I've been working on learning python and somehow came up with following codes:
for item in list:
while list.count(item)!=1:
list.remove(item)
I was wondering if this kind of coding can be done in c++. (Using list length for the for loop while decreasing its size) If not, can anyone tell me why?
Thanks!
I am not a big Python programmer, but it seems like the above code removes duplicates from a list. Here is a C++ equivalent:
list.sort();
list.unique();
As for modifying the list while iterating over it, you can do that as well. Here is an example:
for (auto it = list.begin(), eit = list.end(); it != eit; ) {
if (std::count(it, eit, *it) > 1)
it = list.erase(it);
else
++it;
}
Hope it helps.
In C++, you can compose something like this from various algorithms of the standard library, check out remove(), find(), However, the way your algorithm is written, it looks like O(n^2) complexity. Sorting the list and then scanning over it to put one of each value into a new list has O(n log n) complexity, but ruins the order.
In general, both for Python and C++, it is often better to copy or move elements to a temporary container and then swap with the original than modifying the original in-place. This is easier to get right since you don't step on your own feet (see delnan's comment) and it is faster because it avoids repeated reallocation and copying of objects.
Here's how I'd do it.
//If we will not delete an element of the list
for (std::list<MyType>::iterator it = MyList.begin(); it != MyList.end();++it)
{
//my operation here
}
//If we will delete an element of the list
for (std::list<MyType>::iterator it = MyList.begin(); it != MyList.end();)
{
std::list<MyType>::iterator itt = it;
++itt;
MyList.erase(it);
it = itt;
}
You can use the size of the list, but it is not comparable to [it] because [it].
Certain features of std:: data classes are enabled or disabled as a design decision. Sure, you can make your own function MyList[int i], but it will lead to a large speed gimp due to the nature of lists.
In C++ you can in some conditions remove elements from a container while iterating over it. This depends on the container and on the operation you want to do.
Currently there are different interpretations of your code snipplet in the different answers. My interpretation is, that you want to delete all the elements which exists more than once in the list.
Here is the solution in C++: it first counts the elements in another container (std::map) and removes the appropriate elements from the list afterwards.
#include <list>
#include <map>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
int main() {
std::list<int> li { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 2, 2 };
// Create count map: element -> count
std::map<int, int> cm;
std::for_each( li.begin(), li.end(), [&cm](int i) { ++cm[i]; } );
// Remove all elements from list with count > 1
std::for_each( cm.begin(), cm.end(),
[&li](std::pair<const int, int> const p) {
if( p.second > 1) {
li.remove( p.first );
}
} );
// Output all elements from remaining list
std::for_each( li.begin(), li.end(),
[](int i) { std::cout << i << std::endl; } );
return 0;
}
I don't know Python but someone said in a comment that a list is equivalent to a C++ vector and it is not sorted, so here goes....
std::vector<int> v{1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1};
v.erase(std::unique(v.begin(), v.end()), v.end());
v contains {1, 2, 3, 2, 1} after this code. If the goal is to remove all duplicates (not just consecutive duplicates) you'll have to sort the vector first: std::sort(v.begin(), v.end());
std::vector is the container in C++ that is most similar to Python's list, and here's the correct way to modify a vector while iterating it:
template <typename T>
void dedupe(std::vector<T> &vec) {
for (std::vector<T>::iterator it = vec.begin(); it != vec.end(); ) {
if (std::count(vev.begin(), vec.end(), *it) != 1) {
it = vec.erase(it);
} else {
++it;
}
}
}
It's not necessarily the most efficient way to dedupe, but it works.
Using list length for the for loop while decreasing its size
If you insist on using the length rather than the end(), then you can use an index instead of an iterator:
template <typename T>
void dedupe(std::vector<T> &vec) {
for (std::vector<T>::size_type pos = 0; pos != vec.size(); ) {
if (std::count(vec.begin(), vec.end(), vec[pos]) != 1) {
vec.erase(vec.begin() + pos);
} else {
++pos;
}
}
}
I'm assuming that the intention of your Python code is to remove all duplicates, by the way, and that the fact it doesn't is a bug. For example input [2,2,1,3,3,1,2,3], output [1,1,2,3]. If what you said is what you meant, then a direct translation of your code to C++ is:
template <typename T>
void dedupe(std::vector<T> &vec) {
for (std::vector<T>::size_type pos = 0; pos < vec.size(); ++pos) {
T item = vec[pos];
while (std::count(vec.begin(), vec.end(), item) != 1) {
vec.erase(std::find(vec.begin(), vec.end(), item));
}
}
}
Related
I have this code:
int main()
{
vector<int> res;
res.push_back(1);
vector<int>::iterator it = res.begin();
for( ; it != res.end(); it++)
{
it = res.erase(it);
//if(it == res.end())
// return 0;
}
}
"A random access iterator pointing to the new location of the element that followed the last element erased by the function call, which is the vector end if the operation erased the last element in the sequence."
This code crashes, but if I use the if(it == res.end()) portion and then return, it works. How come? Does the for loop cache the res.end() so the not equal operator fails?
res.erase(it) always returns the next valid iterator, if you erase the last element it will point to .end()
At the end of the loop ++it is always called, so you increment .end() which is not allowed.
Simply checking for .end() still leaves a bug though, as you always skip an element on every iteration (it gets 'incremented' by the return from .erase(), and then again by the loop)
You probably want something like:
while (it != res.end()) {
it = res.erase(it);
}
to erase each element
(for completeness: I assume this is a simplified example, if you simply want every element gone without having to perform an operation on it (e.g. delete) you should simply call res.clear())
When you only conditionally erase elements, you probably want something like
for ( ; it != res.end(); ) {
if (condition) {
it = res.erase(it);
} else {
++it;
}
}
for( ; it != res.end();)
{
it = res.erase(it);
}
or, more general:
for( ; it != res.end();)
{
if (smth)
it = res.erase(it);
else
++it;
}
Because the method erase in vector return the next iterator of the passed iterator.
I will give example of how to remove element in vector when iterating.
void test_del_vector(){
std::vector<int> vecInt{0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
//method 1
for(auto it = vecInt.begin();it != vecInt.end();){
if(*it % 2){// remove all the odds
it = vecInt.erase(it); // note it will = next(it) after erase
} else{
++it;
}
}
// output all the remaining elements
for(auto const& it:vecInt)std::cout<<it;
std::cout<<std::endl;
// recreate vecInt, and use method 2
vecInt = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
//method 2
for(auto it=std::begin(vecInt);it!=std::end(vecInt);){
if (*it % 2){
it = vecInt.erase(it);
}else{
++it;
}
}
// output all the remaining elements
for(auto const& it:vecInt)std::cout<<it;
std::cout<<std::endl;
// recreate vecInt, and use method 3
vecInt = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
//method 3
vecInt.erase(std::remove_if(vecInt.begin(), vecInt.end(),
[](const int a){return a % 2;}),
vecInt.end());
// output all the remaining elements
for(auto const& it:vecInt)std::cout<<it;
std::cout<<std::endl;
}
output aw below:
024
024
024
A more generate method:
template<class Container, class F>
void erase_where(Container& c, F&& f)
{
c.erase(std::remove_if(c.begin(), c.end(),std::forward<F>(f)),
c.end());
}
void test_del_vector(){
std::vector<int> vecInt{0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
//method 4
auto is_odd = [](int x){return x % 2;};
erase_where(vecInt, is_odd);
// output all the remaining elements
for(auto const& it:vecInt)std::cout<<it;
std::cout<<std::endl;
}
Something that you can do with modern C++ is using "std::remove_if" and lambda expression;
This code will remove "3" of the vector
vector<int> vec {1,2,3,4,5,6};
vec.erase(std::remove_if(begin(vec),end(vec),[](int elem){return (elem == 3);}), end(vec));
The it++ instruction is done at the end of the block. So if your are erasing the last element, then you try to increment the iterator that is pointing to an empty collection.
Do not erase and then increment the iterator. No need to increment, if your vector has an odd (or even, I don't know) number of elements you will miss the end of the vector.
You increment it past the end of the (empty) container in the for loop's loop expression.
The following also seems to work :
for (vector<int>::iterator it = res.begin(); it != res.end(); it++)
{
res.erase(it--);
}
Not sure if there's any flaw in this ?
if(allPlayers.empty() == false) {
for(int i = allPlayers.size() - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
if(allPlayers.at(i).getpMoney() <= 0)
allPlayers.erase(allPlayers.at(i));
}
}
This works for me. And Don't need to think about indexes have already erased.
As a modification to crazylammer's answer, I often use:
your_vector_type::iterator it;
for( it = res.start(); it != res.end();)
{
your_vector_type::iterator curr = it++;
if (something)
res.erase(curr);
}
The advantage of this is that you don't have to worry about forgetting to increment your iterator, making it less bug prone when you have complex logic. Inside the loop, curr will never be equal to res.end(), and it will be at the next element regardless of if you erase it from your vector.
I want to clear a element from a vector using the erase method. But the problem here is that the element is not guaranteed to occur only once in the vector. It may be present multiple times and I need to clear all of them. My code is something like this:
void erase(std::vector<int>& myNumbers_in, int number_in)
{
std::vector<int>::iterator iter = myNumbers_in.begin();
std::vector<int>::iterator endIter = myNumbers_in.end();
for(; iter != endIter; ++iter)
{
if(*iter == number_in)
{
myNumbers_in.erase(iter);
}
}
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
std::vector<int> myNmbers;
for(int i = 0; i < 2; ++i)
{
myNmbers.push_back(i);
myNmbers.push_back(i);
}
erase(myNmbers, 1);
return 0;
}
This code obviously crashes because I am changing the end of the vector while iterating through it. What is the best way to achieve this? I.e. is there any way to do this without iterating through the vector multiple times or creating one more copy of the vector?
Use the remove/erase idiom:
std::vector<int>& vec = myNumbers; // use shorter name
vec.erase(std::remove(vec.begin(), vec.end(), number_in), vec.end());
What happens is that remove compacts the elements that differ from the value to be removed (number_in) in the beginning of the vector and returns the iterator to the first element after that range. Then erase removes these elements (whose value is unspecified).
Edit: While updating a dead link I discovered that starting in C++20 there are freestanding std::erase and std::erase_if functions that work on containers and simplify things considerably.
Calling erase will invalidate iterators, you could use:
void erase(std::vector<int>& myNumbers_in, int number_in)
{
std::vector<int>::iterator iter = myNumbers_in.begin();
while (iter != myNumbers_in.end())
{
if (*iter == number_in)
{
iter = myNumbers_in.erase(iter);
}
else
{
++iter;
}
}
}
Or you could use std::remove_if together with a functor and std::vector::erase:
struct Eraser
{
Eraser(int number_in) : number_in(number_in) {}
int number_in;
bool operator()(int i) const
{
return i == number_in;
}
};
std::vector<int> myNumbers;
myNumbers.erase(std::remove_if(myNumbers.begin(), myNumbers.end(), Eraser(number_in)), myNumbers.end());
Instead of writing your own functor in this case you could use std::remove:
std::vector<int> myNumbers;
myNumbers.erase(std::remove(myNumbers.begin(), myNumbers.end(), number_in), myNumbers.end());
In C++11 you could use a lambda instead of a functor:
std::vector<int> myNumbers;
myNumbers.erase(std::remove_if(myNumbers.begin(), myNumbers.end(), [number_in](int number){ return number == number_in; }), myNumbers.end());
In C++17 std::experimental::erase and std::experimental::erase_if are also available, in C++20 these are (finally) renamed to std::erase and std::erase_if (note: in Visual Studio 2019 you'll need to change your C++ language version to the latest experimental version for support):
std::vector<int> myNumbers;
std::erase_if(myNumbers, Eraser(number_in)); // or use lambda
or:
std::vector<int> myNumbers;
std::erase(myNumbers, number_in);
You can iterate using the index access,
To avoid O(n^2) complexity
you can use two indices, i - current testing index, j - index to
store next item and at the end of the cycle new size of the vector.
code:
void erase(std::vector<int>& v, int num)
{
size_t j = 0;
for (size_t i = 0; i < v.size(); ++i) {
if (v[i] != num) v[j++] = v[i];
}
// trim vector to new size
v.resize(j);
}
In such case you have no invalidating of iterators, complexity is O(n), and code is very concise and you don't need to write some helper classes, although in some case using helper classes can benefit in more flexible code.
This code does not use erase method, but solves your task.
Using pure stl you can do this in the following way (this is similar to the Motti's answer):
#include <algorithm>
void erase(std::vector<int>& v, int num) {
vector<int>::iterator it = remove(v.begin(), v.end(), num);
v.erase(it, v.end());
}
Depending on why you are doing this, using a std::set might be a better idea than std::vector.
It allows each element to occur only once. If you add it multiple times, there will only be one instance to erase anyway. This will make the erase operation trivial.
The erase operation will also have lower time complexity than on the vector, however, adding elements is slower on the set so it might not be much of an advantage.
This of course won't work if you are interested in how many times an element has been added to your vector or the order the elements were added.
There are std::erase and std::erase_if since C++20 which combines the remove-erase idiom.
std::vector<int> nums;
...
std::erase(nums, targetNumber);
or
std::vector<int> nums;
...
std::erase_if(nums, [](int x) { return x % 2 == 0; });
If you change your code as follows, you can do stable deletion.
void atest(vector<int>& container,int number_in){
for (auto it = container.begin(); it != container.end();) {
if (*it == number_in) {
it = container.erase(it);
} else {
++it;
}
}
}
However, a method such as the following can also be used.
void btest(vector<int>& container,int number_in){
container.erase(std::remove(container.begin(), container.end(), number_in),container.end());
}
If we must preserve our sequence’s order (say, if we’re keeping it sorted by some interesting property), then we can use one of the above. But if the sequence is just a bag of values whose order we don’t care about at all, then we might consider moving single elements from the end of the sequence to fill each new gap as it’s created:
void ctest(vector<int>& container,int number_in){
for (auto it = container.begin(); it != container.end(); ) {
if (*it == number_in) {
*it = std::move(container.back());
container.pop_back();
} else {
++it;
}
}
}
Below are their benchmark results:
CLang 15.0:
Gcc 12.2:
A number of posts I've read lately claim for(const auto &it : vec) is the same as using the longer iterator syntax for(std::vector<Type*>::const_iterator it = vec.begin(); it != vec.end(); it++). But, I came upon this post that says they're not the same.
Currently, I'm trying to erase an element in a for loop, after it is used, and wondering if there is any way to convert const auto &it : nodes to std::vector<txml::XMLElement*>::iterator?
Code in question:
std::vector<txml2::XMLElement *> nodes;
//...
for (const auto &it : nodes)
{
//...
nodes.erase(it);
}
I pretty sure I could just rewrite std::vector<txml2::XMLElement*> as a const pointer, but would prefer not to since this code is just for debugging in the moment.
You should not be attempting to convert the range declaration in your range based for loop to an iterator and then deleting it whilst iterating. Even adjusting iterators while iterating is dangerous, and you should instead rely on algorithms.
You should use the Erase-remove idom.
You can use it with remove_if.
It would look something like:
nodes.erase( std::remove_if(nodes.begin(), nodes.end(), [](auto it){
//decide if the element should be deleted
return true || false;
}), nodes.end() );
Currently in the technical specifications, is erase_if.
This is a cleaner version of the same behaviour shown above:
std::erase_if(nodes,[](auto it){
//decide if the element should be deleted
return true || false;
});
You don't get an iterator but a reference to the element. Unless you want to do a std::find with it, it's pretty hard to get an iterator out of it.
Vectors are nice, so you could increase a counter per element and do nodes.begin() + counter to get the iterator, but it'd sort of defeat the point.
Also erasing the iterator in the for loop will result in you iterating after the end of the vector, you can test this code:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
int main() {
vector<int> v = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6};
for (int x : v) {
cout << x << endl;
if (x == 2) {
v.erase(v.begin() + 2);
}
}
return 0;
}
If you want to use iterators, just do a loop with them, if in addition you want to erase one mid-loop you have to follow this answer:
for (auto it = res.begin() ; it != res.end(); ) {
const auto &value = *it;
if (condition) {
it = res.erase(it);
} else {
++it;
}
}
Note that you don't need to specify the whole type of the iterator, auto works just as well.
I have a vector<Suggestions> finalSuggestions that contains a string word and some int num.
If this word meets some condition, I want to move that object to the front of the vector, removing it from wherever it was.
I am able to insert to the beginning of the list with vector::insert
for (auto &x: finalSuggestions) {
if ( double((x.num)/(topword.num)) < 50)
{
finalSuggestions.insert(finalSuggestions.begin(),x);
break;
}
}
But I do not know how to remove it from where it is in the list.
For example, for some arbitrary vector { 1,2,3,4,50,6,7,8,9 },
if 50 meets the criteria, move it to the front of the list and delete it from where it was, returning { 50,1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 }. The code above returns { 50,1,2,3,4,50,6,7,8,9 }
I was looking into vector::erase, but I'm having problems, and its taking longer than it should.
I envision a simple solution (but this obviously doesn't work)
for (auto &x: finalSuggestions) {
if ( double((x.num)/(topword.num)) < 50)
{
finalSuggestions.insert(finalSuggestions.begin(),x);
finalSuggestions.erase(x);
break;
}
}
I read up on the erase-remove idiom (here is my implementation):
finalSuggestions.erase( remove( begin(finalSuggestions), end(finalSuggestions), x ), end(finalSuggestions) );
but am getting an error that I don't understand:
In instantiation of '_FIter std::remove(_FIter, _FIter, const _Tp&) [with _FIter = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<Suggestion*, std::vector<Suggestion> >; _Tp = Suggestion]':|
Use std::rotate. It's a lot faster than deleting and reinserting.
Eg:
for (auto it = finalSuggestions.begin(), lim = finalSuggestions.end();
it != lim;
++it) {
if (it->num < 50 * topword.num) {
std::rotate(finalSuggestions.begin(), it, it + 1);
break;
}
}
Even better, as #JerryCoffin suggests in a comment, use std::find_if to find the pivot:
auto pivot = std::find_if(finalSuggestions.begin(),
finalSuggestions.end(),
[&topword](const Suggestions& s) -> bool {
return s.num < 50 * topword.num;
});
if (pivot != finalSuggestions.end()) {
std::rotate(finalSuggestions.begin(), pivot, pivot + 1);
}
For vector::erase you need an iterator, so range-based for can't be used. Use simple for loop instead. First erase an element, and then insert it, because insert invalidates iterators:
for (auto it = finalSuggestions.begin(); it != finalSuggestions.end(); ++it) {
if (some_condition(*it)) {
auto x = *it; // or std::move(*it)
finalSuggestions.erase(it);
finalSuggestions.insert(finalSuggestions.begin(), x /* or std::move(x) */);
break;
}
}
Using std::move will allow you to move an element around instead of copying it, which may save you some cycles.
Your iterator makes it difficult to know the position of the element in question. You might want to try using a standard for iterator which allows access to the position (used by std::vector::erase)
int len=finalSuggestions.size();
for (int i=0, ; i<len; ++i) {
// Save a copy of the item
auto item = finalSuggestions.at(i);
if (double((item.num)/(topword.num)) < 50) {
// Erase the item in the list
finalSuggestions.erase(i);
// Add the copy of the item back in at the front
finalSuggestions.insert(finalSuggestions.begin(), item);
break;
}
}
... or using a std::iterator ...
for (auto it = finalSuggestions.begin(); it != finalSuggestions.end(); ++it) {
if (double((*it->num)/(topword.num)) < 50) {
// Save a copy of the item
auto item = *it;
// Erase the item in the list
finalSuggestions.erase(it);
// Add the copy of the item back in at the front
finalSuggestions.insert(finalSuggestions.begin(), item);
break;
}
}
std::vector objects use contiguous memory for their elements, which means actually moving memory around during altering of the container. If you are going to be moving elements around you may want to look into std::list or std:deque. The definition of these containers are nearly identical (read: drop in replacements) to each other making it fairly straight-forward to replace them.
Suggestion:
The std::deque is designed for optimal insertions at both the beginning and the end of the container. Taken from the site cplusplus.com:
... they provide a functionality similar to vectors, but with efficient insertion and deletion of elements also at the beginning of the sequence, and not only at its end. But, unlike vectors, deques are not guaranteed to store all its elements in contiguous storage locations: ...
Anton's answer is correct. However if you do this sort of thing a lot you should consider a different data structure. Both the erase and the insert are O(N) operations, where N is the size of the vector. A list would be better if this is a common operation.
It is functionally equivalent to Anton's answer, but I would use std::find_if to get the an iterator to the element you are looking for instead of a loop.
//add #include <algorithm> to your source file
auto result = std::find_if(finalSuggestions.begin(), finalSuggestions.end(), condition_func);
if(result != finalSuggestions.end())
{
auto resultValue = *result;
finalSuggestions.erase(result);
finalSuggestions.insert(finalSuggestions.begin(), resultValue);
}
condition_func should be a function returning bool that takes a parameter matching the type of the elements in your vector (in this case, Suggestion):
bool condition_func(Suggestion elementValue) { /*condition here*/ }
More information on find_if is available here.
Maybe using std::iter_swap could solve your problem.
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
int main () {
vector<int> myvector{};
for(int io{}; io<7; ++io) myvector.push_back(io+1);
for (std::vector<int>::iterator it=myvector.begin(); it!=myvector.end(); ++it)
cout << ' ' << *it;
cout << '\n';
iter_swap(myvector.begin(),myvector.begin()+2);//exchange the third element with the first.
cout << "myvector contains:";
for (std::vector<int>::iterator it=myvector.begin(); it!=myvector.end(); ++it)
std::cout << ' ' << *it;
std::cout << '\n';
return 0;
}
I've a std::vector<int> and I need to remove all elements at given indexes (the vector usually has high dimensionality). I would like to know, which is the most efficient way to do such an operation having in mind that the order of the original vector should be preserved.
Although, I found related posts on this issue, some of them needed to remove one single element or multiple elements where the remove-erase idiom seemed to be a good solution.
In my case, however, I need to delete multiple elements and since I'm using indexes instead of direct values, the remove-erase idiom can't be applied, right?
My code is given below and I would like to know if it's possible to do better than that in terms of efficiency?
bool find_element(const vector<int> & vMyVect, int nElem){
return (std::find(vMyVect.begin(), vMyVect.end(), nElem)!=vMyVect.end()) ? true : false;
}
void remove_elements(){
srand ( time(NULL) );
int nSize = 20;
std::vector<int> vMyValues;
for(int i = 0; i < nSize; ++i){
vMyValues.push_back(i);
}
int nRandIdx;
std::vector<int> vMyIndexes;
for(int i = 0; i < 6; ++i){
nRandIdx = rand() % nSize;
vMyIndexes.push_back(nRandIdx);
}
std::vector<int> vMyResult;
for(int i=0; i < (int)vMyValues.size(); i++){
if(!find_element(vMyIndexes,i)){
vMyResult.push_back(vMyValues[i]);
}
}
}
I think it could be more efficient, if you just just sort your indices and then delete those elements from your vector from the highest to the lowest. Deleting the highest index on a list will not invalidate the lower indices you want to delete, because only the elements higher than the deleted ones change their index.
If it is really more efficient will depend on how fast the sorting is. One more pro about this solultion is, that you don't need a copy of your value vector, you can work directly on the original vector. code should look something like this:
... fill up the vectors ...
sort (vMyIndexes.begin(), vMyIndexes.end());
for(int i=vMyIndexes.size() - 1; i >= 0; i--){
vMyValues.erase(vMyValues.begin() + vMyIndexes[i])
}
to avoid moving the same elements many times, we can move them by ranges between deleted indexes
// fill vMyIndexes, take care about duplicated values
vMyIndexes.push_back(-1); // to handle range from 0 to the first index to remove
vMyIndexes.push_back(vMyValues.size()); // to handle range from the last index to remove and to the end of values
std::sort(vMyIndexes.begin(), vMyIndexes.end());
std::vector<int>::iterator last = vMyValues.begin();
for (size_t i = 1; i != vMyIndexes.size(); ++i) {
size_t range_begin = vMyIndexes[i - 1] + 1;
size_t range_end = vMyIndexes[i];
std::copy(vMyValues.begin() + range_begin, vMyValues.begin() + range_end, last);
last += range_end - range_begin;
}
vMyValues.erase(last, vMyValues.end());
P.S. fixed a bug, thanks to Steve Jessop that patiently tried to show me it
Erase-remove multiple elements at given indices
Update: after the feedback on performance from #kory, I've modified the algorithm not to use flagging and move/copy elements in chunks (not one-by-one).
Notes:
indices need to be sorted and unique
uses std::move (replace with std::copy for c++98):
Github
Live example
Code:
template <class ForwardIt, class SortUniqIndsFwdIt>
inline ForwardIt remove_at(
ForwardIt first,
ForwardIt last,
SortUniqIndsFwdIt ii_first,
SortUniqIndsFwdIt ii_last)
{
if(ii_first == ii_last) // no indices-to-remove are given
return last;
typedef typename std::iterator_traits<ForwardIt>::difference_type diff_t;
typedef typename std::iterator_traits<SortUniqIndsFwdIt>::value_type ind_t;
ForwardIt destination = first + static_cast<diff_t>(*ii_first);
while(ii_first != ii_last)
{
// advance to an index after a chunk of elements-to-keep
for(ind_t cur = *ii_first++; ii_first != ii_last; ++ii_first)
{
const ind_t nxt = *ii_first;
if(nxt - cur > 1)
break;
cur = nxt;
}
// move the chunk of elements-to-keep to new destination
const ForwardIt source_first =
first + static_cast<diff_t>(*(ii_first - 1)) + 1;
const ForwardIt source_last =
ii_first != ii_last ? first + static_cast<diff_t>(*ii_first) : last;
std::move(source_first, source_last, destination);
// std::copy(source_first, source_last, destination) // c++98 version
destination += source_last - source_first;
}
return destination;
}
Usage example:
std::vector<int> v = /*...*/; // vector to remove elements from
std::vector<int> ii = /*...*/; // indices of elements to be removed
// prepare indices
std::sort(ii.begin(), ii.end());
ii.erase(std::unique(ii.begin(), ii.end()), ii.end());
// remove elements at indices
v.erase(remove_at(v.begin(), v.end(), ii.begin(), ii.end()), v.end());
What you can do is split the vector (actually any non-associative container) in two
groups, one corresponding to the indices to be erased and one containing the rest.
template<typename Cont, typename It>
auto ToggleIndices(Cont &cont, It beg, It end) -> decltype(std::end(cont))
{
int helpIndx(0);
return std::stable_partition(std::begin(cont), std::end(cont),
[&](typename Cont::value_type const& val) -> bool {
return std::find(beg, end, helpIndx++) != end;
});
}
you can then delete from (or up to) the split point to erase (keep only)
the elements corresponding to the indices
std::vector<int> v;
v.push_back(0);
v.push_back(1);
v.push_back(2);
v.push_back(3);
v.push_back(4);
v.push_back(5);
int ar[] = { 2, 0, 4 };
v.erase(ToggleIndices(v, std::begin(ar), std::end(ar)), v.end());
If the 'keep only by index' operation is not needed you can use remove_if insted of stable_partition (O(n) vs O(nlogn) complexity)
To work for C arrays as containers the lambda function should be
[&](decltype(*(std::begin(cont))) const& val) -> bool
{ return std::find(beg, end, helpIndx++) != end; }
but then the .erase() method is no longer an option
If you want to ensure that every element is only moved once, you can simply iterate through each element, copy those that are to remain into a new, second container, do not copy the ones you wish to remove, and then delete the old container and replace it with the new one :)
This is an algorithm based on Andriy Tylychko's answer so that this can make it easier and faster to use the answer, without having to pick it apart. It also removes the need to have -1 at the beginning of the indices list and a number of items at the end. Also some debugging code to make sure the indices are valid (sorted and valid index into items).
template <typename Items_it, typename Indices_it>
auto remove_indices(
Items_it items_begin, Items_it items_end
, Indices_it indices_begin, Indices_it indices_end
)
{
static_assert(
std::is_same_v<std::random_access_iterator_tag
, typename std::iterator_traits<Items_it>::iterator_category>
, "Can't remove items this way unless Items_it is a random access iterator");
size_t indices_size = std::distance(indices_begin, indices_end);
size_t items_size = std::distance(items_begin, items_end);
if (indices_size == 0) {
// Nothing to erase
return items_end;
}
// Debug check to see if the indices are already sorted and are less than
// size of items.
assert(indices_begin[0] < items_size);
assert(std::is_sorted(indices_begin, indices_end));
auto last = items_begin;
auto shift = [&last, &items_begin](size_t range_begin, size_t range_end) {
std::copy(items_begin + range_begin, items_begin + range_end, last);
last += range_end - range_begin;
};
size_t last_index = -1;
for (size_t i = 0; i != indices_size; ++i) {
shift(last_index + 1, indices_begin[i]);
last_index = indices_begin[i];
}
shift(last_index + 1, items_size);
return last;
}
Here is an example of usage:
template <typename T>
std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, std::vector<T>& v)
{
for (auto i : v) {
os << i << " ";
}
os << std::endl;
return os;
}
int main()
{
using std::begin;
using std::end;
std::vector<int> items = { 1, 3, 6, 8, 13, 17 };
std::vector<int> indices = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 };
std::cout << items;
items.erase(
remove_indices(begin(items), end(items), begin(indices), end(indices))
, std::end(items)
);
std::cout << items;
return 0;
}
Output:
1 3 6 8 13 17
17
The headers required are:
#include <iterator>
#include <vector>
#include <iostream> // only needed for output
#include <cassert>
#include <type_traits>
And a Demo can be found on godbolt.org.