I'm trying to sort a vector of shared_ptrs to Food objects.
Food class is defined as:
class Food {
private:
// Human-readable description of the food, e.g. "all-purpose wheat
// flour". Must be non-empty.
std::string _description;
// Human-readable description of the amount of the food in one
// sample, e.g. "1 cup". Must be non-empty.
std::string _amount;
// Number of grams in one sample; must be non-negative.
int _amount_g;
// Energy, in units of kilocalories (commonly called "calories"), in
// one sample; must be non-negative.
int _kcal;
// Number of grams of protein in one sample; most be non-negative.
int _protein_g;
public:
Food(const std::string& description,
const std::string& amount,
int amount_g,
int kcal,
int protein_g)
: _description(description),
_amount(amount),
_amount_g(amount_g),
_kcal(kcal),
_protein_g(protein_g) {
assert(!description.empty());
assert(!amount.empty());
assert(amount_g >= 0);
assert(kcal >= 0);
assert(protein_g >= 0);
}
const std::string& description() const { return _description; }
const std::string& amount() const { return _amount; }
int amount_g() const { return _amount_g; }
int kcal() const { return _kcal; }
int protein_g() const { return _protein_g; }
};
using
// Alias for a vector of shared pointers to Food objects.
using FoodVector = std::vector<std::shared_ptr<Food>>;
My sorting algorithm is:
std::unique_ptr<FoodVector> greedy_max_protein(const FoodVector& foods,
int total_kcal)
{
std::unique_ptr<FoodVector> result(new FoodVector);
int result_cal = 0;
sort(foods.begin(), foods.end(), sortByProtein); //sorting error
...
The error is occuring with the sort function here ^^ and my sortByProtein function is:
bool sortByProtein(const std::shared_ptr<Food>&lhs, const std::shared_ptr<Food>&rhs)
{
return lhs->protein_g() > rhs->protein_g();
}
I keep getting the binary'='no operator found which takes a left hand operand type 'const std::shared_ptr' or there is no acceptable conversion. I've tried creating my own sort function but i get the same error. Do i need to overload operator= in my class ? If so how do i go about doing that? Any help would be greatly appreciated!
EDIT
fixed the issue by creating a new pointer:
FoodVector *sorted = new FoodVector(foods);
Thanks!
I chopped down and isolated the problem.
Before removing the "const" I got the same error you were getting.
But this compiles.
#include <iostream>
//:For: std::vector
#include <vector>
//:For: std::shared_ptr
#include <memory>
//:For: std::sort
#include<algorithm>
class Food{ /* SomeLogicHere */ };
typedef std::vector<std::shared_ptr<Food>> FoodVector;
bool operator==(
std::shared_ptr<Food> lhs,
std::shared_ptr<Food> rhs
){
return true; //TODO: Actual Comparison Logic
}
bool sortByProtein(
std::shared_ptr<Food> lhs,
std::shared_ptr<Food> rhs
) {
//:Dont Care about implementation.
//:Just want minimal example that
//:gets the error.
return false;
}
std::unique_ptr<FoodVector> greedy_max_protein(
FoodVector foods,
int total_kcal
){
sort(foods.begin(),foods.end(),sortByProtein);
}
int main()
{
std::cout<<"Hello World";
return 0;
}
The problem is in the function that is trying to sort
std::unique_ptr<FoodVector> greedy_max_protein(const FoodVector& foods,
int total_kcal)
{
std::unique_ptr<FoodVector> result(new FoodVector);
int result_cal = 0;
sort(foods.begin(), foods.end(), sortByProtein); //sorting error
std::sort() relies on the first two arguments being non-const iterators - i.e. that can be used to change the values they refer to. It is, after all, rather tough to sort a container if the elements cannot be reassigned.
foods is a const reference to a FoodVector (aka std::vector<std::shared_ptr<Food> >) so the begin() and end() functions are const, and return a type std::vector<std::shared_ptr<Food> >::const_iterator. That does not meet requirements of std::sort().
To fix the problem, either
remove the const qualifier from the first argument of the function greedy_max_protein(). Be aware this means that the function may change the elements of the passed FoodVector, and the caller will not be able to pass a const FoodVector;
Create a copy locally in the function and sort that. This is appropriate if the working of the function needs a sorted vector, but the caller requires that the passed vector remains unchanged.
Related
class S {
public:
vector <int> ia;
int rank;
bool cmp(S const &s1, S const &s2) {
return (s1.rank > s2.rank);
}
void sort_on_rank() {
sort(ia.begin(), ia.end(), cmp);
}
};
This piece of code is trying to sort the vector on rank, but doesn't compile because of following error,
[Error] no matching function for call to 'sort(std::vector::iterator, std::vector::iterator, )'
Please help me on this and tell where is the problem.
From your program it seems you want to sort objects of S classes. In that case your vector should be like this : std::vector<S>.
Your cmp is a non-static member function of class S and hence std::sort cannot work with it. (Think about how will you use the function).
You can either overload < operator for your class or pass a stand-alone/static member function or you can use C++11 lambda expression.
Thus your class becomes:
class S {
public:
vector<S> ia;
int rank;
void sort_on_rank() {
sort(ia.begin(), ia.end(),
[] (S const &s1, S const &s2) {
return (s1.rank > s2.rank);
});
}
};
However if you want to merely sort vector containing int in descending order, just call std::sort with a C++11 lambda that returns lhs > rhs.
std::sort(ia.begin(), ia.end(), [](int x, int y) { return x > y; });
Your S::cmp() takes S, but S::ia's value type is int.
Could someone explain me what is going on in this example here?
They declare the following:
bool fncomp (int lhs, int rhs) {return lhs<rhs;}
And then use as:
bool(*fn_pt)(int,int) = fncomp;
std::set<int,bool(*)(int,int)> sixth (fn_pt)
While the example for the sort method in algorithm library here
can do like this:
bool myfunction (int i,int j) { return (i<j); }
std::sort (myvector.begin()+4, myvector.end(), myfunction);
I also didn't understand the following:
struct classcomp {
bool operator() (const int& lhs, const int& rhs) const
{return lhs<rhs;}
};
this keyword operator (not being followed by an operator as in a op. overload)... what is the meaning of it? Any operator applied there will have that behavior? And this const modifier... what is the effect caused by it?
I was trying to make a set of C-style string as follows:
typedef struct
{
char grid[7];
} wrap;
bool compare(wrap w1, wrap w2)
{
return strcmp(w1.grid, w2.grid) == -1;
}
set <wrap, compare> myset;
I thought I could create a set defining my sorting function in a similar as when I call sort from algorithm library... once it didn't compile I went to the documentation and saw this syntax that got me confused... Do I need to declare a pointer to a function as in the first example i pasted here?
struct classcomp {
bool operator() (const int& lhs, const int& rhs) const
{return lhs<rhs;}
};
Defines a functor by overloading the function call operator. To use a function you can do:
int main() {
std::set <wrap, bool (*)(wrap,wrap)> myset(compare);
return 0;
}
Another alternative is to define the operator as a part of the wrap class:
struct wrap {
char grid[7];
bool operator<(const wrap& rhs) const {
return strcmp(this->grid, rhs.grid) == -1;
}
};
int main() {
wrap a;
std::set <wrap> myset;
myset.insert(a);
return 0;
}
You're almost there... here's a "fixed" version of your code (see it run here at ideone.com):
#include <iostream>
#include <set>
#include <cstring>
using namespace std;
typedef struct
{
char grid[7];
} wrap;
bool compare(wrap w1, wrap w2) // more efficient: ...(const wrap& e1, const wrap# w2)
{
return strcmp(w1.grid, w2.grid) < 0;
}
set <wrap, bool(*)(wrap, wrap)> myset(compare);
int main() {
wrap w1 { "abcdef" };
wrap w2 { "ABCDEF" };
myset.insert(w1);
myset.insert(w2);
std::cout << myset.begin()->grid[0] << '\n';
}
"explain [to] me what is going on in this example"
Well, the crucial line is...
std::set<wrap, bool(*)(wrap, wrap)> myset(compare);
...which uses the second template parameter to specify the type of function that will perform comparisons, then uses the constructor argument to specify the function. The set object will store a pointer to the function, and invoke it when it needs to compare elements.
"the example for the sort method in algorithm library..."
std::sort in algorithm is great for e.g. vectors, which aren't automatically sorted as elements are inserted but can be sorted at any time. std::set though needs to maintain sorted order constantly, as the logic for inserting new elements, finding and erasing existing ones etc. all assumes the existing elements are always sorted. Consequently, you can't apply std::sort() to an existing std::set.
"this keyword operator (not being followed by an operator as in a op. overload)... what is the meaning of it? Any operator applied there will have that behavior? And this const modifier... what is the effect caused by it?
operator()(...) can be invoked on the object using the same notation used to call a function, e.g.:
classcomp my_classcomp;
if (my_classcomp(my_int1, my_int_2))
std::cout << "<\n";
As you can see, my_classcomp is "called" as if it were a function. The const modifier means that the code above works even if my_classcomp is defined as a const classcomp, because the comparison function does not need to modify any member variables of the classcomp object (if there were any data members).
You almost answered your question:
bool compare(wrap w1, wrap w2)
{
return strcmp(w1.grid, w2.grid) == -1;
}
struct wrap_comparer
{
bool operator()(const wrap& _Left, const wrap& _Right) const
{
return strcmp(_Left.grid, _Right.grid) == -1;
}
};
// declares pointer to function
bool(*fn_pt)(wrap,wrap) = compare;
// uses constructor with function pointer argument
std::set<wrap,bool(*)(wrap,wrap)> new_set(fn_pt);
// uses the function directly
std::set<wrap,bool(*)(wrap,wrap)> new_set2(compare);
// uses comparer
std::set<wrap, wrap_comparer> new_set3;
std::sort can use either a function pointer or a function object (http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/algorithm/sort/), as well as std::set constructor.
const modifier after function signature means that function can't modify object state and so can be called on a const object.
I have a question related to operator overloading, and it is easy to define a class as well as its operator overloading function as the following codes illustrate:
typedef std::vector<std::vector<int> > ARRAY;
class ABC
{
public:
ABC():a(0)
{
};
int a;
ABC& operator = (int value)
{
a = value;
return *this;
}
ABC(int value)
{
a = value;
}
};
void obtain_priority_array(const std::vector<double> &weighting, const ABC &priority_array=NULL)
{
}
int main()
{
vector<double> weighting;
weighting.push_back(0.8);
weighting.push_back(0.9);
weighting.push_back(0.6);
weighting.push_back(0.3);
weighting.push_back(0.5);
ABC test;
obtain_priority_array(weighting, test);
return 0;
}
In the above example, class ABC redefined operator = so that the function void obtain_priority_array(const std::vector<double> &weighting, const ABC &priority_array=NULL) can have a default argument const ABC &priority_array=NULL. My question is if the last parameter in the function comes from STL, for example, const std::vector<int> &priority_array=NULL, how can we redefine operator =. Thanks!
EDIT:
void obtain_priority_array(const std::vector &weighting, const std::vector<int> &sample=NULL) failed!
Your misconceptions start with the proposal to add operator= to allow for a default argument of that type. In your example, it is not operator= being called, but ABC(int).
The reason your code isn't being accepted when using std::vector is that NULL translates to 0 (at least it does almost all of the time you'll see it), and the only constructor of std::vector that can take 0, the one taking a count of how many items, is marked explicit.
To fix the immediate problem, the syntax could be changed to:
const std::vector<int> &priority_array = std::vector<int>(0)
However, this introduces different semantics. By your use of NULL, it looks like you were expecting it to represent no vector. This version will provide an empty vector for use if none is given. It will not be no vector at all. If you want that distinction, you should use boost's optional library, or a simple pointer, as references are not the right tool.
References cannot be NULL, your problem has nothing to do with operator overloading. If you want to be able to handle NULL as the default value, switch the parameter type from reference to pointer.
void obtain_priority_array( const std::vector<double>& weighting,
const ABC *priority_array = NULL)
{
if( priority_array == NULL ) {
// blah
} else {
// more blah
}
}
Another option is to use something like Boost.Optional to represent the optional parameter.
typedef boost::optional<ABC> maybe_ABC;
void obtain_priority_array( const std::vector<double>& weighting,
const maybe_ABC& priority_array = maybe_ABC() )
{
if( !priority_array ) {
// blah
} else {
// more blah
}
}
When you use = to create a reference, you're not calling operator= at all. You're initializing the reference.
Instead of using NULL you can create a static instance of the class to represent a null value.
static const ABC ABC_NULL;
void obtain_priority_array(const std::vector<double> &weighting, const ABC &priority_array=ABC_NULL)
{
if (&priority_array == &ABC_NULL) // the default was used
Of course it would be easier to just use a pointer instead of a reference.
I have following structure
enum quality { good = 0, bad, uncertain };
struct Value {
int time;
int value;
quality qual;
};
class MyClass {
public:
MyClass() {
InsertValues();
}
void InsertValues();
int GetLocationForTime(int time);
private:
vector<Value> valueContainer;
};
void MyClass::InsertValues() {
for(int num = 0; num < 5; num++) {
Value temp;
temp.time = num;
temp.value = num+1;
temp.qual = num % 2;
valueContainer.push_back(temp);
}
}
int MyClass::GetLocationForTime(int time)
{
// How to use lower bound here.
return 0;
}
In above code I have been thrown with lot of compile errors. I think I am doing wrong here I am new to STL programming and can you please correct me where is the error? Is there better to do this?
Thanks!
The predicate needs to take two parameters and return bool.
As your function is a member function it has the wrong signature.
In addition, you may need to be able to compare Value to int, Value to Value, int to Value and int to int using your functor.
struct CompareValueAndTime
{
bool operator()( const Value& v, int time ) const
{
return v.time < time;
}
bool operator()( const Value& v1, const Value& v2 ) const
{
return v1.time < v2.time;
}
bool operator()( int time1, int time2 ) const
{
return time1 < time2;
}
bool operator()( int time, const Value& v ) const
{
return time < v.time;
}
};
That is rather cumbersome, so let's reduce it:
struct CompareValueAndTime
{
int asTime( const Value& v ) const // or static
{
return v.time;
}
int asTime( int t ) const // or static
{
return t;
}
template< typename T1, typename T2 >
bool operator()( T1 const& t1, T2 const& t2 ) const
{
return asTime(t1) < asTime(t2);
}
};
then:
std::lower_bound(valueContainer.begin(), valueContainer.end(), time,
CompareValueAndTime() );
There are a couple of other errors too, e.g. no semicolon at the end of the class declaration, plus the fact that members of a class are private by default which makes your whole class private in this case. Did you miss a public: before the constructor?
Your function GetLocationForTime doesn't return a value. You need to take the result of lower_bound and subtract begin() from it. The function should also be const.
If the intention of this call is to insert here, then consider the fact that inserting in the middle of a vector is an O(N) operation and therefore vector may be the wrong collection type here.
Note that the lower_bound algorithm only works on pre-sorted collections. If you want to be able to look up on different members without continually resorting, you will want to create indexes on these fields, possibly using boost's multi_index
One error is that the fourth argument to lower_bound (compareValue in your code) cannot be a member function. It can be a functor or a free function. Making it a free function which is a friend of MyClass seems to be the simplest in your case. Also you are missing the return keyword.
class MyClass {
MyClass() { InsertValues(); }
void InsertValues();
int GetLocationForTime(int time);
friend bool compareValue(const Value& lhs, const Value& rhs)
{
return lhs.time < rhs.time;
}
Class keyword must start from lower c - class.
struct Value has wrong type qualtiy instead of quality
I dont see using namespace std to use STL types without it.
vector<value> - wrong type value instead of Value
Etc.
You have to check it first before posting here with such simple errors i think.
And main problem here that comparison function cant be member of class. Use it as free function:
bool compareValue(const Value lhs, const int time) {
return lhs.time < time ;
}
class is the keyword and not "Class":
class MyClass {
And its body should be followed by semicolon ;.
There can be other errors, but you may have to paste them in the question for further help.
You just want to make compareValue() a normal function. The way you have implemented it right now, you need an object of type MyClass around. The way std::lower_bound() will try to call it, it will just pass in two argument, no extra object. If you really want it the function to be a member, you can make it a static member.
That said, there is a performance penalty for using functions directly. You might want to have comparator type with an inline function call operator:
struct MyClassComparator {
bool operator()(MyClass const& m0, MyClass const& m1) const {
return m0.time < m1.time;
}
};
... and use MyClassComparator() as comparator.
Having the following code:
#include <iostream>
#include <set>
#include <string>
#include <functional>
using namespace std;
class Employee {
// ...
int _id;
string _name;
string _title;
public:
Employee(int id): _id(id) {}
string const &name() const { return _name; }
void setName(string const &newName) { _name = newName; }
string const &title() const { return _title; }
void setTitle(string const &newTitle) { _title = newTitle; }
int id() const { return _id; }
};
struct compEmployeesByID: public binary_function<Employee, Employee, bool> {
bool operator()(Employee const &lhs, Employee const &rhs) {
return lhs.id() < rhs.id();
}
};
int wmain() {
Employee emplArr[] = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4};
set<Employee, compEmployeesByID> employees(emplArr, emplArr + sizeof emplArr/sizeof emplArr[0]);
// ...
set<Employee, compEmployeesByID>::iterator iter = employees.find(2);
if (iter != employees.end())
iter->setTitle("Supervisor");
return 0;
}
I cannot compile this code having (MSVCPP 11.0):
1> main.cpp
1>d:\docs\programming\test01\test01\main.cpp(40): error C2662: 'Employee::setTitle' : cannot convert 'this' pointer from 'const Employee' to 'Employee &'
1> Conversion loses qualifiers
This helps to compile:
if (iter != employees.end())
const_cast<Employee &>(*iter).setTitle("Supervisor");
The question: I know that map and multimap store their values as pair(const K, V) where K is a key and V is a value. We cannot change the K object. But set<T> and multiset<T> store their object as T, not as const T. So WHY I NEED THIS CONST CAST??
In C++11 set (and multiset) specify that iterator as well as const_iterator is a constant iterator, i.e. you cannot use it to modify the key. This is because any modification of they key risks breaking the set's invariant. (See 23.2.4/6.)
Your const_cast opens the door to undefined behaviour.
The values in a set are not supposed to be modified. For example, if you modified your Employee's ID, then it would be in the wrong position in the set and the set would be broken.
Your Employee has three fields, and your set is using the _id field in your operator<.
class Employee {
// ...
int _id;
string _name;
string _title;
};
Therefore, you should probably use a map<int,Employee> instead of your set, then you would be able to modify the name and title. I would also make the _id field of Employee a const int _id.
(By the way, identifiers beginning with _ are technically reserved and should be avoided. It's never cause me any trouble but now I prefer to put the underscore on the end of the variable name.)
In C++, you cannot modify keys of associated STL containers because you will break their ordering. When you wish to change a key, you're supposed to (1) find the existing key, (2) delete it, and (3) insert the new key.
Unfortunately, while this isn't overly appealing, it's how associative containers work in the STL.
You can get away with const with just an indirection.
But be careful to not change the ordering of the elements in a given sorted container.