I have the following code:
return new std::pair<BST<Data>::iterator(cursor), true>;
This results in the following errors:
could not convert '(operator new(4u), (, ((int*))))' from 'int*' to 'std::pair, bool>'
type/value mismatch at argument 1 in template parameter list for 'template struct std::pair'
What might be the problem here?
Apart from the new (don't use new unless you have to) and return, in order to construct a pair, use either the mentioned make_pair() function or invoke the constructor like this: pair<T1, T2>(v1, v2). You were mixing up the type (pair<T1, T2>) with the values to init that type's instance (v1, v2).
What are you trying to return? A pair by value or really a pointer to a new object-pair? It could be useful to see the return type in the declaration of your function to know your intentions.
If you are trying to return a pair you better use:
template <class T1,class T2>
pair<T1,T2> make_pair (T1 x, T2 y)
{
return ( pair<T1,T2>(x,y) );
}
That is, something like:
return std::make_pair ( BST<Data>::iterator(cursor), true);
Or directly:
return ( pair<T1,T2>(x,y) );
That is, something like:
return ( std::pair< BST<Data>::iterator , bool>( cursor, true) );
If a pointer to a newly created object if what you want, use:
return ( new std::pair< BST<Data>::iterator , bool>( cursor, true) );
Now:
What might be the problem here?
Looking at:
template <class T1, class T2> struct pair
{
typedef T1 first_type;
typedef T2 second_type;
T1 first;
T2 second;
pair() : first(T1()), second(T2()) {}
pair(const T1& x, const T2& y) : first(x), second(y) {}
template <class U, class V>
pair (const pair<U,V> &p) : first(p.first), second(p.second) { }
};
You are trying to instantiate the template using values where we need types T1 and T2.
Related
Say I have a class that can easily express key-value semantics:
template <class T1, class T2>
struct data_t{
T1 m1;
T2 m2;
};
What would be the most efficient way to create an unordered map out of a vector of such structs?
My approach
I tried to define a conversion operator for my class
operator std::pair<T1, T2> () { return {m1, m2}; } // typo noted by PasserBy
But this doesn't seem to work
std::vector<data_t> v;
std::unordered_map<T1, T2> um(v.begin(), v.end()); // compilation error
My particular use case has a pointer type T1 and a value type T2 so I suppose there wouldn't be a need to define hash functions (?). Also the reason I'm trying to do it through a conversion operator is to be able to add elements to that unordered map in the same fashion:
um.insert(itn, ite); // insert from a range of the source vector
I would just use transform:
unordered_map<int, double> um;
transform(begin(v), end(v), inserter(um, end(um)), [](const auto& data) {
return make_pair(data.m1, data.m2);
});
First, there is a typo in your conversion operator
operator std::pair<T1, T2>() const { return {m1, m2}; }
And it should generally be marked const too.
The reason for a compile error is that unordered_map<T1, T2> holds std::pair<const T1, T2>, which your vector doesn't hold.
So this works
std::vector<data_t<const T1, T2>> v;
std::unordered_map<T1, T2> um(v.begin(), v.end());
provided that T1 has a proper hash function.
So does using a different conversion operator
operator std::pair<const T1, T2>() const { return {m1, m2}; }
std::vector<data_t<T1, T2>> v;
std::unordered_map<T1, T2> um(v.begin(), v.end());
First of, I'm using C++11 (and my topic sucks).
What I'm trying to do is write a generic template function that implements something usually called sort_by in other programming languages. It involves calculating an arbitrary criterion for each member of a range exactly once and then sorting that range according to those criteria. Such a criterion doesn't have to be a POD, all it has to be is less-than-comparable. For things for which std::less doesn't work the caller should be able to provide her own comparison functor.
I've successfully written said function which uses the following signature:
template< typename Tcriterion
, typename Titer
, typename Tcompare = std::less<Tcriterion>
>
void
sort_by(Titer first, Titer last,
std::function<Tcriterion(typename std::iterator_traits<Titer>::value_type const &)> criterion_maker,
Tcompare comparator = Tcompare()) {
}
It can be used e.g. like this:
struct S { int a; std::string b; double c; };
std::vector<S> s_vec{
{ 42, "hello", 0.5 },
{ 42, "moo!", 1.2 },
{ 23, "fubar", 0.2 },
};
sort_by1< std::pair<int, double> >(
s_vec.begin(), s_vec.end(),
[](S const &one_s) { return std::make_pair(one_s.a, one_s.c); }
);
What I don't like about this approach is that I have to provide the Tcriterion argument myself because the compiler cannot deduce that type from the lambda expression. Therefore this does not work:
sort_by1(s_vec.begin(), s_vec.end(), [](S const &one_s) { return std::make_pair(one_s.a, one_s.c); });
clang 3.1 and gcc 4.7.1 both bark on this (gcc 4.7.1 even barks on the code above, so I guess I'm really doing something wrong here).
However, if I assign the lambda to a std::function first then at least clang 3.1 can deduce the argument, meaning this works:
typedef std::pair<int, double> criterion_type;
std::function<criterion_type(S const &)> criterion_maker = [](S const &one_s) {
return std::make_pair(one_s.a, one_s.c);
};
sort_by1(s_vec.begin(), s_vec.end(), criterion_maker);
So my questions are: How do I have to change my function signature so that I don't need to specify that one argument? And (probably related) how would I fix my example to have it working with gcc?
Don't use std::function in tandem with template argument deduction. In fact, there's very likely no reason to use std::function in a function or function template argument list. More often than not, you should not use std::function; it is a very specialized tool that is very good at solving one particular problem. The rest of the time, you can dispense with it altogether.
In your case you don't need template argument deduction if you use a polymorphic functor to order things:
struct less {
template<typename T, typename U>
auto operator()(T&& t, U&& u) const
-> decltype( std::declval<T>() < std::declval<U>() )
{ return std::forward<T>(t) < std::forward<U>(u); }
// operator< is not appropriate for pointers however
// the Standard defines a 'composite pointer type' that
// would be very helpful here, left as an exercise to implement
template<typename T, typename U>
bool operator()(T* t, U* u) const
{ return std::less<typename std::common_type<T*, U*>::type> {}(t, u); }
};
You can then declare:
template<typename Iter, typename Criterion, typename Comparator = less>
void sort_by(Iter first, Iter last, Criterion crit, Comparator comp = less {});
and comp(*ita, *itb) will do the right thing, as well as comp(crit(*ita), crit(*itb)) or anything else as long as it makes sense.
How about something like this:
template< typename Titer
, typename Tmaker
, typename Tcompare
>
void
sort_by(Titer first, Titer last,
Tmaker criterion_maker,
Tcompare comparator)
{
typedef decltype(criterion_maker(*first)) Tcriterion;
/*
Now that you know the actual type of your criterion,
you can do the real work here
*/
}
The problem is that you can obviously not use a default for the comparator with this, but you can easily overcome that by providing an overload that doesn't take a comparator and fills in std::less internally.
To do it like you originally suggested, the compiler would have to be able to "invert" the template instantiation process. I.e. for a given std::function<> instantiation, what parameter do I have to supply as the result to get it. This "looks" easy, but it is not!
You can use also something like this.
template< typename Titer
, typename Tmaker
, typename TCriterion = typename
std::result_of
<
Tmaker
(
decltype(*std::declval<Titer>())
)
>::type
, typename Tcompare = std::less<TCriterion>
>
void
sort_by(Titer first, Titer last,
Tmaker criterion_maker, Tcompare comparator = Tcompare())
{
}
http://liveworkspace.org/code/0aacc8906ab4102ac62ef0e45a37707d
Is it possible to return an empty pair from a function? Meaning, follow the rules of the function prototype, but do not have any elements in the pair (e.g. NULL). Understanding that a pair simply exists so I don't know if this is conceptually possible. I have a need to return a pair that is NULL or empty, if that makes any sense.
For example,
pair<int, int> MyClass::someFunction()
{
// do something that means we need to return an empty pair
return NULL; // <--- this does not work obviously
}
Unfortunately, boost is not a possibility for me.
Generally speaking an empty pair doesn't even make sense. Afterall a pair is per definition a container containing two objects.
You could however make something like an empty pair using Boost.Optional. Then you would either use a boost::optional<std::pair<...>> giving you the option of returning either a pair or an empty state or use std::pair<boost::optional<...>, boost::optional<...>> for a pair where either object could be empty.
You can returns pointer... Or use boost::optional<T>. Optional will be better...
boost::optional<std::pair<int, int> > MyClass::someFunction()
{
return boost::optional<std::pair<int, int> >();
}
void f(const MyClass& f)
{
boost::optional<std::pair<int, int> > ret = f.someFunction();
if (!ret) // empty
{
...
}
}
The answer to your questions is easily explained by considering the way the C++ compiler generates code in this case.
The std::pair<int, int> is returned-by-value.
Since MyClass::someFunction() is returning an object by value, the sequence of events is as follows:
The calling function reserves space on the stack for a std::pair<int, int>
The MyClass::someFunction() is called
The right hand side of the return statement is a assignment to the location reserved on the stack earlier. There is an implicit construction of a std::pair<int, int> taking place.
Thus returning a NULL pointer is impossible.
It wouldn't take much to create your own "optional pair" (similar to boost::optional<std::pair<…>>, but with a different interface), e.g.:
template <typename T1, typename T2> struct OptPair : std::pair<T1, T2>
{
typedef std::pair<T1, T2> base_t;
bool contains;
OptPair() : contains(true) {}
explicit OptPair(bool x) : contains(x) {}
OptPair(const T1& x, const T2& y) : base_t(x, y), contains(true) {}
template <class U, class V>
OptPair(const std::pair<U,V> &p) : base_t(p), contains(true) {}
template <class U, class V> OptPair(const OptPair<U,V> &p) : base_t(p), contains(p.contains) {}
// No need to define operator=, as the default will construct an OptPair<T1, T2>
// if necessary, then copy members into *this.
};
template <typename T1, typename T2>
OptPair<T1, T2> makeOptPair() { return OptPair<T1, T2>(); }
template <typename T1, typename T2>
OptPair<T1, T2> makeOptPair(const T1 &x, const T2 &y) {
OptPair<T1, T2> p(true);
p.first = x;
p.second = y;
return p;
}
template <typename OS, typename T1, typename T2>
OS &operator<<(OS &os, const OptPair<T1, T2>& p) {
os << "<OptPair: ";
if (p.contains) os << p.first << ", " << p.second;
else os << "empty";
os << ">";
return os;
}
Then you can use it just like std::pair (and even use it interchangeably with std::pair, assigning values back and forth), but with the added ability to pass an "empty" value back like this:
OptPair<int, int> someFunction()
{
...
return OptPair<int, int>(false);
}
You have to make sure to check the result before using it, like this:
void doStuffWithPair(std::pair<int, int>);
void doStuffWithEmpty();
...
OptPair<int, int> ret = someFunction();
if (ret.contains) doStuffWithPair(ret);
else doStuffWithEmpty();
A pair, by definition, has 2 elements. It cannot have none.
You need something like boost::optional<std::pair<T1,T2>>. Then you can choose to have a pair or not. You can find documentation for boost::optional here.
Is it valid to have a std::pair of references ? In particular, are there issues with the assignment operator ? According to this link, there seems to be no special treatment with operator=, so default assignement operator will not be able to be generated.
I'd like to have a pair<T&, U&> and be able to assign to it another pair (of values or references) and have the pointed-to objects modified.
In C++11 you can use std::pair<std::reference_wrapper<T>, std::reference_wrapper<U>> and the objects of that type will behave exactly as you want.
No, you cannot do this reliably in C++03, because the constructor of pair takes references to T, and creating a reference to a reference is not legal in C++03.
Notice that I said "reliably". Some common compilers still in use (for GCC, I tested GCC4.1, #Charles reported GCC4.4.4) do not allow forming a reference to a reference, but more recently do allow it as they implement reference collapsing (T& is T if T is a reference type). If your code uses such things, you cannot rely on it to work on other compilers until you try it and see.
It sounds like you want to use boost::tuple<>
int a, b;
// on the fly
boost::tie(a, b) = std::make_pair(1, 2);
// as variable
boost::tuple<int&, int&> t = boost::tie(a, b);
t.get<0>() = 1;
t.get<1>() = 2;
I think it would be legal to have a std::pair housing references. std::map uses std::pair with a const type, after all, which can't be assigned to either.
I'd like to have a pair<T&, U&> and be able to assign to it another pair
Assignment won't work, since you cannot reset references. You can, however, copy-initialize such objects.
You are right. You can create a pair of references, but you can't use operator = anymore.
I was thinking along the same lines as you, I think. I wrote the following class to scratch this particular itch:
template <class T1, class T2> struct refpair{
T1& first;
T2& second;
refpair(T1& x, T2& y) : first(x), second(y) {}
template <class U, class V>
refpair<T1,T2>& operator=(const std::pair<U,V> &p){
first=p.first;
second=p.second;
return *this;
}
};
It allows you to do horrible things like:
int main (){
int k,v;
refpair<int,int> p(k,v);
std::map<int,int>m;
m[20]=100;
m[40]=1000;
m[60]=3;
BOOST_FOREACH(p,m){
std::cout << "k, v = " << k << ", " << v << std::endl;
}
return 0;
}
(remember the relevant includes).
The nastiness is of course that the references to k and v that I am assigning to are hidden inside p.
It almost becomes pretty again if you do something like this:
template <class T1,class T2>
refpair<T1,T2> make_refpair (T1& x, T2& y){
return ( refpair<T1,T2>(x,y) );
}
Which allows you to loop like this:
BOOST_FOREACH(make_refpair(k,v),m){
std::cout << "k, v = " << k << ", " << v << std::endl;
}
(All comments are welcome as I am in no way a c++ expert.)
I don't know what is "wrong" with std::pair in C++03 but if I reimplement it naively, I don't have any problem with it, (using the same compiler gcc and clang).
double a = 1.;
double b = 2.;
my::pair<double, double> p1(5., 6.);
my::pair<double&, double&> p2(a, b);
p2 = p1; // a == 5.
So a workaround could be to (1) reimplement pair (in a different namespace), or (2) specialize for std::pair<T&, T&>, or (3) simply use C++11 (where std::pair for refs works out of the box)
(1) Here it is the naive implementation
namespace my{
template<class T1, class T2>
struct pair{
typedef T1 first_type;
typedef T2 second_type;
T1 first;
T2 second;
pair(T1 const& t1, T2 const& t2) : first(t1), second(t2){}
template<class U1, class U2> pair(pair<U1, U2> const& p) : first(p.first), second(p.second){}
template<class U1, class U2>
pair& operator=(const pair<U1, U2>& p){
first = p.first;
second = p.second;
return *this;
}
};
template<class T1, class T2>
pair<T1, T2> make_pair(T1 t1, T2 t2){
return pair<T1, T2>(t1, t2);
}
}
(2) And here it is an specialization of std::pair (some people may complain that I am messing around overloading/specializing with the std namespace, but I think it is ok if it is to extend the capabilities of the class)
namespace std{
template<class T1, class T2>
struct pair<T1&, T2&>{
typedef T1& first_type; /// #c first_type is the first bound type
typedef T2& second_type; /// #c second_type is the second bound type
first_type first;
second_type second;
pair(T1& t1, T2& t2) : first(t1), second(t2){}
template<class U1, class U2> pair(pair<U1, U2> const& p) : first(p.first), second(p.second){}
template<class U1, class U2>
pair& operator=(const pair<U1, U2>& p){
first = p.first;
second = p.second;
return *this;
}
};
}
Maybe I am missing something obvious, I can edit the answer if some obvious flaws, are pointed.
Post c++14, you can do:
int a, b;
auto const p(std::make_pair(std::ref(a), std::ref(b)));
Using std::cref() is also possible.
I ended up solving a similar problem by just building a really simple structure. I didn't even worry about the assignment operator since the default one should work fine.
template<class U, class V>
struct pair
{
pair(U & first, V & second): first(first), second(second) {}
U & first;
V & second;
}
In definition of pair class in c++ there are two typedefs. what are they for? there are no use of them in the code!
template <class T1, class T2> struct pair
{
typedef T1 first_type;
typedef T2 second_type;
T1 first;
T2 second;
pair() : first(T1()), second(T2()) {}
pair(const T1& x, const T2& y) : first(x), second(y) {}
template <class U, class V>
pair (const pair<U,V> &p) : first(p.first), second(p.second) { }
}
They are just here for you convenience, so you can use them in your code. C++ doesn't have a reflection model , so that's the only way you have "know" what types they are
Suppose you define your own pair
typedef pair MyPair;
Then you can use
MyPair::first_type
MyPair::second_type
for example,
MyPair::first_type my_first(MyPair& pair)
{
return pair.first;
}
Then you won't need to research and replace everywhere in your code , if you change the original definition of MyPair.
It's to allow other pieces of code to declare variables of the types without having direct access to the type parameters (T1 & T2). A similar, less trivial, example are the typedefs in container classes:
vector<int>::iterator curNum;
for(curNum = someVect.begin(); curNum != someVect.end(); curNum++)
; //do stuff
This uses the typedef iterator defined in the vector template to create curNum. It will be somewhat less useful come C++0x's auto keyword:
for(auto curNum = someVect.begin(); curNum != someVect.end(); curNum++)
;
This is so you can refer to the types in your code using e.g. pair<int,string>::first_type myVariable, or if you've typedef'd a particular flavour of the template then MyPair::first_type myVariable.
They are public aliases of the passed-in T1 and T2 types that can be referenced after the object is constructed.