I want to insert new (unique) element into known place (generally somewhere in the middle) of an ordered associative container std::set/std::multiset/std::map/std::multimap using insert (w/ hint) or emplace_hint.
During insertion operation I absolutely sure, that the place to insert is right before the "hint" iterator. Generally I can compare any two non-neighbouring elements in the container, but this operation is strongly heavyweight. To avoid overhead imposed, I provide custom comparator for the container, which contains a references to pointers to both neigbouring elements (they always became known right before the insertion/emplacement operation).
#include <map>
#include <set>
static std::size_t counter = 0;
template< typename T >
struct less
{
T const * const & pl;
T const * const & pr;
bool operator () (T const & l, T const & r) const
{
if (&l == &r) {
return false;
}
if (pl) {
if (&l == pl) {
return true;
}
if (&r == pl) {
return false;
}
}
if (pr) {
if (&r == pr) {
return true;
}
if (&l == pr) {
return false;
}
}
++counter;
return l < r; // very expensive, it is desirable this line to be unrecheable
}
};
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iterator>
#include <cassert>
int main()
{
using T = int;
T const * pl = nullptr;
T const * pr = nullptr;
less< T > less_{pl, pr};
std::set< T, less< T > > s{less_};
s.insert({1, 2,/* 3, */4, 5});
std::copy(std::cbegin(s), std::cend(s), std::ostream_iterator< T >(std::cout, " "));
std::cout << '\n';
auto const hint = s.find(4);
// now I want to insert 3 right before 4 (and, of course, after 2)
pl = &*std::prev(hint); // prepare comparator to make a cheap insertion
pr = &*hint;
// if hint == std::end(s), then pr = nullptr
// else if hint == std::begin(s), then pl = nullptr
// if I tried to insert w/o hint, then pl = pr = nullptr;
{
std::size_t const c = counter;
s.insert(hint, 3);
assert(counter == c);
}
std::copy(std::cbegin(s), std::cend(s), std::ostream_iterator< T >(std::cout, " "));
std::cout << '\n';
}
Current libc++/libstdc++ implementations allows me to use described comparator, but is there undefined behaviour if I rely on their current behaviour? Can I rely, that insert (w/ hint parameter) or emplace_hint (and modern insert_or_assign/try_emplace w/ hint parameter for map/multimap) don't touch any other elements other then pointed by pl and pr? Is it implementation-defined thing?
Why I want this strange thing? IRL I tried to implement Fortune's algorithm to find Voronoi diagram on the plane using native STL's self-balanced binary search tries. std::set is used to store current state of a part of a so-called beach line: a chain of sorted endpoints. When I add a new endpoint I always know the place where to insert it right before the insertion. It would be best if I can add assert(false); before or throw std::logic_error{};/__builtin_unreachable(); instead of last return in comparator functor. I only can do it if there is corresponding logical guarantee. Can I do this?
I have used std::vector for making my algorithm. I would like to replace the vectors by linked lists.
In order to do so, I was thinking of using the std::list, but I have no idea how to do this, for example I have tried following example for finding a value within a vector/list:
void find_values_in_vector(const std::vector<int>& input_vector, int value, int &rv1, int &rv2)
{
if (input_vector[0] >= value) { // too small
rv1 = 0; rv2 = 0; return;
}
int index = (int)input_vector.size() - 1;
if (input_vector[index] <= value) { // too big
rv1 = index; rv2 = index; return;
}
// somewhere inside
index = 0;
while (input_vector[index] <= value) {
index++;
}
rv1 = index - 1; rv2 = index; return;
}
void find_values_in_list(const std::list<int>& input_list, int value, int &rv1, int &rv2)
{
if (*input_list.begin() >= value) { // too small
rv1 = 0; rv2 = 0; return;
}
if (*input_list.end() <= value) { // too big
rv1 = (int)input_list.size() - 1; rv2 = (int)input_list.size() - 1; return;
}
// somewhere inside
int index = 0; int temp = *input_list.begin();
while (temp <= value) {
temp = *input_list.next(); index++;
}
rv1 = index - 1; rv2 = index; return;
}
This seems not to work, as the member function next() is not existing. However I remember that browsing through a linked list is done by going to the beginning, and moving further to the next element until the a certain point is reached. I have seen that there is a way to get this done by using an interator in a for-loop, but I wonder what's wrong with my approach? I was under the impression that a std::list was a standard implementation of a double-directional linked list, or am I wrong and in that case, what std class is the implementation of a linked list (it does not need to be a double-directional linked list)?
The standard way to iterate through containers is like this:
for(std::list<int>::iterator it = input_list.begin();
it != input_list.end();
it++)
{
....
}
This also works for vectors,maps,deque,etc. The Iterator concept is consistently implemented throughout the STL so it's best to get used to this concepts.
There are also iterator operations like std::distance and std::advance etc. for the different types of iterators (I suggest you read up on them and their advantages/limitations)
If you have C++ 11 available you can also use this syntax (may not be useful for your problem though.)
for(const auto& value : input_list)
{
...
}
This also works throughout the STL container.
This should work for vector, list, deque, and set (assuming the contents are sorted).
template <class T>
void find_values_in_container(const T& container, int value, int &rv1, int &rv2)
{
rv1 = rv2 = 0; // Initialize
if (container.empty() || container.front() >= value)
{
return;
}
for (const auto& v : container)
{
rv2++;
if (v > value)
{
break;
}
rv1++;
}
return;
}
I need to implement the following datastructure for my project. I have a relation of
const MyClass*
to
uint64_t
For every pointer I want to save a counter connected to it, which can be changed over time (in fact only incremented). This would be no problem, I could simply store it in a std::map. The problem is that I need fast access to the pointers which have the highest values.
That is why I came to the conclusion to use a boost::bimap. It is defined is follows for my project:
typedef boost::bimaps::bimap<
boost::bimaps::unordered_set_of< const MyClass* >,
boost::bimaps::multiset_of< uint64_t, std::greater<uint64_t> >
> MyBimap;
MyBimap bimap;
This would work fine, but am I right that I can not modify the uint64_t on pair which were inserted once? The documentation says that multiset_of is constant and therefore I cannot change a value of pair in the bimap.
What can I do? What would be the correct way to change the value of one key in this bimap? Or is there a simpler data structure possible for this problem?
Here's a simple hand-made solution.
Internally it keeps a map to store the counts indexed by object pointer, and a further multi-set of iterators, ordered by descending count of their pointees.
Whenever you modify a count, you must re-index. I have done this piecemeal, but you could do it as a batch update, depending on requirements.
Note that in c++17 there is a proposed splice operation for sets and maps, which would make the re-indexing extremely fast.
#include <map>
#include <set>
#include <vector>
struct MyClass { };
struct store
{
std::uint64_t add_value(MyClass* p, std::uint64_t count = 0)
{
add_index(_map.emplace(p, count).first);
return count;
}
std::uint64_t increment(MyClass* p)
{
auto it = _map.find(p);
if (it == std::end(_map)) {
// in this case, we'll create one - we could throw instead
return add_value(p, 1);
}
else {
remove_index(it);
++it->second;
add_index(it);
return it->second;
}
}
std::uint64_t query(MyClass* p) const {
auto it = _map.find(p);
if (it == std::end(_map)) {
// in this case, we'll create one - we could throw instead
return 0;
}
else {
return it->second;
}
}
std::vector<std::pair<MyClass*, std::uint64_t>> top_n(std::size_t n)
{
std::vector<std::pair<MyClass*, std::uint64_t>> result;
result.reserve(n);
for (auto idx = _value_index.begin(), idx_end = _value_index.end() ;
n && idx != idx_end ;
++idx, --n) {
result.emplace_back((*idx)->first, (*idx)->second);
}
return result;
}
private:
using map_type = std::map<MyClass*, std::uint64_t>;
struct by_count
{
bool operator()(map_type::const_iterator l, map_type::const_iterator r) const {
// note: greater than orders by descending count
return l->second > r->second;
}
};
using value_index_type = std::multiset<map_type::iterator, by_count>;
void add_index(map_type::iterator iter)
{
_value_index.emplace(iter->second, iter);
}
void remove_index(map_type::iterator iter)
{
for(auto range = _value_index.equal_range(iter);
range.first != range.second;
++range.first)
{
if (*range.first == iter) {
_value_index.erase(range.first);
return;
}
}
}
map_type _map;
value_index_type _value_index;
};
I have to process an std::vector either forwards or in reverse, depending upon a boolean flag. What's the most elegant way to accomplish this? Before needing to do it in reverse I had:
BOOST_FOREACH(const CType &foo, vec) {
...
}
However, now I have the horrendous-looking:
for (int i=undoing ? (vec.size()-1) : 0; undoing ? (i >= 0) : (i < vec.size()); undoing ? (i--) : (i++)) {
const CType &foo = vec[i];
...
}
Is there a better way?
I don't know that people would call it elegant, but there's:
auto do_it = [](const CType& elem)
{
...
};
if (iterate_forward) {
std::for_each(vec.begin(), vec.end(), do_it);
}
else {
std::for_each(vec.rbegin(), vec.rend(), do_it);
}
Add a template function that works with either the forward iterators or reverse iterators. Call the function using the appropriate iterator based on the value of undoing.
template <typename Iterator>
void doStuff(Iterator iter, Iterator end)
{
for ( ; iter != end; ++iter )
{
// Do stuff
}
}
if ( undoing )
{
doStuff(vec.rbegin(), vec.rend());
}
else
{
doStuff(vec.begin(), vec.end());
}
How about keeping the loop running as it is from 0 to vector.size, but reading the array in the direction you need.
int idx;
for (int i =0; i < vec.size(); i ++)
{
if (undoing) // assuming going forward
idx = i;
else // going backwards
idx = vec.size() - i - 1;
const CType &foo = vec[idx];
}
You may also use Boost.Range-based solution. It's similar to the one using STL algorithms, already proposed.
#include <boost/range/adaptor/reversed.hpp>
#include <boost/range/algorithm/for_each.hpp>
// In C++11 lambda expression can be used instead
struct my_fun
{
void operator()(const CType& elem) const
{
/*...*/
}
};
/*...*/
using namespace boost::adaptors;
if ( iterate_forward )
boost::for_each(my_vect, my_fun());
else
boost::for_each(my_vect | reversed, my_fun());
This question already has answers here:
How can I sort two vectors in the same way, with criteria that uses only one of the vectors?
(9 answers)
Closed 9 months ago.
I have several std::vector, all of the same length. I want to sort one of these vectors, and apply the same transformation to all of the other vectors. Is there a neat way of doing this? (preferably using the STL or Boost)? Some of the vectors hold ints and some of them std::strings.
Pseudo code:
std::vector<int> Index = { 3, 1, 2 };
std::vector<std::string> Values = { "Third", "First", "Second" };
Transformation = sort(Index);
Index is now { 1, 2, 3};
... magic happens as Transformation is applied to Values ...
Values are now { "First", "Second", "Third" };
friol's approach is good when coupled with yours. First, build a vector consisting of the numbers 1…n, along with the elements from the vector dictating the sorting order:
typedef vector<int>::const_iterator myiter;
vector<pair<size_t, myiter> > order(Index.size());
size_t n = 0;
for (myiter it = Index.begin(); it != Index.end(); ++it, ++n)
order[n] = make_pair(n, it);
Now you can sort this array using a custom sorter:
struct ordering {
bool operator ()(pair<size_t, myiter> const& a, pair<size_t, myiter> const& b) {
return *(a.second) < *(b.second);
}
};
sort(order.begin(), order.end(), ordering());
Now you've captured the order of rearrangement inside order (more precisely, in the first component of the items). You can now use this ordering to sort your other vectors. There's probably a very clever in-place variant running in the same time, but until someone else comes up with it, here's one variant that isn't in-place. It uses order as a look-up table for the new index of each element.
template <typename T>
vector<T> sort_from_ref(
vector<T> const& in,
vector<pair<size_t, myiter> > const& reference
) {
vector<T> ret(in.size());
size_t const size = in.size();
for (size_t i = 0; i < size; ++i)
ret[i] = in[reference[i].first];
return ret;
}
typedef std::vector<int> int_vec_t;
typedef std::vector<std::string> str_vec_t;
typedef std::vector<size_t> index_vec_t;
class SequenceGen {
public:
SequenceGen (int start = 0) : current(start) { }
int operator() () { return current++; }
private:
int current;
};
class Comp{
int_vec_t& _v;
public:
Comp(int_vec_t& v) : _v(v) {}
bool operator()(size_t i, size_t j){
return _v[i] < _v[j];
}
};
index_vec_t indices(3);
std::generate(indices.begin(), indices.end(), SequenceGen(0));
//indices are {0, 1, 2}
int_vec_t Index = { 3, 1, 2 };
str_vec_t Values = { "Third", "First", "Second" };
std::sort(indices.begin(), indices.end(), Comp(Index));
//now indices are {1,2,0}
Now you can use the "indices" vector to index into "Values" vector.
Put your values in a Boost Multi-Index container then iterate over to read the values in the order you want. You can even copy them to another vector if you want to.
Only one rough solution comes to my mind: create a vector that is the sum of all other vectors (a vector of structures, like {3,Third,...},{1,First,...}) then sort this vector by the first field, and then split the structures again.
Probably there is a better solution inside Boost or using the standard library.
You can probably define a custom "facade" iterator that does what you need here. It would store iterators to all your vectors or alternatively derive the iterators for all but the first vector from the offset of the first. The tricky part is what that iterator dereferences to: think of something like boost::tuple and make clever use of boost::tie. (If you wanna extend on this idea, you can build these iterator types recursively using templates but you probably never want to write down the type of that - so you either need c++0x auto or a wrapper function for sort that takes ranges)
I think what you really need (but correct me if I'm wrong) is a way to access elements of a container in some order.
Rather than rearranging my original collection, I would borrow a concept from Database design: keep an index, ordered by a certain criterion. This index is an extra indirection that offers great flexibility.
This way it is possible to generate multiple indices according to different members of a class.
using namespace std;
template< typename Iterator, typename Comparator >
struct Index {
vector<Iterator> v;
Index( Iterator from, Iterator end, Comparator& c ){
v.reserve( std::distance(from,end) );
for( ; from != end; ++from ){
v.push_back(from); // no deref!
}
sort( v.begin(), v.end(), c );
}
};
template< typename Iterator, typename Comparator >
Index<Iterator,Comparator> index ( Iterator from, Iterator end, Comparator& c ){
return Index<Iterator,Comparator>(from,end,c);
}
struct mytype {
string name;
double number;
};
template< typename Iter >
struct NameLess : public binary_function<Iter, Iter, bool> {
bool operator()( const Iter& t1, const Iter& t2 ) const { return t1->name < t2->name; }
};
template< typename Iter >
struct NumLess : public binary_function<Iter, Iter, bool> {
bool operator()( const Iter& t1, const Iter& t2 ) const { return t1->number < t2->number; }
};
void indices() {
mytype v[] = { { "me" , 0.0 }
, { "you" , 1.0 }
, { "them" , -1.0 }
};
mytype* vend = v + _countof(v);
Index<mytype*, NameLess<mytype*> > byname( v, vend, NameLess<mytype*>() );
Index<mytype*, NumLess <mytype*> > bynum ( v, vend, NumLess <mytype*>() );
assert( byname.v[0] == v+0 );
assert( byname.v[1] == v+2 );
assert( byname.v[2] == v+1 );
assert( bynum.v[0] == v+2 );
assert( bynum.v[1] == v+0 );
assert( bynum.v[2] == v+1 );
}
A slightly more compact variant of xtofl's answer for if you are just looking to iterate through all your vectors based on the of a single keys vector. Create a permutation vector and use this to index into your other vectors.
#include <boost/iterator/counting_iterator.hpp>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
std::vector<double> keys = ...
std::vector<double> values = ...
std::vector<size_t> indices(boost::counting_iterator<size_t>(0u), boost::counting_iterator<size_t>(keys.size()));
std::sort(begin(indices), end(indices), [&](size_t lhs, size_t rhs) {
return keys[lhs] < keys[rhs];
});
// Now to iterate through the values array.
for (size_t i: indices)
{
std::cout << values[i] << std::endl;
}
ltjax's answer is a great approach - which is actually implemented in boost's zip_iterator http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_43_0/libs/iterator/doc/zip_iterator.html
It packages together into a tuple whatever iterators you provide it.
You can then create your own comparison function for a sort based on any combination of iterator values in your tuple. For this question, it would just be the first iterator in your tuple.
A nice feature of this approach is that it allows you to keep the memory of each individual vector contiguous (if you're using vectors and that's what you want). You also don't need to store a separate index vector of ints.
This would have been an addendum to Konrad's answer as it an approach for a in-place variant of applying the sort order to a vector. Anyhow since the edit won't go through I will put it here
Here is a in-place variant with a slightly higher time complexity that is due to a primitive operation of checking a boolean. The additional space complexity is of a vector which can be a space efficient compiler dependent implementation. The complexity of a vector can be eliminated if the given order itself can be modified.
Here is a in-place variant with a slightly higher time complexity that is due to a primitive operation of checking a boolean. The additional space complexity is of a vector which can be a space efficient compiler dependent implementation. The complexity of a vector can be eliminated if the given order itself can be modified. This is a example of what the algorithm is doing.
If the order is 3 0 4 1 2, the movement of the elements as indicated by the position indices would be 3--->0; 0--->1; 1--->3; 2--->4; 4--->2.
template<typename T>
struct applyOrderinPlace
{
void operator()(const vector<size_t>& order, vector<T>& vectoOrder)
{
vector<bool> indicator(order.size(),0);
size_t start = 0, cur = 0, next = order[cur];
size_t indx = 0;
T tmp;
while(indx < order.size())
{
//find unprocessed index
if(indicator[indx])
{
++indx;
continue;
}
start = indx;
cur = start;
next = order[cur];
tmp = vectoOrder[start];
while(next != start)
{
vectoOrder[cur] = vectoOrder[next];
indicator[cur] = true;
cur = next;
next = order[next];
}
vectoOrder[cur] = tmp;
indicator[cur] = true;
}
}
};
Here is a relatively simple implementation using index mapping between the ordered and unordered names that will be used to match the ages to the ordered names:
void ordered_pairs()
{
std::vector<std::string> names;
std::vector<int> ages;
// read input and populate the vectors
populate(names, ages);
// print input
print(names, ages);
// sort pairs
std::vector<std::string> sortedNames(names);
std::sort(sortedNames.begin(), sortedNames.end());
std::vector<int> indexMap;
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < sortedNames.size(); ++i)
{
for (unsigned int j = 0; j < names.size(); ++j)
{
if (sortedNames[i] == names[j])
{
indexMap.push_back(j);
break;
}
}
}
// use the index mapping to match the ages to the names
std::vector<int> sortedAges;
for(size_t i = 0; i < indexMap.size(); ++i)
{
sortedAges.push_back(ages[indexMap[i]]);
}
std::cout << "Ordered pairs:\n";
print(sortedNames, sortedAges);
}
For the sake of completeness, here are the functions populate() and print():
void populate(std::vector<std::string>& n, std::vector<int>& a)
{
std::string prompt("Type name and age, separated by white space; 'q' to exit.\n>>");
std::string sentinel = "q";
while (true)
{
// read input
std::cout << prompt;
std::string input;
getline(std::cin, input);
// exit input loop
if (input == sentinel)
{
break;
}
std::stringstream ss(input);
// extract input
std::string name;
int age;
if (ss >> name >> age)
{
n.push_back(name);
a.push_back(age);
}
else
{
std::cout <<"Wrong input format!\n";
}
}
}
and:
void print(const std::vector<std::string>& n, const std::vector<int>& a)
{
if (n.size() != a.size())
{
std::cerr <<"Different number of names and ages!\n";
return;
}
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < n.size(); ++i)
{
std::cout <<'(' << n[i] << ", " << a[i] << ')' << "\n";
}
}
And finally, main() becomes:
#include <iostream>
#include <sstream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
void ordered_pairs();
void populate(std::vector<std::string>&, std::vector<int>&);
void print(const std::vector<std::string>&, const std::vector<int>&);
//=======================================================================
int main()
{
std::cout << "\t\tSimple name - age sorting.\n";
ordered_pairs();
}
//=======================================================================
// Function Definitions...
**// C++ program to demonstrate sorting in vector
// of pair according to 2nd element of pair
#include <iostream>
#include<string>
#include<vector>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
// Driver function to sort the vector elements
// by second element of pairs
bool sortbysec(const pair<char,char> &a,
const pair<int,int> &b)
{
return (a.second < b.second);
}
int main()
{
// declaring vector of pairs
vector< pair <char, int> > vect;
// Initialising 1st and 2nd element of pairs
// with array values
//int arr[] = {10, 20, 5, 40 };
//int arr1[] = {30, 60, 20, 50};
char arr[] = { ' a', 'b', 'c' };
int arr1[] = { 4, 7, 1 };
int n = sizeof(arr)/sizeof(arr[0]);
// Entering values in vector of pairs
for (int i=0; i<n; i++)
vect.push_back( make_pair(arr[i],arr1[i]) );
// Printing the original vector(before sort())
cout << "The vector before sort operation is:\n" ;
for (int i=0; i<n; i++)
{
// "first" and "second" are used to access
// 1st and 2nd element of pair respectively
cout << vect[i].first << " "
<< vect[i].second << endl;
}
// Using sort() function to sort by 2nd element
// of pair
sort(vect.begin(), vect.end(), sortbysec);
// Printing the sorted vector(after using sort())
cout << "The vector after sort operation is:\n" ;
for (int i=0; i<n; i++)
{
// "first" and "second" are used to access
// 1st and 2nd element of pair respectively
cout << vect[i].first << " "
<< vect[i].second << endl;
}
getchar();
return 0;`enter code here`
}**
with C++11 lambdas and the STL algorithms based on answers from Konrad Rudolph and Gabriele D'Antona:
template< typename T, typename U >
std::vector<T> sortVecAByVecB( std::vector<T> & a, std::vector<U> & b ){
// zip the two vectors (A,B)
std::vector<std::pair<T,U>> zipped(a.size());
for( size_t i = 0; i < a.size(); i++ ) zipped[i] = std::make_pair( a[i], b[i] );
// sort according to B
std::sort(zipped.begin(), zipped.end(), []( auto & lop, auto & rop ) { return lop.second < rop.second; });
// extract sorted A
std::vector<T> sorted;
std::transform(zipped.begin(), zipped.end(), std::back_inserter(sorted), []( auto & pair ){ return pair.first; });
return sorted;
}
So many asked this question and nobody came up with a satisfactory answer. Here is a std::sort helper that enables to sort two vectors simultaneously, taking into account the values of only one vector. This solution is based on a custom RadomIt (random iterator), and operates directly on the original vector data, without temporary copies, structure rearrangement or additional indices:
C++, Sort One Vector Based On Another One