define list in header vertice on c++ - c++

Question

I have problem with define syntax of List this error that I getting, I tried creating a list of Vertice and I have problem with the syntax, I tried using namespace STD also in a header but still getting an error:
Severity Code Description Project File Line Suppression State
Error (active) E0415 no suitable constructor exists to convert from "std::list> *" to "std::list>" graf C:\Users\danie\OneDrive\Desktop\graf\graf\Vertice.cpp 39
Vertice.h
#pragma once
#include <list>
#include <iostream>
class Vertice {
std::list<Vertice> getList();
void setList(Vertice v);
private:
std::list<Vertice> *N;
};
Vertice.cpp
#pragma once
#include <list>
#include <iostream>
#include "Vertice.h"
using namespace std;
Vertice::Vertice(int b, int f) {
N = new list < Vertice > ();
color = 0;
}
list < Vertice > Vertice::getList() {
return N;
}
void Vertice::setList(Vertice v) {
this - > N - > push_front(v);
}
Vertice::~Vertice() {
N - > clear();
}

Answer 1

The reason why you are getting comments and not answers is because you
a) Did not post the error message (as mentioned in a comment)
b) Your code contains many errors and some anti-patterns.
When using namespaces in C++ the convention is to use the full namespace in header
std::list<Vertice> *N; // member declaration
and a "using" declaration in the module.
using namespace std;
...
list<Vertice> Vertice::getList() const // return by value, mark as const
{
return N; // you don't need this->N in C++
}
However, many people prefer to simply type the full namespace always, so if you find this easier to understand, try using that.
What are you trying to achieve with this code? The reason I ask is because dynamically allocating a "std::list" is a bit weird. A "std::list" is designed to manage memory for you, which makes this code read a bit like "allocate a pointer to hold the address of the memory I'm about to allocate". I strongly suspect you are trying to make a recursive structure (a tree). Surprisingly C++ does not require you to use pointers to do this (C does). Maybe this pattern will help?
class NTree
{
private:
std::list<NTree> children;
};
I would suggest you get your code working like that first. If need to optimize, you will more control of the memory, then something like this will help.
class NTree
{
private:
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<NTree>> children;
};
This will allow you to, for example, move a child from one node (NTree) to another (NTree - or other), in a safe way. This avoids any copying overhead. This is a minor saving unless either your trees get very big or they contain objects which are very big. Even expert C++ programmers will try and get their code working before trying an optimization like this. There is no way to predict if it will required or not, so as always benchmark before and after.