So I am working on "TEMPLATES" and I'm required to make a 3 attempt of a function called PrintMax -it's obvious what it does-, to print the maximum element in an array of 3 elements, each attempt is for a different data type in this array -double/int/complex-. So I'm required to first, create the class Complex, and its required operator overloads, after that I use the PrintMax function as template function to work on the 3 types of arrays.
The problem here lies within the 3rd array of course, I can't write the elements of Complex into the array in this for ( a + bi ), because this is my class Complex :
class Complex
{
private :
int imaginary;
int real;
public:
Complex (int = 0, int = 0);
~Complex ();
int getImaginary();
int getReal();
void setImagniary(int i);
void setReal (int r);
bool operator > (Complex&);
};
You can notice, I overloaded operator > to check, but I also have a little problem besides not being able to write the elements in that way, the second problem is I can't -or sleepy and my brain is dying- calculate which is maximum in this array of Complex numbers :
// Input: Complex Array
// 1+3i, 2+4i, 3+3i
// Expected Output: 2+4i
So I want to assign them in the array with this form : Arr[3] = {1+3i, 2+4i, 3+3i};
Why is that the expected output, why not 3+3i ?
Thanks for reading ~
It seems to me that you are looking for something like:
template <typename T> void PrintMax(T array[])
{
// It is assumed that array has 3 elements in it.
std::cout <<
array[0] > array[1] ?
(array[0] > array[2] ? array[0] : array[2]) :
(array[1] > array[2] ? array[1] : array[2])
std::endl;
}
You could use something like the following. Note that there are no range checks in the code, it is just to demonstrate a way how you could solve your problem.
Plus i would suggest you to use a container (eg. std::vector) instead of plain arrays.
#include <algorithm>
#include <cmath>
#include <iostream>
class Complex {
private:
int imaginary;
int real;
public:
Complex(int r, int i) :
imaginary(i), real(r) {
}
~Complex() {
}
int getImaginary() const {
return imaginary;
}
int getReal() const {
return real;
}
void setImaginary(int i) {
imaginary = i;
}
void setReal(int r) {
real = r;
}
double getAbsolut() const {
return std::abs(std::sqrt(std::pow(imaginary, 2) + std::pow(real, 2)));
}
friend bool operator<(const Complex& lhs, const Complex& rhs);
friend std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& stream,
const Complex& complex);
};
bool operator<(const Complex& lhs, const Complex& rhs) {
return lhs.getAbsolut() < rhs.getAbsolut();
}
std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& stream, const Complex& complex) {
stream << "Complex(" << complex.real << "+" << complex.imaginary
<< "i)";
return stream;
}
template<int size, class T>
void getMax(const T arr[]) {
T max_value = arr[0];
for (size_t i = 1; i < size; ++i) {
max_value = std::max(max_value, arr[i]);
}
std::cout << "max: " << max_value << std::endl;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
Complex arr_complex[] = { Complex(3, 3), Complex(2, 4), Complex(1, 3) };
int arr_int[] = { 3, 5, 1 };
double arr_double[] = { 2.3, 5.6, 9.1 };
getMax<3>(arr_complex);
getMax<3>(arr_int);
getMax<3>(arr_double);
return 0;
}
Related
I have the following templated merge sort program:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <string>
// trying to create a default method call
class CInstance {
private:
std::string str_;
public:
CInstance(const std::string& str) : str_(str) {}
bool const operator>(const CInstance& that){ return (this->str_.size() > that.str_.size());}
};
template<class T>
class CObj {
private:
T val;
public:
CObj(const T n) : val(n) {}
T Get() { return val; }
};
template<class T>
using vcobj = std::vector<CObj<T>>;
template<class T>
void display(vcobj<T>& v) {
for (auto &i : v) {
std::cout << i.Get() << " ";
}
std::cout << "\n";
}
template<class T>
vcobj<T> Merge(vcobj<T>& lv, vcobj<T>& rv) {
vcobj<T> ret;
auto lsize = lv.size();
auto rsize = rv.size();
unsigned int lpin = 0,
rpin = 0;
while(lpin < lsize && rpin < rsize) {
if(lv.at(lpin).Get() > rv.at(rpin).Get()) {
ret.emplace_back(rv.at(rpin).Get());
rpin++;
}
else {
ret.emplace_back(lv.at(lpin).Get());
lpin++;
}
}
for (auto i=lpin; i<lsize; i++) {
ret.emplace_back(lv.at(i).Get());
}
for (auto i=rpin; i<rsize; i++) {
ret.emplace_back(rv.at(i).Get());
}
return ret;
}
template<class T>
vcobj<T> Sort(const vcobj<T>& v) {
vcobj<T> ret;
auto size = v.size();
if(size == 0) {
return ret;
}
if(size > 1) {
auto mid = size / 2;
vcobj<T> l(v.begin(), v.begin()+mid);
auto lv = Sort(l);
vcobj<T> r(v.begin()+mid, v.end());
auto rv = Sort(r);
ret = Merge(lv, rv);
}
else {
ret = v;
}
return ret;
}
int main() {
{
vcobj<int> v = {4, 5, 2, 1, 9, 6, 10, 8, 15, 3, 7};
display(v);
auto sorted = Sort(v);
display(sorted);
}
{
vcobj<float> v = {0.01, 0.001, 0.002, 0.009, 0.010, 0.0003, 0.00001};
display(v);
auto sorted = Sort(v);
display(sorted);
}
{
vcobj<std::string> v = {{"pineapple"}, {"jackfruit"}, {"mango"}, {"apple"}, {"banana"}};
display(v);
auto sorted = Sort(v);
display(sorted);
}
// causing problem
{
vcobj<CInstance> v = {{"pineapple"}, {"jackfruit"}, {"mango"}, {"apple"}, {"banana"}};
display(v);
auto sorted = Sort(v);
display(sorted);
}
return 0;
}
In all of the above types, I can simply call the object and it extracts the data which looks like calling a default get() method. Is there a way to make objects of class CInstance trigger a methos, when used just alone.
example:
I could do something like
CInstance obj;
std::cout << obj;
And that will call a default method in CInstance what every it may be.
As already mentioned in the other answer you can create your own operator<< function:
std::ostream & operator<<(std::ostream &stream, const CInstance &obj) {
// stream << whatever you want to output
return stream;
}
You could also define a conversion operator. But you should think twice before you use them. They can lead to problems that are not easy to debug, especially when explicit is omitted. You generally should not use those for logging/debugging purposes. If your type represents a string and you use it to allow an easy conversion to an std::string then it might be fine.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
class CInstance {
std::string str_ = "test";
public:
explicit operator const std::string () const { return str_; }
};
int main() {
CInstance obj;
std::cout << (std::string)obj << std::endl;
return 0;
}
If you can guarantee that the lifetime of the returned const char * is still valid after the call you could also do something like (but I would avoid that solution):
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
class CInstance {
std::string str_ = "test";
public:
operator const char *() const { return str_.c_str(); }
};
int main() {
CInstance t;
std::cout << t << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Personally, I would go with the first solution. But that really depends if you actually have a string representation of CInstance or if you want to display something for debugging purposes in a different format. I however would avoid the last non-explicit version with the const char * conversion operator.
In this exact case, you define an operator<< method like so:
std::ostream & operator<<(std::ostream &stream, const CInstance &obj) {
... output obj however you want to the stream. For instance:
stream << obj.getAge();
return stream;
}
As an old c99 person, I was often stubled upon the curly brakets initialization. In the `initializer_list`, I have to use {r, i} for a complex number. On the other hand, I have to use (r, i) for `complex` in the istream field. Here, I cut a part of my class that is able to run and give examples under codeblock 20.03 with MinGW 8.1.0.
#ifndef __tMatrix_class__
#define __tMatrix_class__
#include <iostream>
#include <initializer_list>
#include <iomanip>
#include <complex>
#include <sstream>
template <typename T> class tMatrix
{
public:
T *ptr;
int col, row, size;
inline T* begin() const {return ptr;}
inline T* end() const {return this->ptr + this->size;}
inline T operator()(const int i, const int j) const { return ptr[i*col+j]; } // r-value
inline T&operator()(const int i, const int j) { return ptr[i*col+j]; } //l-value
inline tMatrix(): col{0}, row{0}, size{0}, ptr{0} {;}
tMatrix(const int i, const int j): col(j), row(i), size(i*j) {
ptr = new T [this->size] ; }
tMatrix(const std::initializer_list< std::initializer_list<T> > s):tMatrix<T>(s.size(), s.begin()->size())
{
int j = 0;
for (const auto& i : s) { std::copy (i.begin(), i.end(), ptr + j*col); ++j ; }
}
tMatrix(const tMatrix<T>&a) : tMatrix<T>(a.row, a.col)
{
std::copy(a.begin(), a.end(), this->ptr);
}
tMatrix<T>& operator=(tMatrix<T>&&a)
{
this->col = a.col;
this->row = a.row;
delete [] this->ptr;
this->ptr = a.ptr;
a.ptr = nullptr;
return *this;
}
tMatrix<T>& operator=(const tMatrix<T>&a)
{
if (col==a.cpl && row==a.row) std::copy(a.begin(), a.end(), this->ptr);
else { tMatrix<T>&&v(a); *this = std::move(v);}
return *this;
}
tMatrix<T>& operator=(const std::initializer_list<std::initializer_list<T> > a)
{
tMatrix<T> &&v = a;
*this = std::move(v);
return *this;
}
~tMatrix() {delete [] this->ptr;}
void operator<<(const char*s)
{
std::stringstream ss;
ss.str(s);
for (int i=0; i<this->size; i++){
if (ss.good()) ss >> this->ptr[i];
else return;
}
}
}; //end of class tMatrix
template <typename X> std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream&p, const tMatrix<X>&a)
{
p << std::fixed;
for (int i=0; i<a.row; i++) {
for (int j=0; j <a.col; j++) p << std::setw(12) << a(i, j);
p << std::endl;
}
return p;
}
using CMPLX = std::complex<double>;
using iMatrix = tMatrix<int>;
using rMatrix = tMatrix<double>;
using cMatrix = tMatrix< CMPLX >;
#endif
int main()
{
cMatrix cx(2,2);
cx = { { {1,2},{3,4} }, { {5,6}, {7,8} } };
std::cout << cx << std::endl;
cx << "(1,2) (3,4)";
std::cout << cx << std::endl;
return 0;
}
The above code renders correct format of complex number, and prints
$ ./ttt_mtx_init_fin_tmp.exe
(1.000000,2.000000)(3.000000,4.000000)
(5.000000,6.000000)(7.000000,8.000000)
(1.000000,2.000000)(3.000000,4.000000)
(5.000000,6.000000)(7.000000,8.000000)
But if I use the `()` in the initializer_list and `{}` in the istream filed, the results are all wrong. If I chagned the relavant part of main() to :
cx = { { (1,2),(3,4) }, { (5,6), (7,8) } };
std::cout << cx << std::endl;
cx << "{1,2} {3,4}";
std::cout << cx << std::endl;
Which renders all wrong values (compared with above):
$ ./ttt_mtx_init_fin_tmp.exe
(2.000000,0.000000)(4.000000,0.000000)
(6.000000,0.000000)(8.000000,0.000000)
(2.000000,0.000000)(4.000000,0.000000)
(6.000000,0.000000)(8.000000,0.000000)
I found it is rather confusion. So, my questions: is there a way to make these two expressions a same form? Many thanks for any helps.
I do not know any way to make std::istream::operator>> use { and } for std::complex, but if you are fine with using a helper, then you can replace the () in the input with {} and forward the input to the original operator>>:
#include <iostream>
#include <complex>
#include <sstream>
#include <algorithm>
template <typename T>
struct complex_reader {
std::complex<T>& target;
};
template <typename T>
complex_reader<typename T::value_type> get_complex_reader(T& t){ return {t};}
template <typename T>
std::istream& operator>>(std::istream& in,complex_reader<T> cr){
std::string input;
std::getline(in,input,'}'); // read till `}`
std::replace(input.begin(),input.end(),'{','(');
input += ')';
std::stringstream ss{input};
ss >> cr.target; // call the original >>
return in;
}
int main()
{
std::stringstream ss{"{2,2}"};
std::complex<double> x;
ss >> get_complex_reader(x);
std::cout << x;
}
Output:
(2,2)
However, you would have to write a similar helper to get consistent output (you may not provide an operator<< for std::complex<T> directly). Also note that the above implementation is a little simplistic. It reads from the stream until it encounters a }. For invalid input this may result in undesired effects and more sophisticated input validation is required.
Note that the operator>> takes the complex_helper by value to allow passing temporaries. Thats fine, because the member is a (non-const) reference.
This is not an answer, but a reasoning of my choice. After a series of cross conversions with `largest_prime_is_463035818`, I figured out what is my best choice for now (many thanks to his time and patience). A bottom line is becoming clear to me that I will not alter the input format of istream that is too much changed for pratical purpose, since file input is the major method to fetch data for a large matrix.
Under this constrain, I try to make the appearance of initializer_list as friendly as possible. I did some experiments, and found that the complex_literals expression is acceptable by initializer_list. And it looks ok to me.
using namespace std::complex_literals;
int main()
{
cMatrix cx(3,2);
cx = { { 1+2.2j , 4j}, { 5.3+6.5j , 8.3j}, {8.3, 5.6+4j} };
std::cout << cx << std::endl;
cx << " (1,2) (3,4) (5,6) (7,8) (2.3, 3.4) (2,7.8) ";
std::cout << cx << std::endl;
return 0;
}
And it works.
$ ./a.exe
(1.000000,2.200000) (0.000000,4.000000)
(5.300000,6.500000) (0.000000,8.300000)
(8.300000,0.000000) (5.600000,4.000000)
(1.000000,2.000000) (3.000000,4.000000)
(5.000000,6.000000) (7.000000,8.000000)
(2.300000,3.400000) (2.000000,7.800000)
Thank you for your patience, and please let me know if there are better ways.
I need a function to add values to v[i] using the operator+
the vector v contains the values 10,2 and 3.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
template<typename T>
class Measurement
{
private:
T val;
public:
Measurement(T a)
: val{ a }
{}
T value() const { return val; }
Measurement<T>& operator+(const T& nr)
{
//... ???
return *this;
}
};
int main()
{
//create a vector with values (10,2,3)
std::vector<Measurement<int>> v{ 10,2,3 };
v[2] + 3 + 2; //add at v[2] value 5
for (const auto& m : v) std::cout << m.value() << ",";
return 0;
}
The result must be 10,2,8
Just add the val of the instance to other nr
Measurement<T>& operator+(const T& nr)
{
this->val += nr;
return *this;
}
However, overloading the operator+ for this might be misleading and should be avoiding such. Therefore I would suggest the traditional way
Measurement<T> operator+(const T& nr)
{
Measurement<T> tmp{ *this };
tmp.val += nr;
return tmp; // returns the temporary, which you need to reassign!
}
and do
v[2] = v[2] + 3 + 2;
for the required result.
Or even better provide operator+= which meant does return the reference to the Measurement<T>
Measurement<T>& operator+=(const T& nr)
{
this->val += nr;
return *this;
}
and call it like
v[2] += 3 + 2;
Consider this simple class storing a value and a time.
class A
{
public:
boost::posix_time::ptime when;
double value;
};
Depending on the context, I need to compare two instances of A by value or by time (and/or store them in set/map, sometimes sorted by value, sometimes by time).
Providing operator< will be confusing, because you can't tell if it will compare by value or by time.
Now, what's the best strategy?
Is it possible to provide an operator< taking a parameter? (would be used as a <(ByTime) b)?
Should I have a lowerThan (comparing values) method and a earlierThan (comparing time) method taking the right operand as parameter? But then, what would be the best practice to handle <, <=, >, >=, ==, !=, should I have one method for each comparator? Or may they take parameters (like bool isLower(bool strict, const A& right) const, bool isGreater(bool strict, const A& right) const, bool isEarlier(bool strict, const A& right) const, bool isLater(bool strict, const A& right) const...
What would be the best practice?
IMHO the most versatile way is a 2-step process:
make ADL getters.
write comparison concepts in terms of those getters.
example:
#include <boost/date_time.hpp>
#include <set>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
class A
{
public:
boost::posix_time::ptime when;
double value;
};
// get the 'when' from an A
auto get_when(A const& a) -> boost::posix_time::ptime
{
return a.when;
}
// get the 'when' from a ptime (you could put this in the boost::posix_time namespace for easy ADL
auto get_when(boost::posix_time::ptime t) -> boost::posix_time::ptime
{
return t;
}
// same for the concept of a 'value'
auto get_value(A const& a) -> double
{
return a.value;
}
auto get_value(double t) -> double
{
return t;
}
// compare any two objects by calling get_when() on them
struct increasing_when
{
template<class L, class R>
bool operator()(L&& l, R&& r) const
{
return get_when(l) < get_when(r);
}
};
// compare any two objects by calling get_value() on them
struct increasing_value
{
template<class L, class R>
bool operator()(L&& l, R&& r) const
{
return get_value(l) < get_value(r);
}
};
void example1(std::vector<A>& as)
{
// sort by increasing when
std::sort(begin(as), end(as), increasing_when());
// sort by increasing value
std::sort(begin(as), end(as), increasing_value());
}
int main()
{
// same for associative collections
std::set<A, increasing_when> a1;
std::set<A, increasing_value> a2;
}
update:
If you want, you can templatise the comparison:
template<class Comp>
struct compare_when
{
template<class L, class R>
bool operator()(L&& l, R&& r) const
{
return comp(get_when(l), get_when(r));
}
Comp comp;
};
using increasing_when = compare_when<std::less<>>;
using decreasing_when = compare_when<std::greater<>>;
to use the comparison directly in code:
auto comp = compare_when<std::greater<>>();
if (comp(x,y)) { ... }
Reacting to UKMonkey comment, would defining what I understand could be named "comparator classes" be a good approach/practice?
class A
{
public:
boost::posix_time::ptime when;
double value;
const boost::posix_time::ptime& getTime() const { return when; }
double getValue() const { return value; }
};
template <typename T>
class CompareBy
{
public:
CompareBy( const A& a, T (A::*getter)() const ) : a(a), getter(getter)
{}
bool operator<( const CompareBy& right ) const
{
return (a.*getter)() < (right.a.*getter)();
}
// you may also declare >, <=, >=, ==, != operators here
private:
const A& a;
T (A::*getter)() const;
};
class CompareByTime : public CompareBy<const boost::posix_time::ptime&>
{
public:
CompareByTime(const A& a) : CompareBy(a, &A::getTime)
{
}
};
class CompareByValue : public CompareBy<double>
{
public:
CompareByValue( const A& a ) : CompareBy(a, &A::getValue)
{
}
};
struct byTime_compare {
bool operator() (const A& lhs, const A& rhs) const {
return CompareByTime(lhs) < CompareByTime(rhs);
}
};
int main()
{
A a, b;
...
if (CompareByValue(a) < CompareByValue(b))
{
...
}
std::set<A, byTime_compare> mySet;
}
short answer: don't
I explained why in a comment, the main reason is, it introduces ambiguity in your code and reduces readability which is the opposite of what operators are meant to do. Just use different methods and provide ways to pick which one to use for this sort (like comparers). While I was typing this, people posted good examples of that, even some using a bit of metaprogramming.
however, for science, you kinda can. While you can't add a parameter to an operator (a binary operator is a binary operator, and there doesn't seem to be a syntax to add this third argument somewhere) you can make your operator mean different things in different contexts (c++ context, for a line of code or for a block delimited by '{}')
here done very quickly using construction/destruction order (similar implementation to a trivial lock with no consideration for thread safety):
the comparison looks like:
Thing::thingSortingMode(Thing::thingSortingMode::alternateMode), Thing{1, 2} < Thing{3, 4};
run this example online: http://cpp.sh/3ggrq
#include <iostream>
struct Thing {
struct thingSortingMode {
enum mode {
defaultMode,
alternateMode
};
mode myLastMode;
thingSortingMode(mode aMode) { myLastMode = Thing::ourSortingMode; Thing::ourSortingMode = aMode; std::cout << "\nmode: " << aMode << "\n"; }
~thingSortingMode() { Thing::ourSortingMode = myLastMode; std::cout << "\nmode: " << myLastMode << "\n";}
};
bool operator < (Thing another) {
switch (ourSortingMode) //I use an enum, to make the example more accessible, you can use a functor instead if you want
{
case thingSortingMode::alternateMode:
return myValueB < another.myValueB;
break;
default:
return myValueA < another.myValueA;
break;
}
}
static thingSortingMode::mode ourSortingMode;
int myValueA;
int myValueB;
};
Thing::thingSortingMode::mode Thing::ourSortingMode = Thing::thingSortingMode::defaultMode;
int main()
{
Thing a{1, 1}, b{0, 2}; // b < a in default mode, a < b in alternate mode
std::cout << (a < b); //false
{
Thing::thingSortingMode ctx(Thing::thingSortingMode::alternateMode);
std::cout << (a < b); //true
Thing::thingSortingMode(Thing::thingSortingMode::defaultMode), std::cout << (a < b), //false
Thing::thingSortingMode(Thing::thingSortingMode::alternateMode), std::cout << (a < b); //true
std::cout << (a < b); //true
}
std::cout << (a < b); //false
}
Note that this construction/destruction trick can manage any kind of contextual state, here is a richer example with 4 states and more nested contexts
run this example online: http://cpp.sh/2x5rj
#include <iostream>
struct Thing {
struct thingSortingMode {
enum mode {
defaultMode = 1,
alternateMode,
mode3,
mode4,
};
mode myLastMode;
thingSortingMode(mode aMode) { myLastMode = Thing::ourSortingMode; Thing::ourSortingMode = aMode; std::cout << "\nmode: " << myLastMode << " -> " << aMode << "\n"; }
~thingSortingMode() { std::cout << "\nmode: " << Thing::ourSortingMode << " -> " << myLastMode << "\n"; Thing::ourSortingMode = myLastMode; }
};
static thingSortingMode::mode ourSortingMode;
};
Thing::thingSortingMode::mode Thing::ourSortingMode = Thing::thingSortingMode::defaultMode;
int main()
{
Thing::thingSortingMode ctx(Thing::thingSortingMode::mode3);
{
Thing::thingSortingMode ctx(Thing::thingSortingMode::alternateMode);
{
Thing::thingSortingMode ctx(Thing::thingSortingMode::mode4);
{
Thing::thingSortingMode ctx(Thing::thingSortingMode::defaultMode);
std::cout << "end sub 3 (mode 1)\n";
}
std::cout <<
(Thing::thingSortingMode(Thing::thingSortingMode::alternateMode), "this is the kind of things that might behave strangely\n") <<
(Thing::thingSortingMode(Thing::thingSortingMode::defaultMode), "here both are printed in mode 2, but it's a direct consequence of the order in which this expression is evaluated\n"); //note though that arguments are still constructed in the right state
std::cout << "end sub 2 (mode 4). Not that we still pop our states in the right order, even if we screwed up the previous line\n";
}
std::cout <<
(Thing::thingSortingMode(Thing::thingSortingMode::alternateMode), "this on the other hand (mode 2)\n"),
std::cout <<
(Thing::thingSortingMode(Thing::thingSortingMode::defaultMode), "works (mode 1)\n"); //but pay attention to the comma and in which order things are deleted
std::cout << "end sub 1 (mode 2)\n";
}
std::cout << "end main (mode 3)\n";
}
output:
mode: 1 -> 3
mode: 3 -> 2
mode: 2 -> 4
mode: 4 -> 1
end sub 3 (mode 1)
mode: 1 -> 4
mode: 4 -> 1
mode: 1 -> 2
this is the kind of things that might behave strangely
here both are printed in mode 2, but it's a direct consequence of the order in which this expression is evaluated
mode: 2 -> 1
mode: 1 -> 4
end sub 2 (mode 4). Not that we still pop our states in the right order, even if we screwed up the previous line
mode: 4 -> 2
mode: 2 -> 2
this on the other hand (mode 2)
mode: 2 -> 1
works (mode 1)
mode: 1 -> 2
mode: 2 -> 2
end sub 1 (mode 2)
mode: 2 -> 3
end main (mode 3)
mode: 3 -> 1
Another approach, very simple: add template comparator functions to the A class makes it easy to do a comparison in the end and is really error prone:
#include <iostream>
#include <set>
using namespace std;
class A
{
public:
int when;
double value;
int getTime() const { return when; }
double getValue() const { return value; }
template<typename T>
bool isLower( T (A::*getter)() const,
bool strict,
const A& right ) const
{
if ( strict )
return ((*this).*getter)() < (right.*getter)();
else
return ((*this).*getter)() <= (right.*getter)();
}
template<typename T>
bool isGreater( T (A::*getter)() const,
bool strict,
const A& right ) const
{
if ( strict )
return ((*this).*getter)() > (right.*getter)();
else
return ((*this).*getter)() >= (right.*getter)();
}
template<typename T>
bool isEqual( T (A::*getter)() const,
const A& right ) const
{
return ((*this).*getter)() == (right.*getter)();
}
};
struct byTime_compare {
bool operator() (const A& lhs, const A& rhs) const {
return lhs.isLower( &A::getTime, true, rhs );
}
};
int main()
{
A a, b;
if ( a.isLower( &A::getValue, true, b ) ) // means a < b by value
{
// ...
}
std::set<A, byTime_compare> mySet;
}
I would like to know if it is possible to create an actual functor object from a lambda expression. I don't think so, but if not, why?
To illustrate, given the code below, which sorts points using various policies for x and y coordinates:
#include <vector>
#include <functional>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
struct Point
{
Point(int x, int y) : x(x), y(y) {}
int x, y;
};
template <class XOrder, class YOrder>
struct SortXY :
std::binary_function<const Point&, const Point&, bool>
{
bool operator()(const Point& lhs, const Point& rhs) const
{
if (XOrder()(lhs.x, rhs.x))
return true;
else if (XOrder()(rhs.x, lhs.x))
return false;
else
return YOrder()(lhs.y, rhs.y);
}
};
struct Ascending { bool operator()(int l, int r) const { return l<r; } };
struct Descending { bool operator()(int l, int r) const { return l>r; } };
int main()
{
// fill vector with data
std::vector<Point> pts;
pts.push_back(Point(10, 20));
pts.push_back(Point(20, 5));
pts.push_back(Point( 5, 0));
pts.push_back(Point(10, 30));
// sort array
std::sort(pts.begin(), pts.end(), SortXY<Descending, Ascending>());
// dump content
std::for_each(pts.begin(), pts.end(),
[](const Point& p)
{
std::cout << p.x << "," << p.y << "\n";
});
}
The expression std::sort(pts.begin(), pts.end(), SortXY<Descending, Ascending>()); sorts according to descending x values, and then to ascending y values. It's easily understandable, and I'm not sure I really want to make use of lambda expressions here.
But if I wanted to replace Ascending / Descending by lambda expressions, how would you do it? The following isn't valid:
std::sort(pts.begin(), pts.end(), SortXY<
[](int l, int r) { return l>r; },
[](int l, int r) { return l<r; }
>());
This problem arises because SortXY only takes types, whereas lambdas are objects. You need to re-write it so that it takes objects, not just types. This is basic use of functional objects- see how std::for_each doesn't take a type, it takes an object.
I have posted a similar question w.r.t. lambda functors within classes.
Check this out, perhaps it helps:
Lambda expression as member functors in a class
I had a similar problem: It was required to provide in some cases a "raw"-function pointer and in other a functor. So I came up with a "workaround" like this:
template<class T>
class Selector
{
public:
Selector(int (*theSelector)(T& l, T& r))
: selector(theSelector) {}
virtual int operator()(T& l, T& r) {
return selector(l, r);
}
int (*getRawSelector() const)(T&, T&) {
return this->selector;
}
private:
int(*selector)(T& l, T& r);
};
Assuming you have two very simple functions taking --- as described --- either a functor or a raw function pointer like this:
int
findMinWithFunctor(int* array, int size, Selector<int> selector)
{
if (array && size > 0) {
int min = array[0];
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
if (selector(array[i], min) < 0) {
min = array[i];
}
}
return min;
}
return -1;
}
int
findMinWithFunctionPointer(int* array, int size, int(*selector)(int&, int&))
{
if (array && size > 0) {
int min = array[0];
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
if (selector(array[i], min) < 0) {
min = array[i];
}
}
return min;
}
return -1;
}
Then you would call this functions like this:
int numbers[3] = { 4, 2, 99 };
cout << "The min with functor is:" << findMinWithFunctor(numbers, 3, Selector<int>([](int& l, int& r) -> int {return (l > r ? 1 : (r > l ? -1 : 0)); })) << endl;
// or with the plain version
cout << "The min with raw fn-pointer is:" << findMinWithFunctionPointer(numbers, 3, Selector<int>([](int& l, int& r) -> int {return (l > r ? 1 : (r > l ? -1 : 0)); }).getRawSelector()) << endl;
Of course in this example there is no real benefit passing the int's as reference...it's just an example :-)
Improvements:
You can also modify the Selector class to be more concise like this:
template<class T>
class Selector
{
public:
typedef int(*selector_fn)(T& l, T& r);
Selector(selector_fn theSelector)
: selector(theSelector) {}
virtual int operator()(T& l, T& r) {
return selector(l, r);
}
selector_fn getRawSelector() {
return this->selector;
}
private:
selector_fn selector;
};
Here we are taking advantage of a simple typedef in order to define the function pointer once and use only it's name rather then writing the declaration over and over.