I have a tuple function that returns a tuple of the form
<node*,int>
Is there a way to store 2 values at once without creating another tuple. I know we can do
n,score=tuplefunct(abc);
in python. But if I want to store both return values in c++ without making another tuple i need to call twice
n=get<0>(tuplefunct(abc);
score=get<1>(tuplefunct(abc));
is there any alternative to this in c++ to store the values at once.
You dont need to call the function twice (note that there is no "another tuple" involved, the function returns one and thats what you use):
auto x = tuplefunct(abc);
auto n = get<0>(x);
auto score = get<1>(x);
If you have C++17 available you can use structured bindings
auto [n,score] = tuplefunct(abc);
Or to get close to that without C++17, you can use std::tie (from C++11 on):
node* n;
int score;
std::tie(n,score) = tuplefunct(abc);
I create a vector of tuples:
std::vector<std::tuple<int*, bool, int*>> *DataStucture;
Next I want to iterate over a data set to get only the first element of each tuple.
Is this legal:
DataStructure -> push_back(std::make_tuple(some_pointer_to_some_int_value, std::ignore, std::ignore));
In next round of data set scanning, I compare the value of some_int_value and upon matching I set following two elements of DataStructure:
DataStructure -> push_back(std::make_tuple(std::ignore, some_bool_value, some_pointer_to_some_int_value2);
I am not sure what exactly std::ignore is for. I tried checking cpp reference website but I did not get it.
I was reading http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/tuple/ignore.
And I think you cannot do that because std::ignore is only used as lvalue placeholders.
For example, if you have a return value that you don't want to use, you can do the following.
std::ignore = AFunctionWithAReturnValue();
It cannot be used as a part of rvalue. For your purpose, I'd just fill in placeholder values during the first scanning like this:
std::make_tuple(some_pointer_to_some_int_value, false, nullptr);
Just to elaborate on my previous comment, you cannot use std::ignore here, because it can be used only as lvalue, but really you don't need to either. Just use nullptr or any "default" value instead:
DataStructure->push_back(std::make_tuple(some_pointer_to_some_int_value, false, nullptr));
std::ignore should be used if you want to unpack your tuple into different values like this:
int* p;
bool b;
for (auto& tuple : *DataStructure) {
std::tie(p,b,std::ignore) = tuple;
// p now have value of first element of tuple
// b now have value of second element of tuple
}
On an unrelated note, your second operation does not set values of existing tuple, it adds new one. Also, why use pointer to a vector instead of vector itself or at least std::unique_ptr? It is generaly considered better to omit unnecessary "naked" pointers.
How to send a portion of a QVector to a function?
QVector<int> a;
a.append(1);
a.append(2);
a.append(3);
a.append(4);
a.append(5);
Some printing function should print "2 3 4" taking the subset of the vector as an argument.
In R this would be possible using a[2:4].
Is this at all possible?
Note: In the std::vector, it is advised to use the insert function to create a new variable. This is a different insert though than QVector has, and thus I cannot find a recommended method.
I must write at least 30 characters so I can tell you, you should try:
a.mid(1,3);
You could always write a function to do this operation for you, e.g.
QVector<int> sub_vector(const QVector<int>& vec, size_t from, size_t to)
{
QVector<int> subvec;
for (size_t i = from; i <= to; ++i)
subvec.append(vec[i]);
return subvec;
}
Yes it is possible, but you must pass a pair of iterators (begin and end of the range you want, you can use std::pair to pass only one argument or use a clearer method that take two QVector::iterator arguments and that way it's clearer that you meant that function to take a range) or if it's simpler to you (or the elements you want are not in continuous order in original QVector) construct another QVector that contains only the selected elements (kind of the solution proposed by john).
How do you make a variable name where you create a variable and then in brackets the variable number? (By the way, I'm just guessing out how the code should be so that you get what I'm trying to say.) For example:
int var[5];
//create a variable var[5], but not var[4], var[3], var[2], etc.
Then, the variable number must be able to be accessed by a variable value:
int number = 5;
int var[number]; //creates a var[5], not a var[4], etc.
int var[2]; //creates a var[2], not a var[1], etc.
cout >>var[number];
number = 2;
cin << var[number];
If I'm way off track with my "example", please suggest something else. I need something similar to this for my game to operate, because I must be able to create an unlimited instance of bullets, but they will also be destroyed at one point.
It looks like you are looking for the functionality provided by std::map which is a container used to map keys to values.
Documentation of std::map
Example use
In the below example we bind the value 123 to the integer key 4, and the value 321 to key 8. We then use a std::map<int,int>::const_iterator to iterate over the key/value pairs in our std::map named m.
#include <map>
...
std::map<int, int> m;
m[4] = 123;
m[8] = 321;
for (std::map<int, int>::const_iterator cit = m.begin (); cit != m.end (); ++cit)
std::cout << cit->first << " -> " << cit->second << std::endl;
output:
4 -> 123
8 -> 321
It looks like you want variable length arrays, which is not something C++ supports. In most cases, the correct solution is to use an std::vector instead, as in
int number = 42; // or whatever
std::vector<int> var(number);
You can use std::vector as you would use an array in most cases, and you gain a lot of bonus functionality.
If I understand what you want correctly (which I'm not certain that I do), you want to be able to create a place to hold objects and use them according to some index number, but to only create the specific objects which go in it on demand. You want do to this either because 1) you don't know how many objects you're going to create or 2) you aren't going to use every index number or 3) both.
If (1) then you should probably just use a vector, which is an array-like structure which grows automatically as you add more things to it. Look up std::vector.
If (2) then you could use an array of pointers and initially set all of the values to null and then use new to create the objects as needed. (Or you could use the solution recommend in part 3.)
If (3) then you want to use some form of map or hash table. These structures will let you find things by number even when not all numbers are in use and will grow as needed. I would highly recommend a hash table, but in C++, there isn't one in the STL, so you have to build your own or find one in a third-party library. For ease, you can use std::map, which is part of the STL. It does basically the same thing, but is slower. Some C++ distributions also include std::hash_map. If it's available, that should be used instead because it will be faster than std::map.
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.