Here is my code.
std::shared_ptr<WSUStudent> WSUStudent::registerStudent(
std::string lastName,
std::string firstName
)
{
auto result = std::shared_ptr<WSUStudent>(new WSUStudent(lastName, firstName));
s_allStudents.insert(&result);
return result;
}
I have successfully managed to change the function so it returns a shared_ptr instead of a normal pointer. I have successfully encapsulated the 'new' statement with a shared pointer, as per the assignment (I think), but the line of code below 'auto' didn't work without the &, and it doesn't work WITH the &. I receive an error stating that there is no matching function call, with or without the &. That line of code is attempting to insert the new student (or a pointer to the new student?) into the list of all students. However the 'insert' method is not locally overridden, so I'm not quite sure what to do here. Error printed below.
/mnt/hgfs/Data Structures and Algorithms/HW04/WSUStudent.cpp:146:32: error: no matching function for call to ‘std::set<WSUStudent*>::insert(std::shared_ptr<WSUStudent>*)’
s_allStudents.insert(&result);
The point of this assignment is to fix memory leaks ('new' statements that don't get deleted with their pointers) by turning normal pointers into weak pointers and shared pointers. The original code is as follows.
WSUStudent *WSUStudent::registerStudent(
std::string lastName,
std::string firstName
)
{
auto result = new WSUStudent(lastName, firstName);
s_allStudents.insert(result);
return result;
}
Am I going about this wrong? I can't get the s_allStudents line to run.
Given the type of s_allStudents, you can use:
s_allStudents.insert(result.get());
However, a better option will be to change type of s_allStudents.
static std::set<std::shared_ptr<WSUStudent>> s_allStudents;
and use:
s_allStudents.insert(result);
Update
The default operator<() of shared_ptr is such that the objects in s_allStudents will be sorted by pointer value. If you would like to sort the objects using a different criterion, you'll need to define a custom functor/function as a parameter of the template.
struct MyCompare
{
bool operator<(shared_ptr<WSUStudent> const& lhs,
shared_ptr<WSUStudent> const& rhs) const
{
// Implement the logic ...
}
};
and use it as:
static std::set<std::shared_ptr<WSUStudent>, MyCompare> s_allStudents;
If you are going to return a std::shared_ptr<WSUStudent> then you are returning ownership rights to the object you created - meaning someone else will be trying to delete it at some point.
Unless you also keep ownership that means your pointer could get deleted before you are finished with it. So you need to also store std::shared_ptr in your static set:
I am guessing at how you are using this class but what I mean goes something like this:
class WSUStudent
{
// you really need to store shared pointers in here
static std::set<std::shared_ptr<WSUStudent>> s_allStudents;
std::string lastName;
std::string firstName;
// only the static factory function can make students
WSUStudent(
const std::string& lastName, // passing by const& is more usual (idiomatic)
const std::string& firstName)
: lastName(lastName)
, firstName(firstName)
{
}
public:
static std::shared_ptr<WSUStudent> registerStudent(
const std::string& lastName,
const std::string& firstName);
};
std::shared_ptr<WSUStudent> WSUStudent::registerStudent(
const std::string& lastName,
const std::string& firstName
)
{
auto result = std::shared_ptr<WSUStudent>(new WSUStudent(lastName, firstName));
// put the shared student in your set
s_allStudents.insert(result);
return result;
}
// define your set
std::set<std::shared_ptr<WSUStudent>> WSUStudent::s_allStudents;
int main ()
{
// make students
auto s = WSUStudent::registerStudent("bill", "bob");
// all deletions should be in order
}
Related
I am trying to sort a vector that contains custom struct entries using a lambda function in c++ . But I get prompted the following error message
error: use of deleted function ‘dummy_struct& dummy_struct::operator=(const dummy_struct&)
The code looks like the following:
#include <regex>
struct dummy_struct
{
dummy_struct(std::string name, int64_t value_a) :
name(name),
value_a(value_a)
{}
const std::string name;
const int64_t value_a;
int ExtractNumberFromName(std::regex key)
{
int retval;
std::cmatch match;
std::regex_search(this->name.c_str(),match,key);
retval=std::stoi(match[0],nullptr);
return retval;
}
};
void SortByCustomKey(const std::vector<dummy_struct> collection, std::regex key)
{
auto compare = [key](dummy_struct a, dummy_struct b)
{
return a.ExtractNumberFromName(key) > b.ExtractNumberFromName(key)
};
std::sort(std::begin(collection),std::end(collection),compare);
}
int main()
{
std::vector<dummy_struct> test;
test.push_back(dummy_struct("Entry[1]",1));
test.push_back(dummy_struct("Entry[2]",2));
test.push_back(dummy_struct("Entry[3]",3));
SortByCustomKey(test,std::regex("[0-9]+"));
}
What am I missing here?
std::sort sorts vector by swapping it's elements in place.
This requires for your class to implement copy assignment operator (or move assignment), which compiler won't generate for you due to const fields in the class. For your example the only solution seems to remove the const qualifiers from the fields. If you don't want them to be modified just make them private and don't provide (public) setters.
If they absolutely must stay there and you just want to get your values in sorted order you can use a different structure or store pointers in the vector.
Another solution is to write a custom swap implementation for your class that would const_cast away the qualifiers of the fields for the purpose of the assignment, although this is usually a bad code smell.
I have a quick question regarding C++ and references to values. I have been asked to write a function that takes the input from const std::string& and use the input to perform some tasks. The issue is, I have no idea how to access the value. I know it is a pass-by reference value but I don't know how to access it within the function.
This is the code that I was given:
#include "rle.hpp"
std::string func_send(const std::string&)
{
//Implement !
return {};
}
std::string func_receive(const std::string&)
{
// Implement!
return {};
}
The code you were given makes no sense, at least there is no way to acces the parameter because it has no name. Moreover std::string str = std::string&; is invalid syntax, I don't know what it is supposed to mean. Give the parameter a name:
std::string func_send(const std::string& str)
// ^------------ !!!
{
std::string some_other_string = str;
return {}; // missing semi-colon
}
I create a class named Employee, in private, I have a Name as a string . here is my class declaring:
class Employee
{
string Name;
public:
Employee();
void SetName(string);
void StringToEmployee(string);
~Employee();
}
this is definition of StringToEmployee(string) method:
void Employee::StringToEmployee(string s)
{
char *first = s, *end = s+strlen(s), *last = NULL;
last = find(first, end, ',');
string temp(first, last- first);
SetName(temp);
}
The error occurs when I debug to the line string temp(first, last- first), it's seem to the compiler does not allow me to construct a new string in method. cause I have also changed into string temp; then temp.assign(first, last-first). the error still remain. How could I create a new string in a method?
You should be using iterators and taking advantage of the features of the standard library, rather than raw pointers and C-style string functions. Not only will this give you more idiomatic and easier to understand C++ code, but it will also implicitly resolve many of your errors.
First, the implementation of StringToEmployee should be rewritten as follows:
void Employee::StringToEmployee(std::string s)
{
const std::string temp(s.begin(),
std::find(s.begin(), s.end(), ',');
SetName(temp);
}
But since you are not modifying the s parameter and do not need a copy of it, you should pass it by constant reference:
void Employee::StringToEmployee(const std::string& s)
{
const std::string temp(s.begin(),
std::find(s.begin(), s.end(), ',');
SetName(temp);
}
Also, you should consider redesigning your Employee class. Currently, you have a default constructor that creates an invalid Employee object, and then you have member functions that allow you to turn that invalid Employee object into a valid one by settings its members. Instead, you could have a constructor that did all of this initialization for you, in one step. Not only would your code be cleaner and easier to understand, but it would be more efficient, too!
Perhaps something like:
class Employee
{
std::string Name; // name of this employee
public:
Employee(const std::string& name); // create Employee with specified name
void SetName(const std::string& newName); // change this employee's name
~Employee();
};
Employee::Employee(const std::string& name)
: Name(s.begin(), std::find(s.begin(), s.end(), ','))
{ }
void Employee::SetName(const std::string& newName)
{
Name = std::string(s.begin(), std::find(s.begin(), s.end(), ','));
}
Employee::~Employee()
{ }
A couple of quick notes:
You'll see that I always explicitly write out std:: whenever I use a class from the standard library's namespace. This is a really good habit to get into, and it's not really that hard to type an extra 5 characters. It's particularly important because using namespace std; is a really bad habit to get into.
I pass objects (like strings) that I don't need to modify or have a copy of inside of the method by constant reference. This is both easier to reason about, and also potentially more efficient (because it avoids unnecessary copies).
Inside of the constructor, I have used what may appear to be a funny-looking syntax, involving a colon and some parentheses. This is called a member initialization list, and it's something you should get used to seeing. It's the standard way for a class's constructor to initialize its member variables.
For some reason you want to assing std::string to char*.
Judging from other your code, you want to work with raw char array, so, you need to put correct pointers to first and last like this:
char *first = &s[0], *end = (&s[0]) + strlen(s.c_str()), *last = NULL;
And this part:
string temp(first, last- first);
is incorrect, because last - first is pointer, and, as I understand, you want to use std::string(const char*, size_t) constructor. But instead, you are using iterator-based constructor and system is correctly dying, because first pointer is larger, than second one.
As you see, your method is error-prone. I recommend re-do this part of code, using iterators, like this:
void Employee::StringToEmployee(string s)
{
auto found = find(s.begin(), s.end(), ',');
string temp(s.begin(), found);
SetName(temp);
}
Couldn't find the answer in any similar-named question.
I want a user to be able to initialize a string member at any point in the lifetime of an object, not necessarily on construction, but I want them to know that the object is invalid until the string is initialized...
When creating a simple class, say the following:
#include <string>
class my_class {
public:
my_class() : _my_str() { }
my_class(const std::string & str) : my_class() {
set_my_str(str);
}
std::string get_my_str() const {
return _my_str;
}
void set_my_str(const std::string & str) {
_my_str = str;
}
private:
std::string _my_str;
};
and a user creates an empty instance of the class (i.e. using the empty constructor), _my_str will be an empty/uninitialized string?
So, I see two ways of handling behavior: the way mentioned above, where an empty string is returned, or a possible second way:
#include <string>
class my_class {
public:
my_class() : _my_str(), _my_str_ptr(nullptr) { }
my_class(const std::string & str) : my_class() {
set_my_str(str);
}
std::string * get_my_str() const {
return _my_str_ptr;
}
void set_my_str(const std::string & str) {
_my_str = str;
_my_str_ptr = &_my_str;
}
private:
std::string _my_str;
std::string * _my_str_ptr;
};
Where you return a nullptr, and you maintain a pointer to a local variable?
Is that valid behavior? Which way is preferred and why? Wouldn't the second way be better since you are telling the user, "listen, this object is currently invalid, you need to initialize it" while still implying that you are managing the lifetime of such object.
_my_str will be an empty/uninitialized string?
Empty, yes. Uninitialized, no. It's completely initialized (to an empty string).
Where you return a nullptr, and you maintain a pointer to a local variable?
Is that valid behavior?
Yes it's valid, but
Which way is preferred and why? Wouldn't the second way be better since you are telling the user, "listen, this object is currently invalid, you need to initialize it" while still implying that you are managing the lifetime of such object.
It makes absolutely no sense to maintain two distinct member variables for this. It sounds like what you need is std::optional (or the equivalent in Boost, boost::optional), so that _my_str has two states: empty/invalid (contains no string) and non-empty/valid (contains a string):
#include <string>
#include <experimental/optional>
using std::experimental::optional;
class my_class {
public:
my_class() /* default-initializes _my_str as empty */ { }
my_class(const std::string & str) : _my_str(str) { }
const std::string * get_my_str() const {
if (_my_str) // if it exists
return &*_my_str; // return the string inside the optional
else
return nullptr; // if the optional is empty, return null
}
/* Or simply this, if you don't mind exposing a bit of the
implementation details of the class:
const optional<std::string> & get_my_str() const {
return _my_str;
}
*/
void set_my_str(const std::string & str) {
_my_str = str;
}
private:
optional<std::string> _my_str;
};
If "" (an empty string) can be used as a sentinel value to signify the "empty/invalid" state in your case, then you can just do this:
#include <string>
class my_class {
public:
my_class() /* default-initializes _my_str as "" */ { }
my_class(const std::string & str) : _my_str(str) { }
const std::string * get_my_str() const {
if (!_my_str.empty()) // if it'a non-empty
return &_my_str; // return the non-empty string
else
return nullptr; // if it's empty, return null
}
void set_my_str(const std::string & str) {
_my_str = str;
}
private:
std::string _my_str;
};
In general, the pattern you're referring to is called Null object pattern.
The "oldest way" of implementing it was using one of possible values of a variable and reserving it for "no value" meaning. In case of a string an empty string commonly was used in such a way. Obviously not always possible, when all values were needed.
The "old way", was always using a pointer - (const T* get_t() const). This way the whole range of variable values could be meaningful, and still "no value" semantics were available by means of returning a null pointer. This was better, but still pointers are not as comfortable to use, not safe. Nowadays, pointers are usually bad engineering.
The modern way is optional<T> (or boost::optional<T>).
An empty std::string value is not per definition invalid. It is just empty.
On important difference is that the second "get_..." approach does not copy the object but gives the user a non const pointer to the internal string which leads to violation of const correctness since you imply that the class may not be changed by having const at the get method while still providing a pointer that may change the internal state.
If your logic implies that "empty string" == "invalid" and if this is a possible state there is not much of a difference whether the user must do
if (get_my_str())) // use valid pointer to nonempty string versus
if(!get_my_str().empty()) // use valid nonempty string
I think.
You'd want to return std::string const & from your get method and leave it to the user wether to copy the object or not.
4.1. No forced copy (versus by value return std::string)
4.2. No pointer which may be nullptr and accidentally dereferenced.
4.3. Passing around and storing a pointer which may outlive the object is more common that dangling references.
I want a user to be able to initialize the string later on, not necessarily on construction, but I want them to be able to know that the object is invalid until the string is initialized...
The question is: Is an empty string actually a "valid" value after proper initialization?
If yes: use optional to add one additional state signaling validity.
If no: let the emptyness of the string stand for invalidity of your object.
I'm new to and learning C++. I know a fair amount of Java and some C.
What I want to do is to create an immutable name class that takes in a string value, copies that string to a class field and then eventually hashes it to an ID that can be parsed much more efficiently than a string.
I'm hitting a wall due to a general lack of knowledge of C++ strings. Here's what I have so far...
#pragma once
#include <string>
class Name
{
public:
Name(std::string s);
~Name(void);
int getId();
std::string getName();
private:
int id;
std::string name;
};
and...
#include "Name.h"
Name::Name(std::string s)
{
}
So what I want to do is store the value of s, passed in by the constructor in the "name" private field. As far as I know a new string object must be created and then the value of s must be copied into it.
I also think that the argument s can and should be a string pointer instead of a string object (to prevent an unnecessary copy from occurring). If I'm right then the constructor should look like the following, right?
Name::Name(std::string &s) { ... }
In this case, nothing would need to be done special when passing in a name? IE.
Name n = new Name("Cody");
is perfectly valid? Actually I'm not sure since "Cody" to my knowledge is a constant string or something like that.
So if I'm all on the right track, then what is the proper way to actually copy the value? I'm thinking this is appropriate but I'm not sure.
#include "Name.h"
Name::Name(std::string s)
{
name = new string(s);
}
Thanks for the help in advance, I know it's a basic question but I'm slowly making baby steps into the C++ world. :) - Cody
You are close, your code can be like this after a little massage:
class Name
{
public:
Name(const std::string& s); // add const and reference
~Name(void);
int getId() cosnt; // add const
std::string getName() const; // add const
private:
int id;
std::string name;
};
Name.cpp
Name::Name(const std::string& s):name(s)
{
}
Here :name(s) is called member initializer list.
Name n = new Name("Cody"); is perfectly valid? Actually I'm not sure
since "Cody" to my knowledge is a constant string or something like
that.
No, n is not pointer, it's not like java you need to new for every object. In C++, you do
Name n("Cody");
This will call Name(const std::string& s) to initialize object n and initialize name string with "Cody".
Note: variable n has automatic storage duration, it will be destroyed if it goes out of scope.
To let n on dynamic storage duration, you need to use new/delete pair:
Name *pn = new Name("Cody");
delete pn;
or use smart pointers, you no need to call delete n_ptr; as n_ptr will be destroyed when it goes out of scope as well:
#include <memory>
std::shared_ptr<Name> n_ptr(new Name("Cody"));
EDIT:
To use Name class in other classes, it's the same way when you use string in Name class, you don't have to use pointers.
class TestName
{
public:
TestName(const Name& n):name_(n){ }
private:
Name name_;
};
TestName tn("Cody");
You should use a constant reference to std::string here.
As you said, it would prevent unnecessary copies.. But then why not just a pointer or a constant pointer?
A constant reference would allow you to pass to your function some arguments that would implicitly call the right std::string constructor.
So, in a nutshell, you could do that:
Name::Name(const std::string& s)
{
this->name = s;
}
// Or even better..
Name::Name(const std::string& s):
name(s)
{
}
int main(void)
{
Name nick("hello");
return 0;
}
You can find out about every std::string's constructors on its cplusplus.com's sheet.