I'm working with iterators on a set of elements of size greater that three almost all the time, but it happens that the generated set contains only one element, in this case, the following loop:
for(i = data_set.begin(); i != data_set.end(); i++)
{
//do something with the data
}
will never be entered even though "data_set" is not empty because data_set.begin()==data_set.end()
I'm doing a test to handle this particular case alone but the code is turning to a mess and is no longer clean.
What should be done to handle this properly?
Thanks,
자스민
If the set contains only 1 element, then:
std::next( data_set.begin() ) == data_set.end(), because begin() iterator points at first element of the container, and end() points to the element that is next after the last one.
Related
I have to write a function that erases an element out of the list if it's bigger than the previous element.(The previous element is the one which points to the next element before deletion)
I think I've basically finished it but I don't know why it doesn't erase 5 out of my list.
void deleteBigger(list<int> s){
list<int>::iterator test;
for(test = s.begin(); test != s.end(); test++){
int sk1=*test;
cout<<sk1<<endl;
test--;
int sk2=*test;
cout<<sk2<<endl;
if(sk1>sk2){
cout<<"Im here!\n";
s.erase(test);
}
test++;
}
}
It doesn't give an error or anything it just doesn't erase. I tried to test the erase method in the main function of the program, and there it worked fine.
There are three problems with your code:
Your list is passed by value, not reference. So you are changing a copy of your list and it doesn't alter the original container
You try to remove an element from a list while iterating it. Edit: As #Remy Lebeau mentioned in the comments, to be more precise it's a problem because you don't update the iterator properly, but not a problem on its own. Be advised, that when you remove an element from a list, the iterator which pointed to the erased element is considered invalidated.
Upon the first iteration, you decremented the iterator out of the container's bounds
Summing it up, what you might want to have here looks something like this:
void deleteBigger(std::list<int> &s) {
using namespace std;
if (s.empty()) {
return;
}
for(auto test = next(s.cbegin()); test != s.cend(); ++test){
while ((*test > *prev(test)) && (test != s.cend())) {
test = s.erase(test);
}
}
}
I've copied your code and it doesn't work. The problem is your iterator pointer "test". You can't degree a pointer at the begin. The only thing you can do is use a control.
Note: it's wrong decrement a pointer because you are decrementing of (32 bits) the index of memory. In this case there is overriding -- operator that saves your program but be careful next times
Control your program. It's important use a debugger editor where you can stop the program at certain point and control the value of the variables
My apologies for the lengthy explanation.
I am working on a C++ application that loads two files into two 2D string vectors, rearranges those vectors, builds another 2D string vector, and outputs it all in a report. The first element of the two vectors is a code that identifies the owner of the item and the item in the vector. I pass the owner's identification to the program on start and loop through the two vectors in a nested while loop to find those that have matching first elements. When I do, I build a third vector with components of the first two, and I then need to capture any that don't match.
I was using the syntax "vector.erase(vector.begin() + i)" to remove elements from the two original arrays when they matched. When the loop completed, I had my new third vector, and I was left with two vectors that only had elements, which didn't match and that is what I needed. This was working fine as I tried the various owners in the files (the program accepts one owner at a time). Then I tried one that generated an out of range error.
I could not figure out how to do the erase inside of the loop without throwing the error (it didn't seem that swap and pop or erase-remove were feasible solutions). I solved my problem for the program with two extra nested while loops after building my third vector in this one.
I'd like to know how to make the erase method work here (as it seems a simpler solution) or at least how to check for my out of range error (and avoid it). There were a lot of "rows" for this particular owner; so debugging was tedious. Before giving up and going on to the nested while solution, I determined that the second erase was throwing the error. How can I make this work, or are my nested whiles after the fact, the best I can do? Here is the code:
i = 0;
while (i < AIvector.size())
{
CHECK:
j = 0;
while (j < TRvector.size())
{
if (AIvector[i][0] == TRvector[j][0])
{
linevector.clear();
// Add the necessary data from both vectors to Combo_outputvector
for (x = 0; x < AIvector[i].size(); x++)
{
linevector.push_back(AIvector[i][x]); // add AI info
}
for (x = 3; x < TRvector[j].size(); x++) // Don't need the the first three elements; so start with x=3.
{
linevector.push_back(TRvector[j][x]); // add TR info
}
Combo_outputvector.push_back(linevector); // build the combo vector
// then erase these two current rows/elements from their respective vectors, this revises the AI and TR vectors
AIvector.erase(AIvector.begin() + i);
TRvector.erase(TRvector.begin() + j);
goto CHECK; // jump from here because the erase will have changed the two increments
}
j++;
}
i++;
}
As already discussed, your goto jumps to the wrong position. Simply moving it out of the first while loop should solve your problems. But can we do better?
Erasing from a vector can be done cleanly with std::remove and std::erase for cheap-to-move objects, which vector and string both are. After some thought, however, I believe this isn't the best solution for you because you need a function that does more than just check if a certain row exists in both containers and that is not easily expressed with the erase-remove idiom.
Retaining the current structure, then, we can use iterators for the loop condition. We have a lot to gain from this, because std::vector::erase returns an iterator to the next valid element after the erased one. Not to mention that it takes an iterator anyway. Conditionally erasing elements in a vector becomes as simple as
auto it = vec.begin()
while (it != vec.end()) {
if (...)
it = vec.erase(it);
else
++it;
}
Because we assign erase's return value to it we don't have to worry about iterator invalidation. If we erase the last element, it returns vec.end() so that doesn't need special handling.
Your second loop can be removed altogether. The C++ standard defines functions for searching inside STL containers. std::find_if searches for a value in a container that satisfies a condition and returns an iterator to it, or end() if it doesn't exist. You haven't declared your types anywhere so I'm just going to assume the rows are std::vector<std::string>>.
using row_t = std::vector<std::string>;
auto AI_it = AIVector.begin();
while (AI_it != AIVector.end()) {
// Find a row in TRVector with the same first element as *AI_it
auto TR_it = std::find_if (TRVector.begin(), TRVector.end(), [&AI_it](const row_t& row) {
return row[0] == (*AI_it)[0];
});
// If a matching row was found
if (TR_it != TRVector.end()) {
// Copy the line from AIVector
auto linevector = *AI_it;
// Do NOT do this if you don't guarantee size > 3
assert(TR_it->size() >= 3);
std::copy(TR_it->begin() + 3, TR_it->end(),
std::back_inserter(linevector));
Combo_outputvector.emplace_back(std::move(linevector));
AI_it = AIVector.erase(AI_it);
TRVector.erase(TR_it);
}
else
++AI_it;
}
As you can see, switching to iterators completely sidesteps your initial problem of figuring out how not to access invalid indices. If you don't understand the syntax of the arguments for find_if search for the term lambda. It is beyond the scope if this answer to explain what they are.
A few notable changes:
linevector is now encapsulated properly. There is no reason for it to be declared outside this scope and reused.
linevector simply copies the desired row from AIVector rather than push_back every element in it, as long as Combo_outputvector (and therefore linevector) contains the same type than AIVector and TRVector.
std::copy is used instead of a for loop. Apart from being slightly shorter, it is also more generic, meaning you could change your container type to anything that supports random access iterators and inserting at the back, and the copy would still work.
linevector is moved into Combo_outputvector. This can be a huge performance optimization if your vectors are large!
It is possible that you used an non-encapsulated linevector because you wanted to keep a copy of the last inserted row outside of the loop. That would prohibit moving it, however. For this reason it is faster and more descriptive to do it as I showed above and then simply do the following after the loop.
auto linevector = Combo_outputvector.back();
I am having a problem while looping thru a map (std::map).
Inside my loop, there is a call to a function which sometimes (not always) erases elements of this same map. After this function is used, there is some code which is using some of this map information as input.
I am having no problems after this function erases any elements, except on the unique case that the last element of the map is erased.
My loop semms not to understand that the last element of the map is not the same as when it started to operate, and will try to operate on elements which doesnt exist, creating a crash.
It seems to me that the myMap.end() call on the loop description is not able to update itself with the new end() of the map.
The relevant part of the code is listed below:
for(std::map<int, ConnectionInfo>::iterator kv = myMap.begin(); kv != myMap.end(); ++kv) {
int thisConnectionID=kv->first; //This is where I get garbage when the loop enters when it shouldnt;
ConnectionInfo currentConnectionInfo=kv->second; //This is where I get garbage when the loop enters when it shouldnt;
status=eraseSomeMapElementsIfNecessary(thisConnectionID,currentConnectionInfo.DownPacket); //this function might erase elements on myMap. This generates no problems afterwards, except when the end element of myMap is erased
... //Next parts of the code make no further usage of myMaps, so I just hid it not to pollute the code
}
Is my interpretation that the kv != myMap.end() is not being able to understand that the inner loop is changing (erasing) the last element (end) of myMap?
In this case, how can I fix this issue?
Or is my interpretation wrong and the solution has nothing to do with what I stated before?
Thanks for your help!
The usual idiom when iterating a map with possibly deleting element is:
for(auto it = map.begin(); it != map.end(); ) {
if ( *it == /*is to delete*/ ) {
it = map.erase(it);
}
else
++it;
}
if your eraseSomeMapElementsIfNecessary might erase some random values in map being iterated then this will for sure cause problems. If element to which it is referencing was erased, it becomes invalid, then incrementing it with ++it is also invalid.
The problem is actually only with the it iterator, if eraseSomeMapElementsIfNecessary erases it and then you use it - you have Undefined Behaviour (UB). So the solution is to pass current iterator to eraseSomeMapElementsIfNecessary, and return from it the next one to iterate:
it = eraseSomeMapElementsIfNecessary(it);
the body of the for loop from my example should be inside your eraseSomeMapElementsIfNecessary function. At least this is one solution.
I am having no problems after this function erases any elements, except on the unique case that the last element of the map is erased.
Erasing an element in any container invalidates the iterator to it. After that you increment the invalidated iterator.
You should increment the iterator before you delete the element pointed by it.
If you do not know what elements that function inside the loop erases assume that all iterators are invalidated.
Maybe these 2 links will help:
How can I delete elements of a std::map with an iterator?
https://stackoverflow.com/a/8234813/3464942
Basically, what it all boils down to, is that you must update the iterator before it becomes invalid.
You have to preserve the next iterator before erasing the current one; since the current one will be invalid after deleting the element.
auto nextit = it+1;
map.erase(it);
it = nextit;
I have a simple for loop:
for (int i = 0; i < c.numparticles; i++)
{
if ( labs((noncollision[i].getypos())) > 5000 )
{
noncollision.erase (noncollision.begin()+i);
}
}
Where noncollision is a vector of class particle. In this specific example, any noncollision which has a ypos greater than 5000 should be erased. I have been working with a noncollision size of 6, of which 2 have ypos much greater than 5000. However, this for loop is only erasing one of them, completely ignoring the other. My suspicion is that because noncollision is a vector of classes, that this classes is somehow protected, or causes the array function to act differently? Here is my declaration for noncollision, and for particle:
vector<particle> noncollision;
class particle{
private:
int xpos;
int ypos;
int xvel;
int yvel;
bool jc; // Has the particle just collided?
public:
etc....
};
Could anyone explain why this is happening, and how to rectify it? Do I somehow need to set up an 'erase function' for the particle class?
If you have two candidate elements next to each other (say, at i=5 and i=6), then you jump over the second, because you just erased the one at i=5... then the second becomes the new i=5 but you increment i to get i=6 on the next loop.
You need to fix your loop to properly support the fact that you're simultaneously removing elements from the same container over which you're iterating.
Typically you'd use actual iterators (rather than a counter i), and vector::erase conveniently returns a new iterator for you to use in the next iteration:
vector<particle>::iterator it = noncollision.begin(), end = noncollision.end();
for ( ; it != end; ) { // NB. no `++it` here!
if (labs(it->getypos()) > 5000) {
// erase this element, and get an iterator to the new next one
it = noncollision.erase(it);
// the end's moved, too!
end = noncollision.end();
}
else {
// otherwise, and only otherwise, continue iterating as normal
it++;
}
}
However, quoting Joe Z:
Also, since erase can be O(N) in the size of a vector, you might (a) benchmark the loop using reverse iterators too, (b) consider copying the not-erased elements into a fresh vector as opposed to deleting elements out of the middle, or (c) using a list<> instead of a vector<> if deleting from the middle is a common operation.
Or, if you're lazy, you could also just reverse your iteration order, which preserves the sanctity of your counter i in this specific case:
for (int i = c.numparticles-1; i >= 0; i--) {
if (labs(noncollision[i].getypos()) > 5000) {
noncollision.erase(noncollision.begin()+i);
}
}
Just be careful never to change i to an unsigned variable (and your compiler is probably warning you to do just that — i.e. to use size_t instead — if c.numparticles has a sensible type) because if you do, your loop will never end!
However, this for loop is only erasing one of them, completely ignoring the other.
This is because you are going front to back. When your code erases an item at, say, index 6, the item that was previously at index 7 is at the index 6 now. However, the loop is going to skip index 6 after i++, thinking that it has already processed it.
If you go back-to-front, the problem will be fixed:
for (int i = c.numparticles-1; i >= 0; i--)
{
if ( labs((noncollision[i].getypos())) > 5000 )
{
noncollision.erase (noncollision.begin()+i);
}
}
It looks like you're suffering from "Invalidated Iterator" syndrome, although in this case it's the index that's the problem.
Are the 2 elements you want to erase next to each other?
The problem is that erasing an element from a vector causes the remaining underlying elements to be copied to a new location (unless you erase the last element), and the number of elements in the vector is reduced by one.
Since you're using indexing into the vector, you're not falling foul of the first problem (which is iterators being invalidated), but:
you will never check the element immediately after the one you just erased
your indexing will spill off the end of the vector (undefined behaviour)
Modifying any sequence you're inspecting in the same loop is a bad idea. Have a look at
remove_if for a better way. This algo puts all the matching elements at the end of the vector, and returns you an iterator to the first one that was moved, allowing you to remove them all in one go safely.
Does C++ have a pre-built method to identify which element you are on in your foreach loop, or if there is a way to identify if you are on your last element? Or do I have to do it manually with a counter?
No, there is no such built-in way. Nor could there be for iterators in general, because iterators aren't required to know that they are "almost" at the end.
If you find yourself needing the index your probably better off using a regular for loop
If you need the last element, how about using another iterator to store it before you go to the next item in the container? If you set both to the start and then at the end of you loop before you get the next element (increment or decrement the iterator) , set last iterator to current and then get the next.
Something like this:
container current::iterator;
container last::iterator;
current = container.first();
last = current; // or contianer.first();
while ( current is valid )
{
// do something
last = current;
// get the next item
current = container.next(); // or current++;
// depending upon container or
// iterator
}
That way you don't have to rewrite your loop, but you do need to check to make sure your container is not empty before this.