I have a map like so map<string, unique_ptr<Base>> variables and I am trying to insert data into the map variables.insert(make_pair("foo", new Int(10))) but I am getting to following errors:
error: no matching function for call to ‘std::map<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char>, std::unique_ptr<Base>>::insert(std::pair<const char*, Int*>)’
variables.insert(make_pair("test", new Int(10)));
error: no type named ‘type’ in ‘struct std::enable_if<false, void>’
template<typename _Pair, typename = typename
This is my code:
class Base {
public:
Base() {};
virtual ~Base() {};
};
class Int : public Base {
public:
Int(int i) {
this->i = i;
}
Int operator=(int i) {
this->i = i;
}
int i;
};
void set() {
map<string, unique_ptr<Base>> variables;
variables.insert(make_pair("test", new Int(10)));
}
I think I need a fresh pair of eyes to look at this I'm not sure what this issue is, thanks!
Edit
I'm trying to make a heterogeneous map and there's a class for each data type. But I still get the same error no matter how many there are.
Note: This answer only applies to older versions of the main three compilers:
GCC: Applies to 5.3.1 or earlier. May apply to any version earlier than 6.1.0, but I haven't tested this.
Clang: Applies to 3.7.1 or earlier. May apply to any version earlier than 3.8.0, but I haven't tested this.
Visual Studio: Applies to 19.00.23506.0 or earlier. May apply to any version earlier than 19.00.23720.0, but I haven't tested this.
Conversely, if you have GCC 6.1.0 or later, Clang 3.8.0 or later, or Visual Studio 19.00.23720.0 or later, the original code should compile as is, without either of the modifications suggested in this answer.
[Thanks goes to AndyG for pointing out that it works with later versions of GCC & Clang.]
The problem appears to be that it isn't creating your unique_ptr from your raw pointer.
If you can use C++14, try std::make_unique().
void set() {
map<string, unique_ptr<Base>> variables;
variables.insert(make_pair("test", make_unique<Int>(10)));
}
If you can't, then try something like this:
void set() {
map<string, unique_ptr<Base>> variables;
variables.insert(make_pair("test", unique_ptr<Int>(new Int(10))));
}
Interestingly, I noticed a slight difference in how different compilers handle this. Using the following slightly modified version of your code as a test program:
#include <map>
#include <memory>
#include <iostream>
class Base {
public:
Base() {};
virtual ~Base() {};
};
class Int : public Base {
public:
Int(int i) {
this->i = i;
}
Int& operator=(int i) {
this->i = i;
// You forgot to return something.
return *this;
}
int i;
};
void set() {
using namespace std;
map<string, unique_ptr<Base>> variables;
variables.insert(make_pair("test", new Int(10)));
// C++14:
// variables.insert(make_pair("test", make_unique<Int>(10)));
// C++11:
// variables.insert(make_pair("test", unique_ptr<Int>(new Int(10))));
// Cheap hack for testing.
cout << static_cast<Int*>(variables["test"].get())->i << endl;
}
int main() {
set();
}
Most compilers* will fail to compile this, unless the initial line is commented out and either of the fixes is uncommented. However, the online MSVC compiler seemed to be able to compile it fine, without needing to uncomment either of the lines. Curiously, the version of MSVC available on Rextester failed to compile it without uncommenting one of the two lines.
* Tested online, with TutorialsPoint GCC, MSVC 2015 online, and Rextester Clang, GCC, and MSVC.
Related
When I use MSVC to compile this program, I receive the error,
"Example::bar ambiguous call to overloaded function"
Then, I found that the this keyword was able to resolve the error. Surprised, I used rextester and found that both Clang and GCC were able to compile the program without the this keyword.
Here is the program in question.
#include <iostream>
class Example {
public:
Example() {
auto lambda = [this]() {
//this->bar<int>(); // Using this allows the program to compile and run successfully.
bar<int>(); // This doesn't work in MSVC
};
lambda();
}
template<typename T>
void bar() {
std::cout << "(non-const) bar\n";
}
template<typename t>
void bar() const {
std::cout << "(const) bar\n";
}
};
int main() {
Example example;
}
Ultimately I am asking, is this keyword needed in a lambda to disambiguate between const and non-const member functions and whether MSVC is correct or GCC and Clang are correct.
I am using Visual Studio 2017 and the full version of MSVC is 191627027
I have implemented some test functionals yesterday and everything compiled and worked fine without errors. Today i came back to my PC and my std::bind's are underlined red but compile without error. Seems like Intellisense and the compiler do not agree on the std::bind type. How can I fix this?
#include <functional>
class MyClass {
public:
int doE() {
return 0;
}
int doF() {
return 1;
}
};
void main()
{
MyClass obj;
std::function<int()> f = std::bind(&MyClass::doE, obj); // underlined red
std::cout << f();
}
The error message is as follows:
Error (active)
no suitable user-defined conversion from "std::_Binder<std::_Unforced, int (MyClass::*)(), MyClass &>" to "std::function<int ()>" exists
functionals
c:\functionals\functionals\thirdFunctionOnObject.h
I do have the same error type (Intellisense saying there is an error, but it compiles just fine) in more sophisticated code, where I used std::mem_fn().
Had the same problem with VS 2015 C++, I hate it. Microsoft drives me crazy.
For now I am using a nasty work around by moving the code to a static function. In your case it will be similar to the following:
class MyClass {
// other code
int doE () {
return 0;
}
static int statDoE(MyClass * myClass) {
return myClass->doE();
}
}
This small test program:
#include <functional>
//template<class T> // <-- with this, gcc compiles ok
template<class T=void>
struct c{
std::function<int(int)> f = [](int i){return i+i;};
};
int main() {};
Clang-3.2 compiles it ok, but from GCC 4.7.1 and 4.8 I am getting strange error:
t.cc:6:31: error: default argument for template parameter for class enclosing ‘struct __lambda0’
function<int(int)> f = [](int i){return i+i;};
^
Is this one of those obscure C++ rules exceptions that nobody knows about or is it a GCC bug?
EDIT
Looks like a bug. I've filed bug report
I think this is a g++ bug with default member initialization. I'm not positive about this, and so have the following supporting evidence:
template<class T=void>
struct c {
std::function<int(int)> f;
c() : f([](int i){return i+i;}) {
}
};
int main() {}
If that works, what you're doing should work too. And it does, even if you construct a c.
Personally, I think default member initialization should be used sparingly and with care. I think it's really easy to create a lot of confusion with it because most people expect all the initialization to be done in the constructor, and member initializers are not necessarily anywhere near any constructor. So they can leave someone scratching their head wondering how some member gets a particular value.
I can see cases, especially with simple, mostly-data classes for which it would work pretty well. But mostly, I think if you have a constructor body of any kind, you should probably not be using default member initialization.
This code will get error anyway on gcc. Yes, without default argument it can be compiled. It can be compiled because struct c isn't used anywhere. But if you try to create instance of this struct, you will get error.
#include <functional>
template<class T>
struct c {
std::function<int(int)> f = [](int i){return i+i;};
};
int main() {
c<int> _c; // error
}
It looks like a bug of gcc. This way can help to avoid problem.
#include <functional>
#include <iostream>
template<class T=void>
struct c {
c() : f([](int i){return i+i;}) {
}
std::function<int(int)> f;
};
int main() {
c<> _c;
std::cout << _c.f(10) << std::endl;
}
I have the following code which compiles and runs fine under Visual Studio 2008 SP1.
#include <functional>
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/bind.hpp>
#include <boost/function.hpp>
#include <boost/scoped_ptr.hpp>
#include <boost/utility.hpp>
class NoncopyableObject : public boost::noncopyable
{
public:
NoncopyableObject(int x) : x_(x) {}
int getValue() const {return x_;}
private:
int x_;
};
template<class F>
class MenuItemDispatcher
{
public:
MenuItemDispatcher(F f) : f_(f) { }
void operator ()(NoncopyableObject& w) const
{
// Invoke the functor
f_(w);
}
private:
typedef boost::function1<void,NoncopyableObject&> FUNC;
FUNC f_;
};
void MenuItem()
{
std::cout << "in MenuItem()\n";
}
template<class F>
MenuItemDispatcher<F> MakeMenuItemDispatcher(F f)
{
return MenuItemDispatcher<F>(f);
}
int main()
{
NoncopyableObject obj(7);
MakeMenuItemDispatcher(boost::bind(&MenuItem))(obj);
}
If I change the boost::bind to std::tr1::bind in main(), I get an error:
error C2248: 'boost::noncopyable_::noncopyable::noncopyable' : cannot access private member declared in class 'boost::noncopyable_::noncopyable'.
This diagnostic occurred in the compiler generated function 'NoncopyableObject::NoncopyableObject(const NoncopyableObject &)'
So it's trying to generate a copy constructor for NoncopyableObject. Anyone know why this might be so please? MenuItemDispatcher's call operator takes a reference to a NoncopyableObject, so I am struggling to see what's going wrong.
This appears to be a difference in how bind is implemented in MS Visual Studio (including 2010) and GNU gcc (I tested 4.4.1 and 4.5.2, both of which work the way you expected)
Consider the following code, given your definitions
auto b = boost::bind(&MenuItem);
NoncopyableObject obj(7);
b(obj); // OK in VS and GCC
replacing boost::bind with std::bind (I'm using 2010, the error message appears to be the same as in your 2008)
auto b = std::bind(&MenuItem);
NoncopyableObject obj(7);
b(obj); // compile error in VS 2010 SP1, OK in GCC
b(std::reference_wrapper<NoncopyableObject>(obj)); // OK in both
So, what happens is that MS's bind() makes a copy of its argument even if the argument is not going to be used, while boost's and GCC's bind() does not bother with that argument at all.
I was able to get your example to compile and run (on 2010) by changing the FUNC typedef to
typedef boost::function1<void, std::tr1::reference_wrapper<NoncopyableObject> > FUNC;
Does anyone know why the following generates an error on VC9?
class Elem;
class ElemVec : public vector<Elem>
{
public:
void foo();
};
void ElemVec::foo()
{
BOOST_FOREACH(Elem& elem, *this)
{
// Do something with elem
}
return;
}
The error I get is:
error C2355: 'this' : can only be referenced inside non-static member functions
The only (hack) solution I have right now which compiles without error is:
void ElemVec::foo()
{
ElemVec* This = this;
BOOST_FOREACH(Elem& elem, *This)
{
// Do something with elem
}
return;
}
You shouldn't inherit from STL containers. These are not polymorphic classes and it's the reason BOOST_FORACH can't handle your derived class.
Try to use aggregation instead.
Which compiler/Boost version are you using? I can compile the following without any problem (VS2005/Boost 1.38):
#include <boost/foreach.hpp>
using namespace std;
struct xxx : std::vector<int>
{
void test()
{
BOOST_FOREACH(int x, *this)
{
}
}
};
int main(void) {
xxx x;
x.test();
return 0;
}
Search the Boost bugbase if you want more details.
I had never seen that error. I guess it comes from the implementation of BOOST_FOREACH macro.
May i ask why you're creating a class based on vector<...> and not having a vector member variable ?
EDIT
Following this thread, i found out that this actually is a visual studio bug. The solution you have found seems to be the simplest.
Hmm, all compiled succesfully on my msvc (2005) compiller.
Maybe you have some error, but fixed or avoided it when was created your example.