Say my member function needs to return both a std::vector<std::pair<MyClass,double>> and a double. Both are computed as part of the same algorithm: I need them both returned from the same member function. (I.e. I cannot have two separate functions easily; it would require duplicate code and performance overhead.)
I read that it is better to avoid out parameters in these quidelines, i.e.:
F.20: For "out" output values, prefer return values to output
parameters.
So my code looks as follow:
std::pair<std::vector<std::pair<MyClass,double>>,double>
computeTransitionsAndCost(double input);
(A std::pair<MyClass,double> is a transition, hence the name.)
With out parameter, this would be
std::vector<std::pair<MyClass,double>> computeTransitions(double input, double& costOut);
In the latter code, it is clearer to the user what the function returns: a list of pairs. But the guidelines are against it, because
A return value is self-documenting, whereas a & could be either in-out or out-only and is liable to be misused.
Is there any way to adhere to the guidelines and still ensure that it is clear to the user of the code what is represented by the return values?
Why not return a composite like follows?
struct ComputedTransitions
{
struct Transition
{
MyClass description;
double weight;
};
std::vector<Transition> transitions;
double cost;
};
ComputedTransitions computeTransitions(double input);
This will let you both give meaningful names to the elements of the return value, and put all the related data into one structure.
Related
This might seem like a weird question, but how would I create a C++ function that tells whether a given C++ function that takes as a parameter a variable of type X and returns a variable of type X, is injective in the space of machine representation of those variables, i.e. never returns the same variable for two different variables passed to it?
(For those of you who weren't Math majors, maybe check out this page if you're still confused about the definition of injective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injective_function)
For instance, the function
double square(double x) { return x*x};
is not injective since square(2.0) = square(-2.0),
but the function
double cube(double x) { return x*x*x};
is, obviously.
The goal is to create a function
template <typename T>
bool is_injective(T(*foo)(T))
{
/* Create a set std::set<T> retVals;
For each element x of type T:
if x is in retVals, return false;
if x is not in retVals, add it to retVals;
Return true if we made it through the above loop.
*/
}
I think I can implement that procedure except that I'm not sure how to iterate through every element of type T. How do I accomplish that?
Also, what problems might arise in trying to create such a function?
You need to test every possible bit pattern of length sizeof(T).
There was a widely circulated blog post about this topic recently: There are Only Four Billion Floats - So Test Them All!
In that post, the author was able to test all 32-bit floats in 90 seconds. Turns out that would take a few centuries for 64-bit values.
So this is only possible with small input types.
Multiple inputs, structs, or anything with pointers are going to get impossible fast.
BTW, even with 32-bit values you will probably exhaust system memory trying to store all the output values in a std::set, because std::set uses a lot of extra memory for pointers. Instead, you should use a bitmap that's big enough to hold all 2^sizeof(T) output values. The specialized std::vector<bool> should work. That will take 2^sizeof(T) / 8 bytes of memory.
Maybe what you need is std::numeric_limits. To store the results, you may use an unordered_map (from std if you're using C++11, or from boost if you're not).
You can check the limits of the data types, maybe something like this might work (it's a dumb solution, but it may get you started):
template <typename T>
bool is_injective(T(*foo)(T))
{
std::unordered_map<T, T> hash_table;
T min = std::numeric_limits<T>::min();
T max = std::numeric_limits<T>::max();
for(T it = min; i < max; ++i)
{
auto result = hash_table.emplace(it, foo(it));
if(result.second == false)
{
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
Of course, you may want to restrict a few of the possible data types. Otherwise, if you check for floats, doubles or long integers, it'll get very intensive.
but the function
double cube(double x) { return x*x*x};
is, obviously.
It is obviously not. There are 2^53 more double values representable in [0..0.5) than in [0..0.125).
As far as I know, you cannot iterate all possible values of a type in C++.
But, even if you could, that approach would get you nowhere. If your type is a 64 bit integer, you might have to iterate through 2^64 values and keep track of the result for all of them, which is not possible.
Like other people said, there is no solution for a generic type X.
I have an assignment (see below for question) for a beginners c++ class, where i am asked to pass 2 values back from a single function. I am pretty sure of my understanding of how to use functions and the general structure of what the program should be, but i am having trouble fingin how to pass two variables back to "main" from the function.
Assignment:
Write a program that simulates an airplane race. The program will display a table showing the speed in km/hour and distance in km traveled by two airplanes every second until one of them has gone 10 kilometers.
These are the requirements for the program:
-The program will use a function that has the following parameters: time and acceleration.
-The function will pass back two data items: speed and distance.
You have two options (well, three really, but I'm leaving pointers out).
Take references to output arguments and assign them within the function.
Return a data structure which contains all of the return values.
Which option is best depends on your program. If this is a one off function that isn't called from many places then you may chose to use option #1. I assume by "speed" you mean the "constant velocity" which is reached after "time" of acceleration.
void calc_velocity_profile(double accel_time,
double acceleration,
double &out_velocity, // these last two are
double &out_distance); // assigned in the function
If this is a more general purpose function and/or a function which will be called by many clients I would probably prefer option #2.
struct velocity_profile {
double velocity;
double distance;
};
velocity_profile calc_velocity_profile(double accel_time, double acceleration);
Everything being equal, I prefer option 1. Given the choice, I like a function which returns a value instead of a function which mutates its input.
2017 Update: This is discussed in the C++ Core Guidelines :
F.21 To return multiple "out" values, prefer returning a tuple or struct
However, I would lean towards returning a struct over a tuple due to named, order-independent access that is encapsulated and reusable as a explicit strong type.
In the special case of returning a bool and a T, where the T is only filled if the bool is true , consider returning a std::optional<T>. See this CPPCon17 video for an extended discussion.
Struct version:
struct SpeedInfo{
float speed;
float distance;
};
SpeedInfo getInfo()
{
SpeedInfo si;
si.speed = //...
si.distance = //...
return si;
}
The benefit of this is that you get an encapsulated type with named access.
Reference version:
void getInfo(float& speed, float& distance)
{
speed = //...
distance = //...
}
You have to pass in the output vars:
float s;
float d;
getInfo(s, d);
Pointer version:
void getInfo(float* speed, float* distance)
{
if(speed)
{
*speed = //...
}
if(distance)
{
*distance= //...
}
}
Pass the memory address of the output variable:
float s;
float d;
getInfo(&s, &d);
Pointer version is interesting because you can just pass a nullptr/NULL/0 for things you aren't interested in; this can become useful when you are using such a function that potentially takes a lot of params, but are not interested in all the output values. e.g:
float d;
getInfo(nullptr, &d);
This is something which you cant do with references, although they are safer.
There is already such a data structure in C++ that is named as std::pair. It is declared in header <utility>. So the function could look the following way
std::pair<int, int> func( int time, int acceleration )
{
// some calculations
std::pair<int, int> ret_value;
ret_value.first = speed_value;
ret_value.second = distance_value;
return ( ret_value );
}
Apologies in advanced if this is the wrong site, please let me know if it is!
I've written a function that checks to see whether a key exists in a particular std::map and wondered if this is a good practise to use, and, whether or not anyone can throw any pointers on improvements.
The std::map allows for multiple data-types to be accepted for the value.
union Variants {
int asInt;
char* asStr;
Variants(int in) { asInt = in; }
Variants() { asInt = 0;}
Variants(char* in) { asStr = in; }
operator int() { return asInt; }
operator char*() { return asStr; }
};
template<typename T, typename Y>
bool in_map(T value, std::map<T, Y> &map)
{
if(map.find(value) == map.end()) {
return false;
}else{
return true;
}
}
And I can then use in main the following:
std::map<string, Variants> attributes;
attributes["value1"] = 101;
attributes["value2"] = "Hello, world";
if(in_map<std::string, Variants>("value1", attributes))
{
std::cout << "Yes, exists!";
}
Any help or advise would be greatly appreciated. Sorry if this doesn't comply to the rules or standards. Thanks!
The biggest problem I see with your function is that you're throwing away the resulting iterator.
When you're checking if a key exists in a map, most of the time you want to retrieve/use the associated value after that. Using your function in that case forces you to do a double lookup, at the cost of performance. I would just avoid the use of the function altogether, and write the tests directly, keeping the iterator around for later use in order to avoid useless lookups:
auto it = map_object.find("key");
if (it != map_object.end())
use(it->second);
else
std::cout << "not found" << std::endl;
Of course if you're just checking whether a key exists and don't care for the associated value then your function is fine (taking into account what others told you in the comments) but I think its use cases are quite limited and not really worth the extra function. You could just do:
if (map_object.find("key") != map_object.end())
std::cout << "found, but I don't care about the value" << std::endl;
ny pointers on improvements.
sure.
template<typename T, typename Y>
bool in_map(T value, const std::map<T, Y> &map)
{
return map.find(value) != map.end();
}
And I'd place map as 1st parameter (just a preference). Also, because the whole thing fits into single line, you might not even need this function.
You're also throwing away returned iterator, but since you aren't using it, that's not a problem.
Apart from this, does this look ok in terms of coding practise? I.e. Using Union or are there other types I can use such as struct?
Well, using char* doesn't looke like a good idea, because char* implies that you can modify data. char* also implies that this pointer is dynamically allocated and you might want to delete[] that pointer later. And you can't use destructors in unions. If the text cannot be changed, you could use const char*, otherwise you might want to use different datatype. Also see Rule of Three
Next problem - you're trying to place char* and int at the same location. That implies that at some point you're trying to convert pointer to integer. Which is a bad idea, because on 64bit platform pointer might not fit into int, and you'll get only half of it.
Also, if you're trying to store multiple different values in the same variable, you are not indicating which type is being stored anywhere. To do that you would need to enclose union into struct and add field (into struct) that indicates type of stored object. In this case, however, you'll end up reinventing the wheel. So if you're trying to store "universal" type, you might want to look at Boost.Any, Boost.Variant or QVariant. All of those require BIG external libraries, though (either boost or Qt).
Typing
if(in_map<std::string, Variants>("value1", attributes))
seems a bit excessive to me, typing all of that typename syntax makes me want to just use the map.find function instead just out of convenience. However, depending on your compiler, sometimes the template parameters can be interpreted automatically, for example, visual studio will allow this:
if(in_map(std::string("value1"), attributes))
In this case, I had to construct an std::string object to replace the char*, but I've completely removed the template definition from the call, the compiler still figures out what T and Y are based on the parameters given.
However, my recommended advice would be to use #define to define your "function". While it is not really a function, since #define actually just replaces snippets of code directly into the source, it can make things much easier and visually appealing:
#define in_map(value,map) (map.find(value) != map.end())
Then your code to use it would just look like this:
if(in_map("value1", attributes))
You both get the optimization of not using a function call, and the visual appearance like it does in PHP.
I have a map containing boost::function values, as defined below:
std::map <std::string, boost::function<std::string (std::string, int)> > handlers;
Let us say I define the following function:
using namespace std;
string substring (string input, int index = 0){
if (index <= 0){
return input;
}
stringstream ss;
for (int j = index; j<input.length(); j++){
ss << input[j];
}
return ss.str();
}
I would like to be able to store this in the handlers map, but WITH it's optional parameter. Does boost have a way to perform this? I have looked at boost::optional, but that doesn't seem to do what I want.
EDIT
To give a little more background, there are a few handlers that require extra arguments, such as a pointer to a dictionary (typedef std::map < std::string, std::string > dictionary) or something, because they make changes to that dictionary. However, the majority of the handlers do not touch the dictionary in question, but, in order to store them all in the same map, they all must take the same arguments (have the same template for boost::function). The goal is to make the functions that don't deal with the dictionary at all usable without having to either A) create a dictionary for the sole purpose of passing it and not using it or B) copy the code verbatim into another function that doesn't require that argument.
The code above is a simplified example of what I am doing.
The short answer: This is not possible in C++ without a lot of additional code.
The long answer:
Default values for function arguments in C++ are only used when they are needed in a context where the function's name appears. If you call a function through other means (like a function pointer, or boost::function/std::function, the information about there possibly being default arguments is not available to the compiler, so it can't fill them in for you.
As a background, this is how default arguments work in C++:
When you have the expression substring(MyString) (with std::string MyString = "something"), then the compiler looks for all functions called substring and finds string substring(string, int=0). This function takes two parameters, one of which can have a default value, which makes the function viable. To actually call the function, the compiler changes the source code so that it reads substring(MyString, 0) and proceeds to generate code based on that adaptation.
To be able to use default values with an indirect call, like through boost::function, you effectively have to emulate the default argument mechanism of the compiler.
I'm trying to get my head around tuples (thanks #litb), and the common suggestion for their use is for functions returning > 1 value.
This is something that I'd normally use a struct for , and I can't understand the advantages to tuples in this case - it seems an error-prone approach for the terminally lazy.
Borrowing an example, I'd use this
struct divide_result {
int quotient;
int remainder;
};
Using a tuple, you'd have
typedef boost::tuple<int, int> divide_result;
But without reading the code of the function you're calling (or the comments, if you're dumb enough to trust them) you have no idea which int is quotient and vice-versa. It seems rather like...
struct divide_result {
int results[2]; // 0 is quotient, 1 is remainder, I think
};
...which wouldn't fill me with confidence.
So, what are the advantages of tuples over structs that compensate for the ambiguity?
tuples
I think i agree with you that the issue with what position corresponds to what variable can introduce confusion. But i think there are two sides. One is the call-side and the other is the callee-side:
int remainder;
int quotient;
tie(quotient, remainder) = div(10, 3);
I think it's crystal clear what we got, but it can become confusing if you have to return more values at once. Once the caller's programmer has looked up the documentation of div, he will know what position is what, and can write effective code. As a rule of thumb, i would say not to return more than 4 values at once. For anything beyond, prefer a struct.
output parameters
Output parameters can be used too, of course:
int remainder;
int quotient;
div(10, 3, "ient, &remainder);
Now i think that illustrates how tuples are better than output parameters. We have mixed the input of div with its output, while not gaining any advantage. Worse, we leave the reader of that code in doubt on what could be the actual return value of div be. There are wonderful examples when output parameters are useful. In my opinion, you should use them only when you've got no other way, because the return value is already taken and can't be changed to either a tuple or struct. operator>> is a good example on where you use output parameters, because the return value is already reserved for the stream, so you can chain operator>> calls. If you've not to do with operators, and the context is not crystal clear, i recommend you to use pointers, to signal at the call side that the object is actually used as an output parameter, in addition to comments where appropriate.
returning a struct
The third option is to use a struct:
div_result d = div(10, 3);
I think that definitely wins the award for clearness. But note you have still to access the result within that struct, and the result is not "laid bare" on the table, as it was the case for the output parameters and the tuple used with tie.
I think a major point these days is to make everything as generic as possible. So, say you have got a function that can print out tuples. You can just do
cout << div(10, 3);
And have your result displayed. I think that tuples, on the other side, clearly win for their versatile nature. Doing that with div_result, you need to overload operator<<, or need to output each member separately.
Another option is to use a Boost Fusion map (code untested):
struct quotient;
struct remainder;
using boost::fusion::map;
using boost::fusion::pair;
typedef map<
pair< quotient, int >,
pair< remainder, int >
> div_result;
You can access the results relatively intuitively:
using boost::fusion::at_key;
res = div(x, y);
int q = at_key<quotient>(res);
int r = at_key<remainder>(res);
There are other advantages too, such as the ability to iterate over the fields of the map, etc etc. See the doco for more information.
With tuples, you can use tie, which is sometimes quite useful: std::tr1::tie (quotient, remainder) = do_division ();. This is not so easy with structs. Second, when using template code, it's sometimes easier to rely on pairs than to add yet another typedef for the struct type.
And if the types are different, then a pair/tuple is really no worse than a struct. Think for example pair<int, bool> readFromFile(), where the int is the number of bytes read and bool is whether the eof has been hit. Adding a struct in this case seems like overkill for me, especially as there is no ambiguity here.
Tuples are very useful in languages such as ML or Haskell.
In C++, their syntax makes them less elegant, but can be useful in the following situations:
you have a function that must return more than one argument, but the result is "local" to the caller and the callee; you don't want to define a structure just for this
you can use the tie function to do a very limited form of pattern matching "a la ML", which is more elegant than using a structure for the same purpose.
they come with predefined < operators, which can be a time saver.
I tend to use tuples in conjunction with typedefs to at least partially alleviate the 'nameless tuple' problem. For instance if I had a grid structure then:
//row is element 0 column is element 1
typedef boost::tuple<int,int> grid_index;
Then I use the named type as :
grid_index find(const grid& g, int value);
This is a somewhat contrived example but I think most of the time it hits a happy medium between readability, explicitness, and ease of use.
Or in your example:
//quotient is element 0 remainder is element 1
typedef boost:tuple<int,int> div_result;
div_result div(int dividend,int divisor);
One feature of tuples that you don't have with structs is in their initialization. Consider something like the following:
struct A
{
int a;
int b;
};
Unless you write a make_tuple equivalent or constructor then to use this structure as an input parameter you first have to create a temporary object:
void foo (A const & a)
{
// ...
}
void bar ()
{
A dummy = { 1, 2 };
foo (dummy);
}
Not too bad, however, take the case where maintenance adds a new member to our struct for whatever reason:
struct A
{
int a;
int b;
int c;
};
The rules of aggregate initialization actually mean that our code will continue to compile without change. We therefore have to search for all usages of this struct and updating them, without any help from the compiler.
Contrast this with a tuple:
typedef boost::tuple<int, int, int> Tuple;
enum {
A
, B
, C
};
void foo (Tuple const & p) {
}
void bar ()
{
foo (boost::make_tuple (1, 2)); // Compile error
}
The compiler cannot initailize "Tuple" with the result of make_tuple, and so generates the error that allows you to specify the correct values for the third parameter.
Finally, the other advantage of tuples is that they allow you to write code which iterates over each value. This is simply not possible using a struct.
void incrementValues (boost::tuples::null_type) {}
template <typename Tuple_>
void incrementValues (Tuple_ & tuple) {
// ...
++tuple.get_head ();
incrementValues (tuple.get_tail ());
}
Prevents your code being littered with many struct definitions. It's easier for the person writing the code, and for other using it when you just document what each element in the tuple is, rather than writing your own struct/making people look up the struct definition.
Tuples will be easier to write - no need to create a new struct for every function that returns something. Documentation about what goes where will go to the function documentation, which will be needed anyway. To use the function one will need to read the function documentation in any case and the tuple will be explained there.
I agree with you 100% Roddy.
To return multiple values from a method, you have several options other than tuples, which one is best depends on your case:
Creating a new struct. This is good when the multiple values you're returning are related, and it's appropriate to create a new abstraction. For example, I think "divide_result" is a good general abstraction, and passing this entity around makes your code much clearer than just passing a nameless tuple around. You could then create methods that operate on the this new type, convert it to other numeric types, etc.
Using "Out" parameters. Pass several parameters by reference, and return multiple values by assigning to the each out parameter. This is appropriate when your method returns several unrelated pieces of information. Creating a new struct in this case would be overkill, and with Out parameters you emphasize this point, plus each item gets the name it deserves.
Tuples are Evil.