Overload << operator to change " " to "\n" - c++

Question

I am trying to overload
<<
operator. For instance
cout << a << " " << b << " "; // I am not allowed to change this line
is given I have to print it in format
<literal_valueof_a><"\n>
<literal_valueof_b><"\n">
<"\n">
I tried to overload << operator giving string as argument but it is not working. So I guess literal
" "
is not a string. If it is not then what is it. And how to overload it?
Kindly help;
Full code
//Begin Program
// Begin -> Non - Editable
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
// End -> Non -Editable
//---------------------------------------------------------------------
// Begin -> Editable (I have written )
ostream& operator << (ostream& os, const string& str) {
string s = " ";
if(str == " ") {
os << '\n';
}
else {
for(int i = 0; i < str.length(); ++i)
os << str[i];
}
return os;
}
// End -> Editable
//--------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Begin -> No-Editable
int main() {
int a, b;
double s, t;
string mr, ms;
cin >> a >> b >> s >> t ;
cin >> mr >> ms ;
cout << a << " " << b << " " ;
cout << s << " " << t << " " ;
cout << mr << " " << ms ;
return 0;
}
// End -> Non-Editable
//End Program
Inputs and outputs
Input
30 20 5.6 2.3 hello world
Output
30
20
5.6
2.3
hello
world

Answer 1

" " is a string-literal of length one, and thus has type const char[2]. std::string is not related.
Theoretically, you could thus overload it as:
auto& operator<<(std::ostream& os, const char (&s)[2]) {
return os << (*s == ' ' && !s[1] ? +"\n" : +s);
}
While that trumps all the other overloads, now things get really hairy. The problem is that some_ostream << " " is likely not uncommon, even in templates, and now no longer resolves to calling the standard function. Those templates now have a different definition in the affected translation-units than in non-affected ones, thus violating the one-definition-rule.
What you should do, is not try to apply a global solution to a very local problem:
Preferably, modify your code currently streaming the space-character.
Alternatively, write your own stream-buffer which translates it as you wish, into newline.

Answer 2

Sure this is possible, as I have tested. It should be portable since you are specifying an override of a templated function operator<<() included from <iostream>. The " " string in your code is not a std::string, but rather a C-style string (i.e. a const char *). The following definition works correctly:
ostream& operator << (ostream& os, const char *str) {
if(strcmp(str, " ") == 0) {
os << '\n';
} else {
// Call the standard library implementation
operator<< < std::char_traits<char> > (os, str);
}
return os;
}
Note that the space after std::char_traits<char> is necessary only if you are pre-c++11.
Edit 1
I agree with Deduplicator that this is a potentially dangerous solution as it may cause undesirable consequences elsewhere in the code base. If it is needed only in the current file, you could make it a static function (by putting it within an unnamed namespace). Perhaps if you shared more about the specifics of your problem, we could come up with a cleaner solution for you.

Answer 3

You might want to go with a user defined literal, e.g.
struct NewLine {};
std::ostream& operator << (std::ostream& os, NewLine)
{
return os << "\n";
}
NewLine operator ""_nl(const char*, std::size_t) // "nl" for newline
{
return {};
}
This can be used as follows.
int main(int, char **)
{
std::cout << 42 << ""_nl << "43" << ""_nl;
return 0;
}
Note three things here:
You can pass any string literal followed by the literal identifier, ""_nl does the same thing as " "_nl or "hello, world"_nl. You can change this by adjusting the function returning the NewLine object.
This solution is more of an awkward and confusing hack. The only real use case I can imagine is pertaining the option to easily change the behavior at a later point in time.
When doing something non-standard, it's best to make that obvious and explicit - here, the user defined literal indeed shines, because << ""_nl is more likely to catch readers' attention than << " ".