Get Element Position within std::vector - c++

How do I get the position of an element inside a vector, where the elements are classes. Is there a way of doing this?
Example code:
class Object
{
public:
void Destroy()
{
// run some code to get remove self from vector
}
}
In main.cpp:
std::vector<Object> objects;
objects.push_back( <some instances of Object> );
// Some more code pushing back some more stuff
int n = 20;
objects.at(n).Destroy(); // Assuming I pushed back 20 items or more
So I guess I want to be able to write a method or something which is a member of the class which will return the location of itself inside the vector... Is this possible?
EDIT:
Due to confusion, I should explain better.
void Destroy(std::vector<Object>& container){
container.erase( ?...? );
}
The problem is, how can I find the number to do the erasing...? Apparently this isn't possible... I thought it might not be...

You can use std::find to find elements in vector (providing you implement a comparison operator (==) for Object. However, 2 big concerns:
If you need to find elements in a container then you will ger much better performance with using an ordered container such as std::map or std::set (find operations in O(log(N)) vs O(N)
Object should not be the one responsible of removing itself from the container. Object shouldn't know or be concerned with where it is, as that breaks encapsulation. Instead, the owner of the container should concern itself ith such tasks.

The object can erase itself thusly:
void Destroy(std::vector<Object>& container);
{
container.erase(container.begin() + (this - &container[0]));
}
This will work as you expect, but it strikes me as exceptionally bad design. Members should not have knowledge of their containers. They should exist (from their own perspective) in an unidentifiable limbo. Creation and destruction should be left to their creator.

Objects in a vector don't automatically know where they are in the vector.
You could supply each object with that information, but much easier: remove the object from the vector. Its destructor is then run automatically.
Then the objects can be used also in other containers.
Example:
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
class object_t
{
private:
int id_;
public:
int id() const { return id_; }
~object_t() {}
explicit object_t( int const id ): id_( id ) {}
};
int main()
{
using namespace std;
vector<object_t> objects;
for( int i = 0; i <= 33; ++i )
{
objects.emplace_back( i );
}
int const n = 20;
objects.erase( objects.begin() + n );
for( auto const& o : objects )
{
cout << o.id() << ' ';
}
cout << endl;
}

If you need to destroy the n'th item in a vector then the easiest way is to get an iterator from the beginning using std::begin() and call std::advance() to advance how ever many places you want, so something like:
std::vector<Object> objects;
const size_t n = 20;
auto erase_iter = std::advance(std::begin(objects), n);
objects.erase(erase_iter);
If you want to find the index of an item in a vector then use std::find to get the iterator and call std::distance from the beginning.
So something like:
Object object_to_find;
std::vector<Object> objects;
auto object_iter = std::find(std::begin(objects), std::end(objects), object_to_find);
const size_t n = std::distance(std::begin(objects), object_iter);
This does mean that you need to implement an equality operator for your object. Or you could try something like:
auto object_iter = std::find(std::begin(objects), std::end(objects),
[&object_to_find](const Object& object) -> bool { return &object_to_find == &object; });
Although for this to work the object_to_find needs to be the one from the actual list as it is just comparing addresses.

Related

Is there a C++ container for unique values that supports strict size checking?

I'm looking for a C++ container to store pointers to objects which also meets the following requirements.
A container that keeps the order of elements (sequence container, so std::set is not suitable)
A container that has a member function which return the actual size (As std::array::size() always returns the fixed size, std::array is not suitable)
A container that supports random accesses such as operator [].
This is my code snippet and I'd like to remove the assertions used for checking size and uniqueness of elements.
#include <vector>
#include <set>
#include "assert.h"
class Foo {
public:
void DoSomething() {
}
};
int main() {
// a variable used to check whether a container is properly assigned
const uint8_t size_ = 2;
Foo foo1;
Foo foo2;
// Needs a kind of sequential containers to keep the order
// used std::vector instead of std::array to use member function size()
const std::vector<Foo*> vec = {
&foo1,
&foo2
};
std::set<Foo*> set_(vec.begin(), vec.end());
assert(vec.size() == size_); // size checking against pre-defined value
assert(vec.size() == set_.size()); // check for elements uniqueness
// Needs to access elements using [] operator
for (auto i = 0; i < size_; i++) {
vec[i]->DoSomething();
}
return 0;
}
Is there a C++ container which doesn't need two assertions used in my code snippet? Or should I need to make my own class which encapsulates one of STL containers?
So a class that acts like a vector except if you insert, it rejects duplicates like a set or a map.
One option might be the Boost.Bimap with indices of T* and sequence_index.
Your vector-like indexing would be via the sequence_index. You might even be willing to live with holes in the sequence after an element is erased.
Sticking with STLyou could implement a bidirectional map using 2 maps, or the following uses a map and a vector:
Note that by inheriting from vector I get all the vector methods for free, but I also risk the user downcasting to the vector.
One way round that without remodelling with a wrapper (a la queue vs list) is to make it protected inheritance and then explicitly using all the methods back to public. This is actually safer as it ensures you haven't inadvertently left some vector modification method live that would take the two containers out of step.
Note also that you would need to roll your own initializer_list constructor if you wanted one to filter out any duplicates. And you would have to do a bit of work to get this thread-safe.
template <class T>
class uniqvec : public std::vector<T*>
{
private:
typedef typename std::vector<T*> Base;
enum {push_back, pop_back, emplace_back, emplace}; //add anything else you don't like from vector
std::map <T*, size_t> uniquifier;
public:
std::pair<typename Base::iterator, bool> insert(T* t)
{
auto rv1 = uniquifier.insert(std::make_pair(t, Base::size()));
if (rv1.second)
{
Base::push_back(t);
}
return std::make_pair(Base::begin()+rv1.first.second, rv1.second);
}
void erase(T* t)
{
auto found = uniquifier.find(t);
if (found != uniquifier.end())
{
auto index = found->second;
uniquifier.erase(found);
Base::erase(Base::begin()+index);
for (auto& u : uniquifier)
if (u.second > index)
u.second--;
}
}
// Note that c++11 returns the next safe iterator,
// but I don't know if that should be in vector order or set order.
void erase(typename Base::iterator i)
{
return erase(*i);
}
};
As others have mentioned, your particular questions seems like the XY problem (you are down in the weeds about a particular solution instead of focusing on the original problem). There was an extremely useful flowchart provided here a number of years ago (credit to #MikaelPersson) that will help you choose a particular STL container to best fit your needs. You can find the original question here In which scenario do I use a particular STL container?.

Storing objects in an std::map

I'd like to store objects of a class in an std::map. Here is a working example showing how I am doing it currenty
#include <iostream>
#include <map>
class A
{
private:
int a;
std::string b;
public:
A(int init_a, std::string init_b) : a(init_a), b(init_b){};
void output_a() {std::cout << a << "\n";}
};
int main()
{
std::map<size_t, A> result_map;
for (size_t iter = 0; iter < 10; ++iter)
{
A a(iter, "bb");
result_map.insert(std::make_pair(iter, a));
}
return 0;
}
I have two question to this example:
Is this the professional C++-way to store objects in an std::map in the above case? Or should I create a pointer to an object of A and store that instead? I like the first (current) option as I don't have to worry about memory management myself by using new and delete - but most importantly I'd like to do things properly.
How would I go about calling a member function of, say, result_map[0]? I naively tried result_map[0].output_a(), but that gave me the error: error: no matching function for call to ‘A::A()’
Is this the professional C++-way to store objects in an std::map in the above case?
It is fine, simpler code could be:
result_map.emplace(iter, A(iter, "bb") );
you should use whatever you find more readable. By the way calling integer counter iter is not a way to write a readable code.
How would I go about calling a member function of, say, result_map[0]?
You better use std::map::find:
auto f = result_map.find( 0 );
if( f != result_map.end() ) f->output_a();
problem with operator[] in your case - it has to create and instance if object does not exist with that index but you do not have default ctor for A.
1- It depends: If your class can be copied and you're not worried about performance issues with copying objects into the map, then that's a good way to do it. However, if say your class held any immutable data (std::mutex for example) you'd have to use a pointer, as the copy constructor c++ automatically generates would be ill formed, so it merely wouldn't be able to copy the class
2- result_map.at(0).output_a() or result_map.at(0)->output_a() if you're using a map of pointers

Modifying elements in a STL List - C++

I am attempting to construct a binary search tree using a generalized list in C++.
class Element
{
private:
list<Element*> _children;
char* _name;
// and other data members/methods...
}
As you can see, I have a class "Element" and it has a list "_children" of Element pointers.
I am trying to access these children so that I may add children to them and so forth...
However, I cannot modify these values with my current method of using a "const_iterator" and my reason for doing that is that the "begin()" method of _children returns a const_iterator.
Someone help? Thank you :)
UPDATE: Thank you all so much... It turns out, I mistakenly had a method return a const reference of the _children data member.
const list<Element*>& getChildren();// return [_children]
I just deleted const and it works perfect now. Thank you! :D
The begin function will return a const_iterator if the list is const. So for the _children list you should be able to just get the standard iterator to let you perform non-const operations on it:
list<Element*>::iterator it = _children.begin();
This however won't work if your passing off a const reference to the list and then trying to get the non-const iterator from that. Something like this would not be allowed:
void doSomething( const list<Element*>& l )
{
list<Element*>::iterator it = l.begin();
}
You would need to instead pass a non-const reference to the list.
The other case where this would be not allowed is in a const function, i.e.
void doSomething() const
{
list<Element*>::iterator it = _children.begin();
}
But would need to see more of your code to confirm if you're doing this or not.
If you want to use _children as an array, how about trying std::vector class instead of std::list?
Here's usage.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
int main(void) {
std::vector<int> list;
list.push_back(1);
list.push_back(2);
list.push_back(3);
for (int i = 0; i < list.capacity();++i){
std::cout << list[i] << std::endl;
}
return 0;
}

Offset and pass vector reference

When using arrays you can do something like
class SomeClass
{
public:
int* LockMember( size_t& numInts );
private:
int* member;
size_t numInts;
};
int* SomeClass::LockMember( size_t& out_numInts )
{
out_numInts = numInts - 1;
return member + 1;
}
To return an array offset by some amount so as to prevent someone from modifying some part of contingeous memory, or, atleast, show some intent that this part of contingeous memory of the object should remain untouched.
Since I use vectors everywhere, I am wondering if there was some way to accomplish the same sort of thing:
class SomeClass
{
public:
std::vector<int> LockMember( void );
private:
std::vector<int> member;
};
std::vector<int> SomeClass::LockMember( void )
{
// somehow make a vector with its beginning iterator pointing to member.begin() + 1
// have a size smaller by one, still the same end iterator. The vector must be
// pointing to the same data as in this class as it needs to be modifiable.
return magicOffsetVector;
}
With the commented part replaced by real code. Any ideas?
If I understand you correctly: You want some memory with two parts: At the beginning you want something that can't be touched, and after that you want something that is open for use by client code.
You could do something along the following code. This will give the client code a copy to play with. This does mean you would have to do a lot of copying, though.
class SomeClass
{
public:
std::vector<int> getMember( void ) const;
void setMember(std::vector<int> newContent);
private:
std::vector<int> member;
size_t magicOffset;
};
// Read restricted part
std::vector<int> SomeClass::getMember( void ) const
{
return vector<int>(member.begin() + magicOffset, member.end());
}
// Assign to restricted part
void SomeClass::setMember(const std::vector<int>& v)
{
std::copy(v.begin(), v.end(), member.begin() + magicOffset);
}
In order to avoid the copying, it is possible that you could allocate memory for two vectors, one for the protected part and one for the unprotected part, and use placement new to put both vectors into that memory, thus ensuring that they are in contiguous memory. And then give the client code more or less free access to the public part of the vector. However, there's still the thing with bookkeeping variables in vector, and basically this would be an awful hack that's just waiting to blow up.
However, if you only need access to the unrestricted part on a per-element basis, you could just do range-checking on the arguments, i.e.:
int getElement(size_t idx)
{
idx += magicOffset;
if (idx > member.size() || idx < 0) throw std::out_of_range("Illegal index");
return member[idx];
}
And then either provide a setElement, or return int&.

How to tell a std::priority_queue to refresh its ordering?

I have a priority queue of pointers to a struct city. I modify the objects pointed by these pointers outside the priority queue, and want to tell the priority queue to "reorder" itself according to the new values.
What should I do?
Example:
#include <iostream>
#include <queue>
using namespace std;
struct city {
int data;
city *previous;
};
struct Compare {
bool operator() ( city *lhs, city *rhs )
{
return ( ( lhs -> data ) >= ( rhs -> data ) );
}
};
typedef priority_queue< city *, vector< city * >, Compare > pqueue;
int main()
{
pqueue cities;
city *city1 = new city;
city1 -> data = 5;
city1 -> previous = NULL;
cities.push( city1 );
city *city2 = new city;
city2 -> data = 3;
city2 -> previous = NULL;
cities.push( city2 );
city1 -> data = 2;
// Now how do I tell my priority_queue to reorder itself so that city1 is at the top now?
cout << ( cities.top() -> data ) << "\n";
// 3 is printed :(
return 0;
}
This is a bit hackish, but nothing illegal about it, and it gets the job done.
std::make_heap(const_cast<city**>(&cities.top()),
const_cast<city**>(&cities.top()) + cities.size(),
Compare());
Update:
Do not use this hack if:
The underlying container is not vector.
The Compare functor has behavior that would cause your external copy to order differently than the copy of Compare stored inside the priority_queue.
You don't fully understand what these warnings mean.
You can always write your own container adaptor which wraps the heap algorithms. priority_queue is nothing but a simple wrapper around make/push/pop_heap.
If you need to keep an ordered collection you may consider the following solution: Use std::set and to update values remove the item, update its value and place it back into the set. This will give you O(log n) complexity for updating one item, which is the best you can in a usual heap structure (Assuming you had access to its internals to mass with the sift-up sift-down procedures).
The only downside to std::set will be the time for initializing a set with n items. (O(n log n) instead of O(n)).
Based on http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/priority_queue.html it does not look like there is a way to do that, without emptying and re-inserting.
If you are willing to move away from priority_queue (but still want a heap), then you can use a vector, along with the make_heap, push_heap and pop_heap. See the Notes section in the page for priority_queue.
This is an old question but I wasn't fully satisfied with any of the answers when I wanted to do this myself. There is no need for any hacks. std::priority_queue contains all the machinery to do this legally and idiomatically.
std::priority_queue has two very helpful data members, c (the underlying container) and comp (the comparison predicate).
Equally helpfully, the standard mandates that the Container template type must be a model of SequenceContainer who's iterators are models of RandomAccessIterator.
This is helpful because the Iter argument type of std::make_heap have the same RandomAccessIterator model requirement.
This is a longwinded way of saying that std::priority_queue is a wrapper around a heap and that therefore std::make_heap(std::begin(c), std::end(c), comp) must be a valid expression.
The 'bad' news is that c and comp are protected. This is actually good news for two reasons:
You can't destroy the heap accidentally.
If you derive from std::priority_queue you can modify the heap intentionally.
So the trick is to derive your priority queue from std::priority_queue, in a member function, mutate the internal heap c any way you like and then call std::make_heap(std::begin(c), std::end(c), comp); to turn it back into a valid heap.
Is it not, generally, a bad idea to inherit from STL containers
Well, yes, but...
There are two reasons that this could be a bad idea for the young and/or unwary. Lack of polymorphic destructors and the risk of slicing.
Polymorphic destructors
There is actually no reasonable use case for owning a std container through a pointer to its base class. Containers are lightweight (when there is nothing in them) and cheaply moveable. You may be able to think of use cases, but I can guarantee that whatever you intended to do can be done better by encapsulating the container in another heap-allocated object. In well-designed code, this should never have become a concern. In any case, inheriting privately from the priority_queue template class removes this risk.
Slicing
Certainly there is a risk of slicing when we pass inherited objects around. The answer here is to inherit privately from the priority_queue base class, and then use using in the derived class to export only the parts of the base class's interface that we wish to share.
The example below has been updated to show this.
Below is an example from a real project.
Requirements:
Keep a queue of topics that a client must be notified changes to. Order the queue by the timestamp of the earliest time that this topic was notified. Do not allow duplicate topic names.
Here is a working demo:
#include <queue>
#include <string>
#include <chrono>
#include <cassert>
#include <iostream>
using topic_type = std::string;
using timestamp_clock = std::chrono::system_clock;
using timestamp_type = timestamp_clock::time_point;
struct notification {
topic_type topic;
timestamp_type timestamp;
};
bool topic_equals(const notification& l, const topic_type& r) {
return l.topic == r;
}
bool topic_equals(const topic_type& l, const notification& r) {
return l == r.topic;
}
bool age_after(const notification& l , const notification& r) {
return l.timestamp > r.timestamp;
}
bool age_after(const notification& l , const timestamp_type& r) {
return l.timestamp > r;
}
bool age_after(const timestamp_type& l , const notification& r) {
return l > r.timestamp;
}
struct greater_age
{
template<class T, class U>
bool operator()(const T& l, const U& r) const {
return age_after(l, r);
}
};
template<class T>
struct pending_queue_traits;
template<>
struct pending_queue_traits<notification>
{
using container_type = std::vector<notification>;
using predicate_type = greater_age;
using type = std::priority_queue<notification, container_type, predicate_type>;
};
class pending_notification_queue
: private pending_queue_traits<notification>::type
{
using traits_type = pending_queue_traits<notification>;
using base_class = traits_type::type;
public:
// export the constructor
using base_class::base_class;
// and any other members our clients will need
using base_class::top;
using base_class::pop;
using base_class::size;
bool conditional_add(topic_type topic, timestamp_type timestamp = timestamp_clock::now())
{
auto same_topic = [&topic](auto& x) { return topic_equals(topic, x); };
auto i = std::find_if(std::begin(c), std::end(c), same_topic);
if (i == std::end(c)) {
this->push(notification{std::move(topic), std::move(timestamp)});
return true;
}
else {
if (timestamp < i->timestamp) {
i->timestamp = std::move(timestamp);
reorder();
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
private:
void reorder() {
std::make_heap(std::begin(c), std::end(c), comp);
}
};
// attempt to steal only the base class...
void try_to_slice(pending_queue_traits<notification>::type naughty_slice)
{
// danger lurks here
}
int main()
{
using namespace std::literals;
auto pn = pending_notification_queue();
auto now = timestamp_clock::now();
pn.conditional_add("bar.baz", now);
pn.conditional_add("foo.bar", now + 5ms);
pn.conditional_add("foo.bar", now + 10ms);
pn.conditional_add("foo.bar", now - 10ms);
// assert that there are only 2 notifications
assert(pn.size() == 2);
assert(pn.top().topic == "foo.bar");
pn.pop();
assert(pn.top().topic == "bar.baz");
pn.pop();
// try to slice the container. these expressions won't compile.
// try_to_slice(pn);
// try_to_slice(std::move(pn));
}
The stl's containers don't provide as fast as possible updatable priority queues.
#Richard Hodges: make_heap takes O(n) complexity, and the push_heap function doesn't tell you where the provided element was stored, making a quick update of a single element impossible (you need O(n) to find it).
I have implemented a high-performance updatable priority queue (an update costs O(log n), twice as fast as using an std::set) and made it available on github.
This is how you would typically use it :
better_priority_queue::updatable_priority_queue<int,int> pQ;
pQ.push(0, 30); // or pQ.set(0, 30)
pQ.push(1, 20);
pQ.push(2, 10);
pQ.update(2, 25); // or pQ.set(2, 25)
while(!pQ.empty())
std::cout << pQ.pop_value().key << ' ';
// Outputs: 0 2 1