return array reference from function - c++

I have an image with int[Components] components per pixel.
I want get() return an int[Components] reference when Components != 1 and an int& when Components == 1.
pos is a pointer to raw image data.
I already read this StackOverflow question before ask, but I have no success.
The following code compiles ok, but returns garbage.
#include <iostream>
template<typename ComponentType, uint8_t Size>
struct A
{
typedef typename std::conditional<Size == 1,
ComponentType&, ComponentType(&)[Size]>::type SampleType;
SampleType get()
{
if constexpr (Size == 1) return *pos;
else return reinterpret_cast<SampleType>(pos);
}
void advance() { pos += Size; }
ComponentType *pos;
};
int main()
{
int i[10] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10};
A<int, 2> a{i};
std::cout << (size_t) &a << "\r\n";
std::cout << (size_t) a.get() << "\r\n";
std::cout << (size_t) a.pos << "\r\n";
std::cout << (size_t) i << "\r\n";
for(int c : a.get())
std::cout << c << " ";
a.get()[1] = 1000;
return 0;
}
The code has the following output. Pointer values indicates that I totally screwed.
2293256
2293256
2293264
2293264
2293264 0
Can I ask what I was terribly wrong? How to fix this? Of-course get() can return a pointer if Components != 1 but I want the ability to use for( _ : _ )

A span is probably good for this.
template<typename ComponentType, uint8_t Size>
struct A
{
typedef typename std::conditional<Size == 1,
ComponentType&, span<ComponentType, Size>>::type SampleType;
SampleType get()
{
if constexpr (Size == 1) return *pos;
else return span<ComponentType, Size>(pos, Size);
}
void advance() { pos += Size; }
ComponentType *pos;
};

Solution strictly on returning an array reference.
Although span solution is very neat.
template<typename ComponentType, uint8_t Size>
struct A
{
typedef typename std::conditional<Size == 1,
ComponentType, ComponentType[Size]>::type SampleType;
SampleType& get()
{
if constexpr (Size == 1) return *pos;
else return *reinterpret_cast<SampleType*>(pos);
}
void advance() { pos += Size; }
ComponentType *pos;
};

Related

Type safe index values for std::vector

I have classes that collect index values from different constant STL vectors. Problem is, even if these vectors are different in content and they have different purposes, their indexes are of type std::size_t, so one might erroneusly use the index stored for one vector to access the elements of another vector. Can the code be changed in order to have a compile time error when a index is not used with the correct vector?
A code example:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
struct Named
{
std::string name;
};
struct Cat : Named { };
struct Dog : Named { };
struct Range
{
std::size_t start;
std::size_t end;
};
struct AnimalHouse
{
std::vector< Cat > cats;
std::vector< Dog > dogs;
};
int main( )
{
AnimalHouse house;
Range cat_with_name_starting_with_a;
Range dogs_with_name_starting_with_b;
// ...some initialization code here...
for( auto i = cat_with_name_starting_with_a.start;
i < cat_with_name_starting_with_a.end;
++i )
{
std::cout << house.cats[ i ].name << std::endl;
}
for( auto i = dogs_with_name_starting_with_b.start;
i < dogs_with_name_starting_with_b.end;
++i )
{
// bad copy paste but no compilation error
std::cout << house.cats[ i ].name << std::endl;
}
return 0;
}
Disclaimer: please do not focus too much on the example itself, I know it is dumb, it is just to get the idea.
Here is an attempt following up on my comment.
There are of course a lot of room to change the details of how this would work depending on the use-case, this way seemed reasonable to me.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
template <typename T>
struct Range {
Range(T& vec, std::size_t start, std::size_t end) :
m_vector(vec),
m_start(start),
m_end(end),
m_size(end-start+1) {}
auto begin() {
auto it = m_vector.begin();
std::advance(it, m_start);
return it;
}
auto end() {
auto it = m_vector.begin();
std::advance(it, m_end + 1);
return it;
}
std::size_t size() {
return m_size;
}
void update(std::size_t start, std::size_t end) {
m_start = start;
m_end = end;
m_size = end - start + 1;
}
Range copy(T& other_vec) {
return Range(other_vec, m_start, m_end);
}
typename T::reference operator[](std::size_t index) {
return m_vector[m_start + index];
}
private:
T& m_vector;
std::size_t m_start, m_end, m_size;
};
// This can be used if c++17 is not supported, to avoid
// having to specify template parameters
template <typename T>
Range<T> make_range(T& t, std::size_t start, std::size_t end) {
return Range<T>(t, start, end);
}
int main() {
std::vector<int> v1 {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
std::vector<double> v2 {0.5, 1., 1.5, 2., 2.5};
Range more_then_2(v1, 1, 4); // Only works in c++17 or later
auto more_then_1 = make_range(v2, 2, 4);
for (auto v : more_then_2)
std::cout << v << ' ';
std::cout << std::endl;
for (auto v : more_then_1)
std::cout << v << ' ';
std::cout << std::endl;
more_then_2.update(2,4);
for (auto v : more_then_2)
std::cout << v << ' ';
std::cout << std::endl;
auto v3 = v1;
auto more_then_2_copy = more_then_2.copy(v3);
for (unsigned i=0; i < more_then_2_copy.size(); ++i)
std::cout << more_then_2_copy[i] << ' ';
return 0;
}

Why is trying to store a pointer to function ambiguous

Here is my code:
#include <functional>
#include <iostream>
#include<vector>
using namespace std;
// vector iterator
template <class T> class vit
{
private:
//vector<T>::iterator it;
vector<T> m_v;
function<bool (T, T)> m_fptr;
int len, pos;
public:
vit(vector<T> &v) { this->m_v = v; len = v.size(); pos = 0;};
// it= v.begin(); };
bool next(T &i) {
//if(it == m_v.end()) return false;
if(pos==len) return false;
//i = *it;
i = m_v[pos];
//if(idle) { idle = false ; return true; }
//it++;
pos++;
return true;};
//bool idle = true;
void set_same(function<bool (T,T)> fptr) { m_fptr = fptr ;};
//void set_same(function<bool(int, int)> fun) { return ; }
bool grp_begin() {
return pos == 0 || ! m_fptr(m_v[pos], m_v[pos-1]); };
bool grp_end() {
return pos == len || ! m_fptr(m_v[pos], m_v[pos+1]); };
};
bool is_same(int a, int b) { return a == b; }
main()
{
vector<int> v ={ 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 1, 1, 1 };
int total;
for(auto it = v.begin(); it != v.end(); it++) {
if(it == v.begin() || *it != *(it-1)) {
total = 0;
}
total += *it;
if(it+1 == v.end() || *it != *(it+1)) {
cout << total << endl;
}
}
cout << "let's gry a group" <<endl;
vit<int> g(v);
int i;
while(g.next(i)) { cout << i << endl; }
cout << "now let's get really fancy" << endl;
vit<int> a_vit(v);
//auto is_same = [](int a, int b) { return a == b; };
a_vit.set_same(is_same);
//int total;
while(a_vit.next(i)) {
if(a_vit.grp_begin()) total = 0;
total += i;
if(a_vit.grp_end()) cout << total << endl ;
}
}
When I compile it with g++ -std=c++11 iter.cc -o iter, I get the result:
iter.cc: In function 'int main()':
iter.cc:63:17: error: reference to 'is_same' is ambiguous
a_vit.set_same(is_same);
^
iter.cc:37:6: note: candidates are: bool is_same(int, int)
bool is_same(int a, int b) { return a == b; }
^
In file included from /usr/include/c++/5.3.0/bits/move.h:57:0,
from /usr/include/c++/5.3.0/bits/stl_pair.h:59,
from /usr/include/c++/5.3.0/utility:70,
from /usr/include/c++/5.3.0/tuple:38,
from /usr/include/c++/5.3.0/functional:55,
from iter.cc:1:
/usr/include/c++/5.3.0/type_traits:958:12: note: template<class, class> struct std::is_same
struct is_same;
^
By way of explanation, I have created a class called 'vit'. It does two things: iterate over a vector, and determine if a new group has been reached.
The class function 'set_same' is supposed to store a function provided by the calling class to determine if two adjacent elements of a vector are in the same group. However, I can't seem to store the function in the class for future use by grp_begin() and grp_end() on account of the ostensible ambiguity of is_same.
What gives?
There is an is_same function defined by you and there is a struct is_same defined by the C++ Standard Library. Since you are using namespace std, your compiler doesn't know which is_same you meant to use.
It's what the error says: it's not clear whether you mean your is_same (in the global namespace) or the class template is_same (in namespace std).
You may disambiguate as follows:
::is_same
… with the leading :: meaning "in the global namespace".
Though you should consider putting your code in a namespace of its own.
Thanks guys. This is my first time touching C++ after more than a decade. I have cleaned up the code, and used a lambda to bring the "is_same" function closer to where it is called.
Did you spot the bug in my code? 'pos' was off-by-one when calling grp_begin() and grp_end(). Here is the revised code:
#include <functional>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
// vector iterator
template <class T> class vit
{
private:
std::vector<T> m_v;
std::function<bool (T, T)> m_fptr;
int len, pos;
public:
vit(std::vector<T> &v) { m_v = v; len = v.size(); pos = -1;};
bool next(T &val) {
pos++;
if(pos==len) return false;
val = m_v[pos];
return true;};
void set_same(std::function<bool (T,T)> fptr) { m_fptr = fptr ;};
bool grp_begin() {
return pos == 0 || ! m_fptr(m_v[pos], m_v[pos-1]); };
bool grp_end() {
return pos+1 == len || ! m_fptr(m_v[pos], m_v[pos+1]); };
};
main()
{
std::vector<int> v ={ 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 1, 1, 1 };
vit<int> a_vit(v);
std::function<bool (int, int)> is_same = [](int a, int b) { return a == b; };
a_vit.set_same(is_same);
int i, total;
while(a_vit.next(i)) {
if(a_vit.grp_begin()) total = 0;
total += i;
if(a_vit.grp_end()) std::cout << total << std::endl ;
}
}
My class definition isn't bullet-proof and could be better: if the user forgets to 'set-same', for example, they'll be referring a random memory address as a function.
Nevertheless, I'm pretty chuffed with my solution so far. The class caller is relieved of all the bookkeeping relating iterating over the vector, and working out if a group boundary has been crossed.
The calling code looks very compact and intuitive to me.I can see C++ being my go to language.

Different return and coordinate types in nanoflann radius search

I'm trying to use nanoflann in a project and am looking at the vector-of-vector and radius search examples.
I can't find a way to perform a radius search with a different data type than the coordinate type. For example, my coordinates are vectors of uint8_t; I am trying to input a radius of type uint32_t with little success.
I see in the source that the metric_L2 struct (which I am using for distance) uses the L2_Adaptor with two template parameters. L2_Adaptor itself takes three parameters, with the third defaulted to the first, which seems to be the problem if I am understanding the code correctly. However, trying to force use of the third always results in 0 matches in the radius search.
Is there a way to do this?
Edit: In the same code below, everything works. However, if I change the search_radius (and ret_matches) to uint32_t, the radiusSearch method doesn't work.
#include <iostream>
#include <Eigen/Dense>
#include <nanoflann.hpp>
typedef Eigen::Matrix<uint8_t, Eigen::Dynamic, 1> coord_t;
using namespace nanoflann;
struct Point
{
coord_t address;
Point() {}
Point(uint8_t coordinates) : address(coord_t::Random(coordinates)) {}
};
struct Container
{
std::vector<Point> points;
Container(uint8_t coordinates, uint32_t l)
: points(l)
{
for(auto& each_location: points)
{
each_location = Point(coordinates);
}
}
};
struct ContainerAdaptor
{
typedef ContainerAdaptor self_t;
typedef nanoflann::metric_L2::traits<uint8_t, self_t>::distance_t metric_t;
typedef KDTreeSingleIndexAdaptor<metric_t, self_t, -1, size_t> index_t;
index_t *index;
const Container &container;
ContainerAdaptor(const int dimensions, const Container &container, const int leaf_max_size = 10)
: container(container)
{
assert(container.points.size() != 0 && container.points[0].address.rows() != 0);
const size_t dims = container.points[0].address.rows();
index = new index_t(dims, *this, nanoflann::KDTreeSingleIndexAdaptorParams(leaf_max_size));
index->buildIndex();
}
~ContainerAdaptor()
{
delete index;
}
inline void query(const uint8_t *query_point, const size_t num_closest, size_t *out_indices, uint32_t *out_distances_sq, const int ignoreThis = 10) const
{
nanoflann::KNNResultSet<uint32_t, size_t, size_t> resultSet(num_closest);
resultSet.init(out_indices, out_distances_sq);
index->findNeighbors(resultSet, query_point, nanoflann::SearchParams());
}
const self_t& derived() const
{
return *this;
}
self_t& derived()
{
return *this;
}
inline size_t kdtree_get_point_count() const
{
return container.points.size();
}
inline size_t kdtree_distance(const uint8_t *p1, const size_t idx_p2, size_t size) const
{
size_t s = 0;
for (size_t i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
const uint8_t d = p1[i] - container.points[idx_p2].address[i];
s += d * d;
}
return s;
}
inline coord_t::Scalar kdtree_get_pt(const size_t idx, int dim) const
{
return container.points[idx].address[dim];
}
template <class BBOX>
bool kdtree_get_bbox(BBOX & bb) const
{
for(size_t i = 0; i < bb.size(); i++)
{
bb[i].low = 0;
bb[i].high = UINT8_MAX;
}
return true;
}
};
void container_demo(const size_t points, const size_t coordinates)
{
Container s(coordinates, points);
coord_t query_pt(coord_t::Random(coordinates));
typedef ContainerAdaptor my_kd_tree_t;
my_kd_tree_t mat_index(coordinates, s, 25);
mat_index.index->buildIndex();
const uint8_t search_radius = static_cast<uint8_t>(100);
std::vector<std::pair<size_t, uint8_t>> ret_matches;
nanoflann::SearchParams params;
const size_t nMatches = mat_index.index->radiusSearch(query_pt.data(), search_radius, ret_matches, params);
for (size_t i = 0; i < nMatches; i++)
{
std::cout << "idx[" << i << "]=" << +ret_matches[i].first << " dist[" << i << "]=" << +ret_matches[i].second << std::endl;
}
std::cout << std::endl;
std::cout << "radiusSearch(): radius=" << +search_radius << " -> " << +nMatches << " matches" << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
container_demo(1e6, 32);
return 0;
}
More info: so it seems that the distance type, which the third parameter of the L2_Adaptor, must be a signed type. Changing the metric_t typedef to the following solves the problem if search_radius and ret_matches are also changed to int64_t.
typedef L2_Adaptor<uint8_t, self_t, int64_t> metric_t;

Primitive array vs. Array template in C++

I got this question from the cracking the coding interview book. I was able to write this method in python and java. But when I tried to write it in c++, the compiler starts yelling at me. I think the problem is that in the main function, I had a array instantiated by a template but the function is taking in a primitive array. How should I instantiate a primitive array?
// Given a sorted array of positive integers with an empty spot (zero) at the
// end, insert an element in sorted order.
bool sortSortedArray(size_t arrInt[], size_t x)
{
size_t indexArr{0};
size_t insertNum{x};
while (x != 0) {
if (x < arrInt[indexArr]) {
size_t swapVal = arrInt[indexArr];
arrInt[indexArr];
insertNum = swapVal;
++indexArr;
}
}
return true;
}
// Test the sortSortedArray function.
int main()
{
array<size_t, 5> testArr{1, 4, 5, 8, 0};
if (sortSortedArray(testArr, 3)) {
return 0;
}
}
Either make testArr a primitive array:
int testArr[] = {1, 4, 5, 8, 0};
or call data() to get the underlying array:
if (sortSortedArray(testArr.data(), 3)) {
#include <cstddef>
#include <array>
#include <iostream>
// this is a function template because each std::array<> parameter set creates a
// a type and we need a function for each type (we know std::size_t is the element
// type so this is only parameterized on the size)
template<size_t ArrSize>
void sortSortedArray(
std::array<std::size_t, ArrSize>& arr,
const std::size_t insertNum)
{
// last position is known to be "empty"
arr[arr.size() - 1] = insertNum;
// swap value in last position leftwards until value to the left is less
auto pos = arr.size() - 1;
if (pos == 0)
return;
while (arr[pos - 1] > arr[pos])
{
const auto tmp = arr[pos - 1];
arr[pos - 1] = arr[pos];
arr[pos] = tmp;
--pos;
if (pos == 0)
return;
}
}
template<typename T, size_t N>
void printArray(const std::array<T, N>& r)
{
for (const auto i : r)
{
std::cout << i << " ";
}
std::cout << '\n';
}
int main()
{
std::array<std::size_t, 5> testArr{{1, 4, 5, 8, 0}};
printArray(testArr);
sortSortedArray(testArr, 3);
printArray(testArr);
}

Simpler way to set multiple array slots to one value

I'm coding in C++, and I have the following code:
int array[30];
array[9] = 1;
array[5] = 1;
array[14] = 1;
array[8] = 2;
array[15] = 2;
array[23] = 2;
array[12] = 2;
//...
Is there a way to initialize the array similar to the following?
int array[30];
array[9,5,14] = 1;
array[8,15,23,12] = 2;
//...
Note: In the actual code, there can be up to 30 slots that need to be set to one value.
This function will help make it less painful.
void initialize(int * arr, std::initializer_list<std::size_t> list, int value) {
for (auto i : list) {
arr[i] = value;
}
}
Call it like this.
initialize(array,{9,5,14},2);
A variant of aaronman's answer:
template <typename T>
void initialize(T array[], const T& value)
{
}
template <size_t index, size_t... indices, typename T>
void initialize(T array[], const T& value)
{
array[index] = value;
initialize<indices...>(array, value);
}
int main()
{
int array[10];
initialize<0,3,6>(array, 99);
std::cout << array[0] << " " << array[3] << " " << array[6] << std::endl;
}
Example: Click here
Just for the fun of it I created a somewhat different approach which needs a bit of infrastructure allowing initialization like so:
double array[40] = {};
"9 5 14"_idx(array) = 1;
"8 15 23 12"_idx(array) = 2;
If the digits need to be separated by commas, there is a small change needed. In any case, here is the complete code:
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
#include <sstream>
#include <iterator>
template <int Size, typename T = int>
class assign
{
int d_indices[Size];
int* d_end;
T* d_array;
void operator=(assign const&) = delete;
public:
assign(char const* base, std::size_t n)
: d_end(std::copy(std::istream_iterator<int>(
std::istringstream(std::string(base, n)) >> std::skipws),
std::istream_iterator<int>(), this->d_indices))
, d_array()
{
}
assign(assign<Size>* as, T* a)
: d_end(std::copy(as->begin(), as->end(), this->d_indices))
, d_array(a) {
}
assign(assign const& o)
: d_end(std::copy(o.begin(), o.end(), this->d_indices))
, d_array(o.d_array)
{
}
int const* begin() const { return this->d_indices; }
int const* end() const { return this->d_end; }
template <typename A>
assign<Size, A> operator()(A* array) {
return assign<Size, A>(this, array);
}
void operator=(T const& value) {
for (auto it(this->begin()), end(this->end()); it != end; ++it) {
d_array[*it] = value;
}
}
};
assign<30> operator""_idx(char const* base, std::size_t n)
{
return assign<30>(base, n);
}
int main()
{
double array[40] = {};
"1 3 5"_idx(array) = 17;
"4 18 7"_idx(array) = 19;
std::copy(std::begin(array), std::end(array),
std::ostream_iterator<double>(std::cout, " "));
std::cout << "\n";
}
I just had a play around for the sake of fun / experimentation (Note my concerns at the bottom of the answer):
It's used like this:
smartAssign(array)[0][8] = 1;
smartAssign(array)[1][4][2] = 2;
smartAssign(array)[3] = 3;
smartAssign(array)[5][9][6][7] = 4;
Source code:
#include <assert.h> //Needed to test variables
#include <iostream>
#include <cstddef>
template <class ArrayPtr, class Value>
class SmartAssign
{
ArrayPtr m_array;
public:
class Proxy
{
ArrayPtr m_array;
size_t m_index;
Proxy* m_prev;
Proxy(ArrayPtr array, size_t index)
: m_array(array)
, m_index(index)
, m_prev(nullptr)
{ }
Proxy(Proxy* prev, size_t index)
: m_array(prev->m_array)
, m_index(index)
, m_prev(prev)
{ }
void assign(Value value)
{
m_array[m_index] = value;
for (auto prev = m_prev; prev; prev = prev->m_prev) {
m_array[prev->m_index] = value;
}
}
public:
void operator=(Value value)
{
assign(value);
}
Proxy operator[](size_t index)
{
return Proxy{this, index};
}
friend class SmartAssign;
};
SmartAssign(ArrayPtr array)
: m_array(array)
{
}
Proxy operator[](size_t index)
{
return Proxy{m_array, index};
}
};
template <class T>
SmartAssign<T*, T> smartAssign(T* array)
{
return SmartAssign<T*, T>(array);
}
int main()
{
int array[10];
smartAssign(array)[0][8] = 1;
smartAssign(array)[1][4][2] = 2;
smartAssign(array)[3] = 3;
smartAssign(array)[5][9][6][7] = 4;
for (auto i : array) {
std::cout << i << "\n";
}
//Now to test the variables
assert(array[0] == 1 && array[8] == 1);
assert(array[1] == 2 && array[4] == 2 && array[2] == 2);
assert(array[3] == 3);
assert(array[5] == 4 && array[9] == 4 && array[6] == 4 && array[7] == 4);
}
Let me know what you think, I don't typically write much code like this, I'm sure someone will point out some problems somewhere ;)
I'm not a 100% certain of the lifetime of the proxy objects.
The best you can do if your indexes are unrelated is "chaining" the assignments:
array[9] = array[5] = array[14] = 1;
However if you have some way to compute your indexes in a deterministic way you could use a loop:
for (size_t i = 0; i < 3; ++i)
array[transform_into_index(i)] = 1;
This last example also obviously applies if you have some container where your indexes are stored. So you could well do something like this:
const std::vector<size_t> indexes = { 9, 5, 14 };
for (auto i: indexes)
array[i] = 1;
Compilers which still doesn't support variadic template argument and universal initialization list, it can be a pain to realize, that some of the posted solution will not work
As it seems, OP only intends to work with arrays of numbers, valarray with variable arguments can actually solve this problem quite easily.
#include <valarray>
#include <cstdarg>
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iterator>
template <std::size_t size >
std::valarray<std::size_t> selection( ... )
{
va_list arguments;
std::valarray<std::size_t> sel(size);
//Skip the first element
va_start ( arguments, size );
va_arg ( arguments, int );
for(auto &elem : sel)
elem = va_arg ( arguments, int );
va_end ( arguments );
return sel;
}
int main ()
{
//Create an array of 30 integers
std::valarray<int> array(30);
//The first argument is the count of indexes
//followed by the indexes of the array to initialize
array[selection<3>(9,5,14)] = 1;
array[selection<4>(8,15,13, 12)] = 2;
std::copy(std::begin(array), std::end(array),
std::ostream_iterator<int>(std::cout, " "));
return 0;
}
I remember, for static initialization exist syntax like:
int array[30] = {
[9] = 1, [8] = 2
}
And so on. This works in gcc, about another compilers - I do not know.
Use overload operator << .
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
#include <cmath>
// value and indexes wrapper
template< typename T, std::size_t ... Ints> struct _s{ T value; };
//deduced value type
template< std::size_t ... Ints, typename T>
constexpr inline _s<T, Ints... > _ ( T const& v )noexcept { return {v}; }
// stored array reference
template< typename T, std::size_t N>
struct _ref
{
using array_ref = T (&)[N];
array_ref ref;
};
//join _s and _ref with << operator.
template<
template< typename , std::size_t ... > class IC,
typename U, std::size_t N, std::size_t ... indexes
>
constexpr _ref<U,N> operator << (_ref<U,N> r, IC<U, indexes...> ic ) noexcept
{
using list = bool[];
return ( (void)list{ false, ( (void)(r.ref[indexes] = ic.value), false) ... }) , r ;
//return r;
}
//helper function, for creating _ref<T,N> from array.
template< typename T, std::size_t N>
constexpr inline _ref<T,N> _i(T (&array)[N] ) noexcept { return {array}; }
int main()
{
int a[15] = {0};
_i(a) << _<0,3,4,5>(7) << _<8,9, 14>( 6 ) ;
for(auto x : a)std::cout << x << " " ;
// 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
//result: 7 0 0 7 7 7 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 6
double b[101]{0};
_i(b) << _<0,10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,90>(3.14)
<< _<11,21,22,23,24,25>(2.71)
<< _<5,15,25,45,95>(1.414) ;
}
struct _i_t
{
int * array;
struct s
{
int* array;
std::initializer_list<int> l;
s const& operator = (int value) const noexcept
{
for(auto i : l )
array[i] = value;
return *this;
}
};
s operator []( std::initializer_list<int> i ) const noexcept
{
return s{array, i};
}
};
template< std::size_t N>
constexpr _i_t _i( int(&array)[N]) noexcept { return {array}; }
int main()
{
int a[15] = {0};
_i(a)[{1,3,5,7,9}] = 7;
for(auto x : a)std::cout << x << ' ';
}
Any fancy trickery you do will be unrolled by the compiler/assembler into exactly what you have. Are you doing this for readability reasons? If your array is already init, you can do:
array[8] = array[15] = array[23] = array[12] = 2;
But I stress my point above; it will be transformed into exactly what you have.