What is the C++ way of checking if an element is contained in an array/list, similar to what the in operator does in Python?
if x in arr:
print "found"
else
print "not found"
How does the time complexity of the C++ equivalent compare to Python's in operator?
The time complexity of Python's in operator varies depending on the data structure it is actually called with. When you use it with a list, complexity is linear (as one would expect from an unsorted array without an index). When you use it to look up set membership or presence of a dictionary key complexity is constant on average (as one would expect from a hash table based implementation):
https://wiki.python.org/moin/TimeComplexity
In C++ you can use std::find to determine whether or not an item is contained in a std::vector. Complexity is said to be linear (as one would expect from an unsorted array without an index). If you make sure the vector is sorted, you can also use std::binary_search to achieve the same in logarithmic time.
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/find
Check if element is in the list (contains)
Check if element found in array c++
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/binary_search
The associative containers provided by the standard library (std::set, std::unordered_set, std::map, ...) provide the member functions find() and count() and contains() (C++20) for this. These will perform better than linear search, i.e., logarithmic or constant time depending on whether you have picked the ordered or the unordered alternative. Which one of these functions to prefer largely depends on what you want to achieve with that info afterwards, but also a bit on personal preference. (Lookup the documentation for details and examples.)
How to check that an element is in a std::set?
How to check if std::map contains a key without doing insert?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associative_containers
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container
If you want to, you can use some template magic to write a wrapper function that picks the correct method for the container at hand, e.g., as presented in this answer.
You can approach this in two ways:
You can use std::find from <algorithm>:
auto it = std::find(container.begin(), container.end(), value);
if (it != container.end())
return it;
or you can iterate through every element in your containers with for ranged loops:
for(const auto& it : container)
{
if(it == value)
return it;
}
Python does different things for in depending on what kind of container it is. In C++, you'd want the same mechanism. Rule of thumb for the standard containers is that if they provide a find(), it's going to be a better algorithm than std::find() (e.g. find() for std::unordered_map is O(1), but std::find() is always O(N)).
So we can write something to do that check ourselves. The most concise would be to take advantage of C++17's if constexpr and use something like Yakk's can_apply:
template <class C, class K>
using find_t = decltype(std::declval<C const&>().find(std::declval<K const&>()));
template <class Container, class Key>
bool in(Container const& c, Key const& key) {
if constexpr (can_apply<find_t, Container, Key>{}) {
// the specialized case
return c.find(key) != c.end();
} else {
// the general case
using std::begin; using std::end;
return std::find(begin(c), end(c), key) != end(c);
}
}
In C++11, we can take advantage of expression SFINAE:
namespace details {
// the specialized case
template <class C, class K>
auto in_impl(C const& c, K const& key, int )
-> decltype(c.find(key), true) {
return c.find(key) != c.end();
}
// the general case
template <class C, class K>
bool in_impl(C const& c, K const& key, ...) {
using std::begin; using std::end;
return std::find(begin(c), end(c), key) != end(c);
}
}
template <class Container, class Key>
bool in(Container const& c, Key const& key) {
return details::in_impl(c, key, 0);
}
Note that in both cases we have the using std::begin; using std::end; two-step in order to handle all the standard containers, raw arrays, and any use-provided/adapted containers.
This gives you an infix *in* operator:
namespace notstd {
namespace ca_helper {
template<template<class...>class, class, class...>
struct can_apply:std::false_type{};
template<class...>struct voider{using type=void;};
template<class...Ts>using void_t=typename voider<Ts...>::type;
template<template<class...>class Z, class...Ts>
struct can_apply<Z,void_t<Z<Ts...>>, Ts...>:std::true_type{};
}
template<template<class...>class Z, class...Ts>
using can_apply = ca_helper::can_apply<Z,void,Ts...>;
namespace find_helper {
template<class C, class T>
using dot_find_r = decltype(std::declval<C>().find(std::declval<T>()));
template<class C, class T>
using can_dot_find = can_apply< dot_find_r, C, T >;
template<class C, class T>
constexpr std::enable_if_t<can_dot_find<C&, T>{},bool>
find( C&& c, T&& t ) {
using std::end;
return c.find(std::forward<T>(t)) != end(c);
}
template<class C, class T>
constexpr std::enable_if_t<!can_dot_find<C&, T>{},bool>
find( C&& c, T&& t ) {
using std::begin; using std::end;
return std::find(begin(c), end(c), std::forward<T>(t)) != end(c);
}
template<class C, class T>
constexpr bool finder( C&& c, T&& t ) {
return find( std::forward<C>(c), std::forward<T>(t) );
}
}
template<class C, class T>
constexpr bool find( C&& c, T&& t ) {
return find_helper::finder( std::forward<C>(c), std::forward<T>(t) );
}
struct finder_t {
template<class C, class T>
constexpr bool operator()(C&& c, T&& t)const {
return find( std::forward<C>(c), std::forward<T>(t) );
}
constexpr finder_t() {}
};
constexpr finder_t finder{};
namespace named_operator {
template<class D>struct make_operator{make_operator(){}};
template<class T, char, class O> struct half_apply { T&& lhs; };
template<class Lhs, class Op>
half_apply<Lhs, '*', Op> operator*( Lhs&& lhs, make_operator<Op> ) {
return {std::forward<Lhs>(lhs)};
}
template<class Lhs, class Op, class Rhs>
auto operator*( half_apply<Lhs, '*', Op>&& lhs, Rhs&& rhs )
-> decltype( named_invoke( std::forward<Lhs>(lhs.lhs), Op{}, std::forward<Rhs>(rhs) ) )
{
return named_invoke( std::forward<Lhs>(lhs.lhs), Op{}, std::forward<Rhs>(rhs) );
}
}
namespace in_helper {
struct in_t:notstd::named_operator::make_operator<in_t> {};
template<class T, class C>
bool named_invoke( T&& t, in_t, C&& c ) {
return ::notstd::find(std::forward<C>(c), std::forward<T>(t));
}
}
in_helper::in_t in;
}
On a flat container, like a vector array or string, it is O(n).
On an associative sorted container, like a std::map, std::set, it is O(lg(n)).
On an unordered associated container, like std::unordered_set, it is O(1).
Test code:
std::vector<int> v{1,2,3};
if (1 *in* v)
std::cout << "yes\n";
if (7 *in* v)
std::cout << "no\n";
std::map<std::string, std::string, std::less<>> m{
{"hello", "world"}
};
if ("hello" *in* m)
std::cout << "hello world\n";
Live example.
C++14, but mainly for enable_if_t.
So what is going on here?
Well, can_apply is a bit of code that lets me write can_dot_find, which detects (at compile time) if container.find(x) is a valid expression.
This lets me dispatch the searching code to use member-find if it exists. If it doesn't exist, a linear search using std::find is used instead.
Which is a bit of a lie. If you define a free function find(c, t) in the namespace of your container, it will use that rather than either of the above. But that is me being fancy (and it lets you extend 3rd party containers with *in* support).
That ADL (argument dependent lookup) extensibity (the 3rd party extension ability) is why we have three different functions named find, two in a helper namespace and one in notstd. You are intended to call notstd::find.
Next, we want a python-like in, and what is more python like than an infix operator? To do this in C++ you need to wrap your operator name in other operators. I chose *, so we get an infix *in* named operator.
TL;DR
You do using notstd::in; to import the named operator in.
After that, t *in* c first checks if find(t,c) is valid. If not, it checks if c.find(t) is valid. If that fails, it does a linear search of c using std::begin std::end and std::find.
This gives you very good performance on a wide variety of std containers.
The only thing it doesn't support is
if (7 *in* {1,2,3})
as operators (other than =) cannot deduce initializer lists I believe. You could get
if (7 *in* il(1,2,3))
to work.
I guess one might make use of this thread and create a custom version of in function.
The main idea is to use SFINAE (Substitution Failure Is Not An Error) to differentiate associative containers (which have key_type member) from sequence containers (which have no key_type member).
Here is a possible implementation:
namespace detail
{
template<typename, typename = void>
struct is_associative : std::false_type {};
template<typename T>
struct is_associative<T,
std::enable_if_t<sizeof(typename T::key_type) != 0>> : std::true_type {};
template<typename C, typename T>
auto in(const C& container, const T& value) ->
std::enable_if_t<is_associative<C>::value, bool>
{
using std::cend;
return container.find(value) != cend(container);
}
template<typename C, typename T>
auto in(const C& container, const T& value) ->
std::enable_if_t<!is_associative<C>::value, bool>
{
using std::cbegin;
using std::cend;
return std::find(cbegin(container), cend(container), value) != cend(container);
}
}
template<typename C, typename T>
auto in(const C& container, const T& value)
{
return detail::in(container, value);
}
Small usage example on WANDBOX.
You can use std::find from <algorithm>, but this works only for datatypes like: std::map and std::vector (etc).
Also note that this will return, iterator to the first element that is found equal to the value you pass, unlike the in operator in Python that returns a bool.
I think one of the nice features of the "in" operator in python is that it can be used with different data types (strings v/s strings, numbers v/s lists, etc).
I am developing a library for using python constructions in C++. It includes "in" and "not_in" operators.
It is based on the same technique used to implement the in operator posted in a previous answer, in which make_operator<in_t> is implemented. However, it is extended for handling more cases:
Searching a string inside a string
Searching an element inside vector and maps
It works by defining several overloads for a function: bool in__(T1 &v1, T2 &v2), in which T1 and T2 consider different possible types of objects. Also, overloads for a function: bool not_in__(T1 &v1, T2 &v2) are defined. Then, the operators "in" and "not_in" call those functions for working.
The implementation is in this repository:
https://github.com/ploncomi/python_like_cpp
I know the standard library has std::reverse_iterator<...>, which, given an iterator type, can be used to obtain its reverse (type).
Does it also have a similar mechanism for reversing comparators used for sorting/ordering? Something which takes a comparator type and produces the comparator corresponding to the reverse order (assuming the order is reversible)? e.g.
with std::reverse_comparator<std::greater<int>> being equivalent to std::less<int>?
C++17 introduces std::not_fn which will "replace" std::greater<int> by std::less_equal<int>.
which is not a correct comparer for std::sort/std::map.
Else in std, I don't think it exists one which "transform" into std::less<int>, but you can write your own easily, something like:
template <typename Comparer>
struct InvComparer
{
public:
explicit InvComparer(Comparer comparer) : comp(comparer) {}
template <typename T1, typename T2>
bool operator() (const T1& lhs, const T2& rhs) const { return comp(rhs, lhs); };
private:
Comparer comp;
};
Demo
There is not2, which would generate the the binary complement of the input functor. However, the complement of std::greater<T> is not equivalent to std::less<T>, but std::less_equal<T> which is not a valid comparator for most standard algorithms. C++17 is going to introduce a generic not_fn that works with non-binary functors as well.
There is no out of the box solution for std::less<T> -> std::greater<T> but it should be possible to implement. Perhaps:
template<class Pred>
auto
fancy_not2(Pred&& pred) {
return [pred=std::forward<Pred>(pred)](auto&& left, auto&& right){
return left != right
&& !pred(std::forward<decltype(left)>(left),
std::forward<decltype(right)>(right));
};
}
This question already has answers here:
Templated check for the existence of a class member function?
(33 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I have a functor which operates on a container of type U of elements of type T like so
template<typename T, template<typename...> class U>
class asserter
{
public:
asserter(U<T> &c) : container(c) { };
void operator()(T lhs)
{
CU_ASSERT(container.find(lhs) != container.end());
};
private:
U<T> &container;
};
which I might use as
std::set<std::string> a, c;
...
asserter<std::string, std::set> ass(c);
for_each(a.begin(), a.end(), ass);
Where we are ignoring std::includes() for the moment.
This works great if the container is one where U::find() is defined. If it's not I'd like to fall back to std::find(). On the other hand I'd rather use U::find() over std::find() if it's available.
In C++11 (or 17 if necessary) can I determine if U::find() is available (possibly restricting to the STL) for U and if so use it, otherwise use std::find()?
SFINAE on whether the expression c.find(value) is well-formed. Trailing return type is C++11, and not essential here anyway; it just makes the return type easier to write - decltype(c.find(value)) instead of decltype(std::declval<Container&>().find(std::declval<const T&>())).
If the expression would be ill-formed, the first overload of find_impl is removed from the overload set, leaving the second overload as the only viable one. The usual int/long/0 trick for the third parameter makes the first overload preferred when both are viable.
template<class Container, class T>
auto find_impl(Container& c, const T& value, int) -> decltype(c.find(value)){
return c.find(value);
}
template<class Container, class T>
auto find_impl(Container& c, const T& value, long) -> decltype(std::begin(c)){
return std::find(std::begin(c), std::end(c), value);
}
template<class Container, class T>
auto find(Container& c, const T& value) -> decltype(find_impl(c, value, 0)) {
return find_impl(c, value, 0);
}
The usual disclaimer applies: this relies on expression SFINAE, which is not currently supported by MSVC; Microsoft does plan to add support in an update to MSVC 2015.
I'm in the process of writing up an STL-like library for learning purposes. All of the collections extend a class called Iterable which contains wrapping functions for all of the functions found in <algorithm>. For example, it allows vec.each([](T t){...}); which I strongly prefer over the verbose std::for_each. The function giving me problems is count - I want to overload Iterable::count so it combines the behaviour of both std::count and std::count_if depending on the argument type but I'm running into a strange error.
Iterable.h
virtual int count(const T& value) const {
return std::count(begin(), end(), value);
}
virtual int count(std::function<bool(T&)> predicate) {
return std::count_if(begin(), end(), predicate);
}
virtual int count(std::function<bool(const T&)> predicate) const {
return std::count_if(begin(), end(), predicate);
}
main.cpp
Vector<int> vec; // extends Iterable
vec.add(0);
vec.add(1);
vec.count([](int i){ return i == 0; }); // compiles and works fine
vec.count(0); // error c2666: 3 overloads have similar conversions
I should note that changing the count_if wrapper function names to count_if does work and resolves the ambiguity, but I'd prefer to have them named count and also to figure out why there is ambiguity in the first place.
From what I interpret, the compiler is trying to make a new std::function using the template <class F> function(F f) ctor, then runs into the ambiguity. Is that the case? It seems odd since the line below fails to compile as well.
std::function<bool(int)> f(0); // error C2064: term does not evaluate to a function taking 1 arguments
Any insights or potential fixes are much appreciated.
Forgot to say; using visual studio 2012, nov 2012 ctp compiler
std::function<Sig> in the published C++11 standard without errata contains a constructor that thinks it can consume anything, as far as its signature is concerned. If you pass it things it cannot consume (things that are not callable), it fails to compile.
Overload resolution occurs earlier (based on shallower information) than the compile failure. It matches on signatures, not implementations.
A bug report and a fix was proposed, so some C++11 compilers can fix this, and all C++14 compilers must fix this.
VS2012 has limited SFINAE overload resolution capabilities. But one approach would look like:
template<class Sig, class=void>
struct is_filter_on : std::false_type{};
template<class F, class Arg>
struct is_filter_on< F(Arg),
typename std::enable_if<std::is_convertible<
typename std::result_of<F(Arg)>::type
,bool>::value>::type
> : std::true_type{};
which is an attempt at a traits class that tells you if F(Arg) is a bool-returning "filter" on values of type Arg.
template<class X>
size_t count(X&& x) const {
return count( std::forward<X>(x), is_filter_on< X&(T const&) >{} );
}
template<class X>
size_t count(X&& x) {
return count( std::forward<X>(x), is_filter_on< X&(T&) >{} );
}
template<class F>
size_t count(F&& f, std::true_type) const {
return std::count_if( begin(), end(), std::forward<F>(f) );
}
template<class F>
size_t count(F&& f, std::true_type) {
return std::count_if( begin(), end(), std::forward<F>(f) );
}
template<class X>
size_t count(X&& x, std::false_type) const {
return std::count( begin(), end(), std::forward<X>(x) );
}
template<class X>
size_t count(X&& x, std::false_type) {
return std::count( begin(), end(), std::forward<X>(x) );
}
but I have no idea of MSVC2012 will work with the above.
Here I use tag dispatching to pick which version of count I call. The traits class is_filter_on does a test to determine if the pseudo-expression F(Arg) is filter-like. If so, we dispatch to the std::count_if. Otherwise, we dispatch to the std::count version.
The problem is that 0 is ambiguous here, it can be interpreted as a null pointer or an int, which makes it match both the std::function constructor and the more general const T& value (both require a conversion).
If you don't want to change the interface, you can just create a very simple function template to deduce and dispatch the arguments.
C++11 version:
template<typename U>
int count(U&& value) const {
return count_impl(std::forward<U>(value));
}
This works because the function template type deduction rules don't have that ambiguity, they never treat 0 as a null pointer.
So your interface is now:
virtual int count_impl(const T& value) const {
return std::count(v.begin(), v.end(), value);
}
virtual int count_impl(std::function<bool(T&)> predicate) {
return std::count_if(v.begin(), v.end(), predicate);
}
virtual int count_impl(std::function<bool(const T&)> predicate) const {
return std::count_if(v.begin(), v.end(), predicate);
}
template<typename U>
int count(U&& value) const {
return count_impl(std::forward<U>(value));
}
And you can use it naturally:
int main(){
Vector<int> vec; // extends Iterable
vec.count([](int i){ return i == 0; }); // compiles and works fine
vec.count(0); // no problem, calls virtual int count_impl(const T& value) const
}
I wrote a short utility function an object to "wrap" an iterable container, so that I could walk it backwards using a range based for.
template <typename Iterable>
struct ReverseWrapper {
private:
Iterable& m_iterable;
public:
ReverseWrapper(Iterable& iterable) : m_iterable(iterable) {}
auto begin() const ->decltype(m_iterable.rbegin()) {
return m_iterable.rbegin();
}
auto end() const ->decltype(m_iterable.rend()) {
return m_iterable.rend();
}
};
template <typename Iterable>
ReverseWrapper<Iterable> reverseIterate(Iterable& list) {
return ReverseWrapper<Iterable>(list);
}
This works for C++ iterable objects, but not for static arrays. What is required for an object to support iteration using a range based for? What would be the best way to approach this problem?
The actual rule to choose begin and end functions for iterables is the following: use the class begin and end function if it has some. Use overloads of the global functions std::begin and std::end if some are provided.
Static arrays not being class/struct, they don't/can't have member functions. The functions called by the foreach loop are the global functions std::begin and std::end, taking an array as parameter. Assuming std::rbegin and std::rend existed, you would have to construct your wrapper the following way:
template <typename Iterable>
struct ReverseWrapper {
private:
Iterable& m_iterable;
public:
ReverseWrapper(Iterable&& iterable) : m_iterable(iterable) {}
auto begin() const -> decltype(rbegin(m_iterable)) {
return rbegin(m_iterable);
}
auto end() const -> decltype(rend(m_iterable)) {
return rend(m_iterable);
}
};
template<typename Iterable>
auto reverseIterate(Iterable&& list)
-> ReverseWrapper<Iterable>
{
return ReverseWrapper<Iterable>(std::forward<Iterable>(list));
}
Even though std::rbegin and std::rend exist in the c++14 standard, they are not available in the c++11 one. So, to get the above code to work with c++11, you would have to implement these functions by hand:
template<typename T, std::size_t N>
auto rbegin(T (&array)[N])
-> std::reverse_iterator<T*>
{
return std::reverse_iterator<T*>(std::end(array));
}
template<typename T, std::size_t N>
auto rend(T (&array)[N])
-> std::reverse_iterator<T*>
{
return std::reverse_iterator<T*>(std::begin(array));
}
In your code, the Iterable template parameter needs to have begin and end member functions. Normal C++ arrays do not have those functions. Instead you have to use std::begin and std::end, which are part of the C++11 standard.
However, there doesn't seem to be any std::rbegin or std::rend functions, which means you have to implement those yourself, possibly also implement the actual iterator class.