Search Results

Search found 8344 results on 334 pages for 'checked stl'.

Page 16/334 | < Previous Page | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  | Next Page >

• Get the checked value of 2 sets of radiobuttons using jQuery

  - by Hans Wassink

  Im having a weird issue here. Its probably just something stupid but I dont see it. I have two sets of radiobuttons, group1 and group2, and I want to get their values in a function. I have 1 clickevent on all radiobuttons in that div and when I click them I want to display the check-values of both groups. But he only reads the value of the first group. and so it always displays 1-1 2-2 3-3 4-4 instead of possibly 1-2 3-1 etc.... There is a jsfiddle here what am I missing??

  Read the article

• Solution Folder can't be checked into TFS?

  - by KentZhou

  A solution created with VS2010 with solution folder. When checking into this solution to TFS, the solution folders are missed on TFS. How to sync TFS and VS2010 with solution folder?

  Read the article

• Double-checked locking in .net

  - by erikkallen

  I came across this article discussing why the double-check locking paradigm is broken in java. Is the paradigm valid for .net (in particular, C#), if variables are declared volatile?

  Read the article

• How to set checked property in vba (format or control toolbox)

  - by rach-90

  I'm trying to change the value of my checkbox to true based on a another cell's value if range("A1").value = "green" then Checkbox1.value= true end if How to I change the value property to true for multiple checkbox at the same time For some reason the code that i've tried doesn't do anything at all. P.S. I'm using format checkboxes

  Read the article

• Use of for_each on map elements

  - by Antonio

  I have a map where I'd like to perform a call on every data type object member function. I yet know how to do this on any sequence but, is it possible to do it on an associative container? The closest answer I could find was this: Boost.Bind to access std::map elements in std::for_each. But I cannot use boost in my project so, is there an STL alternative that I'm missing to boost::bind? If not possible, I thought on creating a temporary sequence for pointers to the data objects and then, call for_each on it, something like this: class MyClass { public: void Method() const; } std::map<int, MyClass> Map; //... std::vector<MyClass*> Vector; std::transform(Map.begin(), Map.end(), std::back_inserter(Vector), std::mem_fun_ref(&std::map<int, MyClass>::value_type::second)); std::for_each(Vector.begin(), Vector.end(), std::mem_fun(&MyClass::Method)); It looks too obfuscated and I don't really like it. Any suggestions?

  Read the article

• How to keep only duplicates efficiently?

  - by Marc Eaddy

  Given an STL vector, I'd like an algorithm that outputs only the duplicates in sorted order, e.g., INPUT : { 4, 4, 1, 2, 3, 2, 3 } OUTPUT: { 2, 3, 4 } The algorithm is trivial, but the goal is to make it as efficient as std::unique(). My naive implementation modifies the container in-place: My naive implementation: void keep_duplicates(vector<int>* pv) { // Sort (in-place) so we can find duplicates in linear time sort(pv->begin(), pv->end()); vector<int>::iterator it_start = pv->begin(); while (it_start != pv->end()) { size_t nKeep = 0; // Find the next different element vector<int>::iterator it_stop = it_start + 1; while (it_stop != pv->end() && *it_start == *it_stop) { nKeep = 1; // This gets set redundantly ++it_stop; } // If the element is a duplicate, keep only the first one (nKeep=1). // Otherwise, the element is not duplicated so erase it (nKeep=0). it_start = pv->erase(it_start + nKeep, it_stop); } } If you can make this more efficient, elegant, or general, please let me know. For example, a custom sorting algorithm, or copy elements in the 2nd loop to eliminate the erase() call.

  Read the article

• Output iterator's value_type

  - by wilhelmtell

  The STL commonly defines an output iterator like so: template<class Cont> class insert_iterator : public iterator<output_iterator_tag,void,void,void,void> { // ... Why do output iterators define value_type as void? It would be useful for an algorithm to know what type of value it is supposed to output. For example, a function that translates a URL query "key1=value1&key2=value2&key3=value3" into any container that holds key-value strings elements. template<typename Ch,typename Tr,typename Out> void parse(const std::basic_string<Ch,Tr>& str, Out result) { std::basic_string<Ch,Tr> key, value; // loop over str, parse into p ... *result = typename iterator_traits<Out>::value_type(key, value); } The SGI reference page of value_type hints this is because it's not possible to dereference an output iterator. But that's not the only use of value_type: I might want to instantiate one in order to assign it to the iterator.

  Read the article

• should std::auto_ptr<>::operator = reset / deallocate its existing pointee ?

  - by afriza

  I read here about std::auto_ptr<::operator= Notice however that the left-hand side object is not automatically deallocated when it already points to some object. You can explicitly do this by calling member function reset before assigning it a new value. However, when I read the source code for header file C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\ce\include\memory template<class _Other> auto_ptr<_Ty>& operator=(auto_ptr<_Other>& _Right) _THROW0() { // assign compatible _Right (assume pointer) reset(_Right.release()); return (*this); } auto_ptr<_Ty>& operator=(auto_ptr<_Ty>& _Right) _THROW0() { // assign compatible _Right (assume pointer) reset(_Right.release()); return (*this); } auto_ptr<_Ty>& operator=(auto_ptr_ref<_Ty> _Right) _THROW0() { // assign compatible _Right._Ref (assume pointer) _Ty **_Pptr = (_Ty **)_Right._Ref; _Ty *_Ptr = *_Pptr; *_Pptr = 0; // release old reset(_Ptr); // set new return (*this); } What is the correct/standard behavior? How do other STL implementations behave?

  Read the article

• Why an auto_ptr can "seal" a container

  - by icephere

  auto_ptr on wikipedia said that "an auto_ptr containing an STL container may be used to prevent further modification of the container.". It used the following example: auto_ptr<vector<ContainedType> > open_vec(new vector<ContainedType>); open_vec->push_back(5); open_vec->push_back(3); // Transfers control, but now the vector cannot be changed: auto_ptr<const vector<ContainedType> > closed_vec(open_vec); // closed_vec->push_back(8); // Can no longer modify If I uncomment the last line, g++ will report an error as t05.cpp:24: error: passing ‘const std::vector<int, std::allocator<int> >’ as ‘this’ argument of ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::push_back(const _Tp&) [with _Tp = int, _Alloc = std::allocator<int>]’ discards qualifiers I am curious why after transferring the ownership of this vector, it can no longer be modified? Thanks a lot!

  Read the article

• Strange problem with vectors.

  - by Catalin Dumitru

  I have a really strange problem with stl vectors in which the wrong destructor is called for the right object when I call the erase method if that makes any sense. My code looks something like this: for(vector<Category>::iterator iter = this->children.begin(); iter != this->children.end(); iter++) { if((*iter).item == item) { this->children.erase(iter); return; } ------------------------- } It's just a simple function that finds the element in the vector which has some item to be searched, and removes said element from the vector. My problem is than when the erase function is called, and thus the object which the iterator is pointing at is being destroyed, the wrong destructor is being called. More specific the destructor of the last element in the vector is being called, and not of the actual object being removed. Thus the memory is being removed from the wrong object, which will still be an element in the vector, and the actual object which is removed from the vector, still has all of it's memory intact. The costructor of the object looks like this: Category::Category(const Category &from) { this->name = from.name; for(vector<Category>::const_iterator iter = from.children.begin(); iter != from.children.end(); iter++) this->children.push_back((*iter)); this->item = new QTreeWidgetItem; } And the destructor Category::~Category() { this->children.clear(); if(this->item != NULL) { QTreeWidgetItem* parent = this->item->parent(); if(parent != NULL) parent->removeChild(this->item); delete this->item; } }

  Read the article

• function objects versus function pointers

  - by kumar_m_kiran

  Hi All, I have two questions related to function objects and function pointers, Question : 1 When I read the different uses sort algorithm of STL, I see that the third parameter can be a function objects, below is an example class State { public: //... int population() const; float aveTempF() const; //... }; struct PopLess : public std::binary_function<State,State,bool> { bool operator ()( const State &a, const State &b ) const { return popLess( a, b ); } }; sort( union, union+50, PopLess() ); Question : Now, How does the statement, sort(union, union+50,PopLess()) work? PopLess() must be resolved into something like PopLess tempObject.operator() which would be same as executing the operator () function on a temporary object. I see this as, passing the return value of overloaded operation i.e bool (as in my example) to sort algorithm. So then, How does sort function resolve the third parameter in this case? Question : 2 Question Do we derive any particular advantage of using function objects versus function pointer? If we use below function pointer will it derive any disavantage? inline bool popLess( const State &a, const State &b ) { return a.population() < b.population(); } std::sort( union, union+50, popLess ); // sort by population PS : Both the above references(including example) are from book "C++ Common Knowledge: Essential Intermediate Programming" by "Stephen C. Dewhurst". I was unable to decode the topic content, thus have posted for help. Thanks in advance for your help.

  Read the article

• Crash generated during destruction of hash_map

  - by Alien01

  I am using hash_map in application as typedef hash_map<DWORD,CComPtr<IInterfaceXX>> MapDword2Interface; In main application I am using static instance of this map static MapDword2Interface m_mapDword2Interface; I have got one crash dump from one of the client machines which point to the crash in clearing this map I opened that crash dump and here is assembly during debugging > call std::list<std::pair<unsigned long const ,ATL::CComPtr<IInterfaceXX> >,std::allocator<std::pair<unsigned long const ,ATL::CComPtr<IInterfaceXX> > > >::clear > mov eax,dword ptr [CMainApp::m_mapDword2Interface+8 (49XXXXX)] Here is code where crash dump is pointing. Below code is from stl:list file void clear() { // erase all #if _HAS_ITERATOR_DEBUGGING this->_Orphan_ptr(*this, 0); #endif /* _HAS_ITERATOR_DEBUGGING */ _Nodeptr _Pnext; _Nodeptr _Pnode = _Nextnode(_Myhead); _Nextnode(_Myhead) = _Myhead; _Prevnode(_Myhead) = _Myhead; _Mysize = 0; for (; _Pnode != _Myhead; _Pnode = _Pnext) { // delete an element _Pnext = _Nextnode(_Pnode); this->_Alnod.destroy(_Pnode); this->_Alnod.deallocate(_Pnode, 1); } } Crash is pointing to the this->_Alnod.destroy(_Pnode); statement in above code. I am not able to guess it, what could be reason. Any ideas??? How can I make sure, even is there is something wrong with the map , it should not crash?

  Read the article

• std::string insert method has ambiguous overloads?

  - by sdg

  Environment: VS2005 C++ using STLPort 5.1.4. Compiling the following code snippet: std::string copied = "asdf"; char ch = 's'; copied.insert(0,1,ch); I receive an error: Error 1 error C2668: 'stlpx_std::basic_string<_CharT,_Traits,_Alloc>::insert' : ambiguous call to overloaded function It appears that the problem is the insert method call on the string object. The two defined overloads are void insert ( iterator p, size_t n, char c ); string& insert ( size_t pos1, size_t n, char c ); But given that STLPort uses a simple char* as its iterator, the literal zero in the insert method in my code is ambiguous. So while I can easily overcome the problem by hinting such as copied.insert(size_t(0),1,ch); My question is: is this overloading and possible ambiguity intentional in the specification? Or more likely an unintended side-effect of the specific STLPort implementation? (Note that the Microsoft-supplied STL does not have this problem as it has a class for the iterator, instead of a naked pointer)

  Read the article

• Quicksort / vector / partition issue

  - by xxx

  Hi, I have an issue with the following code : class quicksort { private: void _sort(double_it begin, double_it end) { if ( begin == end ) { return ; } double_it it = partition(begin, end, bind2nd(less<double>(), *begin)) ; iter_swap(begin, it-1); _sort(begin, it-1); _sort(it, end); } public: quicksort (){} void operator()(vector<double> & data) { double_it begin = data.begin(); double_it end = data.end() ; _sort(begin, end); } }; However, this won't work for too large a number of elements (it works with 10 000 elements, but not with 100 000). Example code : int main() { vector<double>v ; for(int i = n-1; i >= 0 ; --i) v.push_back(rand()); quicksort f; f(v); return 0; } Doesn't the STL partition function works for such sizes ? Or am I missing something ? Many thanks for your help.

  Read the article

• List iterator not dereferencable?

  - by Roderick

  Hi All I get the error "list iterator not dereferencable" when using the following code: bool done = false; while (!_list_of_messages.empty() && !done) { // request the next message to create a frame // DEBUG ERROR WHEN NEXT LINE IS EXECUTED: Counted_message_reader reader = *(_list_of_messages.begin()); if (reader.has_more_data()) { _list_of_frames.push_back(new Dlp_data_frame(reader, _send_compressed_frames)); done = true; } else { _list_of_messages.pop_front(); } } (The line beginning with "Counted_message_reader..." is the one giving the problem) Note that the error doesn't always occur but seemingly at random times (usually when there's lots of buffered data). _list_of_messages is declared as follows: std::list<Counted_message_reader> _list_of_messages; In the surrounding code we could do pop_front, push_front and size, empty or end checks on _list_of_messages but no erase calls. I've studied the STL documentation and can't see any glaring problems. Is there something wrong with the above code or do I have a memory leak somewhere? Thanks! Appreciated!

  Read the article

• Creating Binary Block from struct

  - by MOnsDaR

  I hope the title is describing the problem, i'll change it if anyone has a better idea. I'm storing information in a struct like this: struct AnyStruct { AnyStruct : testInt(20), testDouble(100.01), testBool1(true), testBool2(false), testBool3(true), testChar('x') {} int testInt; double testDouble; bool testBool1; bool testBool2; bool testBool3; char testChar; std::vector<char> getBinaryBlock() { //how to build that? } } The struct should be sent via network in a binary byte-buffer with the following structure: Bit 00- 31: testInt Bit 32- 61: testDouble most significant portion Bit 62- 93: testDouble least significant portion Bit 94: testBool1 Bit 95: testBool2 Bit 96: testBool3 Bit 97-104: testChar According to this definition the resulting std::vector should have a size of 13 bytes (char == byte) My question now is how I can form such a packet out of the different datatypes I've got. I've already read through a lot of pages and found datatypes like std::bitset or boost::dynamic_bitset, but neither seems to solve my problem. I think it is easy to see, that the above code is just an example, the original standard is far more complex and contains more different datatypes. Solving the above example should solve my problems with the complex structures too i think. One last point: The problem should be solved just by using standard, portable language-features of C++ like STL or Boost (

  Read the article

• iterators to range of elements in a vector whose attributes have specific value

  - by user1801173

  I have a vector of objects and I want to return the range of elements whose attribute have a specific value. This is the structure: class A { public: std::vector<B*> vec_; pair<vector<B*>::iterator, vector<B*>::iterator> getElements(unsigned int attr_val); unsigned int name() { return name_; } private: unsigned int name_; }; class B { public: unsigned int attr() { return attr_; } A* source() { return source_; } B* dest() { return dest_; } private: A* source_; B* dest_; unsigned int attr_; }; The vector vec_; is already sorted by attr_ and dest_-name() (in that order). Now I want to return all elements, whose attr_ is equal to attr_val. What is the appropriate stl algorithm (or is there even a vector member function?) to implement getElements(unsigned int attr_val) ? Thanks for help.

  Read the article

• C++ iterator and const_iterator problem for own container class

  - by BaCh

  Hi there, I'm writing an own container class and have run into a problem I can't get my head around. Here's the bare-bone sample that shows the problem. It consists of a container class and two test classes: one test class using a std:vector which compiles nicely and the second test class which tries to use my own container class in exact the same way but fails miserably to compile. #include <vector> #include <algorithm> #include <iterator> using namespace std; template <typename T> class MyContainer { public: class iterator { public: typedef iterator self_type; inline iterator() { } }; class const_iterator { public: typedef const_iterator self_type; inline const_iterator() { } }; iterator begin() { return iterator(); } const_iterator begin() const { return const_iterator(); } }; // This one compiles ok, using std::vector class TestClassVector { public: void test() { vector<int>::const_iterator I=myc.begin(); } private: vector<int> myc; }; // this one fails to compile. Why? class TestClassMyContainer { public: void test(){ MyContainer<int>::const_iterator I=myc.begin(); } private: MyContainer<int> myc; }; int main(int argc, char ** argv) { return 0; } gcc tells me: test2.C: In member function ‘void TestClassMyContainer::test()’: test2.C:51: error: conversion from ‘MyContainer::iterator’ to non-scalar type ‘MyContainer::const_iterator’ requested I'm not sure where and why the compiler wants to convert an iterator to a const_iterator for my own class but not for the STL vector class. What am I doing wrong?

  Read the article

• Visual Studio 2010 compile error with std::string?

  - by AJG85

  So this is possibly the strangest thing I've seen recently and was curious how this could happen. The compiler gave me an error saying that std::string is undefined when used as a return type but not when used as a parameter in methods of a class! #pragma once #include <string> #include <vector> // forward declarations class CLocalReference; class CResultSetHandle; class MyClass { public: MyClass() {} ~MyClass {} void Retrieve(const CLocalReference& id, CResultSetHandle& rsh, std::string& item); // this is fine const std::string Retrieve(const CLocalReference& id, CResultSetHandle& rsh); // this fails with std::string is undefined?!?! }; Doing a Rebuild All it still happened I had to choose clean solution and then Rebuild All again after for the universe to realign. While it's resolved for the moment I'd still like to know what could have caused this because I'm at a loss as to why when there should be no conflicts especially when I always use fully qualified names for STL.

  Read the article

• C++: Constructor/destructor unresolved when not inline?

  - by Anamon

  In a plugin-based C++ project, I have a TmpClass that is used to exchange data between the main application and the plugins. Therefore the respective TmpClass.h is included in the abstract plugin interface class that is included by the main application project, and implemented by each plugin. As the plugins work on STL vectors of TmpClass instances, there needs to be a default constructor and destructor for the TmpClass. I had declared these in TmpClass.h: class TmpClass { TmpClass(); ~TmpClass(); } and implemented them in TmpClass.cpp. TmpClass::~TmpClass() {} TmpClass::TmpClass() {} However, when compiling plugins this leads to the linker complaining about two unresolved externals - the default constructor and destructor of TmpClass as required by the std::vector<TmpClass> template instantiation - even though all other functions I declare in TmpClass.h and implement in TmpClass.cpp work. As soon as I remove the (empty) default constructor and destructor from the .cpp file and inline them into the class declaration in the .h file, the plugins compile and work. Why is it that the default constructor and destructor have to be inline for this code to compile? Why does it even maatter? (I'm using MSVC++8).

  Read the article

• Is it possible to create ostream object, which outputs to multiple destinations?

  - by fiktor

  In 0-th approximation I have a class class MyClass{ public: ... std::ostream & getOStream(){return f;} private: ofstream f; ... }; Which is used sometimes in the following way: MyClass myclass; myclass.getOStream()<<some<<information<<printed<<here; But now I want to change the class MyClass, so that information will be printed both to f and to std::out, i.e. I want the above line to be equivalent to myclass.f<<some<<information<<printed<<here; std::cout<<some<<information<<printed<<here; I don't know any good way to do that. Do you? Is there any standard solution (for example in stl or in boost)? P.S. I tried to search on this, but it seems that I don't know good keywords. Words multiple, output, ostream, C++, boost seem to be too general.

  Read the article

• Pointers into elements in a container

  - by Pillsy

  Say I have an object: struct Foo { int bar_; Foo(int bar) bar_(bar) {} }; and I have an STL container that contains Foos, perhaps a vector, and I take // Elsewhere... vector<Foo> vec; vec.push_back(Foo(4)); int *p = &(vec[0].bar_) This is a terrible idea, right? The reason is that vector is going to be storing its elements in a dynamically allocated array somewhere, and eventually, if you add enough elements, it will have to allocate another array, copy over all the elements of the original array, and delete the old array. After that happens, p points to garbage. This is why many operations on a vector will invalidate iterators. It seems like it would be reasonable to assume that an operation that would invalidate iterators from a container will also invalidate pointers to data members of container elements, and that if an operation doesn't invalidate iterators, those pointers will still be safe. However, many reasonable assumptions are false. Is this one of them?

  Read the article

• Containers of reference_wrappers (comparison operators required?)

  - by kloffy

  If you use stl containers together with reference_wrappers of POD types, the following code works just fine: int i = 3; std::vector< boost::reference_wrapper<int> > is; is.push_back(boost::ref(i)); std::cout << (std::find(is.begin(),is.end(),i)!=is.end()) << std::endl; However, if you use non-POD types such as (contrived example): struct Integer { int value; bool operator==(const Integer& rhs) const { return value==rhs.value; } bool operator!=(const Integer& rhs) const { return !(*this == rhs); } }; It doesn't suffice to declare those comparison operators, instead you have to declare: bool operator==(const boost::reference_wrapper<Integer>& lhs, const Integer& rhs) { return boost::unwrap_ref(lhs)==rhs; } And possibly also: bool operator==(const Integer& lhs, const boost::reference_wrapper<Integer>& rhs) { return lhs==boost::unwrap_ref(rhs); } In order to get the equivalent code to work: Integer j = { 0 }; std::vector< boost::reference_wrapper<Integer> > js; js.push_back(boost::ref(j)); std::cout << (std::find(js.begin(),js.end(),j)!=js.end()) << std::endl; Now, I'm wondering if this is really the way it's meant to be done, since it seems impractical. It just seems there should be a simpler solution, e.g. templates: template<class T> bool operator==(const boost::reference_wrapper<T>& lhs, const T& rhs) { return boost::unwrap_ref(lhs)==rhs; } template<class T> bool operator==(const T& lhs, const boost::reference_wrapper<T>& rhs) { return lhs==boost::unwrap_ref(rhs); } There's probably a good reason why reference_wrapper behaves the way it does (possibly to accomodate non-POD types without comparison operators?). Maybe there already is an elegant solution and I just haven't found it.

  Read the article

• Bad_alloc exception when using new for a struct c++

  - by bsg

  Hi, I am writing a query processor which allocates large amounts of memory and tries to find matching documents. Whenever I find a match, I create a structure to hold two variables describing the document and add it to a priority queue. Since there is no way of knowing how many times I will do this, I tried creating my structs dynamically using new. When I pop a struct off the priority queue, the queue (STL priority queue implementation) is supposed to call the object's destructor. My struct code has no destructor, so I assume a default destructor is called in that case. However, the very first time that I try to create a DOC struct, I get the following error: Unhandled exception at 0x7c812afb in QueryProcessor.exe: Microsoft C++ exception: std::bad_alloc at memory location 0x0012f5dc.. I don't understand what's happening - have I used up so much memory that the heap is full? It doesn't seem likely. And it's not as if I've even used that pointer before. So: first of all, what am I doing that's causing the error, and secondly, will the following code work more than once? Do I need to have a separate pointer for each struct created, or can I re-use the same temporary pointer and assume that the queue will keep a pointer to each struct? Here is my code: struct DOC{ int docid; double rank; public: DOC() { docid = 0; rank = 0.0; } DOC(int num, double ranking) { docid = num; rank = ranking; } bool operator>( const DOC & d ) const { return rank > d.rank; } bool operator<( const DOC & d ) const { return rank < d.rank; } }; //a lot of processing goes on here; when a matching document is found, I do this: rank = calculateRanking(table, num); //if the heap is not full, create a DOC struct with the docid and rank and add it to the heap if(q.size() < 20) { doc = new DOC(num, rank); q.push(*doc); doc = NULL; } //if the heap is full, but the new rank is greater than the //smallest element in the min heap, remove the current smallest element //and add the new one to the heap else if(rank > q.top().rank) { q.pop(); cout << "pushing doc on to queue" << endl; doc = new DOC(num, rank); q.push(*doc); } Thank you very much, bsg.

  Read the article

• C++ linked list based tree structure. Sanely move nodes between lists.

  - by krunk

  The requirements: Each Node in the list must contain a reference to its previous sibling Each Node in the list must contain a reference to its next sibling Each Node may have a list of child nodes Each child Node must have a reference to its parent node Basically what we have is a tree structure of arbitrary depth and length. Something like: -root(NULL) --Node1 ----ChildNode1 ------ChildOfChild --------AnotherChild ----ChildNode2 --Node2 ----ChildNode1 ------ChildOfChild ----ChildNode2 ------ChildOfChild --Node3 ----ChildNode1 ----ChildNode2 Given any individual node, you need to be able to either traverse its siblings. the children, or up the tree to the root node. A Node ends up looking something like this: class Node { Node* previoius; Node* next; Node* child; Node* parent; } I have a container class that stores these and provides STL iterators. It performs your typical linked list accessors. So insertAfter looks like: void insertAfter(Node* after, Node* newNode) { Node* next = after->next; after->next = newNode; newNode->previous = after; next->previous = newNode; newNode->next = next; newNode->parent = after->parent; } That's the setup, now for the question. How would one move a node (and its children etc) to another list without leaving the previous list dangling? For example, if Node* myNode exists in ListOne and I want to append it to listTwo. Using pointers, listOne is left with a hole in its list since the next and previous pointers are changed. One solution is pass by value of the appended Node. So our insertAfter method would become: void insertAfter(Node* after, Node newNode); This seems like an awkward syntax. Another option is doing the copying internally, so you'd have: void insertAfter(Node* after, const Node* newNode) { Node *new_node = new Node(*newNode); Node* next = after->next; after->next = new_node; new_node->previous = after; next->previous = new_node; new_node->next = next; new_node->parent = after->parent; } Finally, you might create a moveNode method for moving and prevent raw insertion or appending of a node that already has been assigned siblings and parents. // default pointer value is 0 in constructor and a operator bool(..) // is defined for the Node bool isInList(const Node* node) const { return (node->previous || node->next || node->parent); } // then in insertAfter and friends if(isInList(newNode) // throw some error and bail I thought I'd toss this out there and see what folks came up with.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  | Next Page >