I have a vector (order is important) of objects (lets call them myobj class) where I'm trying to delete multiple objects at a time.
class vectorList
{
vector<*myobj> myList;
};
class myobj
{
char* myName;
int index;
bool m_bMarkedDelete;
}
I was thinking that the best way to do this would be to mark specific myobj objects for deletion and then call myList.remove_if() on the vector. However, I'm not exactly sure how to use predicates and such for this. Should I create a member variable in the object which allows me to say that I want to delete the myobj and then create a predicate which checks to see if the member variable was set?
How do I implement the predicate as a part of the vectorList class?
Should I create a member variable in the object which allows me to say
that I want to delete the myobj and then create a predicate which
checks to see if the member variable was set?
Haven't you already done that? Isn't that what m_bMarkedDelete is for? You would write the predicate like this:
bool IsMarkedToDelete(const myobj & o)
{
return o.m_bMarkedDelete;
}
Then:
myList.erase(
std::remove_if(myList.begin(), myList.end(), IsMarkedToDelete),
myList.end());
Or, using lambdas:
myList.erase(
std::remove_if(myList.begin(), myList.end(),
[](const myobj & o) { return o.m_bMarkedDelete; }),
myList.end());
If your class doesn't actually have that member, and you're asking us if it should, then I would say no. What criteria did you use to decide to mark it for deletion? Use that same criteria in your predicate, for example:
bool IndexGreaterThanTen(const myobj & o)
{
return o.index > 10;
}
note -- The functions I've written are of course invalid since all your members are private. So you'll need some way to access them.
A predicate is basically a conditional comparison. It can be a function or object. Here's an example using new C++ lambdas. This code will go through the vector and remove the values equal to 3.
int arg[6] = {1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 5};
std::vector<int> vec(arg, arg+6);
vec.erase(
std::remove_if(
vec.begin(), vec.end(),
[](int i){ return i == 3;}),
vec.end());
Edit: For pointers let's say you had a vector or interfaces you could set them to nullptr then remove them in a batch with pretty much the same code. In VS2008 you won't have lambdas so make a comparison predicate function or struct instead.
bool ShouldDelete(IAbstractBase* i)
{
return i == nullptr;
// you can put whatever you want here like:
// return i->m_bMarkedDelete;
}
std::vector<IAbstractBase*> vec;
vec.erase(
std::remove_if(
vec.begin(), vec.end(),
ShouldDelete),
vec.end());
Related
Let's have
class InputClass;
class OutputClass;
OutputClass const In2Out(InputClass const &in)
{
//conversion implemented
}
and finally
std::vector<OutputClass> Convert(std::vector<InputClass> const &input)
{
std::vector<OutputClass> res;
res.reserve(input.size());
//either
for (auto const &in : input)
res.emplace_back(In2Out(in));
return res;
//or something like
std::transform(input.begin(), input.end(), std::back_inserter(res), [](InputClass const &in){return In2Out(in);});
return res;
}
And now my question:
Can I rewrite the Convert function somehow avoiding the need to name the new container? I. e. is there a way to construct a vector directly using something roughly like std::transform or std::for_each?
As in (pseudocode, this unsurprisingly does not work or even build)
std::vector<OutputClass> Convert(std::vector<InputClass> const &input)
{
return std::transform(input.begin(), input.end(), std::back_inserter(std::vector<OutputClass>()), [](InputClass const &in){return In2Out(in);});
}
Searched, but did not find any elegant solution. Thanks!
Starting in C++ 20 you can use the new std::ranges::transform_view to accomplish what you want. It will call your transformation function for each element in the container that it is adapting and you can use that view to invoke std::vector's iterator range constructor which will allocate the memory for the entire vector once and then populate the elements. It still requires you to create a variable in the function but it becomes much more streamlined. That would give you something like
std::vector<OutputClass> Convert(std::vector<InputClass> const &input)
{
auto range = std::ranges::transform_view(input, In2Out);
return {range.begin(), range.end()};
}
Do note that this should optimize to the exact same code your function generates.
Yes it is possible, and quite simple when using boost:
struct A
{
};
struct B
{
};
std::vector<B> Convert(const std::vector<A> &input)
{
auto trans = [](const A&) { return B{}; };
return { boost::make_transform_iterator(input.begin(), trans), boost::make_transform_iterator(input.end(), trans) };
}
https://wandbox.org/permlink/ZSqt2SbsHeY8V0mt
But as other mentioned this is weird and doesn't provide any gain (no performance gain or readability gain)
Can I rewrite the Convert function somehow avoiding the need to name the new container?
Not using just std::transform. std::transform itself never creates a container. It only inserts elements to an output iterator. And in order to both get output iterator to a container, and return the container later, you pretty much need a name (unless you allocate the container dynamically, which would be silly and inefficient).
You can of course write a function that uses std::transform, creates the (named) vector, and returns it. Then caller of that function doesn't need to care about that name. In fact, that's pretty much what your function Convert is.
I am trying to use std::find_if to find an object that matches some criteria. Consider the following:
struct MyStruct
{
MyStruct(const int & id) : m_id(id) {}
int m_id;
};
...
std::vector<MyStruct> myVector; //... assume it contains things
MyStruct toFind(1);
std::vector<MyStruct>::iterator i = std::find_if(myVector.begin(), myVector.end(), ???);
I am not sure what to put in the ???
All the examples I have seen have a lambda that uses a hard-coded value to check for the ID. What I want is to return the iterator/success only if the id of toFind matches the id of one of the items in the vector.
All the examples I have see don't show me how to pass the two parameters
EDIT
Additional info
There are two different scenarios I have to use this for
One in which there is an == operator for the struct
and another in which there is no operator == for the struct - and i can't create one because the criteria for finding a match for this scenario is not as rigid as would be used for an equivalence operator.
(And thanks to all who responded; I was able to use find() in one case and with your help was able to use find_if() for the other)
Try this:
std::find_if(
myVector.begin(), myVector.end(),
[&toFind](const MyStruct& x) { return x.m_id == toFind.m_id;});
Alternatively, if you had defined an appropriate == overload for MyStruct, you could just use find:
std::find(myVector.begin(), myVector.end(), toFind); // requires ==
The find_if version is usually best when you have some kind of heterogeneous lookup, for example if you were just given an int, not a value of MyStruct.
This is where the lambda capture comes into play. Besides saying what type of parameters are to be passed to the lambda you can also say what existing variables are to be used to construct the lambda with. So in this case you would have something like
std::vector<MyStruct>::iterator i = std::find_if(myVector.begin(),
myVector.end(),
[&](const auto& val){ return val.m_id == toFind.m_id; } );
So the [&] says capture all variables used in the body of the lambda by reference. The (const auto& val) makes the operator() of the lambda a template and lets you take in any type. Then in the body we compare what is passed in from find_if to toFind.
You may use the following:
MyStruct toFind(1);
std::vector<MyStruct>::iterator i =
std::find_if(myVector.begin(), myVector.end(),
[&](const auto& e) { return e.id == toFind.id; });
Do as following:
std::find_if(myVector.begin(), myVector.end(),
[&toFind] (const auto &ele) { return ele.m_id == toFind.m_id}; );
I am currently taking a coding class at university and they have VERY specific requirements for the homework assignments.
For this week we have a class called Npt that represents a Nobel Prize winner. This class contains, amongst other things, the Name, the year of the prize and the field of the winner.
Now we should make another class, Nobelpreise, that contains a container for instances of said Nobel prize winner class. We are supposed to sort the elements of that container by the year of the Nobel Prize.
I wasn't able to use the std::sort function with a custom comparator correctly. This is what my code roughly looks like:
class Nobelpreise
{
private:
int numb;
vector<Npt> xx;
public:
Nobelpreise(){numb=0;}
void add(Npt &n1){xx.push_back(n1);numb++;return;}
Npt get_nobel(int i) {return xx[i];}
vector<Npt> get_xx() {return xx;}
int get_numb(){return numb;}
~Nobelpreise(){}
bool mycomp(Npt N1, Npt N2) {return (N1.get_jverl()<N2.get_jverl());}
};
The method get_jverl() comes from the Npt class and just returns the year.
Now the sort function always gives back an error saying that:
sort(Npl.get_xx().begin(), Npl.get_xx().end(), Npl.mycomp)
requires two arguments. Shouldn’t they be provided by the sort function?
I have also tried to overload the < operator which does not seem to work either.
edit1: added end() and removed the () from Npl.mycomp
edit2: we are required to make the comparator function a member of the class
Make your method mycomp static, and write a method which does the sort job.
class Nobelpreise
{
private:
int numb;
vector<Npt> xx;
public:
Nobelpreise(){numb=0;}
~Nobelpreise(){}
vector<Npt>& get_xx() {return xx;}
static bool mycomp( const Npt &N1, const Npt &N2 ) { return N1.get_jverl() < N2.get_jverl(); }
//^^^^^^
void Sort() { std::sort( xx.begin(), xx.end(), &mycomp ); }
};
The method Npt::get_jverl has to be const
returntype get_jverl() const { return ...; }
If you do the sorting outside your class note that you have to return a reference to your vector in your method: vector<Npt>& get_xx() {return xx;}
sort(Npl.get_xx().begin(), Npl.get_xx().end(), &Nobelpreise::mycomp)
Firstly, we'll fix the error that you're fetching two instances of the list:
sort(Npl.get_xx().begin(), Npl.get_xx().end, Npl.mycomp());
Replace with
auto v = Npl.get_xx();
std::sort(v.begin(), v.end(), Npl.mycomp());
I've added () to v.end, too, as we want to call it. However, we don't mean to call Npl::mycomp() here - std::sort wants to receive a function, not the return value:
auto v = Npl.get_xx();
std::sort(v.begin(), v.end(), Npl::mycomp);
This still won't work, as Npl::mycomp is an instance method, and std::sort won't call it with an object pointer for this. As it's implementation doesn't use this, it can be made a static method. Better still, it doesn't use any of the private members, so can be made a free function, outside of any class:
// I've renamed this to say what it does
bool year_precedes(const Npt& a, const Npt& b) {
return a.get_jverl() < b.get_jverl();
}
class Nobelpreise; // make the full declaration available
// for the following to compile
// I've made this a nonmember, too, as it only uses public methods
vector<Npt> sorted_prizes(const Nobelpreise& p)
{
auto v = p.get_xx();
std::sort(v.begin(), v.end(), year_precedes);
return v;
}
That should be enough to help you on your way.
You didn't say which version of C++, but assuming C++11 here's a more modern approach (compared to the two answers that are already here). Your requirements don't mention needing the comparator for anything else, so rather than write a comparator, you can do this:
std::sort(Npl.get_xx().begin(), Npl.get_xx().end(), [](const Npt& lhs, const Npt& rhs) {
return lhs.get_jverl() < rhs.get_jverl()
});
You could put this code in the Sort method of the Nobelpreise class as Rabbid suggests.
Compared to the other approaches here, I'd argue it makes the code more readable as you can see inline what is being compared, instead of having to jump to a new function just to read one more line of code (assuming of course that function is not being used anywhere else). It also makes the code faster because you are passing a lambda rather than a function pointer, but you shouldn't necessarily worry about that at this stage.
I have a vector of objects, and I'd like to count how many of them contain a certain property.
I'm fairly sure this can be done with the STL but I couldn't find an example. I could of course use a loop and count myself, but I need to do this many times and I'd prefer a concise way of doing this.
I'm looking to do something like the pseudo code below
class MyObj {
public:
std::string name;
}
std::vector<MyObj> objects
int calledJohn = count(objects,this->name,"jonn")
If you're looking to count how many objects have a certain property, std::count_if is the way to go. std::count_if takes a range to iterate over and the functor object that will determine if the object has the value:
auto calledJohn = std::count_if(std::begin(objects), std::end(objects),
[] (const MyObj& obj) { return obj.name == "John"; });
Use std::count_if
auto n = std::count_if(objects.begin(), objects.end(),
[](const MyObj& o) { return o.name == "jonn";});
There is a function std::count_if in the algorithm header that does exactly that for you. You have to provide an iterator range (so in your case objects.begin and objects.end) and a predicate that could be a lambda function or any other callable object:
auto number = std::count_if(objects.begin(), objects.end(), [](const MyObj &object){if(/*your condition*/){return true;}});
Suppose I have the following two data structures:
std::vector<int> all_items;
std::set<int> bad_items;
The all_items vector contains all known items and the bad_items vector contains a list of bad items. These two data structures are populated entirely independent of one another.
What's the proper way to write a method that will return a std::vector<int> contain all elements of all_items not in bad_items?
Currently, I have a clunky solution that I think can be done more concisely. My understanding of STL function adapters is lacking. Hence the question. My current solution is:
struct is_item_bad {
std::set<int> const* bad_items;
bool operator() (int const i) const {
return bad_items.count(i) > 0;
}
};
std::vector<int> items() const {
is_item_bad iib = { &bad_items; };
std::vector<int> good_items(all_items.size());
std::remove_copy_if(all_items.begin(), all_items.end(),
good_items.begin(), is_item_bad);
return good_items;
}
Assume all_items, bad_items, is_item_bad and items() are all a part of some containing class. Is there a way to write them items() getter such that:
It doesn't need temporary variables in the method?
It doesn't need the custom functor, struct is_item_bad?
I had hoped to just use the count method on std::set as a functor, but I haven't been able to divine the right way to express that w/ the remove_copy_if algorithm.
EDIT: Fixed the logic error in items(). The actual code didn't have the problem, it was a transcription error.
EDIT: I have accepted a solution that doesn't use std::set_difference since it is more general and will work even if the std::vector isn't sorted. I chose to use the C++0x lambda expression syntax in my code. My final items() method looks like this:
std::vector<int> items() const {
std::vector<int> good_items;
good_items.reserve(all_items.size());
std::remove_copy_if(all_items.begin(), all_items.end(),
std::back_inserter(good_items),
[&bad_items] (int const i) {
return bad_items.count(i) == 1;
});
}
On a vector of about 8 million items the above method runs in 3.1s. I bench marked the std::set_difference approach and it ran in approximately 2.1s. Thanks to everyone who supplied great answers.
As jeffamaphone suggested, if you can sort any input vectors, you can use std::set_difference which is efficient and less code:
#include <algorithm>
#include <set>
#include <vector>
std::vector<int>
get_good_items( std::vector<int> const & all_items,
std::set<int> const & bad_items )
{
std::vector<int> good_items;
// Assumes all_items is sorted.
std::set_difference( all_items.begin(),
all_items.end(),
bad_items.begin(),
bad_items.end(),
std::back_inserter( good_items ) );
return good_items;
}
Since your function is going to return a vector, you will have to make a new vector (i.e. copy elements) in any case. In which case, std::remove_copy_if is fine, but you should use it correctly:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <set>
#include <iterator>
#include <algorithm>
#include <functional>
std::vector<int> filter(const std::vector<int>& all, const std::set<int>& bad)
{
std::vector<int> result;
remove_copy_if(all.begin(), all.end(), back_inserter(result),
[&bad](int i){return bad.count(i)==1;});
return result;
}
int main()
{
std::vector<int> all_items = {4,5,2,3,4,8,7,56,4,2,2,2,3};
std::set<int> bad_items = {2,8,4};
std::vector<int> filtered_items = filter(all_items, bad_items);
copy(filtered_items.begin(), filtered_items.end(), std::ostream_iterator<int>(std::cout, " "));
std::cout << std::endl;
}
To do this in C++98, I guess you could use mem_fun_ref and bind1st to turn set::count into a functor in-line, but there are issues with that (which resulted in deprecation of bind1st in C++0x) which means depending on your compiler, you might end up using std::tr1::bind anyway:
remove_copy_if(all.begin(), all.end(), back_inserter(result),
bind(&std::set<int>::count, bad, std::tr1::placeholders::_1)); // or std::placeholders in C++0x
and in any case, an explicit function object would be more readable, I think:
struct IsMemberOf {
const std::set<int>& bad;
IsMemberOf(const std::set<int>& b) : bad(b) {}
bool operator()(int i) const { return bad.count(i)==1;}
};
std::vector<int> filter(const std::vector<int>& all, const std::set<int>& bad)
{
std::vector<int> result;
remove_copy_if(all.begin(), all.end(), back_inserter(result), IsMemberOf(bad));
return result;
}
At the risk of appearing archaic:
std::set<int> badItems;
std::vector<int> items;
std::vector<int> goodItems;
for ( std::vector<int>::iterator iter = items.begin();
iter != items.end();
++iter)
{
int& item = *iter;
if ( badItems.find(item) == badItems.end() )
{
goodItems.push_back(item);
}
}
std::remove_copy_if returns an iterator to the target collection. In this case, it would return good_items.end() (or something similar). good_items goes out of scope at the end of the method, so this would cause some memory errors. You should return good_items or pass in a new vector<int> by reference and then clear, resize, and populate it. This would get rid of the temporary variable.
I believe you have to define the custom functor because the method depends on the object bad_items which you couldn't specify without it getting hackey AFAIK.