I created a class which contains 3 elements of the same type (something like std::pair<T,std::pair<T,T>>). Moreover I prepared it for use for(auto&var:t)
But I don't know if I did it safely.
template <class T>
class Troika
{
public:
Troika(const T& f, const T& s, const T& t)
:first(f), second(s), third(t) {}
Troika(){}
T first;
T second;
T third;
typedef T* iterator;
typedef const T* const_iterator;
iterator begin()
{
return &first;
}
const_iterator begin() const
{
return &first;
}
iterator end()
{
return &third+1;
}
const_iterator end() const
{
return &third + 1;
}
};
I mean about this part: return &third + 1;. I know that if somebody have not huge knowledge about arithmetic of pointers in c++, it is really dangerous. Are these elements alocated one by one near each other?
Are these elements alocated one by one near each other?
They likely are, since they have the exact same accessibility. But it still doesn't make your implementation safe. Pointer arithmetic is only valid for elements in the same array object. Those three are not in the same array, there is no array in sight. Any attempt to use those iterators will result in undefined behavior.
I'm not sure of your intention in defining this class, but for a container of three elements of the same type, I'd offer the more idiomatic:
template<typename T>
using Troika = std::array<T, 3>;
You lose the first, second and third named members, but gain indexing (which is as good I think) and iteration for free.
Related
Consider a function that accepts one or more parameters (e.g. file names). In order to make it versatile, it is advantageous to write it for a general iterator range:
template<class Iter>
void function(Iter first, Iter last)
{
// do something
}
Now we can invoke it in the following way, independently of how we store the arguments:
WhateverContainer container;
function(std::begin(container), std::end(container));
For example, the STL relies heavily on this paradigm.
Now, imagine we want to invoke the function with a single argument that is not stored in a container. Of course we can write:
const int value = 5;
std::vector<int> vec(1, value);
function(std::begin(vec), std::end(vec));
But this solution seems clumsy and wasteful to me.
Question: Is there a better low-overhead way of creating an iterator-range-compatible representation of a single variable?
You can use pointers, for once:
function(&value, &value + 1);
In generic code, std::addressof instead of the unary operator & is somewhat safer, depending on your level of paranoia.
You can of course wrap this in an overload for easier use:
template <class T>
decltype(auto) function (T &&e) {
auto p = std::addressof(e);
return function(p, p + 1);
}
You can treat it like an array of one element per [expr.unary.op]/3:
function(&value, &value + 1);
For purposes of pointer arithmetic ([expr.add]) and comparison ([expr.rel], [expr.eq]), an object that is not an array element whose address is taken in this way is considered to belong to an array with one element of type T.
You can also overload your function template function for a single-element range:
template<typename Iter>
void function(Iter first) {
return function(first, std::next(first)); // calls your original function
}
This way, your original function function remains compatible with iterator ranges. Note, however, that using this overload with an empty range will result in undefined behavior.
For a single element, value, you can use the overload above:
function(&value); // calls overload
Since operator & may be overloaded, consider also using std::addressof instead of &, as already mentioned in this answer.
For a range consisting of a single element, you can use the overload above as well, which only needs a single iterator instead of an iterator pair:
const int value = 5;
std::vector<int> vec(1, value); // single-element collection
function(std::begin(vec)); // <-- calls overload
I think I'd do this in two steps:
Define a overload of the template function that takes a container, written in terms of the iterator version.
Define a proxy class which treats an object reference as an array of size 1.
c++17 example:
#include <iterator>
#include <type_traits>
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
// proxy object
template<class T>
struct object_as_container
{
using value_type = T;
using iterator = T*;
using const_iterator = std::add_const_t<T>;
object_as_container(value_type& val) : object_(val) {}
const_iterator begin() const { return std::addressof(object_); }
iterator begin() { return std::addressof(object_); }
const_iterator end() const { return std::next(begin()); }
iterator end() { return std::next(begin()); }
private:
value_type& object_;
};
// our function in terms of iterators
template<class Iter> void func(Iter first, Iter last)
{
while(first != last)
{
std::cout << *first++;
}
}
// our function in terms of containers
template<class Container> void func(Container&& cont)
{
func(cont.begin(), cont.end());
}
int main()
{
const int value = 5;
func(object_as_container(value));
func(std::vector { 1,2,3,4,5 });
}
I am trying to make a custom iterator and I am struggling with syntax part of how to define/declare and eventually access it. Below is my attempt, which results in below error:
Error C2440 'initializing': cannot convert from 'int' to 'int *'
If someone can point me to right way to define/declare it - it would be great, for I believe my access method is standard.
Declaration
template <typename T>
class ddeque
{
public:
typedef T* iterator;
T& begin();
T& end();
}
Definition
template<typename T>
T& ddeque<T>::begin()
{
iterator = &(this->unified_array());
return iterator;
}
template<typename T>
T& ddeque<T>::end()
{
iterator = &(this->unified_array + this->size());
return iterator;
}
Access part --
In test.cpp file
// Comparing values from custom template with standard template
typename ddeque<T>::iterator itt = a.begin();
typename deque<T>::iterator ittg = g.begin();
while ((itt != a.end()) && (ittg != g.end()))
{
if (display)
{
cout << *itt << " ";
}
++itt;
++ittg;
}
P.S : I have just kept relevant part of iterator - please let me know if additional code snippet is required.
As pointed by SO member АндрейБеньковский I was returning reference instead of pointer- correct solution for definition would be ( what got it working )
Declaration:
template <typename T>
class ddeque
{
public:
typedef T* iterator;
iterator begin();
iterator end();
}
Definition
template
T* ddeque::begin()
{
iterator = &(this->unified_array());
return iterator;
}
template<typename T>
T* ddeque<T>::end()
{
iterator = &(this->unified_array + this->size());
return iterator;
}
In general:
how to define and access custom iterator
You should make a contaner class and an iterator class. The latter should be derived from std::iterator<>. You have to specify iterator tag, return value, ect. Depending on the iterator tag, you should be implementing the operators (increment, decrement, ect.). (Or better, implement everything you can which has a maximum of logarithmic complexity, then set best iterator tag.)
So begin, and end should be returning your iterator. Take a look at some stl container implementations, they are not so hard to read.
In your code
ou have made a typdef T* iterator;. This line makes another name for the pointer to T type. For readability, and to make it easier to change later, you should be returning iterator with begin and end, so:
iterator begin();
iterator end();
In the definition of the above functions, you cannot assign a value to the iterator type, I suggest returning the pointer (or iterator), for example in end():
return this->unified_array + this->size();
I think unified_array is a pointer, so I used it that way.
I'm currently using a third-party library which contains a class that only provides indexed lookup, i.e. operator[].
I'd like to do a range-based for loop on this class's contents. However, having never written an iterator or iterator adapter, I'm quite lost. It seems that writing iterators is not a straightforward task.
My desired usage is:
for(auto element : container)
{
...
}
Instead of having to write:
for(int i = 0; i < container.size(); ++i)
{
auto element = container[i];
...
}
How can this be achieved? Does Boost provide this functionality?
Writing iterators is actually a rather straightforward task, but it gets extremely tedious. Since your container supports indexing by an integer, I assume its iterators would fall into the random access iterator category (if they existed). That needs a lot of boilerplate!
However, to support the range-based for loop, all you'll need is a forward iterator. We'll write a simple wrapper for the container that implements the forward iterator requirements, and then write two functions Iterator begin(Container&) and Iterator end(Container&) that enable the container to be used in the range-based for loop.
This Iterator will contain a reference to the container, the size of the container, and the current index within that container:
template<template<typename> class C, typename T>
class indexer : public std::iterator<std::forward_iterator, T>
{
public:
indexer(C<T>& c, std::size_t i, std::size_t end)
: c_(std::addressof(c)), i_(i), end_(end) {}
T& operator*() const {
return c_[i_];
}
indexer<C, T>& operator++() {
++i_;
return *this;
}
indexer<C, T> operator++(int) {
auto&& tmp = *this;
operator++();
return tmp;
}
bool operator==(indexer<C, T> const& other) const {
return i_ == other.i_;
}
bool operator!=(indexer<C, T> const& other) const {
return !(*this == other);
}
private:
C<T>* c_;
std::size_t i_, end_;
};
Inheriting from std::iterator conveniently declares the appropriate typedefs for use with std::iterator_traits.
Then, you would define begin and end as follows:
template<typename T>
indexer<Container, T> begin(Container<T>& c) {
return indexer<Container, T>(c, 0, c.size());
}
template<typename T>
indexer<Container, T> end(Container<T>& c) {
auto size = c.size();
return indexer<Container, T>(c, size, size);
}
Switch out Container for whatever the type of container is in your example, and with that, your desired usage works!
The requirements and behavior of all the various kinds of iterators can be found in the tables of section 24.2.2 of the standard, which are mirrored at cppreference.com here.
A random-access iterator implementation of the above, along with a demo of usage with a simple vector_view class can be found live on Coliru or ideone.com.
You can do the following:
1) define your own iterator It that contains, inside, a ref ref to your container container and an index i. When the iterator is dereferenced, it returns ref[i] by reference. You can write it yourself or you can use boost for help, it has an iterator library to easily define your own iterators. Constructor should accept a container& and a size_t. You can make also the const_iterator if this concept applies.
2) When operator++ is invoked on one iterator, it simply does ++i on the internal member. operator== and operator!= should simply compare i. You can assert, for security, that both iterators are coherent, that means their refs point to the same object.
3) add begin and end to your container class or, if this is not possible, define a global begin and end that accept your container& c. begin should simply return It(c, 0). end should return It(c, c.size()).
There could be a problem copying the iterators as they contain a reference and some other minor details, but I hope the overall idea is clear and correct.
The question is what is the recommended way to use std::list to achieve O(1) erasure of list items?
Usually, when I choose a doubly linked list, I want to be able to remove an element from a list in O(1) time, and then move it to a different list in O(1) time. If the element has its own prev and next pointers, there is no real trick to getting the job done. If the list is a doubly linked circular list, then removal doesn't necessarily require knowing the list that contains the item.
As per Iterator invalidation rules, std::list iterators are very durable. So, it seems to me to get the behavior I desire when using std::list on my own item is to stash an iterator within my class, and the containing list.
class Item {
typedef std::shared_ptr<Item> Ptr;
struct Ref {
std::list<Ptr>::iterator iter_;
std::list<Ptr> *list_;
};
Ref ref_;
//...
};
This has the downside that I will need to create my own decorated version of std::list that knows to update the ref_ whenever the item is added to a list. I can't think of a way that doesn't require the embedded iterator, since not having one would mean erasure would incur a O(n) find operation first.
What is the recommended way to get O(1) erasure with std::list? Or, is there a better approach to achieving the objective?
In the past, I have accomplished this by implementing my own list data structure, where the item placed in the list has its own next and prev pointers. Managing these pointers is natural, since they are inherent to the list operations themselves (the API to my list implementation adjusts the pointers). If I want to use the STL instead, what would be the best way to accomplish this? I offer the straw-man proposal of embedding the iterator. Are there better approaches?
If a concrete use-case is desired, consider a timer implementation. When a timer is created, it is placed into an appropriate list. If it is canceled, it is desirable to efficiently remove it. (This particular example can be solved via marking instead of removal, but it is a valid way to implement cancellation.) Additional use-cases are available upon request.
Another alternative I explored was to fuse a std::list with a std::unordered_map to create a specialized list for pointer types. This is more heavyweight (because of the hash table), but provides a container that is pretty close to the standard containers at the interface level, and gives me O(1) erasure of list elements. The only feature missing from the straw-man proposal is a pointer to the list which currently contains the item. I have put up the current implementation at CodeReview to solicit comment.
std::list::erase is guaranteed to be O(1).
There is not an awful lot of other ways to erase elements from a standard list. (std::list::remove and friends don't do quite the same thing so they don't count).
If you want to erase from a standard list, you need an iterator and the list itself. That's what you seem to already have. There is not very much freedom of doing it differently. I would keep the list containment separate from the objects, unlike what you have done, because why make an object that can be in only one list at a time? Seems like an unnecessary artificial restriction to me. But whatever powers your design.
Maybe you could redesign your interface to hand out iterators instead of raw objects? In the case of your timers example:
class Timer {
// ...
};
typedef std::list<Timer>::iterator TimerRef;
class Timers {
public:
TimerRef createTimer(long time);
void cancelTimer(TimerRef ref);
private:
std::list<Timer> timers;
};
Of course, instead of
timer.cancel();
users of the class now have to say
timers.cancelTimer(timerRef);
but depending on your use case, that might not be a problem.
Update: moving timers between lists:
class Timers {
public:
Timer removeTimer(TimerRef ref);
void addTimer(Timer const &timer);
// ...
};
Usage:
timers2.addTimer(timers1.removeTimer(timerRef));
Admittedly it's a bit cumbersome, but so are the alternatives.
There is no way to have O(1) erasure from std::list.
you may want to consider using an intrusive list, where list nodes are directly imbedded into the structures, like you have already done.
you can use boost::intrusive or roll your own, also check out this
Here's a "complete" solution using an embedded iterator. Some private traits are used to help reduce clutter in the class:
template <typename T> class List;
template <typename T>
class ListTraits {
protected:
typedef std::list<std::shared_ptr<T>> Impl;
typedef typename Impl::iterator Iterator;
typedef typename Impl::const_iterator ConstIterator;
typedef typename Impl::reverse_iterator Rotareti;
typedef typename Impl::const_reverse_iterator ConstRotareti;
typedef std::map<const List<T> *, typename Impl::iterator> Ref;
};
As shown, the list implementation will be using std::list, but the underlying value type will be a std::shared_ptr. What I am after is allowing an instance of T to efficiently derive its own iterator, to achieve O(1) erasure. This is done by using a Ref to memoize the iterator of the item after it is inserted into the list.
template <typename T>
class List : public ListTraits<T> {
template <typename ITER> class IteratorT;
typedef ListTraits<T> Traits;
typename Traits::Impl impl_;
public:
typedef typename Traits::Impl::size_type size_type;
typedef typename Traits::Impl::value_type pointer;
typedef pointer value_type;
typedef IteratorT<typename Traits::Iterator> iterator;
typedef IteratorT<typename Traits::ConstIterator> const_iterator;
typedef IteratorT<typename Traits::Rotareti> reverse_iterator;
typedef IteratorT<typename Traits::ConstRotareti> const_reverse_iterator;
class Item;
~List () { while (!empty()) pop_front(); }
size_type size () const { return impl_.size(); }
bool empty () const { return impl_.empty(); }
iterator begin () { return impl_.begin(); }
iterator end () { return impl_.end(); }
const_iterator begin () const { return impl_.begin(); }
const_iterator end () const { return impl_.end(); }
reverse_iterator rbegin () { return impl_.rbegin(); }
reverse_iterator rend () { return impl_.rend(); }
const_reverse_iterator rbegin () const { return impl_.rbegin(); }
const_reverse_iterator rend () const { return impl_.rend(); }
pointer front () const { return !empty() ? impl_.front() : pointer(); }
pointer back () const { return !empty() ? impl_.back() : pointer(); }
void push_front (const pointer &e);
void pop_front ();
void push_back (const pointer &e);
void pop_back ();
void erase (const pointer &e);
bool contains (const pointer &e) const;
};
This List follows mostly a queue like interface. But, an item may be removed from any position in the list. The simple functions mostly just delegate to the underlying std::list. But the push_*() and pop_*() methods also memoize the iterator.
template <typename T>
template <typename ITER>
class List<T>::IteratorT : public ITER {
friend class List<T>;
ITER iter_;
IteratorT (ITER i) : iter_(i) {}
public:
IteratorT () : iter_() {}
IteratorT & operator ++ () { ++iter_; return *this; }
IteratorT & operator -- () { --iter_; return *this; }
IteratorT operator ++ (int) { return iter_++; }
IteratorT operator -- (int) { return iter_--; }
bool operator == (const IteratorT &x) const { return iter_ == x.iter_; }
bool operator != (const IteratorT &x) const { return iter_ != x.iter_; }
T & operator * () const { return **iter_; }
pointer operator -> () const { return *iter_; }
};
This is the implementation of the helper template used to define the iterator types for List. What it does differently is that the * and -> operators are defined in a way that makes the iterator behave like it is a T * rather than a std::shared_ptr<T> * (which is what the underlying iterator would normally do).
template <typename T>
class List<T>::Item {
friend class List<T>;
mutable typename Traits::Ref ref_;
};
A type T that is derived from List<T>::Item can be added to a List<T>. This base class contains the Ref instance used to memoize the iterator when the item is added to a list.
template <typename T>
inline void List<T>::push_front (const pointer &e) {
const Item &item = *e;
typename Traits::Ref::iterator i = item.ref_.find(this);
if (i == item.ref_.end()) {
item.ref_[this] = impl_.insert(impl_.begin(), e);
} else if (front() != e) {
impl_.erase(i->second);
i->second = impl_.insert(impl_.begin(), e);
}
}
template <typename T>
inline void List<T>::pop_front () {
if (!empty()) {
const Item &item = *front();
item.ref_.erase(this);
impl_.pop_front();
}
}
This code illustrates how the memoization is performed. When doing push_front(), the item is first checked to see if it is already contained. If it is not, it is inserted, and the resulting iterator is added to the ref_ object. Otherwise, if it is not already the front, then the item is removed and reinserted at the front, and the memoized iterator is updated. pop_front() removes the memoized iterator, and then calls pop_front() on the the std::list.
template <typename T>
inline void List<T>::push_back (const pointer &e) {
const Item &item = *e;
typename Traits::Ref::iterator i = item.ref_.find(this);
if (i == item.ref_.end()) {
item.ref_[this] = impl_.insert(impl_.end(), e);
} else if (back() != e) {
impl_.erase(i->second);
i->second = impl_.insert(impl_.end(), e);
}
}
template <typename T>
inline void List<T>::pop_back () {
if (!empty()) {
const Item &item = *back();
item.ref_.erase(this);
impl_.pop_back();
}
}
push_back() and pop_back() are similar to push_front() and pop_front().
template <typename T>
inline void List<T>::erase (const pointer &e) {
const Item &item = *e;
typename Traits::Ref::iterator i = item.ref_.find(this);
if (i != item.ref_.end()) {
item.ref_.erase(i);
impl_.erase(i->second);
}
}
The erase() routine retrieves the memoized iterator, and uses it to perform the erasure.
template <typename T>
inline bool List<T>::contains (const pointer &e) const {
const Item &item = *e;
typename Traits::Ref::iterator i = item.ref_.find(this);
return i != item.ref_.end();
}
Since an item is its own iterator in many respects, a find() method should not be needed in this version of List. But, in lieu of that is this contains() method which is used to see if the element is a member of the list.
Now, the presented solution uses a std::map to associate list instances to iterators. This maintains the spirit of O(1) if the number of lists an item is a member of simultaneously is relatively small.
I will try my hand at a boost::intrusive version next.
Awful truth: while the linked list is powerful structure, the std::list can't fully exploit it's capabilities.
You can't erase the object from std::list using only iterators, because list has to deallocate the node, and you have to know where is the allocator that allocated the memory (hint: it's in a list).
Intrusive containers have many advantages over standard linked list, like self-awareness ;-), ability to store polymorphic objects by value and they make list tricks (like having single objects in multiple lists) feasible. Since you don't use std::list directly anyway, you can drop usage of std::list altogether and use third-party container, or roll your own.
(Also, your solution is also intrusive, since your type have to be derived from List<T>::Item, which places certain requirements on the type that std::list doesn't)
I need an array where size is known at compile time. I know I can use std::vector or boost::array. But that's doesn't teach me how it works internally. Also I couldn't find how to add items into boost::array other than using the initializer. I have written the following code for a generic array. My intention is to get familiar with iterators, template specializations etc. Following is the code
template<typename T>
struct iterator_traits
{
typedef T value_type;
typedef T& reference_type;
typedef T* iterator;
typedef const T* const_iterator;
typedef std::reverse_iterator<iterator> reverse_iterator;
};
template<typename T>
struct iterator_traits<T*>
{
typedef T* value_type;
typedef T*& reference_type;
typedef T** iterator;
typedef const T const_iterator;
typedef std::reverse_iterator<iterator> reverse_iterator;
};
template<typename T, size_t size = 10>
class Array
{
public:
typedef typename iterator_traits<T>::value_type value_type;
typedef typename iterator_traits<T>::reference_type reference_type;
typedef typename iterator_traits<T>::iterator iterator;
typedef typename iterator_traits<T>::const_iterator const_iterator;
typedef typename iterator_traits<T>::reverse_iterator reverse_iterator;
Array() : lastIndex(0) {
}
void add(value_type element) {
if(lastIndex >= size)
throw std::out_of_range("Array is full");
array_[lastIndex++] = element;
}
reference_type at(unsigned int index){
if(index < size)
return array_[index];
else
throw std::out_of_range("Invalid index");
}
size_t capacity(){
return size;
}
iterator begin(){
return array_;
}
iterator end(){
return array_ + size;
}
const_iterator begin() const{
return array_;
}
const_iterator end() const{
return array_ + size;
}
reverse_iterator rbegin() {
return reverse_iterator(end());
}
reverse_iterator rend() {
return reverse_iterator(begin());
}
private:
value_type array_[size];
unsigned int lastIndex;
};
The above code works well. Following are my questions
1 - How can I create my array like boost::array does? Something like
Array<int> ints = { 10, 12 };
2 - Are there any pitfalls in the code?
3 - I had to use a specialization for pointer types in traits. Is that the best practice?
4 - Iterator pattern is implemented correctly or not?
Any thoughts would be great!
1 - How can I create my array like boost::array does? Something like
Array<int> ints = { 10, 12 };
In c++, you can only (currently) use a braces enclosed initializer list if your struct, union or c-style array meets the criteria of being an aggregate. To do such, according to the standard:
8.5.1.1 An aggregate is an array or a class (Clause 9) with no user-provided constructors (12.1), no private or protected non-static data members (Clause 11), no base classes (Clause 10), and no virtual functions (10.3).
You would have to make your class have those features if you wanted to use them in the current standard. The next standard (see here) includes a provision to allow other types to do so.
2 - Are there any pitfalls in the code?
Here is one: the reason you can't add things to a boost list is it always has the same number of elements (the size it was allocated with). In your array you can add elements, but you've still constructed 10 elements underneath the hood during construction. this could lead to some suprising results if the user isn't expecting the default constructor called 10 times.
boost::array uses a feature of the language: A struct with no constructors can use an initialization list. If you provide your own constructor, you can't use an initialization list.
Also, you're using iterator_traits wrong. Your code should be something like
// type definitions
typedef T value_type;
typedef T* iterator;
typedef const T* const_iterator;
typedef T& reference;
typedef const T& const_reference;
typedef std::size_t size_type;
typedef std::ptrdiff_t difference_type;
iterator_traits is for traits of iterators. Also, you can just use a pointer as an iterator. The STL explicitly allows this.
2 - are there any pitfalls ?
I would get rid of the default size "size = 10". What makes 10 the default size of an array ? What I see happening instead is someone accidentally leaving off the size, and assuming that its bigger than it is.
Regarding adding elements and the C-style initialization, I don't believe its possible to do both. It works in boost because (I believe) the object is, quite simply, an array under the covers. It can't dynamically re-size. The class simply adds iterators (and other sugar like ::at()) to a plain array.