I have a Playlist class that has a vector with Tracks and each Track has a multimap<long, Note> as datamember.
class Track {
private:
multimap<long, Note> noteList;
}
Using an iterator to acces the tracks is no problem, so this part here is working fine:
vector<Track>::iterator trackIT;
try{
for(noteIT = trackIT->getNoteList().begin(); noteIT != trackIT->getNoteList().end(); noteIT++){
cout << "---" << noteIT->second.getName() << endl;
}
}catch (int e){
cout << "exception #" << e << endl;
}
What I want to do next is iterate the Notes of each Track. But starting from this part all output is stopped. So I only get to see the first tracks name. Any cout's after that are not shown and the compiler isn't giving me any errors. Even the cout inside the try catch block isn't working..
vector<Track>::iterator trackIT;
multimap<long, Note>::iterator noteIT;
for(trackIT = this->playlist.getTracklist().begin(); trackIT < this->playlist.getTracklist().end(); trackIT++){
cout << trackIT->getTrackName() << endl;
for(noteIT = trackIT->getNoteList().begin(); noteIT != trackIT->getNoteList().end(); noteIT++){
cout << "---" << noteIT->second.getName() << endl;
}
}
cout << "random cout that is NOT shown" << endl; // this part doesn't show up in console either
Also, the method in my Track class that I'm using to add the Note objects looks like this:
void Track::addNote(Note ¬e) {
long key = 1000009;
this->noteList.insert(make_pair(key, note));
}
// I'm adding the notes to the track like this:
Note note1(440, 100, 8, 1, 1);
note1.setName("note1");
synthTrack.addNote(note1);
Any ideas why the iterator won't work?
Change
noteIT < trackIT->getNoteList().end()
To
noteIT != trackIT->getNoteList().end()
Not all iterators support less than / greater than comparisons.
If you have c++11 you can use a range-based for loop:
for (Note& note : trackIT->getNoteList())
Or you can use BOOST_FOREACH
BOOST_FOREACH (Note& note, trackIT->getNoteList())
You haven't shown the definitions of getTrackList or getNoteList, but there's a common mistake people make - if you return a copy of the container instead of a reference to it, the iterators will be pointing to different containers making comparisons impossible. Not only that but since the containers are temporary any use of the iterators results in undefined behavior.
If you are really hardcoding the track key, then there will only ever be one track in the map because std::map stores unique keys...
long key = 1000009; //If yo are really doing this, this key is already inserted so it will fail to insert more.
Also, if you would like a more elegant approach you could use function object.
struct print_track
{
void operator()(const Track& track)
{
cout << track.getTrackName() << endl;
std::for_each(track.getNoteList().begin(), track.getNoteList().end(), print_track_name());
}
};
struct print_note_name
{
void operator()(const std::pair<long,Note>& note_pair)
{
cout << "---" << note_pair.second.getName() << endl;
}
};
//In use...
std::for_each(playlist.getTracklist().begin(), playlist.getTracklist.end(), print_track());
Related
I have a fairly easy problem: I have an std::map<int,T> and another std::set<int> (can be std::vector or similar too).
In the map I store items, and in the other container I'm storing favorites (of the map).
At some point, I'd need to retrieve (all) items from the map, but starting with the favorites defined by the other container.
Here is my minimal repro, I solved it very ugly, and ineffective:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <set>
#include <map>
using namespace std;
map<int, string> myMap;
set<int> myFavorites;
int main()
{
myMap.emplace(1, "but I don't like this");
myMap.emplace(12, "So it will go below");
myMap.emplace(31, "This one will come first, and");
myMap.emplace(44, "under my favorites");
myMap.emplace(52, "then this will follow");
myFavorites.insert(52);
myFavorites.insert(31);
cout << "My map:" << endl;
for(auto p : myMap) {
cout << "#" << p.first << "=" << p.second << endl;
}
cout << endl << "My favorites:" << endl;
for(auto p : myFavorites) {
cout << "#" << p << endl;
}
cout << endl << "All items starting with my favorites:" << endl;
for(auto p : myFavorites) {
auto item = myMap.find(p);
if (item != myMap.end()) cout << "#" << item->first << "=" << item->second << endl;
}
for(auto p : myMap) {
if (myFavorites.find(p.first) != myFavorites.end()) continue;
cout << "#" << p.first << "=" << p.second << endl;
}
}
What really bothers me is the last loop, where each iterations would call find on the set.
Required output is:
All items starting with my favorites:
#31=This one will come first, and
#52=then this will follow
#1=but I don't like this
#12=So it will go below
#44=under my favorites
Here is the above source in Coliru for making it easier: https://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/731fa76d90bfab00
Both map and set might be changed, but replacements needs to implement the same interfaces as originals.
I'm looking for a way to solve this more efficient than my original "brute-force" one.
Please note: map must not be "reordered"! I just need to query (retrieve) its items with custom sorting!
Note2: I know map can have a comparison operator. But I'd need to have the original order usually, and sometimes I'd need to have the custom sort!
Note3: Boost is not available and compiler is C++14 capable.
Both std::map and std::set use the same strict weak ordering for ordering its contents.
You can take advantage of this. You know that if you iterate over the map you will get the keys in the same order as they are in the set, therefore all it takes is a little bit of clever logic, something like:
auto map_iter=myMap.begin();
for(auto p : myFavorites) {
while (map_iter != myMap.end())
{
if (map_iter->first == p)
cout << "#" << map_iter->first << "=" << map_iter->second << endl;
if (map_iter->first > p)
break;
++map_iter;
}
}
It may still make sense to use find() in some edge cases, specifically when myFavorites is significantly smaller than myMap, in which case a few calls to find() might be faster than iterating over (most of) the entire map.
This is most probably trivial and I'm confusing struct allocation and pointers somehow, I apologize for this. I have read answers to similar questions but it didn't help. The code is, as always, way more complicted, this is a reduction from 3000+ lines of code to the gist.
The output I expected was
prep 1
main 1
Instead, I get
prep 1
main 0
This is the code:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
struct Entry
{
vector<int> list;
};
struct Registry
{
vector<Entry> entries;
void prep()
{
Entry* entry = new Entry();
entries.push_back(*entry);
entry->list.push_back(0);
cout << "prep " << entry->list.size() << "\n";
}
};
int main()
{
Registry registry;
registry.prep();
cout << "main " << registry.entries[0].list.size() << "\n";
return 1;
}
You don't store pointers in your vector<Entry> so you should not use new. Instead add a default constructed Entry using emplace_back.
A C++17 approach:
void prep()
{
Entry& entry = entries.emplace_back(); // returns a ref the added element
entry.list.push_back(0);
cout << "prep " << entry.list.size() << "\n";
}
Prior to C++17:
void prep()
{
entries.emplace_back(); // does NOT return a ref the added element
Entry& entry = entries.back(); // obtain a ref to the added element
entry.list.push_back(0);
cout << "prep " << entry.list.size() << "\n";
}
If you do want to create and maniplate your Entry before adding it to entries, you can do that too and then std::move it into entries.
void prep()
{
Entry entry;
entry.list.push_back(0);
cout << "prep " << entry.list.size() << "\n";
entries.push_back(std::move(entry)); // moving is a lot cheaper than copying
}
The problem is the order of the prep() function. If you change to push an element into the Element object, and then push it tho the entries vector, the behavior will be the expected.
void prep()
{
Entry* entry = new Entry();
entry->list.push_back(0);
entries.push_back(*entry);
cout << "prep " << entry->list.size() << "\n";
}
This is happening, because you uses a copy in the entries list.
It is also possible to store the pointer of the object therefore you can edit the actual instance after you pushed to the entries vector.
Edit:
As Ted mentioned, there is a memory leak, because the entry created with the new operator never deleted. Another approach could be to use smart pointers (however, in this small example it seems overkill, just use reference)
void prep()
{
std::unique_ptr<Entry> entry = std::make_unique<Entry>();
entry->list.push_back(0);
entries.push_back(*entry.get()); // get the pointer behind unique_ptr, then dereference it
cout << "prep " << entry->list.size() << "\n";
} // unique_ptr freed when gets out of scope
You need to change the implementation of prep():
void prep()
{
Entry entry;
entry.list.push_back(0);
entries.emplace_back(entry);
cout << "prep " << entries.back().list.size() << "\n";
}
There is no need to allocate a Entry on the heap just to make a copy of it.
I firstly intialize a hotel object and then initialize some room objects and print their id's respectively (which print out correctly.)
for(int j=0;j<5;j++){
Room r(1, 30);
hotel.addRoom(r);
cout << "Id: " << r.getId() << endl;
}
Then, I do this iteration on the list:
cout << "Initialized rooms with Ids: ";
for(auto iterator : hotel.getRooms()){
cout << iterator->getId() << " ";
}
cout << endl;
Also, here is the implementation on those methods, on the Hotel class:
//header
list<Room*> rooms;
//source
list<Room*> & Hotel::getRooms(){
return rooms;
}
And look at the output!
Every other part (like id generation and construction of objects) is tested and works fine.
Since you haven't posted a definition for the addRoom function, by the power of deduction I conclude it does something similar to:
void Hotel::addRoom(const Room& room) {
rooms.push_back(&room);
}
And then given the following loop:
for(int j=0;j<5;j++)
{
// This creates a Room object local to each iterator of the loop
Room r(1, 30);
// This adds the address of this local variable in the list
hotel.addRoom(r);
cout << "Id: " << r.getId() << endl;
// The variable r is destroyed here
}
So in the end your std::list<Room*> is filled with dangling pointers - pointers which point to memory which is no longer yours. This causes undefined behavior.
I recommend you drop the pointers altogether and change to:
class Hotel
{
std::list<Room> rooms;
public:
void addRoom(const Room& room) {
rooms.push_back(room);
}
std::list<Room>& Hotel::getRooms() {
return rooms;
}
const std::list<Room>& Hotel::getRooms() const {
return rooms;
}
};
I don't understand why my code doesn't insert to the list.
But if I change the line where I use the insert by doing a push_back the element is inserted to the list. Thank you
But I have to have it sorted. The operator < is well implemented:
void Movies::afegirPeliculaDirector(string director,string title,int year){
list<actorDirectorMovie> llista;
actorDirectorMovie dir(title,year);
int total=_mapDirectors.count(director);
if (total>0){
map<string,list<actorDirectorMovie> >::iterator
it=_mapDirectors.find(director);
llista=(*it).second;
list<actorDirectorMovie>::iterator itList=(*it).second.begin();
while(itList!=(*it).second.end() and (*itList) < dir){
itList++;
}
if (itList==(*it).second.end()) llista.push_back(dir);
else {
cout << llista.size() << endl;
llista.insert(itList,dir);//->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT DOESN'T INSERT, WHY?
cout << llista.size() << endl;
}
it->second=llista;
}
else {
llista.push_back(dir);
_mapDirectors.insert(make_pair(director,llista));
}
directorMovies(director);
}
Your itList iterator refers to a different container. itList points to a member of _mapDirectors[director].second but you're trying to use it as an insertion point into llista.
I think the problem is that you wanted llista to be a reference to the mapped list, but instead you're making a copy of it.
Try the following code (I haven't tested it but it should give you the idea). Note that it takes a reference to the mapped list. There's also no need to test for an empty map, or do an explicit find for the director - you can simply reference _mapDirectors[director].second and the empty list will be created automatically if it's not already in the map.
void Movies::afegirPeliculaDirector(string director,string title,int year)
{
// get a reference to the director's list
list<actorDirectorMovie>& llista = _mapDirectors[director];
actorDirectorMovie dir(title,year);
list<actorDirectorMovie>::iterator itList=llista.begin();
while(itList!=llista.end() and (*itList) < dir){
itList++;
}
if (itList==llista.end()) llista.push_back(dir);
else {
cout << llista.size() << endl;
llista.insert(itList,dir);
cout << llista.size() << endl;
}
}
You could also consider changing from using a list to store each director's movies to a set, as this has the property of being sorted automatically for you. The whole function would be reduced to _mapDirectors[director].insert(dir) in that case.
I'm trying to build a relational database for the class I'm in.
what's happening is that when I process my "Facts" and "Queries" input, I create a new relation object. And then I print them out. If I run one at a time they process just fine, but if I run them back to back, the second one modifies the contents of the vector of tokens within the other relation object.
Database.h
class Database
{
private:
datalogProgram program;
Relation theSchemes;
Relation theFacts;
std::vector<Token> FactsOrder;
public:
Database(datalogProgram input);
Database();
~Database();
Relation processSchemes(datalogProgram processme);
Relation processFacts(datalogProgram processme);
};
Database.cpp
And I apologize for all of the cout's I've been trying to debug this things for hours!
#include "Database.h"
#include <sstream>
Database :: Database(datalogProgram input)
{
// So first I will make a map with relations representing the Schemes Facts and Queries
// Thus I will have a database of schemes facts and queries, rules excluded and ignored for now.
program = input;
theSchemes = processSchemes(program);
theFacts = processFacts(program);
// just checking on progress.
std::cout << "SCHEMES" << std::endl;
theSchemes.printRelation();
std::cout << "FACTS" << std::endl;
theFacts.printRelation();
}
Database :: Database() {}
Database :: ~Database() {}
Relation Database :: processSchemes(datalogProgram input)
{
Relation temp;
// LETS START WITH SCHEMES
std::cout << "processing schemes" << std::endl;
std::vector<Scheme>* schemes = input.returnSchemeList();
// Process First Scheme
// Populate this first vector with ID's from schemes.
// std::vector<Token*> firstTuple;
std::vector<Token*> firstTuple;
std::vector<Token> idListONE;
firstTuple.push_back(input.returnFirstScheme()->returnFirstID());
// std::vector<Token> idListONE;
idListONE = input.returnFirstScheme()->returnCLEANidLIST();
for(int i = 0; i < input.returnFirstScheme()->returnCLEANidLIST().size(); i++)
firstTuple.push_back(&idListONE[i]);
temp = *new Relation(input.returnFirstScheme()->returnName(), firstTuple);
// NOW I NEED TO PROCESS THE REST OF THE SCHEMES
//Take a scheme off of the list, and work on it just like I did above.
for(int j = 0; j < schemes->size(); j++) {
// Populate this first vector with ID's from schemes.
std::vector<Token*> first;
first.clear();
first.push_back(schemes->at(j).returnFirstID());
std::vector<Token> idLista;
idLista.clear();
idLista = schemes->at(j).returnCLEANidLIST();
for(int i = 0; i < schemes->at(j).returnCLEANidLIST().size(); i++)
first.push_back(&idLista[i]);
temp.relationInsert(schemes->at(j).returnName(), first);
}
return temp;
//
// At this point I shoudl have a map with "Schemes" pointing to Relation Objects.
// I want to verify that this is working, so print out all data collected so far.
}
Relation Database :: processFacts(datalogProgram input)
{
Relation temporary;
// NOW WE PROCESS FACTS
// Order does matter, so I will create a vector to use as a key.
std::cout << "procesing facts" << std::endl;
std::vector<Fact>* facts = input.returnFactList();
std::string OUT2;
std::ostringstream convert2;
convert2 << facts->size();
OUT2 = convert2.str();
std::cout << "THE NUMBER OF FACTS IS " << OUT2 << std::endl;
// NOW I NEED TO PROCESS THE REST OF THE
//Take a scheme off of the list, and work on it just like I did above.
std::vector<Token*> firstTuple;
std::vector<Token> idListONE;
for(int j = 0; j < facts->size(); j++) {
std::cout << "NEW ITERATION:" << std::endl;
if(j==0) {
std::cout << "processing first fact" << std::endl;
// is the first Fact!
firstTuple.clear();
std::cout << "processing first fact --> tuple" << std::endl;
firstTuple.push_back(facts->at(j).returnFirstString());
idListONE.clear();
std::cout << "FIRST STRINGLIST" << std::endl;
idListONE = *facts->at(j).returnCleanStringList();
for(int i = 0; i < idListONE.size(); i++) {
std::cout << "FIRST STRING ITER" << std::endl;
firstTuple.push_back(&idListONE[i]);
}
FactsOrder.push_back(*facts->at(j).returnName());
std::cout << "creating first fact" << std::endl;
temporary = Relation(facts->at(j).returnName(), firstTuple);
} else {
std::cout << "processing A fact (ITER)" << std::endl;
// Populate this first vector with ID's from schemes.
std::vector<Token*> first;
first.clear();
std::cout << "processing fact, firststring (ITER)" << facts->at(j).returnFirstString()->getTokensValue() << std::endl;
first.push_back(facts->at(j).returnFirstString());
std::vector<Token> idLista;
idLista.clear();
std::cout << "getting stringlist (ITER)" << std::endl;
idLista = *facts->at(j).returnCleanStringList();
for(int i = 0; i < idLista.size(); i++) {
std::cout << "processing stringlist (ITER) ITER" << std::endl;
first.push_back(&idLista[i]);
}
FactsOrder.push_back(*facts->at(j).returnName());
std::cout << "adding fact" << std::endl;
temporary.relationInsert(facts->at(j).returnName(), first);
}
}
return temporary;
}
relation.cpp
Just so you can see it
Relation :: Relation(Token* key,std::vector<Token*> tuple)
{
std::pair<Token*,std::vector<Token*> > mypair (key,tuple);
contents.insert(mypair);
}
Relation :: Relation() {}
Relation :: ~Relation() {}
void Relation :: relationInsert(Token* key,std::vector<Token*> tuple)
{
std::pair<Token*,std::vector<Token*> > mypair (key,tuple);
contents.insert(mypair);
}
void Relation :: printRelation()
{
std::cout << "PRINT RELATION CALLED" << std::endl;
std::multimap<Token*,std::vector<Token*> >::iterator mapIT;
for(mapIT = contents.begin() ; mapIT != contents.end() ; mapIT ++) {
std::cout << "Key: " << mapIT->first->getTokensValue() "\nValues:" << std::endl;
for(int x = 0; x< mapIT->second.size() ; x++)
std::cout << " " << mapIT->second.at(x)->getTokensValue() << std::endl;
}
}
To solve your problem you must figure out object / pointer ownership in your code. Relation holds a relation between a pointer to Token and a list of other pointer to Tokens. It is ok to keep Token* rather then a copy of Token. (Especially if tokens can be large words you don't want to copy). But who "owns" and manages the tokens?
Lets look at an example
std::vector<Token*> firstTuple;
std::vector<Token> idListONE;
idListONE is a vector to actual Tokens. It is a function local variable so it will be discarded when we exit the function.
firstTuple is a vector to pointers of Tokens.
You push into it in the following manner:
firstTuple.push_back(&idListONE[i]);
So firstTuple tokens are pointers to the internal tokens inside idListONE. That might be valid but you must remember that as soon as idListONE is released or its memory is changed (its size increased for instance) firstTuple becomes invalid, because it will now point at memory that was released and using it may have undefined results and will likely crash the program.
Actually a few lines later you make that mistake:
temporary = Relation(facts->at(j).returnName(), firstTuple);
temporary is a Relation that holds a list to pointer of Tokens. It copies the list that means that it copies the token pointers. However the pointers it copies are to Tokens that belong to idListONE as soon as you exit the function idListONE is released and the pointers inside the Relation are no longer valid and using them is likely one source of the problems you are seeing. There might be additional problems like this in the code
In general there seems to be a lot of confusion about working with pointers vs working with objects.
Look at the following statement:
temp = *new Relation(input.returnFirstScheme()->returnName(), firstTuple);
new Relation(...) will allocate memory on the heap and initialize a Relation.
temp = *<ptr> will use operator= to copy the content on the right into temp. The Relation on the heap is forgotten and its memory is leaked.
Another example:
idListONE.clear();
std::cout << "FIRST STRINGLIST" << std::endl;
idListONE = *facts->at(j).returnCleanStringList();
first you clear idListONE then you use the operator= to overwrite it with a new list.
Why did you clear a list you are writing over?
Why do you return a pointer to a list from returnCleanStringList()? instead of a copy list or a const ref to an internal list? If you decided returnCleanStringList() should return a list by pointer rather then by value then why is the first thing you do is copying it?
Finally you really should choose one style and conform to it. In the long run it makes code clearer.
If you Camelize variable names then always do: idListONE -> idListOne
Also avoid members like 'idListONE', do you really need a different variables for the first index?