I know how to pass a regular comparison class or function to set::set<>.
I am writing some test code and I want to emulate some C libraries using STL's std::set and I want to be able to pass a C callback to the comparison object so a different comparison takes place.
I have the following theoretical code:
struct MyClass
{
int a;
};
typedef bool (*user_callback_t)(void *, void *);
class MyComparison
{
private:
user_callback_t cb = nullptr;
public:
MyComparison(user_callback_t cb): cb(cb) { }
MyComparison() {}
bool operator()(const MyClass &a, const MyClass &b) const
{
return cb((void *)&a, (void *)&b);
}
};
int f1()
{
auto cmp = [](void *a, void *b) -> bool
{
return *(int *)a < *(int *)b;
};
MyComparison mycmp(cmp);
std::set<MyClass, MyComparison> m1;
m1.insert({ 1 });
m1.insert({ 2 });
m1.insert({ 3 });
return 0;
};
Now notice how I can do:
std::set<MyClass, MyComparison> m1;
But I cannot, somehow, instantiate a MyComparison object, pass it "cmp" and then use that initialize comparison object with that specific set.
Is there a way to achieve that?
Your assertion that you can't pass a MyComparison instance to std::set for it to use it is wrong. There is a constructor for std::set expecting just that (in C++11):
explicit set( const Compare& comp = Compare(),
const Allocator& alloc = Allocator() );
So your MyComparison can be passed as first argument.
std::set<MyClass, MyComparison> m1(mycmp);
If you don't have C++11 or newer available, then this constructor overload is non-existing and you need to use another one:
template< class InputIt >
set( InputIt first, InputIt last,
const Compare& comp = Compare(),
const Allocator& alloc = Allocator() );
This one however expects an interator range in the first two arguments. Since we don't actually want to construct from a range, they need to be dummies. You could do someting like:
std::vector<int> dummy;
std::set<MyClass, MyComparison> m1(dummy.begin(), dummy.end(), mycomp);
dummy will not be used afterwards. I am not sure whether there is a nicer solution besides implementing a dummy iterator class.
See http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/set/set for full reference on constructors of std::set.
Related
Here is a class that contains a boost::circular_buffer of some struct. I make a typedef for iterators into the contained circular_buffer.
My problem is this: when the doWork function is marked const, the returned value of std::upper_bound is not compatible with the MyIterator type due to the return value having boost::cb_details::const_traits. If I remove the const keyword from the function, all my compile errors go away.
To be clear the compiler error is this:
error: conversion from ‘boost::cb_details::iterator<boost::circular_buffer<Wrapper<int>::Sample, std::allocator<Wrapper<int>::Sample> >, boost::cb_details::const_traits<std::allocator<Wrapper<int>::Sample> > >’ to non-scalar type ‘Wrapper<int>::MyIterator {aka boost::cb_details::iterator<boost::circular_buffer<Wrapper<int>::Sample, std::allocator<Wrapper<int>::Sample> >, boost::cb_details::nonconst_traits<std::allocator<Wrapper<int>::Sample> > >}’ requested
[](const Sample& a, const Sample& b) { return a.foo < b.foo; });
Here is a self-contained example:
#include <algorithm>
#include <boost/circular_buffer.hpp>
template <typename T>
class Wrapper {
public:
struct Sample {
T foo;
};
typedef typename boost::circular_buffer<Sample>::iterator MyIterator;
Wrapper(int size) { cb.resize(size); }
void add(T val) { cb.push_back(Sample{val}); }
void doWork(T bound) const {
MyIterator iter =
std::upper_bound(cb.begin(), cb.end(), Sample{3},
[](const Sample& a, const Sample& b) { return a.foo < b.foo; });
}
boost::circular_buffer<Sample> cb;
};
int main() {
Wrapper<int> buf(100);
buf.add(1);
buf.add(5);
buf.doWork(3);
return 0;
}
So, why can't this function be const? Why does marking it const have this side-effect? I want a non-const iterator into the container, but in my real test case I don't intend to actually modify the container at all.
You're going to need a const_iterator, since you're effectively observing a const container.
Perhaps:
typedef typename boost::circular_buffer<Sample>::const_iterator MyConstIterator;
… then make iter one of these.
Someone's going to tell you that you could have avoided this with auto. That's true, but then you never would have discovered this "bug", or that const_iterators exist.
If your function is marked const then all your access to member variables will be const too.
A const container will only allow access to const_ iterators, that's just the way iterators work.
This is what I have:
struct Foo {
int index;
}
std::set<std::shared_ptr<Foo>> bar;
I want to order bar's elements by their indices instead of by the default std::less<std::shared_ptr<T>> function, which relates the pointers.
I read I can type std::set<std::shared_ptr<Foo>, std::owner_less<std::shared_ptr<Foo>>> bar, but I'd prefer to stick to the previous syntax.
I tried defining std::less<std::shared_ptr<Foo>>, but it's not actually being used by the set functions. Is there a way I can achieve this?
If you want to compare by their indices, you'll have to write a comparator that checks by their indices. std::less<> will do the wrong thing (since it won't know about index) and std::owner_less<> will do the wrong thing (since it still won't compare the Foos, but rather has to do with ownership semantics of them).
You have to write:
struct SharedFooComparator {
bool operator()(const std::shared_ptr<Foo>& lhs,
const std::shared_ptr<Foo>& rhs) const
{
return lhs->index < rhs->index;
}
};
and use it:
std::set<std::shared_ptr<Foo>, SharedFooComparator> bar;
You could additionally generalize this to a generic comparator for shared_ptr's:
struct SharedComparator {
template <typename T>
bool operator()(const std::shared_ptr<T>& lhs,
const std::shared_ptr<T>& rhs) const
{
return (*lhs) < (*rhs);
}
};
and then simply make Foo comparable.
You can provide your own specialization of less<shared_ptr<Foo>> in the std namespace.
namespace std
{
template<>
class less<shared_ptr<Foo>>
{
public:
bool operator()(const shared_ptr<Event>& a, const shared_ptr<Event>& b)
{
// Compare *a and *b in some way
}
};
}
Then you can form a set<shared_ptr<Foo>> without a comparator. I needed this for a priority_queue<shared_ptr<Foo>>, where I didn't want to use a priority_queue<Foo*, vector<Foo*>, int (*)(const Foo*, const Foo*)>. I am not proud of it, but it works.
Do anyone know a general method to declare a comparision function for struct so that I can use it in sort , priority queue , map ,set ...
I would also know how to specify the comparision function when declaring a data structure (like map ) having a structure as a key (in the case where i have two or more comparision functions)
Thank you in advance
How can the method be "general"?
Let's say you have this struct.
struct MyStruct{
A a; // A is your own class
};
How would the compiler know how to compare objects of type A?
You need to define a comparison operator yourself.
bool operator()(const MyStruct& s1, const MyStruct& s2);
This function can be given as a compare-function when creating for example a std::map.
explicit map (const key_compare& comp = key_compare(),
const allocator_type& alloc = allocator_type());
std::map
comp: Binary predicate that, taking two element keys as argument, returns true if the first argument goes before the second argument in the strict weak ordering it defines, and false otherwise.
defaults to
less<key_type>
The comparison function depends from the semantics of your struct. What does it mean that a < b for your type?
In general, a compare function is something along the line of this (references are optional):
bool comp( const YourType& a, const YourType& b );
To make a map use your compare function, you must write like this:
#include <map>
struct YourType{
int v;
};
struct YourTypeComparison{
bool operator()( const YourType& a, const YourType& b ) { return a.v < b.v; }
};
int main()
{
std::map<YourType,int, YourTypeComparison> m;
}
Normally you would use the standard containers like std::map< std::string, int >. But they also have a Comparator type and an Allocator type.
The Comparator used by default is std::less, which looks somewhat like this,
template <class T>
struct less : binary_function <T,T,bool> {
bool operator() (const T& x, const T& y) const {
return x<y;
}
};
(There are some other already made functors http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/functional)
Notice that it compares two objects with <. This means that as a "general method" you only need to implement the operator bool operator< (const X& lhs, const X& rhs){...} to allow your objects to be sorted. See Operator Overloading FAQ. As a rule of thumb, if you're going to implement one comparison operator then you should implement the others too.
If you need to sort your keys in another way you can define your own comparator (functor).
template < class T >
struct myLess {
bool operator()( const T& lhs, const T& rhs ) const {
return lhs < rhs;
}
};
And use it in a map like std::map< int, int, myLess<int> >.
You can also not use templates at all if you only need to compare one type.
struct myLess {
bool operator()( const int& lhs, const int& rhs ) const {
return lhs < rhs;
}
};
Then you only have to write std::map< int, int, myLess >.
Keep in mind that the objects you're comparing are the Key types, not necessarily the Contained types.
I'm having an array of structure containing three fields:
struct data{
int s;
int f;
int w;
};
struct data a[n];
In order to sort the array of structure based on field f I'm using my own comparison operator :
bool myf( struct data d1,const struct data d2){
return d1.f < d2.f ;
}
The above operator works fine in inbuilt sort() function :
sort(a,a+n,myf);
but it's not working for upper_bound() function :
upper_bound(a,a+n,someValue,myf);
Can anyone tell me where am I doing wrong ? Is my comparison operator wrong ? If it's wrong, why is it working for sort() function and not upper_bound() ?
I'm getting following on compilation :
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.3.4/include/g++-v4/bits/stl_algo.h: In function ‘_FIter std::upper_bound(_FIter, _FIter, const _Tp&, _Compare) [with _FIter = data*, _Tp = int, _Compare = bool (*)(data, data)]’:
prog.cpp:37: instantiated from here
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.3.4/include/g++-v4/bits/stl_algo.h:2243: error: conversion from ‘const int’ to non-scalar type ‘data’ requested
All you actually need here is to create operator< for your type:
inline bool operator<( const data& lhs, const data& rhs ) {
return lhs.f < rhs.f;
}
and standard algorithms will magically work for you.
In C++ you don't need struct when referring to a type like in C, and you want to pass by const reference to avoid copying.
Edit 0:
The above overloads standard comparison operator < for your type. You would use it implicitly as:
data values[N];
// ... populate
std::sort( values, values + N );
or explicitly with a standard functor:
std::sort( values, values + N, std::less<data>());
Edit 1:
See that compiler tells you _Tp = int in the warning? You need to pass an instance of data as third argument to upper_bound, not int:
data xxx = { 0, 1, 7 };
auto iter = std::upper_bound( values, values + N, xxx );
You can also create overloads for comparing to integers, like:
inline bool operator<( const data& lhs, int rhs ) {
return lhs.f < rhs;
}
inline bool operator<( int lhs, const data& rhs ) {
return lhs < rhs.f;
}
for your original invocation to work.
Primarily, it isn't working because the upper_bound overload that accepts a custom sorting takes four parameters:
// http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/upper_bound
template< class ForwardIt, class T, class Compare >
ForwardIt upper_bound( ForwardIt first, ForwardIt last, const T& value,
Compare comp );
It was suggested in another answer that you introduce operator< for your type. However, do not do this just for the sake of one specific sorting. Only introduce comparison operators iff they actually make sense for your type.
If you don't follow this rule, future programmers might use your type and wonder about why something works that shouldn't, or vice versa. Your future evil twin may also want to use another sorting for his purpose.
E.g., it makes sense for a complex-datatype class, a SIMD-class (like std::valarray), but it doesn't make any specific sense for example for an Employee class:
Employee foo, bar;
if (bar > foo) {
// is bar taller than foo?
// is bar older than foo?
// is bar working better than foo?
// is bar bigger newbie than foo?
}
Instead, you could do it like this:
namespace employee_ordering {
struct by_name_ascending {
bool operator() (Employee const &lhs, Employee const &rhs) const {
return lhs.name() < rhs.name();
}
};
struct by_name_descending {
bool operator() (Employee const &lhs, Employee const &rhs) const {
return lhs.name() > rhs.name();
}
}
};
....
upper_bound(first, last, ..., employee_ordering::by_name_ascending());
I was wondering if it was at all possible to pass a constructor that takes an argument to a comparison function into a set.
For example something like this:
class cmp
{
private:
string args_;
public:
cmp(const string& s):args_(s){}
bool operator()(const int & a, const int& b)
return a<b;
}
int main(int argc, char * argv[])
{
string s(argv[1]);
multiset<int, cmp(s)> ms; //can i do this?
}
std::set and std::multiset have constructors, which take the comparator object:
explicit set (const Compare& comp = Compare(),
const Allocator& = Allocator());
The type of the Compare object is the second argument of the std::set or std::multiset template.