This was one of the questions showed up on my Final exam. I can't figure out what I'm supposed to do.
I know BindSecArg requires a () operator, but not sure what goes inside.
In this question you are required to implement something similar to std::bind2nd. For simplicity main
is written using a ”for”-loop, but it may be rewritten with ”for each” and STL containers.
class Functor1 {
public:
int operator()(const int & i, const int & j) const {
return i+j;
}
};
class Functor2 {
public:
int operator()(const int & i, const int & j) const {
return i*j;
}
};
template <typename T>
class BindSecArg
};
int main () {
Functor1 f1;
for (int i=0; i<10; ++i) std::cout << f1(i,i) << " "; //0 2 4 6 8 10
std::cout << std::endl;
Functor2 f2;
for (int i=0; i<10; ++i) std::cout << f2(i,i) << " "; //0 1 4 9 16 25
std::cout << std::endl;
BindSecArg<Functor1> b1(4); //bind second argument of Functor1 to 4
for (int i=0; i<10; ++i) std::cout << b1(i) << " "; //4 5 6 7 8 9
std::cout << std::endl;
BindSecArg<Functor2> b2(4); //bind second argument of Functor2 to 4
for (int i=0; i<10; ++i) std::cout << b2(i) << " "; //0 4 8 12 16 20
std::cout << std::endl;
}
Extra credit question: your implementation most probably doesn’t work (which is OK!) with
class Functor3 {
public:
std::string operator()(const std::string & i, const std::string & j) const {
return i+j;
}
};
how does STL solve this problem?
The operator() for BindSecArg needs to take one argument (obviously), and what it's supposed to do is call the operator() from the "bound" functor, passing it (a) the passed-in "first" argument and (b) the "bound" second argument.
So we need to construct an instance of the bound functor's class (so that we can make that call), and we need to remember the second argument. We'll take care of both of these with data members.
That looks like:
template <typename T>
class BindSecArg
T toCall;
int second;
public:
// To initialize, we default-construct the bound-functor-instance, and copy the
// constructor parameter for our bound-parameter.
BindSecArg(int second): toCall(), second(second) {}
// To call, see the above discussion.
int operator() (int first) { return toCall(first, second); }
};
The standard library (please don't say "STL") bind2nd addresses this by expecting T to be an "AdaptableBinaryFunction", i.e. to provide some typedef members identifying the parameter and result types for operator(), and then using these to inherit from a base class using those typedefs as template types, and then using typedefs provided by the base class to template its own operator() implementation. These are some of the basic techniques of "template metaprogramming", and it gets complicated fast. You should look up some separate reading resources for this.
probably there are better implementations:
template <typename T>
class BindSecArg
{
public:
BindSecArg(int value2) : m_value2(value2){ };
int operator()(int value1) { return T()(value1, m_value2);}
private:
int m_value2;
};
int the link I posted in the comment to your question you can find the stl code.
Inside goes a call to Functor.operator(), passing the value given to BindSecArg in its constructor as the second argument.
Related
I wanted to write my own code to iterate over an n dimensional vector (where the dimension is known). Here is the code:
void printing(const auto& i, const int dimension){
int k= dimension;
for(const auto& j: i){
if(k>1){
cout<<"k: "<<k<<endl;
printing(j, --k);
}
else{
//start printing
cout<<setw(3);
cout<<j; //not quite sure about this line
}
cout<<'\n';
}
}
I get an error:
main.cpp:21:5: error: ‘begin’ was not declared in this scope
for(const auto& j: i){
^~~
Could someone help me to correct it or give me a better way to print the vector?
Thanks in advance for your time.
If the dimensions are known at compile-time, this can be solved easily with a template that takes dimensions as the non-type argument.
template <std::size_t Dimensions>
void printing(const auto& i){
if constexpr (Dimensions != 0) {
for(const auto& j: i){
// I'm not sure if it is intentional to print 'k' each iteration,
// but this is kept for consistency with the question
cout<<"k: " << Dimensions << endl;
printing<Dimensions - 1u>(j);
}
} else {
cout << setw(3);
cout << j;
cout << '\n';
}
}
The use would be, for a 2d vector:
printing<2>(vec);
Live Example
However, if you always know that const auto& i will be a std::vector type, you can potentially solve this even easier by just not using auto arguments at all, and instead use template matching:
// called only for the vector values
template <typename T>
void printing(const std::vector<T>& i){
for(const auto& j: i){
// possibly compute 'k' to print -- see below
printing(j);
}
}
// Only called for non-vector values
template <typename T>
void printing(const T& v) {
cout << setw(3);
cout << v;
cout << '\n';
}
Live Example
To compute the "dimension" of the vector, you can write a recursive type-trait for that:
#include <type_traits> // std::integral_constant
// Base case: return the count
template <std::size_t Count, typename T>
struct vector_dimension_impl
: std::integral_constant<std::size_t, Count> {};
// Recursive case: add 1 to the count, and check inner type
template <std::size_t Count, typename T, typename Allocator>
struct vector_dimension_impl<Count, std::vector<T,Allocator>>
: vector_dimension_impl<Count + 1u, T> {};
// Dispatcher
template <typename T>
struct vector_dimension : vector_dimension_impl<0u, T> {};
// Convenience access
template <typename T>
inline constexpr auto vector_dimension_v = vector_dimension<T>::value;
// Simple tests:
static_assert(vector_dimension_v<std::vector<int>> == 1u);
static_assert(vector_dimension_v<std::vector<std::vector<int>>> == 2u);
static_assert(vector_dimension_v<std::vector<std::vector<std::vector<int>>>> == 3u);
Live Example
With the above recursive trait, you can get the "dimension" of each templated vector type, without requiring the user to pass in the value at all.
If you still wanted to print k: each time, you can use the above simply with:
cout << "k: " << vector_dimension_v<T> << endl;
This only works if the type is known to be a vector -- but it could be written using concepts to work with anything following the abstract definition of something like a vector as well.
If you want this to work with any range-like type, then you could replace the vector-overload with a requires(std::ranges::range<T>) instead, and change the template-specializations for finding the dimension to also use the same. I won't pollute the answer with all this code since it's largely the same as above -- but I'll link to it in action below:
Live Example
I have made a function that can print any n-dimensional iterable container:
template<typename Object, typename Iterable>
void Print(
const Iterable& iterable,
const string& separatorDimensions = "\n",
const function<void(const Object&)>& funcPrintElem = [] (const Object& obj) {
static_assert(
is_arithmetic_v<Object> || is_same_v<remove_const_t<remove_pointer_t<Object>>, char>,
R"(The object from the innermost range is not a built-in/c-string type, please provide a valid print element function.)"
);
cout << obj << ' ';
}
) {
if constexpr (ranges::range<Iterable>) {
ranges::for_each(iterable, [&] (const auto& it) { Print(it, separatorDimensions, funcPrintElem); });
cout << separatorDimensions;
} else {
funcPrintElem(iterable);
}
}
The function has a default std::function that can print any built-in type like int, unsigned char, long long etc... and the c-string like char* or const char*, if you have another object like a pair or tuple or an object of your class you can pass a function that prints your object.
You can use the function like this: (you must explicitly tell the function your inner most object like below)
int main() {
cout << "v: " << endl;
vector<uint16_t> v { 1, 2, 3 };
Print<uint16_t>(v);
cout << endl << "ll: " << endl;
list<list<const char*>> ll { { "a", "b" }, { "c", "d" } };
Print<const char*>(ll);
struct smth {
int a;
char b;
};
cout << endl << "smths: " << endl;
vector<smth> smths { { 14, '0' }, { 18, '1' } };
Print<smth>(smths, "\n", [] (const smth& obj) { cout << "a = " << obj.a << ", b = " << obj.b << endl; });
return 0;
}
The function can be found here, maybe I will update in the future to support more things.
Edit: You need to have at least c++20 for this function to work
The fix for this is probably very simple, but I cannot find the answer. An answer will be rewarded with my thanks and my tears.
Basically the below code works just fine without the template (with the T's as primitives of course) but once I add the template, it says my argument list is missing. I figured this has to do with declaring , but these functions are not using scope resolution, at least not in a way I'm familiar with. How do I get this to work?
template<class T>
class Foo
{
public:
Foo(T s, int i) : Data(s), pri(i) {}
//Overload the relational operator so that the priority is compared.
bool operator < (const Foo<T>& n) const { return n.pri < pri; }
T getData() { return Data; }
int getId() { return pri; }
private:
T Data;
int pri;
};
This is main
int main(void)
{
set<Foo> s; //These should actually be multiset, but was trying to get it to
s.insert(Foo("C++", 9)); //work as a set before jumping to multiset
s.insert(Foo("Is ", 7));
s.insert(Foo("Fun ", 3));
set<Foo>::iterator p;
for (p = s.begin(); p != s.end(); p++)
{
Foo n = *p;
cout << "Id: " << n.getId() << "\t Data: " << n.getData() << endl;
}
return 0;
}
If you're curious, the program is supposed to take a string(or other type) along with a priority and sort the priority, the program isn't complete, but I'm supposed to use this Class in my program, but I'm tripped up over in converting it into a template.
std::set expect a type.
Before the introduction of the template part, Foo was a type.
Now that is a template class, Foo isn't a type anymore. Foo<int> is a type; Foo<std::string> is a type; not Foo.
So
std::set<Foo<int>> s;
can work,
std::set<Foo> s;
give an error.
When you declare class Foo {};, Foo is the name of a class. However, when you declare template <class T> class Foo {};, Foo is the name of a template. A template is not a class: it's a recipe for creating classes. Classes such as Foo<int> or Foo<char>.
It seems you want to store std::strings in your Foos in the set, which means the code should look like this:
int main(void)
{
set<Foo<string>> s; //These should actually be multiset, but was trying to get it to
s.insert(Foo<string>("C++", 9)); //work as a set before jumping to multiset
s.insert(Foo<string>("Is ", 7));
s.insert(Foo<string>("Fun ", 3));
set<Foo<string>>::iterator p;
for (p = s.begin(); p != s.end(); p++)
{
Foo<string> n = *p;
cout << "Id: " << n.getId() << "\t Data: " << n.getData() << endl;
}
return 0;
}
I'm trying to make a function, which can 'print' content of array to any output object. It's looking a little bit like this:
template <class T, class Z>
void print(T* array, int& size, Z& obj)
{
for (int k = 0; k < size; k++)
Z<< array[k] << " ";
Z<< std::endl;
}
I want obj to be any output object like std::cout or any of fstream, so I could call it using:
print(arr_name, arr_size, std::cout)
or
std::ostream file;
print(arr_name, arr_size, file)
Unfortunately, in my current verion it doesn't work at all (errors involve '<<' operator). What's wrong? Is it even possible to create such function?
You are not using the name of the argument but the type.
Z << array[k] << " ";
should be
obj << array[k] << " ";
In addition, passing the size as non-const reference doesn't make much sense as you'll need an l-value, const int& size would be better.
But this won't be so much generic in any case. The best solution would be to use iterators and skip plain C arrays totally, and use std::array as a replacement (which makes sense since you are working in C++):
template <class T, class Z>
void print(const T& data, Z& obj)
{
for (const typename T::value_type& element : data)
obj << element;
obj << std::endl;
}
std::array<int, 5> data = {1,2,3,4,5};
std::vector<std::string> data2;
print(data, std::cout);
print(data2, std::cout);
Consider a free function from a third part library that expects a std::vector as argument: void foo( std::vector<sometype>& );
Now, I write a wrapper around this type so I can add member functions. To be able to use foo() with that type, I add an access function.
class Wrapper
{
private:
std::vector<sometype> _data;
public:
std::vector<sometype>& data() { return _data; }
const std::vector<sometype>& data() const { return _data; }
//... other stuff
};
This way, I can still use foo():
Wrapper a;
foo( a.data() );
But now consider another function, that expects a vector of vectors of sometype (edit: and that adds elements into that vector) :
void bar( std::vector<std::vector<sometype>>& );
But the datatype I have is std::vector<Wrapper> vec;
Is there any way to use my wrapper type to call bar() ?
What I want to do is this:
std::vector<Wrapper> vec;
bar( ??? );
The point I want to avoid is first call bar() with the required type, and then having to copy one by one the elements into my vector<Wrapper>.
At first, I'd say "No", but maybe there is some smart solution ?
Edit2: to give an example, consider the following toy implementation for bar() with an int root datatype:
void bar( std::vector<std::vector<int>>& vv )
{
std::vector<int> v1 = { 1,2,3 };
std::vector<int> v2 = { 4,5,6 };
vv.push_back(v1);
vv.push_back(v2);
}
[Edited after new comments requiring elements added in the bar function]
A possible solution would be to keep a std::vector<std::vector<sometype>> for the function to use and just operate on a VectorAccessor object referring to the real vectors
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
struct sometype {
int value;
sometype(int v) : value(v) {}
};
void bar(std::vector<std::vector<sometype>>& par) {
std::cout << "bar() - Before adding new elements:" << std::endl;
for (auto& subvec : par) {
std::cout << "Subvector: {";
for (auto& sometypeItem : subvec) {
std::cout << sometypeItem.value << " ";
}
std::cout << "};" << std::endl;
}
std::vector<sometype> newItem = {32, 33};
par.emplace_back(newItem);
}
class VectorAccessor {
std::vector<std::vector<sometype>>& m_vec;
public:
VectorAccessor(std::vector<std::vector<sometype>>& v) : m_vec(v) {}
template<typename V>
void addVector(V&& vec) {
static_assert(std::is_same<typename std::remove_reference<V>::type,
std::vector<sometype>>::value, "Not the right type");
m_vec.emplace_back(std::forward<V>(vec));
}
std::vector<sometype> accessVector(size_t index) {
return m_vec[index];
}
};
int main(int argc, char ** argv)
{
std::vector<std::vector<sometype>> vec;
VectorAccessor vAcc(vec);
// Add an element through the vector accessor
std::vector<sometype> firstVector = {42};
firstVector.emplace_back(52);
vAcc.addVector(firstVector);
// Call bar and add a few elements
bar(vec);
// Now access stuff with the usual wrapper
std::cout << "Elements added by bar:" << std::endl;
std::cout << "Subvector: {";
for (auto& sometypeItem : vAcc.accessVector(1)) {
std::cout << sometypeItem.value << " ";
}
std::cout << "};" << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Example
Out of the box, calling a function taking a vector<vector<something> won't work with a vector<Wrapper>, because their type is different, and the compiler explicitely expects the former.
I don't think there is any way this form of type substitution could work in C++.
Workaround
There's a workaround to everyhting : you could use conversions in your own code to let the magic happen.
Let me explain.
If the function you intend to use takes a vector<vector<something>>, in C++, you basically have to give it a vector<vector<something>>. So you can't create your vector as a vector<Wrapper> and avoid converting it to a vector<vector<something>>.
On the other hand, you can
use a vector<vector<something> in which you will push instances of Wrapper (using an implicit conversion).
if you need Wrapper functionnality, you can convert your vector<something> using a conversion constructor.
Let's take that example :
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
//Templated class wrapper. It does not have to be templated though.
template<typename T>
class Wrapper{
private:
//Here is our inner vector.
vector<T> vect;
public:
//here is our implicit convertion operator :
operator vector<T>& () const {return this->vect;}
//A function so that we can push some stuff in it
void push(T elem){
this->vect.push_back(elem);
}
//here is some additional functionnality in top of vector;
void print(){
int i = 0;
for(i=0;i<this->vect.size();i++){
cout << vect[i] << " ";
}
cout << endl;
}
//this is our very simple conversion constructor
Wrapper<T>(vector<T> vect){
this->vect = vect;
}
//we still need a normal constructor
Wrapper<T>(){}
};
//A function that takes a vector of vectors.
vector<int> concat(vector<vector<int>> vectors){
int i = 0,j=0;
vector<int> result;
for(i=0;i<vectors.size();i++){
for(j=0;j<vectors[i].size();j++){
result.push_back(vectors[i][j]);
}
}
return result;
}
int main()
{
//Let's create an instance of Wrapper and fill it.
Wrapper<int>ex;
ex.push(1);
ex.push(2);
//And yet another one
Wrapper<int>ex2;
ex2.push(5);
ex2.push(6);
//Here we create precisely what the 'concat' function wants:
//namely a vector<vector<int>>.
vector<vector<int>> vectors;
//you can push Wrappers in it, since the conversion will take place.
vectors.push_back(ex);
vectors.push_back(ex2);
//this function call will be successful, since the type of
//vectors is vector<vector<int>>
vector<int> res = concat(vectors);
//Now if you want to use the wrapper functionnality on any
//vector<int>, just convert it on-demand.
//The constructor is extra light-weight in terms of computing power
//as you can see above.
Wrapper<int>(res).print();
Wrapper<int>(vectors[0]).print();
}
P.S. The push_back function will copy the element, so if your function does modify your vector, it won't be reflected on the Wrapper, since it's a copy of its inner vector that has been modified. Using a real vector<something> and push_back would result in the same behaviour.
instead of std::vector<Wrapper> vec;
use
std::vector< std::vector<sometype> > vec;
anyway, you can insert your Wrapper objects into vec
vec.push_back(a.data());
and then call bar(vec);
Ok, so I came up with something that seems to work, although there could be some issues left. The idea is to wrap the vector of vectors into some global wrapper, and then the initial wrapper accessing the data inside it using pointers.
Say with the following toy bar() function:
void bar(std::vector<std::vector<int>>& par)
{
std::vector<int> v1 = { 1,2,3 };
par.push_back(v1);
}
The two wrappers:
struct GlobalWrapper
{
std::vector<std::vector<int>> _data;
size_t size() const { return _data.size(); }
std::vector<int>& Get( size_t i ) { return _data[i]; }
const std::vector<int>& Get( size_t i ) const { return _data[i]; }
};
struct Wrapper
{
std::vector<int>* _data;
void DoSomething() const
{
cout << "values: ";
std::copy( _data->begin(), _data->end(), std::ostream_iterator<int>(std::cout, " "));
}
Wrapper( std::vector<int>& value ) : _data(&value)
{
}
};
And a test program:
int main(int argc, char ** argv)
{
GlobalWrapper gw;
cout << "size before=" << gw.size() << endl;
bar( gw._data );
cout << "size after=" << gw.size() << endl;
Wrapper w = gw.Get(0); // get first element and do something with it
w.DoSomething();
return 0;
}
One issue left: ownership of data. Probably needs some smart pointers.
Running code is here.
I was just reading this
class biggerThan
{
public:
const int testValue;
biggerThan(int x) : testValue(x) { }
bool operator()(int val) const
{ return val > testValue; }
};
Now say its used like
std::list<int>::iterator firstBig =
std::find_if(aList.begin(), aList.end(), biggerThan(12));
OR
Just simply like this
biggerThan object(12)
Now when biggerThan(12) this is used it can invoke the constrcutor to initialze the testvalue or () operator is overloaded and 12 is passed to the function(bool operator()(int val) const ) so that it returns a bool.
which one happens first/how does it works
does it leads to any ambiguity or does the call to the overlaode operator happens in some fashion like
object.operator().(12).
please make my undersatnding clear.
Maybe the following code will make it clear:
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
class biggerThan
{
public:
const int testValue;
biggerThan(int x) : testValue(x) {
std::cout << "Construction of biggerThan object with value "
<< x << std::endl;
}
bool operator()(int val) const
{
if (val > testValue) {
std::cout << val << " is bigger than " << testValue
<< std::endl;
return true;
}
else {
std::cout << val << " is *not* bigger than " << testValue
<< std::endl;
return false;
}
}
};
int main() {
int data[] = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9};
std::for_each(data, data+10, biggerThan(4));
}
The output is:
Construction of biggerThan object with value 4
0 is *not* bigger than 4
1 is *not* bigger than 4
2 is *not* bigger than 4
3 is *not* bigger than 4
4 is *not* bigger than 4
5 is bigger than 4
6 is bigger than 4
7 is bigger than 4
8 is bigger than 4
9 is bigger than 4
What happens:
The last argument to std::for_each is an object of type biggerThan, that is constructed with the argument 4.
The operator()(int) of this biggerThan-object (actually a copy of it) is invoked for every element in data.
The algorithm you use (std::find_if) works the same in this regard.
when biggerThan(12) this is used it can invoke the constructor to initialize the testvalue
Yes. biggerThan(12) creates an instance of the biggerThan class with testvalue set to 12.
When std::find_if() calls the functor, it will call the operator()(int val) member function of that instance.
biggerThan(12) will pass an object of biggerThan at std::find_if(aList.begin(), aList.end(), biggerThan(12)); line;
To invoke operator() following is the way;
biggerThan obj(12); //This is a constructor call
biggerThan(13); //This is function operator call
#std::find_if(aList.begin(), aList.end(), biggerThan(12)); the third parameter that is passed will be temporary object of biggerThan initialized with 12
In general, you can accomplish the same thing using greater<> and bind2nd<>, which are in <functional>
list<int>::iterator firstBig = find_if(aList.begin(), aList.end,
bind2nd(greater<int>(), 12));
bind2nd turns any binary function object, like greater<int> into a unary function object. In the case of greater<int> it effectively creates a function object whose less than operator looks like this
bool operator>(const int& arg)
{
return functor.operator>(arg, 12);
}
where functor is greater<int>