I have this :
vector<int> vec = {10, 4, 18, 7, 2, 10, 25, 30};
auto& pos25 = find(vec.cbegin(), vec.cend(), 25);
auto& pos18 = find(vec.cbegin(), vec.cend(), 18);
Now, i want to make a query to search for 7 between there two positions. I can just use operator< between pos25 and pos18 since they're random acess iterators and then I can find the location of 7 within that range.
But what if my container is a forward_list. How will I implement that since I don't have an operator< to compare these two iterators; hence I can't know whether pos25 or pos18 occur first to give a range to the find function.
I found this method in a book :
pos18 = find (vec.begin(), vec.end(), // range
18); // value
pos25 = find (vec.begin(), pos18, // range
25); // value
if (pos18 != coll.end() && pos25 != pos18) {
// pos25 is in front of pos18
// so, only [pos25,pos18) is valid
...
}
else {
pos25 = find (pos25, vec.end(), // range
25); // value
if (pos25 != coll.end()) {
// pos18 is in front of pos25
// so, only [pos18,pos25) is valid
...
}
else {
// 18 and/or 25 not found
...
}
}
Though this is simple enough, is there anything more efficient?
Iterating over a linked list is of relatively high cost because of the potential accesses to memory that must be made. You'll want to minimize those accesses. There are a couple things you could do to that end:
Use find_if to search for either 18 or 25
Then search from that point with find_if again for either 7 or the other bound
If the other bound was found 1st there is no intervening 7 if the 7 was found first ensure the other bound exists
So your code could look like this:
const auto start = find_if(cbegin(vec), cend(vec), [](const auto& i){ return i == 18 || i == 25; });
const auto target = find_if(start, cend(vec), [finish = *start == 18 ? 25 : 18](const auto& i){ return i == 7 || i == finish; });
const auto finish = *target == 7 ? find(target, cend(vec), *start == 18 ? 25 : 18) : cend(vec);
After this if finish doesn't point to cend(vec) then target is a valid pointer to the 1st 7 in the range.
Live Example
Vlad from Moscow's solution cleverly avoided the need for lambdas by using find_first_of, but it iterated over the contents of vec more than once, making it more expensive than my algorithm. The marriage of these 2 algorithms results in an algorithm that is faster than my original while preserving the benefit of only accessing each element once:
const int a[] = { 18, 25 };
const auto start = find_first_of(cbegin(vec), cend(vec), cbegin(a), cend(a));
const int b[] = { *start == *cbegin(a) ? *crbegin(a) : *cbegin(a), 7 };
const auto target = find_first_of(start, cend(vec), cbegin(b), cend(b));
const auto finish = *target == *crbegin(b) ? find(target, cend(vec), *cbegin(b)) : cend(vec);
Again if finish doesn't point to cend(vec) then target is a valid pointer to the 1st 7 in the range.
Live Example
For starters this code snippet (if to update a typo) is wrong
vector<int> vec = {10, 4, 18, 7, 2, 10, 25, 30};
auto& pos25 = find(vec.cbegin(), vec.cend(), 25);
auto& pos18 = find(vec.cbegin(), vec.cend(), 18);
You may not bind a temporary object with a non-constant reference.
As for this approach
pos18 = find (vec.begin(), vec.end(), // range
18); // value
pos25 = find (vec.begin(), pos18, // range
25); // value
then you will need to check many conditions. For example before calling
pos25 = find (vec.begin(), pos18, // range
25); // value
you should check whether pos19 is not equal to vec.end().
As for determining which iterator is less or greater than you can use standard function std::distance. However it is inefficient applied to iterators of the container std::forward_list.
A more efficient approach is to use standard algorithm std::find_first_of instead of the algorithm std::find to find the first iterator of the range.
Here is a demonstrative program
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iterator>
int main()
{
std::vector<int> vec = { 10, 4, 18, 7, 2, 10, 25, 30 };
int a[] = { 25, 18 };
auto first = std::find_first_of(vec.cbegin(), vec.cend(),
std::begin(a), std::end(a));
auto last = vec.cend();
auto target = vec.cend();
if (first != vec.cend())
{
last = std::find(first, vec.cend(),
*first == a[0] ? a[1] : a[0]);
}
if (last != vec.cend())
{
target = std::find(first, last, 7);
}
if (target != vec.end())
{
std::cout << 7 << " is between " << *first
<< " and " << *last << std::endl;
}
}
The program output is
7 is between 18 and 25
You don't have any options to compare two ForwardIterator's other than operator ==. This means that you have only two ways here:
Use std::find to ensure the iterators belong to a particular part of your array. This method is implemented in code you cited and in the #Jonathan's answer.
Compare two iterators by writing a special procedure for such operations.
For example, you can write the following code:
template<typename ForwardIterator>
bool less(ForwardIterator lhs, ForwardIterator rhs, ForwardIterator end) {
if (lhs == rhs) {
return false; // Equal
}
while (lhs++ != end) {
if (lhs == rhs) {
return true; // rhs is after lhs
}
}
return false; // lhs is after rhs
}
Please also note that this procedure assumes that both iterators belong to the same container and has linear time complexity.
Personally, I would recommend in such situation using a RandomAccessIterator. Yes, std::list does not provide one, but you may use std::vector instead.
Related
I have a (sorted) set of unsigned int's. I need to find the closest element to a given number.
I am looking for a solution using the standard library,
my first solution was to use binary search, but STL's implementation only returns if the element exists.
This post, Find Closest Element in a Set, was helpful and I implemented a solution based on std::lower_bound method,
(*Assuming the set has more than 2 elements, no empty/boundary checks are made):
#include <iostream>
#include<set>
#include<algorithm>
#include<cmath>
int main()
{
std::set<unsigned int> mySet = {34, 256, 268, 500, 502, 444};
unsigned int searchedElement = 260;
unsigned int closestElement;
auto lower_bound = mySet.lower_bound(searchedElement);
if (lower_bound == mySet.end()){
closestElement = *(--lower_bound);
}
std::set<unsigned int>::iterator prevElement = --lower_bound;
bool isPrevClosest = std::abs(*prevElement - searchedElement) > std::abs(*lower_bound - searchedElement);
closestElement = isPrevClosest ? *prevElement : *lower_bound;
std::cout << closestElement << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Is there a simpler more standard solution?
I don't think there is a better solution than using .lower_bound. You can wrap your algorithm into a function template:
template<typename Set>
auto closest_element(Set& set, const typename Set::value_type& value)
-> decltype(set.begin())
{
const auto it = set.lower_bound(value);
if (it == set.begin())
return it;
const auto prev_it = std::prev(it);
return (it == set.end() || value - *prev_it <= *it - value) ? prev_it : it;
}
This function handles all corner cases (empty set, one element, first element, last element) correctly.
Example:
std::set<unsigned int> my_set{34, 256, 268, 500, 502, 444};
std::cout << *closest_element(my_set, 26); // Output: 34
std::cout << *closest_element(my_set, 260); // Output: 256
std::cout << *closest_element(my_set, 620); // Output: 502
Note that std::abs in your code does (almost) nothing: its argument has unsigned type and is always non-negative. But we know that std::set elements are ordered, hence we know that *prev_it <= value <= *it, and no std::abs() is needed.
You could use std::min_element() : as a comperator, give it a lambda that returns the absulute diff e.g.
std::min_element(mySet.begin(), mySet.end(), [searchedElement](const unsigned int a, const unsigned int b) {
return std::abs(searchedElement - a) < std::abs(searchedElement - b);
});
However, I do think this will no longer apply a binary search...
EDIT : Also, as stated in comments below, std::abs(x - y) for unsigned int values may return an unexpectedly large integer when x < y.
The std::set container is suitable for finding adjacent elements, i.e., finding the element that succeeds or precedes a given element. Considering the problem that you are facing:
I am looking for a solution using the standard library, my first solution was to use binary search, but STL's implementation only returns if the element exists.
There is still an approach you can follow without changing your logic: If the element – whose closest element you want to find – does not exist in the set, then you simply insert it in the set (it takes logarithmic time in the size of the set). Next, you find the closest element to this just added element. Finally, remove it from the set when you are done so that the set remains the same as before.
Of course, if the element was already in the set, nothing has to be inserted into or removed from the set. Therefore, you need to keep track of whether or not you added that element.
The following function is an example of the idea elaborated above:
#include <set>
unsigned int find_closest_element(std::set<unsigned int> s, unsigned int val) {
bool remove_elem = false;
auto it = s.find(val);
// does val exist in the set?
if (s.end() == it) {
// element does not exist in the set, insert it
s.insert(val);
it = s.find(val);
remove_elem = true;
}
// find previous and next element
auto prev_it = (it == s.begin()? s.end(): std::prev(it));
auto next_it = std::next(it);
// remove inserted element if applicable
if (remove_elem)
s.erase(it);
unsigned int d1, d2;
d1 = d2 = std::numeric_limits<unsigned int>::max();
if (prev_it != s.end())
d1 = val - *prev_it;
if (next_it != s.end())
d2 = *next_it - val;
return d1 <= d2? *prev_it: *next_it;
}
Given:
struct Object {
int id;
...
};
list<Object> objectList;
list<int> idList;
What is the best way to order objectList depending on order of idList?
Example (pseudo code):
INPUT
objectList = {o1, o2, o3};
idList = {2, 3, 1};
ACTION
sort(objectList, idList);
OUTPUT
objectList = {o2, o3, o1};
I searched in documentation but I only found methods to order elements comparing among themselves.
You can store the objects in an std::map, with id as key. Then traverse idList, get the object out of map with its id.
std::map<int, Object> objectMap;
for (auto itr = objectList.begin(); itr != objectList.end(); itr++)
{
objectMap.insert(std::make_pair(itr->id, *itr));
}
std::list<Object> newObjectList;
for (auto itr = idList.begin(); itr != idList.end(); itr++)
{
// here may fail if your idList contains ids which does not appear in objectList
newObjectList.push_back(objectMap[*itr]);
}
// now newObjectList is sorted as order in idList
Here is another variant, which works in O(n log n). This is asymptotcally optimal.
#include <list>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
#include <cassert>
int main() {
struct O {
int id;
};
std::list<O> object_list{{1}, {2}, {3}, {4}};
std::list<int> index_list{4, 2, 3, 1};
assert(object_list.size() == index_list.size());
// this vector is optional. It is needed if sizeof(O) is quite large.
std::vector<std::pair<int, O*>> tmp_vector(object_list.size());
// this is O(n)
std::transform(begin(object_list), end(object_list), begin(tmp_vector),
[](auto& o) { return std::make_pair(o.id, &o); });
// this is O(n log n)
std::sort(begin(tmp_vector), end(tmp_vector),
[](const auto& o1, const auto& o2) {
return o1.first < o2.first;
});
// at this point, tmp_vector holds pairs in increasing index order.
// Note that this may not be a contiguous list.
std::list<O> tmp_list(object_list.size());
// this is again O (n log n), because lower_bound is O (n)
// we then insert the objects into a new list (you may also use some
// move semantics here).
std::transform(begin(index_list), end(index_list), begin(tmp_list),
[&tmp_vector](const auto& i) {
return *std::lower_bound(begin(tmp_vector), end(tmp_vector),
std::make_pair(i, nullptr),
[](const auto& o1, const auto& o2) {
return o1.first < o2.first;
})->second;
});
// As we just created a new list, we swap the new list with the old one.
std::swap(object_list, tmp_list);
for (const auto& o : object_list)
std::cout << o.id << std::endl;
}
I assumed that O is quite large and not easily movable. Therefore i first create tmp_vector which only contains of pairs. Then I sort this vector.
Afterwards I can simply go through the index_list and find the matching indices using binary search.
Let me elaborate on why a map is not the best solution eventhough you get a quite small piece of code. If you use a map you need to rebalance your tree after each insertion. This doesn't cost asympatotically (because n times rebalancing costs you the same as sorting once), but the constant is way larger. A "constant map" makes not that much sense (except accessing it may be easier).
I then timed the "simple" map-approach against my "not-so-simple" vector-approach. I created a randomly sorted index_list with N entries. And this is what I get (in us):
N map vector
1000 90 75
10000 1400 940
100000 24500 15000
1000000 660000 250000
NOTE: This test shows the worst case as in my case only index_list was randomly sorted, while the object_list (which is inserted into the map in order) is sorted. So rebalancing shows all its effect. If the object_list is kind of random, performance will behave more similar, eventhough performance will always be worse. The vector list will even behave better when the object list is completely random.
So already with 1000 entries the difference is already quite large. So I would strongly vote for a vector-based approach.
Assuming the data is handled to you externally and you don't have the choice of the containers:
assert( objectList.size() == idList.size() );
std::vector<std::pair<int,Object>> wrapper( idList.size() );
auto idList_it = std::begin( idList );
auto objectList_it = std::begin( objectList );
for( auto& e: wrapper )
e = std::make_pair( *idList_it++, *objectList_it++ );
std::sort(
std::begin(wrapper),
std::end(wrapper),
[]
(const std::pair<int,Object>& a, const std::pair<int,Object>& b) -> bool
{ return a.first<b.first; }
);
Then, copy back to original container.
{
auto objectList_it = std::begin( objectList );
for( const auto& e: wrapper )
*objectList_it++ = e;
}
But this solution is not optimal, I'm sure somebody will come with a better solution.
Edit: The default comparison operator for pairs requires that it is defined both for first and second members. Thus the easiest way is to provide a lambda.
Edit2: for some reason, this doesn't build if using a std::list for the wrapper. But it's ok if you use a std::vector (see here).
std::list has a sort member function you can use with a custom comparison functor.
That custom functor has to look up an object's id in the idList and can then use std::distance to calculate the position of the element in idList. It does so for both objects to be compared and returns true if the first position is smaller than the second.
Here is an example:
#include <iostream>
#include <list>
#include <algorithm>
#include <stdexcept>
struct Object
{
int id;
};
int main()
{
Object o1 = { 1 };
Object o2 = { 2 };
Object o3 = { 3 };
std::list<Object> objectList = { o1, o2, o3 };
std::list<int> const idList = { 2, 3, 1 };
objectList.sort([&](Object const& first, Object const& second)
{
auto const id_find_iter1 = std::find(begin(idList), end(idList), first.id);
auto const id_find_iter2 = std::find(begin(idList), end(idList), second.id);
if (id_find_iter1 == end(idList) || id_find_iter2 == end(idList))
{
throw std::runtime_error("ID not found");
}
auto const pos1 = std::distance(begin(idList), id_find_iter1);
auto const pos2 = std::distance(begin(idList), id_find_iter2);
return pos1 < pos2;
});
for (auto const& object : objectList)
{
std::cout << object.id << '\n';
}
}
It's probably not terribly efficient, but chances are you will never notice. If it still bothers you, you might want to look for a solution with std::vector, which unlike std::list provides random-access iterators. That turns std::distance from O(n) to O(1).
I would find it strange to end up in this situation as I would use the pointers instead of the ids. Though; there might be usecases for this.
Note that in all examples below, I assume that the ids-list contains all ids exactly ones.
Writing it yourself
The issue you like to solve is creating/sorting a list of objects based on the order of the ids in another list.
The naive way of doing this, is simply writing it yourself:
void sortByIdVector(std::list<Object> &list, const std::list<int> &ids)
{
auto oldList = std::move(list);
list = std::list<Object>{};
for (auto id : ids)
{
auto itElement = std::find_if(oldList.begin(), oldList.end(), [id](const Object &obj) { return id == obj.id; });
list.emplace_back(std::move(*itElement));
oldList.erase(itElement);
}
}
If you use a sorted vector as input, you can optimize this code to get the best performance out of it. I'm leaving it up-to you to do so.
Using sort
For this implementation, I'm gonna assume this are std::vector instead of std::list, as this is the better container to request the index of an element. (You can with some more code do the same for list)
size_t getIntendedIndex(const std::vector<int> &ids, const Object &obj)
{
auto itElement = std::find_if(ids.begin(), ids.end(), [obj](int id) { return id == obj.id; });
return itElement - ids.begin();
}
void sortByIdVector(std::list<Object> &list, const std::vector<int> &ids)
{
list.sort([&ids](const Object &lhs, const Object &rhs){ return getIntendedIndex(ids, lhs) < getIntendedIndex(ids, rhs); });
}
Insertion
Another approach, also more suitable for std::vector would be simply inserting the elements at the right place and will be more performant than the std::sort.
void sortByIdVector(std::vector<Object> &list, const std::vector<int> &ids)
{
auto oldList = std::move(list);
list = std::vector<Object>{};
list.resize(oldList.size());
for (Object &obj : oldList)
{
auto &newLocation = list[getIntendedIndex(ids, obj)];
newLocation = std::move(obj);
}
}
objectList.sort([&idList] (const Object& o1, const Object& o2) -> bool
{ return std::find(++std::find(idList.begin(), idList.end(), o1.id),
idList.end(), o2.id)
!= idList.end();
});
The idea is to check if we find o1.id before o2.id in the idList.
We search o1.id, increment the found position then we search o2.id: if found, that implies o1 < o2.
Test
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <list>
#include <algorithm>
struct Object {
int id;
string name;
};
int main()
{
list<Object> objectList {{1, "one_1"}, {2, "two_1"}, {3, "three_1"}, {2, "two_2"}, {1, "one_2"}, {4, "four_1"}, {3, "Three_2"}, {4, "four_2"}};
list<int> idList {3, 2, 4, 1};
objectList.sort([&idList] (const Object& o1, const Object& o2) -> bool
{ return std::find(++std::find(idList.begin(), idList.end(), o1.id), idList.end(), o2.id) != idList.end(); });
for(const auto& o: objectList) cout << o.id << " " << o.name << "\n";
}
/* OUTPUT:
3 three_1
3 Three_2
2 two_1
2 two_2
4 four_1
4 four_2
1 one_1
1 one_2
*/
If I have vector<int> foo and vector<int> bar both of which are sorted, and I want to merge them into foo such that the final result is sorted, does the standard provide me a method for doing this?
Obviously I can do:
foo.insert(foo.end(), bar.begin(), bar.end());
sort(foo.begin(), foo.end());
But I was hoping there was a one step algorithm to accomplish this.
It might be faster to use std::inplace_merge instead of std::sort. If there is additional memory available it has linear complexity otherwise it falls back to NlogN.
auto middle = foo.insert(foo.end(), bar.begin(), bar.end());
std::inplace_merge(foo.begin(), middle, foo.end());
To elaborate on Mat's comment your code could look like this using std::merge:
std::vector<int> result;
std::merge(
foo.begin(), foo.end(),
bar.begin(), bar.end(),
std::back_inserter(result));
foo = result; // if desired
If you need this kind of merge, why not make one yourself?
template <class Vector>
void insert_sorted(Vector& where, Vector& what)
{
typename Container::iterator src = what.begin();
typename Container::iterator src_end = what.end();
size_t index = 0;
while(src != src_end)
{
if(*src < where[index])
{
where.insert(where.begin() + index, *src);
++src;
}
++index;
}
}
Sample usage:
vector<int> foo{ 0, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14 };
vector<int> bar{ 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 12 };
insert_sorted(foo, bar);
for(vector<int>::iterator i = foo.begin(); i != foo.end(); ++i)
cout << *i << " ";
Output:
0 1 2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 14
Live sample: link.
So after looking through all the standard algorithms I can confirm that, there is no alternative to insert and sort. As I was searching the standard algorithms I did note that all the copying algorithms use input iterators and output iterators the only time an input-output iterators are used is when a single range is being operated on. (For example sort uses input-output iterators but any copy uses input iterators and an output iterator.)
I'd like to give an illustration of my point. So lets make an example of what an insertion merge algorithm with an input-output iterator would look like:
template <class BidirectionalIterator, class InputIterator>
void func(BidirectionalIterator first1, BidirectionalIterator last1, InputIterator first2, InputIterator last2){
bool is1Empty = first1 == last1;
bool is2Empty = first2 == last2;
BidirectionalIterator end = next(last1, distance(first2, last2));
if (!is1Empty){
--last1;
}
if (!is2Empty){
--last2;
}
while (!is1Empty || !is2Empty){
--end;
if (!is1Empty){
if (!is2Empty && *last2 > *last1){
*end = *last2;
if (last2 == first2){
is2Empty = true;
}else{
--last2;
}
}else{
*end = *last1;
if (last1 == first1){
is1Empty = true;
}
else{
--last1;
}
}
}else{
*end = *last2;
if (last2 == first2){
is2Empty = true;
}
else{
--last2;
}
}
}
}
Two things should be noted about this func algorithm:
It doesn't respect last1 it is assumed that sufficient space is allocated beyond last1 to also contain all the elements in the input range
func's input-output range cannot be called with a back_inserter like any other output only range in a standard algorithm
Because of this even func cannot be a "one step algorithm". It must be called like this:
foo.resize(foo.size() + bar.size());
func(foo.begin(), next(foo.begin(), foo.size() - bar.size()), bar.begin(), bar.end());
Note that Blastfurnace's answer takes advantage of the knowledge that it is merging two sorted ranges, and as such is of equivalent speed to func:
auto middle = foo.insert(foo.end(), bar.begin(), bar.end());
inplace_merge(foo.begin(), middle, foo.end());
The only actual "one step algorithm" is to roll this Blastfurnace's answer into a function that you could call by passing in the containers to be merged.
Sorry for my potential nOOb'ness but have been trying to get this for hours and cant seem to find an elegant solution for c++ 98.
My question is, say i have a vector of strings { a,b,c,d,e,f } and i want to move 'e' to the 2nd element how would i do so? Obviously the expected output would now print out { a,e,b,c,d,f }
Ideally looking for a single operation that lets me do this just for efficiency reasons but would love to hear some suggestions on how to achieve this.
Thanks.
It's not possible to do this "efficiently" with std::vector<>, because it is stored in contiguous memory and you must therefore move everything between the old and new locations by one element. So it's linear time in the length of the vector (or at least the distance moved).
The naive solution would be to insert() then erase(), but that requires moving everything after the rightmost location you modified, twice! So instead you can do it "by hand", by copying b through d one position to the right (e.g. with std::copy(), then overwriting b. At least then you avoid shifting anything outside the modified range. It looks like you may be able to make std::rotate() do this, as #WhozCraig mentioned in a comment.
I'd try with std::rotate first and only try other manual stuff (or a container other than vector) if that turns out not be efficient enough:
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
int main()
{
// move 5 from 4th to 1st index
std::vector<int> v {1,2,3,4,5,6};
// position: 0 1 2 3 4 5
std::size_t i_old = 4;
std::size_t i_new = 1;
auto it = v.begin();
std::rotate( it + i_new, it + i_old, it + i_old + 1);
for (int i : v) std::cout << i << ' ';
}
Live demo.
EDIT As noted in the comments, the below code actually mimics std::rotate, which is of course preferred above my hand-rolled code in all cases.
You can accomplish this with K swaps where K is the distance between the elements:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
string v = "abcdef"; // use string here so output is trivial
string::size_type insert_index = 1; // at the location of 'b'
string::size_type move_index = 4; // at the location of 'e'
while(move_index > insert_index)
{
std::swap(v[move_index], v[move_index-1]);
--move_index;
}
std::cout << v;
}
Live demo here. Note I used std::string, but the algorithm remains the same for std::vector. The same can be done with iterators, so you can generalize to containers that don't have operator[].
Expanding on jrok's answer, here's a wrapper around std::rotate() for moving a single element around. This is more general than jrok's example, in that it supports moving an element forward in the vector too (rather than only backward).
See the comments within rotate_single() explaining how you have to swap the logic around when moving the element forward versus back.
#include <vector>
#include <stdexcept> // for std::domain_error in range-checking assertion
#include <algorithm> // for std::rotate()
template<class ContiguousContainer>
void assert_valid_idx(ContiguousContainer & v, size_t index)
{
// You probably have a preferred assertion mechanism in your code base...
// This is just a sample.
if(index >= v.size())
{
throw std::domain_error("Invalid index");
}
}
template<class ContiguousContainer>
void rotate_single(ContiguousContainer & v, size_t from_index, size_t to_index)
{
assert_valid_idx(v, from_index);
assert_valid_idx(v, to_index);
const auto from_it = v.begin() + from_index;
const auto to_it = v.begin() + to_index;
if(from_index < to_index)
{
// We're rotating the element toward the back, so we want the new
// front of our range to be the element just after the "from" iterator
// (thereby making our "from" iterator the new end of the range).
std::rotate(from_it, from_it + 1, to_it + 1);
}
else if(to_index < from_index)
{
// We're rotating the element toward the front,
// so we want the new front of the range to be the "from" iterator.
std::rotate(to_it, from_it, from_it + 1);
}
// else the indices were equal, no rotate necessary
}
You can play with this in Compiler Explorer—there are (extensive) unit tests there, but here's an illustrative sample:
TEST_CASE("Handful of elements in the vector")
{
std::vector<int> v{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}; // Note: this gets recreated for each SECTION() below
// position: 0 1 2 3 4 5
SECTION("Interior moves")
{
SECTION("Move 5 from 4th to 1st index")
{
rotate_single(v, 4, 1);
CHECK(v == std::vector<int>{1, 5, 2, 3, 4, 6});
}
SECTION("Move 2 from 1st to 4th index")
{
rotate_single(v, 1, 4);
CHECK(v == std::vector<int>{1, 3, 4, 5, 2, 6});
}
}
SECTION("Swap adjacent")
{
rotate_single(v, 4, 5);
rotate_single(v, 0, 1);
CHECK(v == std::vector<int>{2, 1, 3, 4, 6, 5});
}
}
I need to know if I can reduce the iterator and have a valid object. The below errors out because I reduce the iterator by 1 which doesn't exist. How can I know that so I don't get the error?
ticks.push_front(Tick(Vec3(0, 0, 5), 0));
ticks.push_front(Tick(Vec3(0, 0, 8), 100));
ticks.push_front(Tick(Vec3(0, 0, 10), 200));
bool found = false;
list<Tick, allocator<Tick>>::iterator iter;
for (iter = ticks.begin(); iter != ticks.end(); ++iter)
{
Tick t = (*iter);
if (214>= t.timestamp)
{
prior = t;
if (--iter != ticks.end())
{
next = (*--iter);
found = true;
break;
}
}
}
I'm trying to find the entries directly "above" and directly "below" the value 214 in the list. If only 1 exists then I don't care. I need above and below to exist.
After your edits to the question, I think I can write a better answer than what I had before.
First, write a comparison function for Ticks that uses their timestamps:
bool CompareTicks(const Tick& l, const Tick& r)
{
return l.timestamp < r.timestamp;
}
Now use the function with std::upper_bound:
// Get an iterator pointing to the first element in ticks that is > 214
// I'm assuming the second parameter to Tick's ctor is the timestamp
auto itAbove = std::upper_bound(ticks.begin(), ticks.end(), Tick(Vec3(0, 0, 0), 214), CompareTicks);
if(itAbove == ticks.end())
; // there is nothing in ticks > 214. I don't know what you want to do in this case.
This will give you the first element in ticks that is > 214. Next, you can use lower_bound to find the first element that is >= 214:
// get an iterator pointing to the first element in ticks that is >= 214
// I'm assuming the second parameter to Tick's ctor is the timestamp
auto itBelow = std::lower_bound(ticks.begin(), ticks.end(), Tick(Vec3(0, 0, 0), 214), CompareTicks);
You have to do one extra step with itBelow now to get the first element before 214, taking care not to go past the beginning of the list:
if(itBelow == ticks.begin())
; // there is nothing in ticks < 214. I don't know what you want to do in this case.
else
--itBelow;
Now, assuming you didn't hit any of the error cases, itAbove is pointing to the first element > 214, and itBelow is pointing to the last element < 214.
This assumes your Ticks are in order by timestamp, which seems to be the case. Note also that this technique will work even if there are multiple 214s in the list. Finally, you said the list is short so it's not really worth worrying about time complexity, but this technique could get you logarithmic performance if you also replaced the list with a vector, as opposed to linear for iterative approaches.
The answer to your core question is simple. Don't increment if you are at the end. Don't decrement if you are at the start.
Before incrementing, check.
if ( iter == ticks.end() )
Before decrementig, check.
if ( iter == ticks.begin() )
Your particular example
Looking at what you are trying to accomplish, I suspect you meant to use:
if (iter != ticks.begin())
instead of
if (--iter != ticks.end())
Update
It seems you are relying on the contents of your list being sorted by timestamp.
After your comment, I think what you need is:
if (214>= t.timestamp)
{
prior = t;
if (++iter != ticks.end())
{
next = *iter;
if ( 214 <= next.timestep )
{
found = true;
break;
}
}
}
Update 2
I agree with the comment made by #crashmstr. Your logic can be:
if (214 <= t.timestamp)
{
next = t;
if ( iter != ticks.begin())
{
prior = *--(iter);
found = true;
break;
}
}
I think you can do what you want with std::adjacent_find from the standard library <algorithm>. By default std::adjacent_find looks for two consecutive identical elements but you can provide your own function to define the relationship you are interested in.
Here's a simplified example:
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
#include <list>
struct matcher
{
matcher(int value) : target(value) {}
bool operator()(int lo, int hi) const {
return (lo < target) && (target < hi);
}
int target;
};
int main()
{
std::list<int> ticks = { 0, 100, 200, 300 };
auto it = std::adjacent_find(ticks.begin(), ticks.end(), matcher(214));
if (it != ticks.end()) {
std::cout << *it << ' ' << *std::next(it) << '\n';
} else {
std::cout << "not found\n";
}
}
This outputs 200 300, the two "surrounding" values it found.