I have a bit of a theoretical question, however it is a problem I sometimes face when designing classes and I see it done differently when reading others code. Which of the following would be better and why:
example 1:
class Color
{
public:
Color(float, float, float);
~Color();
friend bool operator==(Color& lhs, Color& rhs);
void multiply(Color);
// ...
float get_r();
float get_g();
float get_b();
private:
float color_values[3];
}
example 2:
class Color
{
public:
// as above
private:
float r;
float g;
float b;
}
Is there a general rule one should follow in cases like this or is it just up to a programmer and what seems to make more sense?
Both!
Use this:
class Color {
// ...
private:
union {
struct {
float r, g, b;
};
float c[3];
};
};
Then c[0] will be equivalent to r, et cetera.
It depends, do you intend to iterate over the whole array ?
In that case, I think solution 1 is more appropriate.
It is very useful to have an array like that when you have functions that operate in a loop on the data
e.g.
void BumpColors(float idx)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 3; ++i)
color_values[i] += idx;
}
vs
void BumpColors(float idx)
{
color_values[0] += idx;
color_values[1] += idx;
color_values[2] += idx;
}
Of course this is trivial, and I think it really is a matter of preference. In some rare occasion you might have APIs that take a pointer to the data though, and while you can do
awesomeAPI((float*)&r);
I would much prefer doing
awesomeAPI((float*)&color_values[0]);
because the array will guarantee its contiguity whereas you can mess up with the contiguity by adding by mistake another member variable that is not related after float r.
Performance wise there would be no difference.
I'd say the second one is the best one.
First, the data your variables contain isn't supposed (physically) to be in an array. If you had for example a class with 3 students, not more, not less, you'd put them in an array, cause they are an array of students, but here, it's just colors.
Second, Someone that reads your code also can understand in the second case really fast what your variables contain (r is red, etc). It isn't the case with an array.
Third, you'll have less bugs, you won't have to remember "oh, in my array, red is 0, g is 1, b is 2", and you won't replace by mistake
return color_values[0]
by
return color_values[1]
in your code.
I think that you are right: "It just up to a programmer and what seems to make more sense." If this were my program, I would choose one form or the other without worrying too much about it, then write some other parts of the program, then revisit the matter later.
One of the benefits of class-oriented design is that it makes internal implementation details of this kind private, which makes it convenient to alter them later.
I think that your question does matter, only I doubt that one can answer it well until one has written more code. In the abstract, there are only three elements, and the three have names -- red, green and blue -- so I think that you could go either way with this. If forced to choose, I choose example 2.
Is there a general rule one should follow in cases like this or is it just up to a programmer and what seems to make more sense?
It's definitely up to the programmer and whatever makes more sense.
In your case, the second option seems more appropriate. After all, logically thinking, your member isn't an array of values, but values for r, g and b.
Advantages of using an array:
Maintainability: You can use the values in the array to loop
Maintainability: When a value should be added (like yellow?) than you don't have to change a lot of code.
Disadvantage:
Readability: The 'values' have more clearer names (namely r, g, b in this case).
In your case probably the r, g, b variables are best, since it's unlikely a color is added and a loop over 3 elements has probably a less high importance than readability.
Sometimes a programmer will use an array ( or data structure )
in order to save the data faster to disk (or memory) using 1 write operation.
This is especially useful if you are reading and writing a lot of data.
Related
I have to create a three-dimensional array using class A as element ,class A is defined like below, should I use vector<vector<vector<A> > > or boost::multi_array? Which one is better?
struct C
{
int C_1;
short C_2;
};
class B
{
public:
bool B_1;
vector<C> C_;
};
class A
{
public:
bool A_1;
B B_[6];
};
If you know the size of all three dimensions at the time, that you write your code, and if you don't need checking for array bounds, then just use traditional arrays:
const int N1 = ...
const int N2 = ...
const int N3 = ...
A a[N1][N2][N3]
If the array dimensions can onlybe determined at run time, but remain constant after program initialization, and if array usage is distributed uniformly, then boost::multi_array is your friend. However, if a lot of dynamic extension is going on at runtime, and/or if array sizes are not uniform (for example, you need A[0][0][0...99] but only A[2][3][0...3]), then the nested vector is likely the best solution. In the case of non-uniform sizes, put the dimension, whose size variies the most, as last dimension. Also, in the nested vector solution, it is generally a good idea to put small dimensions first.
The main concern that I would have about using vector<vector<vector<A> > > would be making sure that the second- and third-level vectors all have the same length like they would in a traditional 3D array, since there would be nothing in the data type to enforce that. I'm not terribly familiar with boost::multi_array, but it looks like this isn't an issue there - you can resize() the whole array, but unless I'm mistaken you can't accidentally remove an item from the third row and leave it a different size than all of the other rows (for example).
So assuming concerns like file size and compile time aren't much of an issue, I would think you'd want boost::multi_array. If those things are an issue, you might want to consider using a plain-old 3D array, since that should beat either of the other two options hands-down in those areas.
I was wondering whether (apart from the obvious syntax differences) there would be any efficiency difference between having a class containing multiple instances of an object (of the same type) or a fixed size array of objects of that type.
In code:
struct A {
double x;
double y;
double z;
};
struct B {
double xvec[3];
};
In reality I would be using boost::arrays which are a better C++ alternative to C-style arrays.
I am mainly concerned with construction/destruction and reading/writing such doubles, because these classes will often be constructed just to invoke one of their member functions once.
Thank you for your help/suggestions.
Typically the representation of those two structs would be exactly the same. It is, however, possible to have poor performance if you pick the wrong one for your use case.
For example, if you need to access each element in a loop, with an array you could do:
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
dosomething(xvec[i]);
However, without an array, you'd either need to duplicate code:
dosomething(x);
dosomething(y);
dosomething(z);
This means code duplication - which can go either way. On the one hand there's less loop code; on the other hand very tight loops can be quite fast on modern processors, and code duplication can blow away the I-cache.
The other option is a switch:
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
int *r;
switch(i) {
case 0: r = &x; break;
case 1: r = &y; break;
case 1: r = &z; break;
}
dosomething(*r); // assume this is some big inlined code
}
This avoids the possibly-large i-cache footprint, but has a huge negative performance impact. Don't do this.
On the other hand, it is, in principle, possible for array accesses to be slower, if your compiler isn't very smart:
xvec[0] = xvec[1] + 1;
dosomething(xvec[1]);
Since xvec[0] and xvec[1] are distinct, in principle, the compiler ought to be able to keep the value of xvec[1] in a register, so it doesn't have to reload the value at the next line. However, it's possible some compilers might not be smart enough to notice that xvec[0] and xvec[1] don't alias. In this case, using seperate fields might be a very tiny bit faster.
In short, it's not about one or the other being fast in all cases. It's about matching the representation to how you use it.
Personally, I would suggest going with whatever makes the code working on xvec most natural. It's not worth spending a lot of human time worrying about something that, at best, will probably only produce such a small performance difference that you'll only catch it in micro-benchmarks.
MVC++ 2010 generated exactly the same code for reading/writing from two POD structs like in your example. Since the offsets to read/write to are computable at compile time, this is not surprising. Same goes for construction and destruction.
As for the actual performance, the general rule applies: profile it if it matters, if it doesn't - why care?
Indexing into an array member is perhaps a bit more work for the user of your struct, but then again, he can more easily iterate over the elements.
In case you can't decide and want to keep your options open, you can use an anonymous union:
struct Foo
{
union
{
struct
{
double x;
double y;
double z;
} xyz;
double arr[3];
};
};
int main()
{
Foo a;
a.xyz.x = 42;
std::cout << a.arr[0] << std::endl;
}
Some compilers also support anonymous structs, in that case you can leave the xyz part out.
It depends. For instance, the example you gave is a classic one in favor of 'old-school' arrays: a math point/vector (or matrix)
has a fixed number of elements
the data itself is usually kept
private in an object
since (if?) it has a class as an
interface, you can properly
initialize them in the constructor
(otherwise, classic array
inialization is something I don't
really like, syntax-wise)
In such cases (going with the math vector/matrix examples), I always ended up using C-style arrays internally, as you can loop over them instead of writing copy/pasted code for each component.
But this is a special case -- for me, in C++ nowadays arrays == STL vector, it's fast and I don't have to worry about nuthin' :)
The difference can be in storing the variables in memory. In the first example compiler can add padding to align the data. But in your paticular case it doesn't matter.
raw arrays offer better cache locality than c++ arrays, as presented however, the array example's only advantage over the multiple objects is the ability to iterate over the elements.
The real answer is of course, create a test case and measure.
I'm currently implementing some algorithms into an existing program. Long story short, I created a new class, "Adder". An Adder is a member of another class representing the physical object actually doing the calculus , which calls adder.calc() with its parameters (merely a list of objects to do the maths on).
To do these maths, I need some parameters, which do not exist outside of the class (but can be set, see below). They're neither config parameters nor members of other classes. These parameters are D1 and D2, distances, and three arrays of fixed size: alpha, beta, delta.
I know some of you are more comfortable reading code than reading text so here you go:
class Adder
{
public:
Adder();
virtual Adder::~Adder();
void set( float d1, float d2 );
void set( float d1, float d2, int alpha[N_MAX], int beta[N_MAX], int delta[N_MAX] );
// Snipped prototypes
float calc( List& ... );
// ...
inline float get_d1() { return d1_ ;};
inline float get_d2() { return d2_ ;};
private:
float d1_;
float d2_;
int alpha_[N_MAX]; // A #define N_MAX is done elsewhere
int beta_[N_MAX];
int delta_[N_MAX];
};
Since this object is used as a member of another class, it is declared in a *.h:
private:
Adder adder_;
By doing that, I couldn't initialize the arrays (alpha/beta/delta) directly in the constructor ( int T[3] = { 1, 2, 3 }; ), without having to iterate throughout the three arrays. I thought of putting them in static const, but I don't think that's the proper way of solving such problems.
My second guess was to use the constructor to initialize the arrays:
Adder::Adder()
{
int alpha[N_MAX] = { 0, -60, -120, 180, 120, 60 };
int beta[N_MAX] = { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 };
int delta[N_MAX] = { 0, 0, 180, 180, 180, 0 };
set( 2.5, 0, alpha, beta, delta );
}
void Adder::set( float d1, float d2 ) {
if (d1 > 0)
d1_ = d1;
if (d2 > 0)
d2_ = d2;
}
void Adder::set( float d1, float d2, int alpha[N_MAX], int beta[N_MAX], int delta[N_MAX] ) {
set( d1, d2 );
for (int i = 0; i < N_MAX; ++i) {
alpha_[i] = alpha[i];
beta_[i] = beta[i];
delta_[i] = delta[i];
}
}
Would it be better to use another function (init()) which would initialize the arrays? Or is there a better way of doing that?
Did you see some mistakes or bad practice along the way?
You have chosen a very wide subject, so here is a broader answer.
Be aware of your surroundings
Too often I have seen code doing the same thing as elsewhere in the codebase. Make sure that the problem you are trying to solve has not already been solved by your team-mates or predecessors.
Try not to reinvent the wheel
An extension of my previous point.
While everyone should probably write a linked-list or a string class as an exercise, there is no need to write one for production code. You will have access to MFC, OWL, STL, Boost, whatever. If the wheel has already been invented, use it and get on with coding a solution to the real problem!
Think about how you are going to test your code
Test Driven Development (TDD) is one way (but not the only way) to ensure that your code is both testable and tested. If you think about testing your code from the beginning, it will be very easy to test. Then test it!
Write SOLID code
The Wikipedia page explains this far better than I could.
Ensure your code is readable
Meaningful identifiers are just the beginning. Unnecessary comments can also detract from readability as can long functions, functions with long argument lists (such as your second setter), etcetera. If you have coding standards, stick to them.
Use const more
My major gripe with C++ is that things aren't const by default! In your example, your getters should be declared const and your setters should have their arguments passed in as const (and const-reference for the arrays).
Ensure your code is maintainable
Unit tests (as mentioned above) will ensure that the next person to change your code doesn't break your implementation.
Ensure your library is usable
If you follow Principle of least astonishment and document your library with unit-tests, programmers using it will have fewer issues.
Refactor mercilessly
An extension of the previous point. Do everything you can to reduce code duplication. Today I witnessed a bug-fix that had to be executed in fifteen separate places (and was only executed in thirteen of these).
When creating an object I would advise to always give the user an complete object, with all member properly initialized. An Init method fails in doing that, making room for a common error, failing to calling the initializing function in a two phase initialization object. To prevent this either make your constructor private and use a builder function or a factory which in turn has access to the init method, or make init private and use it in the constructor. The last advice is generally the same as doing the initialization in the constructor, but it allows several constructors to use the same initializing action.
Okay.
I would:
Set the arrays to a known state by
using memset to clear all values to
0 (or some other value) within the
constructor before they are used.
Change the constructor to allow the
passing of array pointers that can
be used to initialise the arrays to
some other values.
Retain the Set
function that you have to change the
values within the arrays and
ariables that you're using.
Don't use virtual functions, unless your design actually requires them.
In a class that exists primarily to execute one function, that function is canonically named operator(). I.e. you'd call yours as adder_(params), not adder_.calc(params).
If you're initializing three arrays, it's more efficient to use three for-loops. (cache friendly)
I'm trying to get my head around tuples (thanks #litb), and the common suggestion for their use is for functions returning > 1 value.
This is something that I'd normally use a struct for , and I can't understand the advantages to tuples in this case - it seems an error-prone approach for the terminally lazy.
Borrowing an example, I'd use this
struct divide_result {
int quotient;
int remainder;
};
Using a tuple, you'd have
typedef boost::tuple<int, int> divide_result;
But without reading the code of the function you're calling (or the comments, if you're dumb enough to trust them) you have no idea which int is quotient and vice-versa. It seems rather like...
struct divide_result {
int results[2]; // 0 is quotient, 1 is remainder, I think
};
...which wouldn't fill me with confidence.
So, what are the advantages of tuples over structs that compensate for the ambiguity?
tuples
I think i agree with you that the issue with what position corresponds to what variable can introduce confusion. But i think there are two sides. One is the call-side and the other is the callee-side:
int remainder;
int quotient;
tie(quotient, remainder) = div(10, 3);
I think it's crystal clear what we got, but it can become confusing if you have to return more values at once. Once the caller's programmer has looked up the documentation of div, he will know what position is what, and can write effective code. As a rule of thumb, i would say not to return more than 4 values at once. For anything beyond, prefer a struct.
output parameters
Output parameters can be used too, of course:
int remainder;
int quotient;
div(10, 3, "ient, &remainder);
Now i think that illustrates how tuples are better than output parameters. We have mixed the input of div with its output, while not gaining any advantage. Worse, we leave the reader of that code in doubt on what could be the actual return value of div be. There are wonderful examples when output parameters are useful. In my opinion, you should use them only when you've got no other way, because the return value is already taken and can't be changed to either a tuple or struct. operator>> is a good example on where you use output parameters, because the return value is already reserved for the stream, so you can chain operator>> calls. If you've not to do with operators, and the context is not crystal clear, i recommend you to use pointers, to signal at the call side that the object is actually used as an output parameter, in addition to comments where appropriate.
returning a struct
The third option is to use a struct:
div_result d = div(10, 3);
I think that definitely wins the award for clearness. But note you have still to access the result within that struct, and the result is not "laid bare" on the table, as it was the case for the output parameters and the tuple used with tie.
I think a major point these days is to make everything as generic as possible. So, say you have got a function that can print out tuples. You can just do
cout << div(10, 3);
And have your result displayed. I think that tuples, on the other side, clearly win for their versatile nature. Doing that with div_result, you need to overload operator<<, or need to output each member separately.
Another option is to use a Boost Fusion map (code untested):
struct quotient;
struct remainder;
using boost::fusion::map;
using boost::fusion::pair;
typedef map<
pair< quotient, int >,
pair< remainder, int >
> div_result;
You can access the results relatively intuitively:
using boost::fusion::at_key;
res = div(x, y);
int q = at_key<quotient>(res);
int r = at_key<remainder>(res);
There are other advantages too, such as the ability to iterate over the fields of the map, etc etc. See the doco for more information.
With tuples, you can use tie, which is sometimes quite useful: std::tr1::tie (quotient, remainder) = do_division ();. This is not so easy with structs. Second, when using template code, it's sometimes easier to rely on pairs than to add yet another typedef for the struct type.
And if the types are different, then a pair/tuple is really no worse than a struct. Think for example pair<int, bool> readFromFile(), where the int is the number of bytes read and bool is whether the eof has been hit. Adding a struct in this case seems like overkill for me, especially as there is no ambiguity here.
Tuples are very useful in languages such as ML or Haskell.
In C++, their syntax makes them less elegant, but can be useful in the following situations:
you have a function that must return more than one argument, but the result is "local" to the caller and the callee; you don't want to define a structure just for this
you can use the tie function to do a very limited form of pattern matching "a la ML", which is more elegant than using a structure for the same purpose.
they come with predefined < operators, which can be a time saver.
I tend to use tuples in conjunction with typedefs to at least partially alleviate the 'nameless tuple' problem. For instance if I had a grid structure then:
//row is element 0 column is element 1
typedef boost::tuple<int,int> grid_index;
Then I use the named type as :
grid_index find(const grid& g, int value);
This is a somewhat contrived example but I think most of the time it hits a happy medium between readability, explicitness, and ease of use.
Or in your example:
//quotient is element 0 remainder is element 1
typedef boost:tuple<int,int> div_result;
div_result div(int dividend,int divisor);
One feature of tuples that you don't have with structs is in their initialization. Consider something like the following:
struct A
{
int a;
int b;
};
Unless you write a make_tuple equivalent or constructor then to use this structure as an input parameter you first have to create a temporary object:
void foo (A const & a)
{
// ...
}
void bar ()
{
A dummy = { 1, 2 };
foo (dummy);
}
Not too bad, however, take the case where maintenance adds a new member to our struct for whatever reason:
struct A
{
int a;
int b;
int c;
};
The rules of aggregate initialization actually mean that our code will continue to compile without change. We therefore have to search for all usages of this struct and updating them, without any help from the compiler.
Contrast this with a tuple:
typedef boost::tuple<int, int, int> Tuple;
enum {
A
, B
, C
};
void foo (Tuple const & p) {
}
void bar ()
{
foo (boost::make_tuple (1, 2)); // Compile error
}
The compiler cannot initailize "Tuple" with the result of make_tuple, and so generates the error that allows you to specify the correct values for the third parameter.
Finally, the other advantage of tuples is that they allow you to write code which iterates over each value. This is simply not possible using a struct.
void incrementValues (boost::tuples::null_type) {}
template <typename Tuple_>
void incrementValues (Tuple_ & tuple) {
// ...
++tuple.get_head ();
incrementValues (tuple.get_tail ());
}
Prevents your code being littered with many struct definitions. It's easier for the person writing the code, and for other using it when you just document what each element in the tuple is, rather than writing your own struct/making people look up the struct definition.
Tuples will be easier to write - no need to create a new struct for every function that returns something. Documentation about what goes where will go to the function documentation, which will be needed anyway. To use the function one will need to read the function documentation in any case and the tuple will be explained there.
I agree with you 100% Roddy.
To return multiple values from a method, you have several options other than tuples, which one is best depends on your case:
Creating a new struct. This is good when the multiple values you're returning are related, and it's appropriate to create a new abstraction. For example, I think "divide_result" is a good general abstraction, and passing this entity around makes your code much clearer than just passing a nameless tuple around. You could then create methods that operate on the this new type, convert it to other numeric types, etc.
Using "Out" parameters. Pass several parameters by reference, and return multiple values by assigning to the each out parameter. This is appropriate when your method returns several unrelated pieces of information. Creating a new struct in this case would be overkill, and with Out parameters you emphasize this point, plus each item gets the name it deserves.
Tuples are Evil.
I have an array of constant data like following:
enum Language {GERMAN=LANG_DE, ENGLISH=LANG_EN, ...};
struct LanguageName {
ELanguage language;
const char *name;
};
const Language[] languages = {
GERMAN, "German",
ENGLISH, "English",
.
.
.
};
When I have a function which accesses the array and find the entry based on the Language enum parameter. Should I write a loop to find the specific entry in the array or are there better ways to do this.
I know I could add the LanguageName-objects to an std::map but wouldn't this be overkill for such a simple problem? I do not have an object to store the std::map so the map would be constructed for every call of the function.
What way would you recommend?
Is it better to encapsulate this compile time constant array in a class which handles the lookup?
If the enum values are contiguous starting from 0, use an array with the enum as index.
If not, this is what I usually do:
const char* find_language(Language lang)
{
typedef std::map<Language,const char*> lang_map_type;
typedef lang_map_type::value_type lang_map_entry_type;
static const lang_map_entry_type lang_map_entries[] = { /*...*/ }
static const lang_map_type lang_map( lang_map_entries
, lang_map_entries + sizeof(lang_map_entries)
/ sizeof(lang_map_entries[0]) );
lang_map_type::const_iterator it = lang_map.find(lang);
if( it == lang_map.end() ) return NULL;
return it->second;
}
If you consider a map for constants, always also consider using a vector.
Function-local statics are a nice way to get rid of a good part of the dependency problems of globals, but are dangerous in a multi-threaded environment. If you're worried about that, you might rather want to use globals:
typedef std::map<Language,const char*> lang_map_type;
typedef lang_map_type::value_type lang_map_entry_type;
const lang_map_entry_type lang_map_entries[] = { /*...*/ }
const lang_map_type lang_map( lang_map_entries
, lang_map_entries + sizeof(lang_map_entries)
/ sizeof(lang_map_entries[0]) );
const char* find_language(Language lang)
{
lang_map_type::const_iterator it = lang_map.find(lang);
if( it == lang_map.end() ) return NULL;
return it->second;
}
There are three basic approaches that I'd choose from. One is the switch statement, and it is a very good option under certain conditions. Remember - the compiler is probably going to compile that into an efficient table-lookup for you, though it will be looking up pointers to the case code blocks rather than data values.
Options two and three involve static arrays of the type you are using. Option two is a simple linear search - which you are (I think) already doing - very appropriate if the number of items is small.
Option three is a binary search. Static arrays can be used with standard library algorithms - just use the first and first+count pointers in the same way that you'd use begin and end iterators. You will need to ensure the data is sorted (using std::sort or std::stable_sort), and use std::lower_bound to do the binary search.
The complication in this case is that you'll need a comparison function object which acts like operator< with a stored or referenced value, but which only looks at the key field of your struct. The following is a rough template...
class cMyComparison
{
private:
const fieldtype& m_Value; // Note - only storing a reference
public:
cMyComparison (const fieldtype& p_Value) : m_Value (p_Value) {}
bool operator() (const structtype& p_Struct) const
{
return (p_Struct.field < m_Value);
// Warning : I have a habit of getting this comparison backwards,
// and I haven't double-checked this
}
};
This kind of thing should get simpler in the next C++ standard revision, when IIRC we'll get anonymous functions (lambdas) and closures.
If you can't put the sort in your apps initialisation, you might need an already-sorted boolean static variable to ensure you only sort once.
Note - this is for information only - in your case, I think you should either stick with linear search or use a switch statement. The binary search is probably only a good idea when...
There are a lot of data items to search
Searches are done very frequently (many times per second)
The key enumerate values are sparse (lots of big gaps) - otherwise, switch is better.
If the coding effort were trivial, it wouldn't be a big deal, but C++ currently makes this a bit harder than it should be.
One minor note - it may be a good idea to define an enumerate for the size of your array, and to ensure that your static array declaration uses that enumerate. That way, your compiler should complain if you modify the table (add/remove items) and forget to update the size enum, so your searches should never miss items or go out of bounds.
I think you have two questions here:
What is the best way to store a constant global variable (with possible Multi-Threaded access) ?
How to store your data (which container use) ?
The solution described by sbi is elegant, but you should be aware of 2 potential problems:
In case of Multi-Threaded access, the initialization could be skrewed.
You will potentially attempt to access this variable after its destruction.
Both issues on the lifetime of static objects are being covered in another thread.
Let's begin with the constant global variable storage issue.
The solution proposed by sbi is therefore adequate if you are not concerned by 1. or 2., on any other case I would recommend the use of a Singleton, such as the ones provided by Loki. Read the associated documentation to understand the various policies on lifetime, it is very valuable.
I think that the use of an array + a map seems wasteful and it hurts my eyes to read this. I personally prefer a slightly more elegant (imho) solution.
const char* find_language(Language lang)
{
typedef std::map<Language, const char*> map_type;
typedef lang_map_type::value_type value_type;
// I'll let you work out how 'my_stl_builder' works,
// it makes for an interesting exercise and it's easy enough
// Note that even if this is slightly slower (?), it is only executed ONCE!
static const map_type = my_stl_builder<map_type>()
<< value_type(GERMAN, "German")
<< value_type(ENGLISH, "English")
<< value_type(DUTCH, "Dutch")
....
;
map_type::const_iterator it = lang_map.find(lang);
if( it == lang_map.end() ) return NULL;
return it->second;
}
And now on to the container type issue.
If you are concerned about performance, then you should be aware that for small data collection, a vector of pairs is normally more efficient in look ups than a map. Once again I would turn toward Loki (and its AssocVector), but really I don't think that you should worry about performance.
I tend to choose my container depending on the interface I am likely to need first and here the map interface is really what you want.
Also: why do you use 'const char*' rather than a 'std::string'?
I have seen too many people using a 'const char*' like a std::string (like in forgetting that you have to use strcmp) to be bothered by the alleged loss of memory / performance...
It depends on the purpose of the array. If you plan on showing the values in a list (for a user selection, perhaps) the array would be the most efficient way of storing them. If you plan on frequently looking up values by their enum key, you should look into a more efficient data structure like a map.
There is no need to write a loop. You can use the enum value as index for the array.
I would make an enum with sequential language codes
enum { GERMAN=0, ENGLISH, SWAHILI, ENOUGH };
The put them all into array
const char *langnames[] = {
"German", "English", "Swahili"
};
Then I would check if sizeof(langnames)==sizeof(*langnames)*ENOUGH in debug build.
And pray that I have no duplicates or swapped languages ;-)
If you want fast and simple solution , Can try like this
enum ELanguage {GERMAN=0, ENGLISH=1};
static const string Ger="GERMAN";
static const string Eng="ENGLISH";
bool getLanguage(const ELanguage& aIndex,string & arName)
{
switch(aIndex)
{
case GERMAN:
{
arName=Ger;
return true;
}
case ENGLISH:
{
arName=Eng;
}
default:
{
// Log Error
return false;
}
}
}