I have a set of shared_ptr, and I'd like to use remove_copy_if with a custom function object for the predicate. I didn't know the "best" way to do it. Right now, I've got this working:
class CellInCol : public std::unary_function<const std::shared_ptr<Cell>,
bool>
{
public:
CellInCol( size_t col ) : _col( col ) {}
bool operator() ( const std::shared_ptr<Cell> &a ) const
{
return ( a->GetX() == _col );
}
private:
size_t _col;
};
typedef std::set<std::shared_ptr<Cell>, CellSorter> Container;
Container _grid;
// initialization omitted...
Puzzle::Container Puzzle::GetCol( size_t c )
{
Cell::Validate( c, 1, 9 );
Container col;
std::remove_copy_if( _grid.begin(), _grid.end(),
std::inserter( col, col.begin() ),
std::not1( CellInCol( c ) ) );
return col;
}
I decided to do const references to shared_ptr because the object won't hold on to the pointer and this just seemed more efficient than an extra copy of the shared_ptr.
It seems like it would be better to just take const references to the objects, but I couldn't get it to compile. I changed it to this, but no luck:
class CellInCol : public std::unary_function<const Cell,
bool>
{
public:
CellInCol( size_t col ) : _col( col ) {}
// note use of const ref to shared_ptr's
bool operator() ( const Cell &a ) const
{
return ( a.GetX() == _col );
}
private:
size_t _col;
};
Here is the output from g++:
In file included from /usr/include/c++/4.4/algorithm:62,
from /usr/include/c++/4.4/valarray:41,
from Puzzle.h:5,
from Puzzle.cpp:2:
/usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stl_algo.h: In function ‘_OIter std::remove_copy_if(_IIter, _IIter, _OIter, _Predicate) [with _IIter = std::_Rb_tree_const_iterator<std::shared_ptr<Sudoku::Cell> >, _OIter = std::insert_iterator<std::set<std::shared_ptr<Sudoku::Cell>, Sudoku::CellSorter, std::allocator<std::shared_ptr<Sudoku::Cell> > > >, _Predicate = std::unary_negate<Sudoku::<unnamed>::CellInRow>]’:
Puzzle.cpp:100: instantiated from here
/usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stl_algo.h:938: error: no match for call to ‘(std::unary_negate<Sudoku::<unnamed>::CellInRow>) (const std::shared_ptr<Sudoku::Cell>&)’
/usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stl_function.h:357: note: candidates are: bool std::unary_negate<_Predicate>::operator()(const typename _Predicate::argument_type&) const [with _Predicate = Sudoku::<unnamed>::CellInRow]
/usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stl_algo.h: In function ‘_OIter std::remove_copy_if(_IIter, _IIter, _OIter, _Predicate) [with _IIter = std::_Rb_tree_const_iterator<std::shared_ptr<Sudoku::Cell> >, _OIter = std::insert_iterator<std::set<std::shared_ptr<Sudoku::Cell>, Sudoku::CellSorter, std::allocator<std::shared_ptr<Sudoku::Cell> > > >, _Predicate = std::unary_negate<Sudoku::<unnamed>::CellInCol>]’:
Puzzle.cpp:110: instantiated from here
/usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stl_algo.h:938: error: no match for call to ‘(std::unary_negate<Sudoku::<unnamed>::CellInCol>) (const std::shared_ptr<Sudoku::Cell>&)’
/usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stl_function.h:357: note: candidates are: bool std::unary_negate<_Predicate>::operator()(const typename _Predicate::argument_type&) const [with _Predicate = Sudoku::<unnamed>::CellInCol]
/usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stl_algo.h: In function ‘_OIter std::remove_copy_if(_IIter, _IIter, _OIter, _Predicate) [with _IIter = std::_Rb_tree_const_iterator<std::shared_ptr<Sudoku::Cell> >, _OIter = std::insert_iterator<std::set<std::shared_ptr<Sudoku::Cell>, Sudoku::CellSorter, std::allocator<std::shared_ptr<Sudoku::Cell> > > >, _Predicate = std::unary_negate<Sudoku::<unnamed>::CellInBlock>]’:
Puzzle.cpp:121: instantiated from here
/usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stl_algo.h:938: error: no match for call to ‘(std::unary_negate<Sudoku::<unnamed>::CellInBlock>) (const std::shared_ptr<Sudoku::Cell>&)’
/usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stl_function.h:357: note: candidates are: bool std::unary_negate<_Predicate>::operator()(const typename _Predicate::argument_type&) const [with _Predicate = Sudoku::<unnamed>::CellInBlock]
/usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stl_algo.h: In function ‘_OIter std::remove_copy_if(_IIter, _IIter, _OIter, _Predicate) [with _IIter = std::_Rb_tree_const_iterator<std::shared_ptr<Sudoku::Cell> >, _OIter = std::insert_iterator<std::set<std::shared_ptr<Sudoku::Cell>, Sudoku::CellSorter, std::allocator<std::shared_ptr<Sudoku::Cell> > > >, _Predicate = std::unary_negate<Sudoku::<unnamed>::CellIsNeighbor>]’:
Puzzle.cpp:154: instantiated from here
/usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stl_algo.h:938: error: no match for call to ‘(std::unary_negate<Sudoku::<unnamed>::CellIsNeighbor>) (const std::shared_ptr<Sudoku::Cell>&)’
/usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stl_function.h:357: note: candidates are: bool std::unary_negate<_Predicate>::operator()(const typename _Predicate::argument_type&) const [with _Predicate = Sudoku::<unnamed>::CellIsNeighbor]
make: *** [Puzzle.o] Error 1
Is there another way to do it, or any suggestions?
First of all, since you're using the C++0x features (std::shared_ptr), it makes sense to use std::copy_if() to avoid having to call std::not1.
The first functor you wrote works, and a minimal compilable example would be something like this: https://ideone.com/XhuNu
The second functor does not work, as the compiler points out, due to mismatch between its argument_type (which is const Cell) and the argument that it is being called with, which is const std::shared_ptr<Cell>&.
It's simply not what the container contains! For all it knows at this point, those Cell objects may not even be copyable.
The second functor would indeed be a better thing to use if the container is a set of Cells, not a set of shared pointers to Cells. It is considered good design to avoid shared ownership of objects anyway.
Example code that would compile with the second functor
#include <set>
#include <functional>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
struct Cell {
int mX;
Cell(int x) : mX(x) {}
size_t GetX() const { return mX;}
};
struct CellSorter {
bool operator()(const Cell& l, const Cell& r) const
{
return l.GetX() < r.GetX();
}
};
// your second functor begins
class CellInCol : public std::unary_function<const Cell,
bool>
{
public:
CellInCol( size_t col ) : _col( col ) {}
// note use of const ref to shared_ptr's
bool operator() ( const Cell &a ) const
{
return ( a.GetX() == _col );
}
private:
size_t _col;
};
// your second functor ends
int main()
{
typedef std::set<Cell, CellSorter> Container;
Container _grid = {Cell(1), Cell(2), Cell(7), Cell(10)};
Container col;
size_t c = 7;
std::remove_copy_if( _grid.begin(), _grid.end(),
std::inserter( col, col.begin() ),
std::not1( CellInCol( c ) ) );
std::cout << "col has " << col.size() << " elements\n"
<< "the first element is " << col.begin()->GetX() << '\n';
}
test run: https://ideone.com/kLiFn
You could use boost::make_indirect_iterator to make std::remove_copy_if work on the Cells instead of the shared_ptrs. However, since the algorithm would be working on the Cells directly, the output iterator would also have to take Cells and not shared_ptrs. Which means the output collection would have to be a collection of Cells.
If you want to store shared_ptrs, you'd have to transform the predicate somehow. You can use boost::lambda to do just that.
Cubbi's example modified to use boost::lambda:
#include <memory>
#include <set>
#include <functional>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp>
#include <boost/lambda/lambda.hpp>
#include <boost/lambda/bind.hpp>
struct Cell {
int mX;
Cell(int x) : mX(x) {}
size_t GetX() const { return mX;}
};
struct CellSorter {
bool operator()(const boost::shared_ptr<Cell>& l, const boost::shared_ptr<Cell>& r) const
{
return l->GetX() < r->GetX();
}
};
class CellInCol : public std::unary_function<Cell, bool>
{
public:
CellInCol( size_t col ) : _col( col ) {}
// note use of const ref to shared_ptr's
bool operator() ( const Cell &a ) const
{
return ( a.GetX() == _col );
}
private:
size_t _col;
};
int main()
{
typedef std::set<boost::shared_ptr<Cell>, CellSorter> Container;
Container _grid;
_grid.insert( boost::shared_ptr<Cell>(new Cell(1)));
_grid.insert( boost::shared_ptr<Cell>(new Cell(2)));
_grid.insert( boost::shared_ptr<Cell>(new Cell(7)));
_grid.insert( boost::shared_ptr<Cell>(new Cell(10)));
Container col;
size_t c = 7;
std::remove_copy_if(
_grid.begin(),
_grid.end(),
std::inserter( col, col.begin() ),
!boost::lambda::bind(CellInCol(c), *boost::lambda::_1) // <------ :^)
);
std::cout << "col has " << col.size() << " elements\n"
<< " the first element is " << (*col.begin())->GetX() << '\n';
}
(ideone's C++0x compiler doesn't know it's boost, so I changed std::shared_ptr to boost::shared_ptr, but that should make no difference)
http://www.ideone.com/mtMUj
ps:
I decided to do const references to shared_ptr because the object won't hold on to the pointer and this just seemed more efficient than an extra copy of the shared_ptr.
Yes, you should (almost) always pass shared_ptrs as reference-to-const, it makes a huge difference. Copying a shared_ptr on a platform with threads means at least one atomic instruction (CAS, atomic-increment or something similar), and those can be rather expensive. (And of course destroying the copy will be equally expensive)
The only exception I can think of would be if the function will copy the shared_ptr. In that case you could either take it by value and use swap() to "copy" it, or provide an rvalue-reference overload. (If the function doesn't always copy the shared_ptr, the rvalue-reference overload would be the preferred solution).
Of course it doesn't make a big difference if the function is expensive anyway, but if it's a very cheap function that might get inlined and is called in a thight loop, the difference can be quite noticeable.
Related
I've got a template class containing a priority queue of other classes, I need to use the priority overloader to call the individual class overloaders to compare based on the individual classes preferences (in this case it's age, in another class it could be price.
I've got absolutely no doubt that I've implemented the operator overloading incorrect so would appreciate the advice.
For example
#include <iostream>
#include <queue>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
class Animal {
public:
Animal();
Animal(string t, int a);
int get_age()const;
bool operator< ( Animal& b) const;
void display()const;
private:
string type;
double age;
};
void Animal::display() const
{
cout << "Type: " << type << " Age: " << age;
}
int Animal::get_age() const
{
return age;
}
Animal::Animal(){}
Animal::Animal(string t, int a)
{
type = t;
age = a;
}
bool Animal::operator< ( Animal& b) const
{
return b.get_age();
}
template<typename T>
class Collection {
public:
Collection();
Collection(string n, string d);
void add_item(const T& c);
private:
priority_queue <T> pets;
string name; // Name of the collection
string description; // Descriptions of the collection
};
template<typename T>
Collection<T>::Collection(){}
template<typename T>
Collection<T>::Collection(string n, string d)
{
name = n;
description = d;
}
template<typename T>
bool operator<(const T& one, const T& two)
{
return one.operator<(two);
}
template<typename T>
void Collection<T>::add_item(const T& c)
{
pets.push(c);
}
int main(){
Animal p1("Dog", 10);
Animal p2("Cat", 5);
Animal p3("Turtle", 24);
Collection<Animal> P("Pets", "My Pets");
P.add_item(p1);
P.add_item(p2);
P.add_item(p3);
cout << endl;
return 0;
}
I get this error and I'm not sure what I need to do to fix it. I've got to keep the class overloader as the single variable (Animal& b).
task.cpp: In instantiation of 'bool operator<(const T&, const T&)
[with T = Animal]':
c:\mingw-4.7.1\bin../lib/gcc/mingw32/4.7.1/include/c++/bits/stl_function.h:237:22:
required from 'bool std::less<_Tp>::operator()(const _Tp&, const _Tp&)
const [with _Tp = Animal]'
c:\mingw-4.7.1\bin../lib/gcc/mingw32/4.7.1/include/c++/bits/stl_heap.h:310:4: required from 'void std::__adjust_heap(_RandomAccessIterator,
_Distance, _Distance, _Tp, _Compare) [with _RandomAccessIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator > >; _Distance = int; _Tp = Animal; _Compare =
std::less]'
c:\mingw-4.7.1\bin../lib/gcc/mingw32/4.7.1/include/c++/bits/stl_heap.h:442:4: required from 'void std::make_heap(_RandomAccessIterator,
_RandomAccessIterator, _Compare) [with _RandomAccessIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator > >; _Compare = std::less]'
c:\mingw-4.7.1\bin../lib/gcc/mingw32/4.7.1/include/c++/bits/stl_queue.h:393:9: required from 'std::priority_queue<_Tp, _Sequence,
_Compare>::priority_queue(const _Compare&, const _Sequence&) [with _Tp = Animal; _Sequence = std::vector >; _Compare = std::less]' task.cpp:57:45: required from 'Collection::Collection(std::string, std::string) [with T = Animal;
std::string = std::basic_string]' task.cpp:79:43: required
from here task.cpp:66:30: error: no matching function for call to
'Animal::operator<(const Animal&) const' task.cpp:66:30: note:
candidate is: task.cpp:36:6: note: bool Animal::operator<(Animal&)
const task.cpp:36:6: note: no known conversion for argument 1 from
'const Animal' to 'Animal&' task.cpp: In function 'bool
operator<(const T&, const T&) [with T = Animal]':
Your comparison
bool Animal::operator< ( Animal& b) const
{
return b.get_age(); // returns true always unless age == 0
}
is no comparison and it should take a const parameter. You should have something like
bool Animal::operator< (const Animal& b) const
// ^----------------------- const !
{
return get_age() < b.get_age();
}
Btw you dont need to use a member operator< for the priority queue. Especially if you want to sort objects in different ways I would recommend to not use it, but pass a lambda to the priority_queue. See eg here for an example.
Both of your overloads of < are problematic
bool Animal::operator< ( Animal& b) const
the Animal should also be const. You also need to compare both parameters, otherwise things (such as your priority_queue) that expect < to provide an ordering will have undefined behaviour.
You don't use anything non-public from Animal, so I suggest you change it to
bool operator< (const Animal & lhs, const Animal & rhs)
{ return lhs.get_age() < rhs.get_age(); }
This has the benefit of treating both sides identically, rather than one being implicit.
template<typename T>
bool operator<(const T& one, const T& two)
{
return one.operator<(two);
}
This template matches all types and is entirely superfluous. a < b can call either a member or a free operator <. Just delete this template.
So, i've problem with std::map, lambda and stl algorithm(remove_if). Actually, same code with std::list or std::vector works well.
My test example :
#include <map>
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
struct Foo
{
Foo() : _id(0) {}
Foo(int id) : _id(id)
{
}
int _id;
};
typedef std::map<int, Foo> FooMap;
int main()
{
FooMap m;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
m[i + 100] = Foo(i);
int removeId = 6;
// <<< Error here >>>
std::remove_if(m.begin(), m.end(), [=](const FooMap::value_type & item) { return item.second._id == removeId ;} );
for (auto & item : m )
std::cout << item.first << " = " << item.second._id << "\n";
return 0;
}
Error message :
In file included from /usr/include/c++/4.6/utility:71:0,
from /usr/include/c++/4.6/algorithm:61,
from main.cxx:1:
/usr/include/c++/4.6/bits/stl_pair.h: In member function ‘std::pair<_T1, _T2>& std::pair<_T1, _T2>::operator=(std::pair<_T1, _T2>&&) [with _T1 = const int, _T2 = Foo, std::pair<_T1, _T2> = std::pair<const int, Foo>]’:
/usr/include/c++/4.6/bits/stl_algo.h:1149:13: instantiated from ‘_FIter std::remove_if(_FIter, _FIter, _Predicate) [with _FIter = std::_Rb_tree_iterator<std::pair<const int, Foo> >, _Predicate = main()::<lambda(const value_type&)>]’
main.cxx:33:114: instantiated from here
/usr/include/c++/4.6/bits/stl_pair.h:156:2: error: assignment of read-only member ‘std::pair<const int, Foo>::first’
I don't understand what's wrong here. So, i gladly to read some advices/directions about it. My goal - use new lambda-style with std::map and algorithms, such as remove_if.
g++ 4.6, -std=c++0x.
The problem is that std::map<K,V>::value_type is std::pair<const K, V>, aka .first is const and not assignable. Lambdas have nothing to do with the problem here.
std::remove_if "removes" items by moving the elements of the container around, so that everything that does not fit the predicate is at the front, before the returned iterator. Everything after that iterator is unspecified. It does that with simple assignment, and since you can't assign to a const variable, you get that error.†
The name remove can be a bit misleading and in this case, you really want erase_if, but alas, that doesn't exist. You'll have to make do with iterating over all items and erasing them by hand with map.erase(iterator):
for(auto it = map.begin(), ite = map.end(); it != ite;)
{
if(it->second._id == remove_id)
it = map.erase(it);
else
++it;
}
This is safe because you can erase individual nodes in the tree without the other iterators getting invalidated. Note that I did not increment the iterator in the for loop header itself, since that would skip an element in the case where you erase a node.
† By now, you should have noticed that this would wreak havoc in the std::map's ordering, which is the reason why the key is const - so you can't influence the ordering in any way after an item has been inserted.
You could use find and erase for the map. It's not as convenient as remove_if, but it might be the best you've got.
int removeId = 6;
auto foundIter = m.find(removeId);
// if removeId is not found you will get an error when you try to erase m.end()
if(foundIter != m.end())
{
m.erase(foundIter);
}
I am using a deque so I can generate rolling averages and variances for my data. I store n and n^2 as a pair in the deque and then use accumulate with my own operator+().
#include <deque>
#include <numeric>
#include <utility>
template <typename T1, typename T2>
std::pair<T1,T2> operator+(const std::pair<T1,T2>& lhs, const std::pair<T1,T2>& rhs)
{
return std::pair<T1,T2>(lhs.first + rhs.first, lhs.second + rhs.second);
}
namespace resource
{
template <typename T>
class rollingStats
{
public:
rollingStats(unsigned int n, const T& val):
xs(n, std::pair<T,T>(val, val*val))
{;}
~rollingStats()
{;}
T getMean(void) const
{
std::pair<T,T> sum = std::accumulate(xs.begin(), xs.end(), std::pair<T,T>((T)0,(T)0));
return sum.first / xs.size();
}
T getVar(void) const
{
const unsigned int n = xs.size();
std::pair<T,T> sum = std::accumulate(xs.begin(), xs.end(), std::pair<T, T > ((T)0,(T)0));
return ((n * sum.second - sum.first*sum.first) / (n * n));
}
void addValue(const T& val)
{
xs.pop_front();
xs.push_back(std::pair<T,T>(val,val*val) );
}
const std::deque<std::pair<T,T> >& getXs(void) const {return xs;}
private:
std::deque<std::pair<T,T> > xs;
};
}
I get a compilation error using g++ 4.1.2 which I can't resolve.
[ CC ] resource/UnitTest: rollingStats_Test.o
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.1.2/../../../../include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_numeric.h: In function ‘_Tp std::accumulate(_InputIterator, _InputIterator, _Tp) [with _InputIterator = std::_Deque_iterator<std::pair<float, float>, const std::pair<float, float>&, const std::pair<float, float>*>, _Tp = std::pair<float, float>]’:
../rollingStats.hpp:45: instantiated from ‘T resource::rollingStats<T>::getMean() const [with T = float]’
rollingStats_Test.cpp:98: instantiated from here
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.1.2/../../../../include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_numeric.h:89: error: no match for ‘operator+’ in ‘__init + __first.std::_Deque_iterator<_Tp, _Ref, _Ptr>::operator* [with _Tp = std::pair<float, float>, _Ref = const std::pair<float, float>&, _Ptr = const std::pair<float, float>*]()’
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.1.2/../../../../include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_bvector.h:267: note: candidates are: std::_Bit_iterator std::operator+(ptrdiff_t, const std::_Bit_iterator&)
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.1.2/../../../../include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_bvector.h:353: note: std::_Bit_const_iterator std::operator+(ptrdiff_t, const std::_Bit_const_iterator&)
make: *** [rollingStats_Test.o] Error 1
What have I got wrong here? Do I need to add my own functor instead of relying on the STL alone?
thanks
std::pair doesn't have an operator+, and you haven't provided a way for std::accumulate to call your implementation of operator+.
I would wrap the functionality you provided in operator+ in a functor...
template <typename T1, typename T2> struct pair_sum : public std::binary_function< std::pair<T1,T2>, std::pair<T1,T2>, std::pair<T1,T2> >
{
std::pair<T1,T2> operator()(const std::pair<T1,T2>& lhs, const std::pair<T1,T2>& rhs)
{
return std::pair<T1,T2>(lhs.first + rhs.first, lhs.second + rhs.second);
}
};
...and use that by calling the version of std::accumulate that takes 4 arguments:
std::pair<T,T> sum = std::accumulate(xs.begin(), xs.end(), std::make_pair((T)0,(T)0), pair_sum<T,T>());
Quoting Oliver Seiler's comment:
I can see three options: use the form of accumulate that takes a binary function, using an add_pair function you'd need to write (probably the simplest option); subclass std::pair and give it addition operators (feels dirty); add a new struct/class that either has a pair or just has the members you need, and use that instead of the pair (probably the most flexible option).
[This is a community wiki answer. Feel free to edit to add corrections, samples, etc.]
You can get sum of pairs with help of boost::lambda:
#include <boost/lambda/bind.hpp>
#include <boost/lambda/construct.hpp>
template<typename T>
void summarize()
{
typedef std::pair<T, T> pt_t;
std::deque<pt_t> xs;
using namespace boost::lambda;
// fill xs with useful stuff
pt_t res = std::accumulate(
xs.begin(), xs.end(), std::make_pair(T(),T()),
bind( constructor<pt_t>(),
bind( std::plus<T>(), bind(&pt_t::first,_1), bind(&pt_t::first,_2) ),
bind( std::plus<T>(), bind(&pt_t::second,_1), bind(&pt_t::second,_2) )
) );
}
I can get a method of a class in a set iterator ?
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <set>
class student{
public:
student(std::string n){
name=n;
}
void print(){
std::cout << name << std::endl;
}
bool operator < (const student & s1){ return true;}
bool operator = (const student & s1){ return true;}
private:
std::string name;
};
int main(){
std::set<student> studs;
studs.insert(student("name01"));
studs.insert(student("name02"));
std::set<student>::iterator it;
for(it = studs.begin(); it != studs.end(); it++)
(*it).print() ;
}
I get this error
students.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
students.cpp:22: error: passing ‘const student’ as ‘this’ argument of ‘void student::print()’ discards qualifiers
/usr/include/c++/4.2.1/bits/stl_function.h: In member function ‘bool std::less<_Tp>::operator()(const _Tp&, const _Tp&) const [with _Tp = student]’:
/usr/include/c++/4.2.1/bits/stl_tree.h:982: instantiated from ‘std::pair<typename std::_Rb_tree<_Key, _Val, _KeyOfValue, _Compare, _Alloc>::iterator, bool> std::_Rb_tree<_Key, _Val, _KeyOfValue, _Compare, _Alloc>::_M_insert_unique(const _Val&) [with _Key = student, _Val = student, _KeyOfValue = std::_Identity<student>, _Compare = std::less<student>, _Alloc = std::allocator<student>]’
/usr/include/c++/4.2.1/bits/stl_set.h:307: instantiated from ‘std::pair<typename std::_Rb_tree<_Key, _Key, std::_Identity<_Key>, _Compare, typename _Alloc::rebind<_Key>::other>::const_iterator, bool> std::set<_Key, _Compare, _Alloc>::insert(const _Key&) [with _Key = student, _Compare = std::less<student>, _Alloc = std::allocator<student>]’
students.cpp:18: instantiated from here
/usr/include/c++/4.2.1/bits/stl_function.h:227: error: passing ‘const student’ as ‘this’ argument of ‘bool student::operator<(const student&)’ discards qualifiers
with
bool operator<(const student & s1) const { return true;}
bool operator==(const student & s1) const { return true;}
now work!! O_o',
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <set>
class student{
public:
student(std::string n){
name=n;
}
void print() const {
std::cout << name << std::endl;
}
bool operator<(const student & s1) const { return true;}
bool operator==(const student & s1) const { return true;}
private:
std::string name;
};
int main(){
std::set<student> studs;
studs.insert(student("name01"));
studs.insert(student("name02"));
std::set<student>::iterator it;
for(it = studs.begin(); it != studs.end(); it++)
it->print() ;
}
You need to add a const qualifer to your print member function:
void print() const
{
std::cout << name << std::endl;
}
Objects in an std::set are necessarily const, since they are used as keys. When an object (or reference) is constant, you can only call member functions of that object which are declared with the const qualifier.
You also want const qualifiers on both the == and < operator overload functions. (And don't forget to change = to == as pointed out in the comments.)
Yes, though it->print() is more intuitive.
A naive world-view is that iterators are a bit like pointers. There is more to it than that, as explained here.
The most obvious form of iterator is a
pointer: A pointer can point to
elements in an array, and can iterate
through them using the increment
operator (++). But other forms of
iterators exist. For example, each
container type (such as a vector) has
a specific iterator type designed to
iterate through its elements in an
efficient way.
You want operator==, not operator=.
Your operator< definition violates the requirements of std::set, and is inconsistent with your operator<. That is, according to your operator<, nothing is equivalent, but according to your operator==, everything is equal. Operator< should define a irreflexive, transitive, and asymmetric (for non-equivalent values) relation.
Objects in a set are necessarily const, and so to call a function on such an object that function must be declared with the const qualifier. Specifically, print() should be declared void print() const.
Similarly, operator< should be declared with the const qualifier. std::set requires that operator< can be called with const objects. Another valid option would be to make operator< a non-member function and to take both objects by value (bad) or const reference (good).
While not required in your example, operator== should also be declared with the const qualifier.
Write your print() function like this:
void print() const //<---- note this 'const'
{
std::cout << name << std::endl;
}
Now your code should work now. :-)
By the way, such functions with const keyword appearing on the right side, are called const member function, as they cannot change any member-data of the class.
See this FAQ: [18.10] What is a "const member function"?
#include <iostream>
#include <set>
using namespace std;
class Boxer{
public:
string name;
int strength;
};
struct Comp{
bool operator()(const Boxer& a, const Boxer& b){
return a.strength > b.strength;
}
};
int main(){
Boxer boxer[3];
boxer[0].name="uday", boxer[0].strength=23;
boxer[1].name="manoj", boxer[1].strength=33;
boxer[2].name="rajiv", boxer[2].strength=13;
set< Boxer, Comp> s;
s.insert(boxer[0]);
s.insert(boxer[1]);
s.insert(boxer[2]);
set< Boxer, Comp>::iterator it = s.begin();
Boxer b = *it;
cout<<b.name;
//result is Manoj
return 0;
}
I wrote a piece of code and used map and vector but it shows me something I can't get. I'll be thankful if someone help me in this way and correct my code or give me some hints.
The code is:
// For each node in N, calculate the reachability, i.e., the
// number of nodes in N2 which are not yet covered by at
// least one node in the MPR set, and which are reachable
// through this 1-hop neighbor
std::map<int, std::vector<const NeighborTuple *> > reachability;
std::set<int> rs;
for (NeighborSet::iterator it = N.begin(); it != N.end(); it++)
{
NeighborTuple const &nb_tuple = *it;
int r = 0;
for (TwoHopNeighborSet::iterator it2 = N2.begin (); it2 != N2.end (); it2++)
{
TwoHopNeighborTuple const &nb2hop_tuple = *it2;
if (nb_tuple.neighborMainAddr == nb2hop_tuple.neighborMainAddr)
r++;
}
rs.insert (r);
reachability[r].push_back (&nb_tuple);
}
/*******************************************************************************/
//for keepping exposition of a node
std::map<Vector, std::vector<const NeighborTuple *> > position;
std::set<Vector> pos;
for (NeighborSet::iterator it = N.begin(); it != N.end(); it++)
{
NeighborTuple nb_tuple = *it;
Vector exposition;
pos.insert (exposition);
position[exposition].push_back (&nb_tuple);
}
and the errors are for this line: position[exposition].push_back (&nb_tuple);
and the errors are:
/usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_function.h: In member function ‘bool std::less<_
Tp>::operator()(const _Tp&, const _Tp&) const [with _Tp = ns3::Vector3D]’:
/usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_map.h:347: instantiated from ‘_Tp& std::map<_K
ey, _Tp, _Compare, _Alloc>::operator[](const _Key&) [with _Key = ns3::Vector3D, _Tp = std::vector<const ns3::olsr::NeighborTuple*, std::allocator<const ns3::olsr::NeighborTuple*> >, _Compare = std::less<ns3::Vector3D>, _Alloc = std::allocator<std::pair<const ns3::Vector3D, std::vector<const ns3::olsr::NeighborTuple*, std::allocator<const ns3::olsr::NeighborTuple*> > > >]’
../src/routing/olsr/olsr-routing-protocol.cc:853: instantiated from here
/usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_function.h:227: error: no match for ‘operator<’ in ‘__x < __y’
debug/ns3/ipv6-address.h:432: note: candidates are: bool ns3::operator<(const ns3::Ipv6Address&, const ns3::Ipv6Address&)
debug/ns3/nstime.h:475: note: bool ns3::operator<(const ns3::Time&, const ns3::Time&)
debug/ns3/ipv4-address.h:305: note: bool ns3::operator<(const ns3::Ipv4Address&, const ns3::Ipv4Address&)
debug/ns3/address.h:231: note: bool ns3::operator<(const ns3::Address&, const ns3::Address&)
debug/ns3/type-id.h:376: note: bool ns3::operator<(ns3::TypeId, ns3::TypeId)
Thanks in advance.
Bahar
std::map is a sorted container of pairs. As such, keys in the map must have operator <() defined. Make sure Vector has the less-than operator defined.
For example:
class Vector {
int len, ang;
friend bool operator<(const Vector&, const Vector&);
};
bool operator<(const Vector& v1, const Vector& v2)
{
return true_if_v1_is_less_than_v2(); // you define what "less than" means
}
Of course, there other ways to do this. You may make operator< a member function. Or you may have the two member data public and the operator a non-member, non-friend function. Or you may define operator< in an anonymous namespace, to enhance information hiding. Or you may use a comparator other than operator<.
You declared the position object as followed : std::map<Vector, std::vector<const NeighborTuple *> > position;
And you are trying to push NeighborTuple * inside...
Try using const NeighborTuple *
I notice that you seem to have a pushback line that compiles and a line that does not.
The difference might be that you have a const in the first case
NeighborTuple const &nb_tuple = *it;