Search Results

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

Page 21/334 | < Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >

• C++ Segmentation fault in binary_function

  - by noryb009

  I'm using Visual Studio 2010 Beta 2 (also tried with NetBeans), and I'm having a segmentation fault in the following code: // One of the @link s20_3_3_comparisons comparison functors@endlink. template <class _Tp> struct less : public binary_function<_Tp, _Tp, bool> { bool operator()(const _Tp& __x, const _Tp& __y) const { return __x < __y; } //this is the problem line }; I don't know what in my program calls it, but I am trying to find out. (I think it's a map) Does anyone know what to do, or has encountered this before?

  Read the article

• Sort a list of pointers.

  - by YuppieNetworking

  Hello all, Once again I find myself failing at some really simple task in C++. Sometimes I wish I could de-learn all I know from OO in java, since my problems usually start by thinking like Java. Anyways, I have a std::list<BaseObject*> that I want to sort. Let's say that BaseObject is: class BaseObject { protected: int id; public: BaseObject(int i) : id(i) {}; virtual ~BaseObject() {}; }; I can sort the list of pointer to BaseObject with a comparator struct: struct Comparator { bool operator()(const BaseObject* o1, const BaseObject* o2) const { return o1->id < o2->id; } }; And it would look like this: std::list<BaseObject*> mylist; mylist.push_back(new BaseObject(1)); mylist.push_back(new BaseObject(2)); // ... mylist.sort(Comparator()); // intentionally omitted deletes and exception handling Until here, everything is a-ok. However, I introduced some derived classes: class Child : public BaseObject { protected: int var; public: Child(int id1, int n) : BaseObject(id1), var(n) {}; virtual ~Child() {}; }; class GrandChild : public Child { public: GrandChild(int id1, int n) : Child(id1,n) {}; virtual ~GrandChild() {}; }; So now I would like to sort following the following rules: For any Child object c and BaseObject b, b<c To compare BaseObject objects, use its ids, as before. To compare Child objects, compare its vars. If they are equal, fallback to rule 2. GrandChild objects should fallback to the Child behavior (rule 3). I initially thought that I could probably do some casts in Comparator. However, this casts away constness. Then I thought that probably I could compare typeids, but then everything looked messy and it is not even correct. How could I implement this sort, still using list<BaseObject*>::sort ? Thank you

  Read the article

• overloading "<<" with a struct (no class) cout style

  - by monkeyking

  I have a struct that I'd like to output using either 'std::cout' or some other output stream. Is this possible without using classes? Thanks #include <iostream> #include <fstream> template <typename T> struct point{ T x; T y; }; template <typename T> std::ostream& dump(std::ostream &o,point<T> p) const{ o<<"x: " << p.x <<"\ty: " << p.y <<std::endl; } template<typename T> std::ostream& operator << (std::ostream &o,const point<T> &a){ return dump(o,a); } int main(){ point<double> p; p.x=0.1; p.y=0.3; dump(std::cout,p); std::cout << p ;//how? return 0; } I tried different syntax' but I cant seem to make it work.

  Read the article

• "Right" way to deallocate an std::vector object

  - by Jacob

  The first solution is: std::vector<int> *vec = new std::vector<int>; assert(vec != NULL); // ... delete vec; An alternative is: std::vector<int> v; //... vec.clear(); vec.swap(std::vector<int>(vec)); The second solution's a bit of a trick --- what's the "right" way to do it?

  Read the article

• Using an initializer_list on a map of vectors

  - by Hooked

  I've been trying to initialize a map of <ints, vector<ints> > using the new 0X standard, but I cannot seem to get the syntax correct. I'd like to make a map with a single entry with key:value = 1:<3,4 #include <initializer_list> #include <map> #include <vector> using namespace std; map<int, vector<int> > A = {1,{3,4}}; .... It dies with the following error using gcc 4.4.3: error: no matching function for call to std::map<int,std::vector<int,std::allocator<int> >,std::less<int>,std::allocator<std::pair<const int,std::vector<int,std::allocator<int> > > > >::map(<brace-enclosed initializer list>) Edit Following the suggestion by Cogwheel and adding the extra brace it now compiles with a warning that can be gotten rid of using the -fno-deduce-init-list flag. Is there any danger in doing so?

  Read the article

• push(ing)_back objects pointers within a loop

  - by Jose Manuel Albornoz

  Consider the following: I have a class CDevices containing, amongst others, a string member class CDevice { public: CDevice(void); ~CDevice(void); // device name std::string Device_Name; etc... } and somewhere else in my code I define another class that contains a vector of pointers to CDevices class CDevice; class CServers { public: CServers(void); ~CServers(void); // Devices vector vector<CDevice*> Devices; etc... } The problem appears in the following lines in my main.c pDevice = new CDevice; pDevice->Device_Name = "de"; Devices.push_back(pDevice); pDevice->Device_Name = " revolotiunibus"; Devices.push_back(pDevice); pDevice->Device_Name = " orbium"; Devices.push_back(pDevice); pDevice->Device_Name = " coelestium"; Devices.push_back(pDevice); for(int i = 0; i < (int)Devices.size(); ++i) cout << "\nLoad name = " << Devices.at(i)->Device_Name << endl; The output I get is " coelestium" repeated four times: each time I push_back a new element into the vector all of the already existing elements take the value of the one which has just been added. I have also tried using iterators to recover each element in the vector with the same results. Could someone please tell me what's wrong here? Thankx

  Read the article

• Making uppercase of std::string

  - by Daniel K.

  Which implementation do you think is better? std::string ToUpper( const std::string& source ) { std::string result; result.reserve( source.length() ); std::transform( source.begin(), source.end(), result.begin(), std::ptr_fun<int, int>( std::toupper ) ); return result; } and... std::string ToUpper( const std::string& source ) { std::string result( source.length(), '\0' ); std::transform( source.begin(), source.end(), result.begin(), std::ptr_fun<int, int>( std::toupper ) ); return result; } Difference is that the first one uses reserve method after the default constructor, but the second one uses the constructor accepting the number of characters.

  Read the article

• C++'s unordered_map / hash_map / Google's dense_hash - how to input binary data (buf+len) and insert

  - by shlomif

  Hi all, I have two questions about Google's dense_hash_map, which can be used instead of the more standard unordered_map or hash_map: How do I use an arbitrary binary data memory segment as a key: I want a buffer+length pair, which may still contain some NUL (\0) characters. I can see how I use a NUL-terminated char * string , but that's not what I want. How do I implement an operation where I look if a key exists, and if not - insert it and if it does return the pointer to the existing key and let me know what actually happened. I'd appreciate it if anyone can shed any light on this subject. Regards, -- Shlomi Fish

  Read the article

• std::set<T>::erase(key). What if key isn't there?

  - by Armen Tsirunyan

  if I erase an element from an std::set and pass the key, not the iterator, and the key isn't in the set right now, will an exception be thrown? The thing is every second sentence in the MSDN documentation says: "this does blah blah, but it doesn't conform to the standard". So I need to know the standard behaviour. I just couldn't find it in the standard. Redirecting to the relevant clause will do as well. Thanks.

  Read the article

• std::map and behavior of already inserted data

  - by Konstantin

  Does std::map move around already inserted values when inserting new data ?

  Read the article

• How do I create a set with std::pair thats sorted based on the ::second pair member using bind

  - by Stone Free

  I know I could use the following: template <typename Pair> struct ComparePairThroughSecond : public std::unary_function<Pair, bool> { bool operator ()(const Pair& p1, const Pair& p2) const { return p1.second < p2.second; } }; std::set<std::pair<int, long>, ComparePairThroughSecond> somevar; but wondered if it could be done with boost::bind

  Read the article

• Does std::multiset guarantee insertion order?

  - by Naveen

  I have a std::multiset which stores elements of class A. I have provided my own implementation of operator< for this class. My question is if I insert two equivalent objects into this multiset is their order guaranteed? For example, first I insert a object a1 into the set and then I insert an equivalent object a2 into this set. Can I expect the a1 to come before a2 when I iterate through the set? If no, is there any way to achieve this using multiset?

  Read the article

• Virtual methods as Comp function to sort

  - by wilsongoncalo.mp

  Hello everyone! I'm new to C++ and i'm trying to use std::sort function to sort a vector of Solutions. The code is something like this (solution list is a *vector): void SolutionSet::sort(Comparator &comparator) { std::sort(solutionsList_->begin(), solutionsList_->end(), &comparator::compare); } The comparator param is a Comparator´s child class instance , and the compare method is virtual at Comparator class and implemented by all Comparator's child classes. And i want to use that function as a comparator function at std:sort(). Is this possible? If it is, can someone tell me how? Because with the previous code, it doesn't work. If i've not made myself clear, please just ask! Thank you guys!

  Read the article

• C++ map to track when the end of map is reached

  - by eNetik

  Currently I have a map that prints out the following map<string, map<int,int> > mapper; map<int,int>::iterator inner; map<string, map<int,int> >::iterator outer; for(outer = mapper.begin(); outer != mapper.end(); outer++){ cout<<outer->first<<": "; for(inner = outer->second.begin(); inner != outer->second.end(); inner++){ cout<<inner->first<<","<<inner->second<<","; } } As of now this prints out the following stringone: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8, stringtwo: 3,5,6,7, stringthree: 2,3,4,5, What i want it to print out is stringone: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 stringtwo: 3,5,6,7 stringthree: 2,3,4,5 how can i check for the end of the map inside my inner map? Any help would be appreciated Thank you

  Read the article

• What's the bug in the following code ?

  - by Johannes

  #include <iostream> #include <algorithm> #include <vector> #include <boost/array.hpp> #include <boost/bind.hpp> int main() { boost::array<int, 4> a = {45, 11, 67, 23}; std::vector<int> v(a.begin(), a.end()); std::vector<int> v2; std::transform(v.begin(), v.end(), v2.begin(), boost::bind(std::multiplies<int>(), _1, 2)); std::copy(v2.begin(), v2.end(), std::ostream_iterator<int>(std::cout, " ")); } When run, this gives a creepy segmentation fault. Please tell me where I'm going wrong.

  Read the article

• How to convert c++ std::list element to multimap iterator

  - by user63898

  Hello all, I have std::list<multimap<std::string,std::string>::iterator> > Now i have new element: multimap<std::string,std::string>::value_type aNewMmapValue("foo1","test") I want to avoid the need to set temp multimap and do insert to the new element just to get its iterator back so i could to push it back to the: std::list<multimap<std::string,std::string>::iterator> > can i somehow avoid this creation of the temp multimap. Thanks

  Read the article

• std::map keys in C++

  - by Soumava

  I have a requirement to create two different maps in C++. The Key is of type CHAR * and the Value is a pointer to a struct. I am filling 2 maps with these pairs, in separate iterations. After creating both maps I need find all such instances in which the value of the string referenced by the CHAR * are same. For this i am using the following code : typedef struct _STRUCTTYPE { .. } STRUCTTYPE, *PSTRUCTTYPE; typedef pair {CHAR *,PSTRUCTTYPE} kvpair; .. CHAR *xyz; PSTRUCTTYPE abc; after filling the information; Map.insert (kvpair(xyz,abc)); the above is repeated x times for the first map, and y times for the second map. after both are filled out; std::map {CHAR *, PSTRUCTTYPE} :: iterator Iter,findIter; for (Iter=iteratedMap-begin();Iter!=iteratedMap-end();mapIterator++) { char *key = Iter-first; printf("%s\n",key); findIter=otherMap-find(key); //printf("%u",findIter-second); if (findIter!=otherMap-end()) { printf("Match!\n"); } } The above code does not show any match, although the list of keys in both maps show obvious matches. My understanding is that the equals operator for CHAR * just equates the memory address of the pointers. My question is, what should i do to alter the equals operator for this type of key or could I use a different datatype for the string? *note : {} has been used instead of angle brackets as the content inside angle brackets was not showing up in the post.

  Read the article

• Why can't we have an immutable version of operator[] for map

  - by Yan Cheng CHEOK

  The following code works fine : std::map<int, int>& m = std::map<int, int>(); int i = m[0]; But not the following code : // error C2678: binary '[' : no operator... const std::map<int, int>& m = std::map<int, int>(); int i = m[0]; Most of the time, I prefer to make most of my stuff to become immutable, due to reason : http://www.javapractices.com/topic/TopicAction.do?Id=29 I look at map source code. It has mapped_type& operator[](const key_type& _Keyval) Is there any reason, why std::map unable to provide const mapped_type& operator[](const key_type& _Keyval) const

  Read the article

• Is it safe to take the address of std::wstring's internal pointer?

  - by LCC

  I have an interface which is used like the following: if (SUCCEEDED(pInterface->GetSize(&size)) { wchar_t tmp = new wchar_t[size]; if (SUCCEEDED(pInterface->GetValue(tmp, size))) { std::wstring str = tmp; // do some work which doesn't throw } delete[] tmp; } Is it safe and portable to do this instead? if (SUCCEEDED(pInterface->GetSize(&size)) { std::wstring str; str.resize(size); if (SUCCEEDED(pInterface->GetValue(&str[0], size))) { // do some work } } Now, obviously this works (doesn't crash/corrupt memory) or I wouldn't have asked, but I'm mostly wanting to know if there's a compelling reason not to do this.

  Read the article

• How can I copy one map into another using std::copy?

  - by Frank

  I would like to copy the content of one std::map into another. Can I use std::copy for that? Obviously, the following code won't work: int main() { typedef std::map<int,double> Map; Map m1; m1[3] = 0.3; m1[5] = 0.5; Map m2; m2[1] = 0.1; std::copy(m1.begin(), m1.end(), m2.begin()); return 0; } Is there any way to make it work with std::copy? Thanks!

  Read the article

• C++ associative array with arbitrary types for values

  - by Gerald Kaszuba

  What is the best way to have an associative array with arbitrary value types for each key in C++? Currently my plan is to create a "value" class with member variables of the types I will be expecting. For example: class Value { int iValue; Value(int v) { iValue = v; } std::string sValue; Value(std::string v) { sValue = v; } SomeClass *cValue; Value(SomeClass *v) { cValue = c; } }; std::map<std::string, Value> table; A downside with this is you have to know the type when accessing the "Value". i.e.: table["something"] = Value(5); SomeClass *s = table["something"].cValue; // broken pointer Also the more types that are put in Value, the more bloated the array will be. Any better suggestions?

  Read the article

• C++ std::vector memory/allocation

  - by aaa

  from a previous question about vector capacity, http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2663170/stdvector-capacity-after-copying, Mr. Bailey said: In current C++ you are guaranteed that no reallocation occurs after a call to reserve until an insertion would take the size beyond the value of the previous call to reserve. Before a call to reserve, or after a call to reserve when the size is between the value of the previous call to reserve and the capacity the implementation is allowed to reallocate early if it so chooses. So, if I understand correctly, in order to assure that no relocation happens until capacity is exceeded, I must do reserve twice? can you please clarify it? I am using vector as a memory stack like this: std::vector<double> memory; memory.reserve(size); memory.insert(memory.end(), matrix.data().begin(), matrix.data().end()); // smaller than size size_t offset = memory.size(); memory.resize(memory.capacity(), 0); I need to guarantee that relocation does not happen in the above. thank you. ps: I would also like to know if there is a better way to manage memory stack in similar manner other than vector

  Read the article

• Why are there two implementations of std::sort (with and without a comparator) rather than one implementation with a default template parameter?

  - by PolyVox

  In my code I'm adopting a design strategy which is similar to some standard library algorithms in that the exact behavior can be customized by a function object. The simplest example is std::sort, where a function object can control how the comparison is made between objects. I notice that the Visual C++ provides two implementations of std::sort, which naturally involves code duplication. I would have imagined that it was instead possible to have only one implementation, and provide a default comparator (using operator< ) as a default template parameter. What is the rational behind two separate versions? Would my suggestion make the interface more complex in some way? Or result in confusing error messages when the object does not provide operator Thanks, David

  Read the article

• std::basic_string full specialization (g++ conflict)

  - by SoapBox

  I am trying to define a full specialization of std::basic_string< char, char_traits<char>, allocator<char> > which is typedef'd (in g++) by the <string> header. The problem is, if I include <string> first, g++ sees the typedef as an instantiation of basic_string and gives me errors. If I do my specialization first then I have no issues. I should be able to define my specialization after <string> is included. What do I have to do to be able to do that? My Code: #include <bits/localefwd.h> //#include <string> // <- uncommenting this line causes compilation to fail namespace std { template<> class basic_string< char, char_traits<char>, allocator<char> > { public: int blah() { return 42; } size_t size() { return 0; } const char *c_str() { return ""; } void reserve(int) {} void clear() {} }; } #include <string> #include <iostream> int main() { std::cout << std::string().blah() << std::endl; } The above code works fine. But, if I uncomment the first #include <string> line, I get the following compiler errors: blah.cpp:7: error: specialization of ‘std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >’ after instantiation blah.cpp:7: error: redefinition of ‘class std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >’ /usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stringfwd.h:52: error: previous definition of ‘class std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >’ blah.cpp: In function ‘int main()’: blah.cpp:22: error: ‘class std::string’ has no member named ‘blah’ Line 52 of /usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stringfwd.h: template<typename _CharT, typename _Traits = char_traits<_CharT>, typename _Alloc = allocator<_CharT> > class basic_string; As far as I know this is just a forward delcaration of the template, NOT an instantiation as g++ claims. Line 56 of /usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stringfwd.h: typedef basic_string<char> string; As far as I know this is just a typedef, NOT an instantiation either. So why are these lines conflicting with my code? What can I do to fix this other than ensuring that my code is always included before <string>?

  Read the article

• Does operator precedence in C++ differ for pointers and iterators?

  - by oraz

  The code below demonstrates this difference: #include <iostream> #include <string> int main() { char s[] = "ABCD"; std::string str(s); char *p = s; while(*p) { *p++ = tolower(*p); // <-- incr after assignment } std::cout << s << std::endl; std::string::iterator it = str.begin(), end = str.end(); while(it != end) { *it++ = tolower(*it); // <-- incr before assignment ? } std::cout << str << std::endl; return 0; } the code above outputs: abcd bcd if we separate assignment operation and increment operator: while(it != end) { *it = tolower(*it); // <-- incr before assignment ? it++; } the output will be as expected. What's wrong with the original code? $ g++ --version g++ (GCC) 3.4.4 (cygming special, gdc 0.12, using dmd 0.125) Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >