I most often work with python and therefore I'm used to being able to put a bool and integer in a single list. I realize that C++ has a different paradigm, however, I imagine that there is a workaround to this issue. Ideally I want a vector that could contain data that looks like {1, 7, true, 8, false, true, 9}. So this vector would have to be defined with syntax like (vector int bool intBoolsVec), however, I realize that isn't proper syntax.
I see that some people suggest using variant that was introduced in C++17, is this the best solution? Seems like this would be a common problem if C++ doesn't easily allow you to work with heterogenous containers, even if those containers are constrained to a couple defined types like a vector that only takes only ints and bools.
What is the easiest way to create a vector that contains both integers and booleans in C++? If someone could also provide me more insight on why C++ doesn't have an easy/obvious way to do this, that might help me better understand C++ as well.
My approach would probably be to create my own class, which does exactly what I want it to do. This might be your easiest solution, besides using std::any. Also, you could combine those by creating a custom array of std::any which only allows integers and booleans at certain entries for your example. This would be similar, but not equal to an array of std::variant. Also, In C++ you can store 2 types in a std::pair, if that fits your use-case.
I'm working with data that is unique from other data of the same type. Very abstractly, a set fits the definition of the data I'm working with. I feel inclined to use std::unordered_set instead of std::vector for that reason.
Beyond that, both classes can fit my requirements. My question is about performance -- which might perform better? I cannot write out the code one way and benchmark it, then rewrite it the other way. That will take me hundreds of hours. If they'll perform similarly, do you think it would be worth-while to stick with the idiomatic unordered_set?
Here is a simpler use case. A company is selling computers. Each is unique from another in at least one way, guaranteed.
struct computer_t
{
std::string serial;
std::uint32_t gb_of_ram;
};
std::unordered_set<computer_t> all_computers_in_existence;
std::unordered_set<computer_t> computers_for_sale; // subset of above
// alternatively
std::vector<computer_t> all_computers_in_existence;
std::vector<computer_t> computers_for_sale; // subset of above
The company wants to stop selling computers that aren't popular and replace them with other computers that might be.
std::unordered_set<computer_t> computers_not_for_sale;
std::set_difference(all_computers_in_existence.begin(), all_computers_in_existence.end(),
computers_for_sale.begin(), computers_for_sale.end(),
std::inserter(computers_not_for_sale, computers_not_for_sale.end()));
calculate_and_remove_least_sold(computers_for_sale);
calculate_and_add_most_likely_to_sell(computers_for_sale, computers_not_for_sale);
Based on the above sample code, what should I choose? Or is there another, new STL feature (in C++17) I should investigate? This really is as generic as it gets for my use-case without making this post incredibly long with details.
Idiomatic should be your first choice. If you implement it using unordered_set and the performance is not good enough, there are faster non-STL hash tables which are easy to switch to. 99% of the time it won't come to that.
Your example code using std::set_difference will not work, because that requires the inputs be sorted, which unordered_set is not. That's OK though, subtracting is done easily using unordered_set::erase(key).
problem is simple:
We have a class that has members a,b,c,d...
We want to be able to quickly search(key being value of one member) and update class list with new value by providing current value for a or b or c ...
I thought about having a bunch of
std::map<decltype(MyClass.a/*b,c,d*/),shared_ptr<MyClass>>.
1) Is that a good idea?
2) Is boost multi index superior to this handcrafted solution in every way?
PS SQL is out of the question for simplicity/perf reasons.
Boost MultiIndex may have a distinct disadvantage that it will attempt to keep all indices up to date after each mutation of the collection.
This may be a large performance penalty if you have a data load phase with many separate writes.
The usage patterns of Boost Multi Index may not fit with the coding style (and taste...) of the project (members). This should be a minor disadvantage, but I thought I'd mention it
As ildjarn mentioned, Boost MI doesn't support move semantics as of yet
Otherwise, I'd consider Boost MultiIndex superior in most occasions, since you'd be unlikely to reach the amount of testing it received.
You want want to consider containing all of your maps in a single class, arbitrarily deciding on one of the containers as the one that stores the "real" objects, and then just use a std::map with a mapped type of raw pointers to elements of the first std::map.
This would be a little more difficult if you ever need to make copies of those maps, however.
I have various c++ struct in my program, I want a function to accept one of this struct's in input and get me in a int array contain size of each fields of input struct in byte. ca any one help me?
That's not possible.1 C++ does not have reflection.
1. To be precise, it's not possible to have this done automatically by the language. You could, of course, keep track of this stuff manually (as in #Nim's suggestion).
Here is an approach:
Use an overloaded function, and in each overload (for each struct), explicitly insert the size of each field from that struct into the passed in array (vector<size_t> is better alternative).
This means effectively you have to hard-code the fields in each structure in each overload.
Alternatively, if you are happy to use boost::fusion, with a few macros, you should be able to promote the structure - which you can then iterate over. I've posted an answer with an example somewhere on SO, will dig it up...
Here it is: Boost MPL to generate code for object serialization?, shows how to "promote" the structure and then iterate over the members. In that case, it's for serialization, but it's trivial to adapt it to return the size of each field. You could do this with MPL at compile time and generate an MPL sequence with the size of each field - but that's a little more tricky - it all depends on what you want to achieve really...
Why does nobody seem to use tuples in C++, either the Boost Tuple Library or the standard library for TR1? I have read a lot of C++ code, and very rarely do I see the use of tuples, but I often see lots of places where tuples would solve many problems (usually returning multiple values from functions).
Tuples allow you to do all kinds of cool things like this:
tie(a,b) = make_tuple(b,a); //swap a and b
That is certainly better than this:
temp=a;
a=b;
b=temp;
Of course you could always do this:
swap(a,b);
But what if you want to rotate three values? You can do this with tuples:
tie(a,b,c) = make_tuple(b,c,a);
Tuples also make it much easier to return multiple variable from a function, which is probably a much more common case than swapping values. Using references to return values is certainly not very elegant.
Are there any big drawbacks to tuples that I'm not thinking of? If not, why are they rarely used? Are they slower? Or is it just that people are not used to them? Is it a good idea to use tuples?
A cynical answer is that many people program in C++, but do not understand and/or use the higher level functionality. Sometimes it is because they are not allowed, but many simply do not try (or even understand).
As a non-boost example: how many folks use functionality found in <algorithm>?
In other words, many C++ programmers are simply C programmers using C++ compilers, and perhaps std::vector and std::list. That is one reason why the use of boost::tuple is not more common.
Because it's not yet standard. Anything non-standard has a much higher hurdle. Pieces of Boost have become popular because programmers were clamoring for them. (hash_map leaps to mind). But while tuple is handy, it's not such an overwhelming and clear win that people bother with it.
The C++ tuple syntax can be quite a bit more verbose than most people would like.
Consider:
typedef boost::tuple<MyClass1,MyClass2,MyClass3> MyTuple;
So if you want to make extensive use of tuples you either get tuple typedefs everywhere or you get annoyingly long type names everywhere. I like tuples. I use them when necessary. But it's usually limited to a couple of situations, like an N-element index or when using multimaps to tie the range iterator pairs. And it's usually in a very limited scope.
It's all very ugly and hacky looking when compared to something like Haskell or Python. When C++0x gets here and we get the 'auto' keyword tuples will begin to look a lot more attractive.
The usefulness of tuples is inversely proportional to the number of keystrokes required to declare, pack, and unpack them.
For me, it's habit, hands down: Tuples don't solve any new problems for me, just a few I can already handle just fine. Swapping values still feels easier the old fashioned way -- and, more importantly, I don't really think about how to swap "better." It's good enough as-is.
Personally, I don't think tuples are a great solution to returning multiple values -- sounds like a job for structs.
But what if you want to rotate three values?
swap(a,b);
swap(b,c); // I knew those permutation theory lectures would come in handy.
OK, so with 4 etc values, eventually the n-tuple becomes less code than n-1 swaps. And with default swap this does 6 assignments instead of the 4 you'd have if you implemented a three-cycle template yourself, although I'd hope the compiler would solve that for simple types.
You can come up with scenarios where swaps are unwieldy or inappropriate, for example:
tie(a,b,c) = make_tuple(b*c,a*c,a*b);
is a bit awkward to unpack.
Point is, though, there are known ways of dealing with the most common situations that tuples are good for, and hence no great urgency to take up tuples. If nothing else, I'm not confident that:
tie(a,b,c) = make_tuple(b,c,a);
doesn't do 6 copies, making it utterly unsuitable for some types (collections being the most obvious). Feel free to persuade me that tuples are a good idea for "large" types, by saying this ain't so :-)
For returning multiple values, tuples are perfect if the values are of incompatible types, but some folks don't like them if it's possible for the caller to get them in the wrong order. Some folks don't like multiple return values at all, and don't want to encourage their use by making them easier. Some folks just prefer named structures for in and out parameters, and probably couldn't be persuaded with a baseball bat to use tuples. No accounting for taste.
As many people pointed out, tuples are just not that useful as other features.
The swapping and rotating gimmicks are just gimmicks. They are utterly confusing to those who have not seen them before, and since it is pretty much everyone, these gimmicks are just poor software engineering practice.
Returning multiple values using tuples is much less self-documenting then the alternatives -- returning named types or using named references. Without this self-documenting, it is easy to confuse the order of the returned values, if they are mutually convertible, and not be any wiser.
Not everyone can use boost, and TR1 isn't widely available yet.
When using C++ on embedded systems, pulling in Boost libraries gets complex. They couple to each other, so library size grows. You return data structures or use parameter passing instead of tuples. When returning tuples in Python the data structure is in the order and type of the returned values its just not explicit.
You rarely see them because well-designed code usually doesn't need them- there are not to many cases in the wild where using an anonymous struct is superior to using a named one.
Since all a tuple really represents is an anonymous struct, most coders in most situations just go with the real thing.
Say we have a function "f" where a tuple return might make sense. As a general rule, such functions are usually complicated enough that they can fail.
If "f" CAN fail, you need a status return- after all, you don't want callers to have to inspect every parameter to detect failure. "f" probably fits into the pattern:
struct ReturnInts ( int y,z; }
bool f(int x, ReturnInts& vals);
int x = 0;
ReturnInts vals;
if(!f(x, vals)) {
..report error..
..error handling/return...
}
That isn't pretty, but look at how ugly the alternative is. Note that I still need a status value, but the code is no more readable and not shorter. It is probably slower too, since I incur the cost of 1 copy with the tuple.
std::tuple<int, int, bool> f(int x);
int x = 0;
std::tuple<int, int, bool> result = f(x); // or "auto result = f(x)"
if(!result.get<2>()) {
... report error, error handling ...
}
Another, significant downside is hidden in here- with "ReturnInts" I can add alter "f"'s return by modifying "ReturnInts" WITHOUT ALTERING "f"'s INTERFACE. The tuple solution does not offer that critical feature, which makes it the inferior answer for any library code.
Certainly tuples can be useful, but as mentioned there's a bit of overhead and a hurdle or two you have to jump through before you can even really use them.
If your program consistently finds places where you need to return multiple values or swap several values, it might be worth it to go the tuple route, but otherwise sometimes it's just easier to do things the classic way.
Generally speaking, not everyone already has Boost installed, and I certainly wouldn't go through the hassle of downloading it and configuring my include directories to work with it just for its tuple facilities. I think you'll find that people already using Boost are more likely to find tuple uses in their programs than non-Boost users, and migrants from other languages (Python comes to mind) are more likely to simply be upset about the lack of tuples in C++ than to explore methods of adding tuple support.
As a data-store std::tuple has the worst characteristics of both a struct and an array; all access is nth position based but one cannot iterate through a tuple using a for loop.
So if the elements in the tuple are conceptually an array, I will use an array and if the elements are not conceptually an array, a struct (which has named elements) is more maintainable. ( a.lastname is more explanatory than std::get<1>(a)).
This leaves the transformation mentioned by the OP as the only viable usecase for tuples.
I have a feeling that many use Boost.Any and Boost.Variant (with some engineering) instead of Boost.Tuple.