
I would like to avoid the bool variable
You can check nFirst itself, based on the fact that it won't be set a negative number. Such as:
int nFirst = -1;
int nIdx = 0;
BOOST_FOREACH(Foo* pFoo, aArray)
{
if (pFoo != NULL)
{
pFoo->DoSmth();
if (nFirst == -1)
{
nFirst = nIdx;
}
}
nIdx++;
}
Similar to cocarin's, but throws exception instead of silently ignoring assignment:
template <typename T, typename Counter = unsigned char>
class SetOnce {
public:
SetOnce(const T& initval = T(), const Counter& initcount = 1):
val(initval), counter(initcount) {}
SetOnce(const SetOnce&) = default;
SetOnce<T, Counter>& operator=(const T& newval) {
if (counter) {
--counter;
val = newval;
return *this;
}
else throw "Some error";
}
operator const T&() const { return val; } // "getter"
protected:
T val;
Counter counter;
};
Usage:
SetOnce<int> x = 42;
std::cout << x << '\n'; // => 42
x = 4;
// x = 5; // fails
std::cout << x << '\n'; // => 4
Online demo
Your question is about avoiding the bool but also implies the need for const-ness.
To avoid the bool, I'd use a boost::optional like this:
boost::optional<int> nFirst;
// ..
if (!nFirst) nFirst = nIdx;
// and now you can use *nFirst to get its value
Then, you can enforce logical (rather than literal) const-ness like this:
const boost::optional<int> nFirst;
// ..
if (!nFirst) const_cast<boost::optional<int>&>(nFirst) = nIdx;
// you can use *nFirst to get the value, any attempt to change it would cause a compile-time error
Using const_cast is not the safest practice, but in your particular case and as long as you only do it once it'd be OK. It simplifies both your code and your intentions: you do want a const, it's just that you want to defer it's initialisation for a bit.
Now, as songyuanyao suggested, you could directly use an int instead of a boost::optional, but the latter makes your intention explicit so I think it's better this way. In the end of day this is C++ while songyuanyao's solution is really a C-style one.
This is set once template. You can use this class as assurance that the value will be set and saved only once. Every next try will be canceled.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
template <class T>
class SetOnce;
template<class T>
std::ostream& operator<<( ostream& os, const SetOnce<T>& Obj );
template <class T>
class SetOnce
{
public:
SetOnce() {set = false; }
~SetOnce() {}
void SetValue(T newValue) { value = !set ? newValue : value; set = true; }
private:
T value;
bool set;
friend std::ostream& operator<< <>( ostream& os, const SetOnce& Obj );
public:
SetOnce<T>& operator=( const T& newValue )
{
this->SetValue(newValue);
return *this;
}
};
template<class T>
std::ostream& operator<<( ostream& os, const SetOnce<T>& Obj )
{
os << Obj.value;
return os;
}
Use case:
int main()
{
SetOnce<bool> bvar;
SetOnce<int> ivar;
SetOnce<std::string> strvar;
std::cout<<"initial values: \n"<<bvar<<" "
<<ivar<<" "<<strvar<<" \n\n";
bvar = false; //bvar.SetValue(false);
ivar = 45; //ivar.SetValue(45);
strvar = "Darth Vader"; //strvar.SetValue("Darth Vader");
std::cout<<"set values: \n"<<bvar<<" "
<<ivar<<" "<<strvar<<" \n\n";
bvar = true; //bvar.SetValue(true);
ivar = 0; //ivar.SetValue(0);
strvar = "Anakin"; //strvar.SetValue("Anakin");
std::cout<<"set again values: \n"<<bvar<<" "
<<ivar<<" "<<strvar<<" \n\n";
return 0;
}