Search Results

Search found 3861 results on 155 pages for 'assignment operator'.

Page 47/155 | < Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Turn class "Interfaceable"

    - by scooterman
    Hi folks, On my company system, we use a class to represent beans. It is just a holder of information using boost::variant and some serialization/deserialization stuff. It works well, but we have a problem: it is not over an interface, and since we use modularization through dlls, building an interface for it is getting very complicated, since it is used in almost every part of our app, and sadly interfaces (abstract classes ) on c++ have to be accessed through pointers, witch makes almost impossible to refactor the entire system. Our structure is: dll A: interface definition through abstract class dll B: interface implementation there is a painless way to achieve that (maybe using templates, I don't know) or I should forget about making this work and simply link everything with dll B? thanks Edit: Here is my example. this is on dll A BeanProtocol is a holder of N dataprotocol itens, wich are acessed by a index. class DataProtocol; class UTILS_EXPORT BeanProtocol { public: virtual DataProtocol& get(const unsigned int ) const { throw std::runtime_error("Not implemented"); } virtual void getFields(std::list<unsigned int>&) const { throw std::runtime_error("Not implemented"); } virtual DataProtocol& operator[](const unsigned int ) { throw std::runtime_error("Not implemented"); } virtual DataProtocol& operator[](const unsigned int ) const { throw std::runtime_error("Not implemented"); } virtual void fromString(const std::string&) { throw std::runtime_error("Not implemented"); } virtual std::string toString() const { throw std::runtime_error("Not implemented"); } virtual void fromBinary(const std::string&) { throw std::runtime_error("Not implemented"); } virtual std::string toBinary() const { throw std::runtime_error("Not implemented"); } virtual BeanProtocol& operator=(const BeanProtocol&) { throw std::runtime_error("Not implemented"); } virtual bool operator==(const BeanProtocol&) const { throw std::runtime_error("Not implemented"); } virtual bool operator!=(const BeanProtocol&) const { throw std::runtime_error("Not implemented"); } virtual bool operator==(const char*) const { throw std::runtime_error("Not implemented"); } virtual bool hasKey(unsigned int field) const { throw std::runtime_error("Not implemented"); } }; the other class (named GenericBean) implements it. This is the only way I've found to make this work, but now I want to turn it in a truly interface and remove the UTILS_EXPORT (which is an _declspec macro), and finally remove the forced linkage of B with A.

    Read the article

  • Deployment of broadband network

    - by sthustfo
    Hi all, My query is related to broadband network deployment. I have a DSL modem connection provided by my operator. Now the DSL modem has a built-in NAT and DHCP server, hence it allocates IP addresses to any client devices (laptops, PC, mobile) that connect to it. However, the DSL modem also gets a public IP address X that is provisioned by the operator. My question is Whether this IP address X provisioned by operator is an IP address that is directly on the public Internet? Is it likely (practical scenario) that my broadband operator will put in one more NAT+DHCP server and provide IP addresses to all the modems within his broadband network. In this case, the IP addresses allotted to the modem devices will not be directly on the public Internet. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Why is this default template parameter not allowed?

    - by Matt Joiner
    I have the following class: template <typename Type = void> class AlignedMemory { public: AlignedMemory(size_t alignment, size_t size) : memptr_(0) { int iret(posix_memalign((void **)&memptr_, alignment, size)); if (iret) throw system_error("posix_memalign"); } virtual ~AlignedMemory() { free(memptr_); } operator Type *() const { return memptr_; } Type *operator->() const { return memptr_; } //operator Type &() { return *memptr_; } //Type &operator[](size_t index) const; private: Type *memptr_; }; And attempt to instantiate an automatic variable like this: AlignedMemory blah(512, 512); This gives the following error: src/cpfs/entry.cpp:438: error: missing template arguments before ‘buf’ What am I doing wrong? Is void not an allowed default parameter?

    Read the article

  • Internal class and access to external members.

    - by Knowing me knowing you
    I always thought that internal class has access to all data in its external class but having code: template<class T> class Vector { template<class T> friend std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& out, const Vector<T>& obj); private: T** myData_; std::size_t myIndex_; std::size_t mySize_; public: Vector():myData_(nullptr), myIndex_(0), mySize_(0) { } Vector(const Vector<T>& pattern); void insert(const T&); Vector<T> makeUnion(const Vector<T>&)const; Vector<T> makeIntersection(const Vector<T>&)const; class Iterator : public std::iterator<std::bidirectional_iterator_tag,T> { private: T** itData_; public: Iterator()//<<<<<<<<<<<<<------------COMMENT { /*HERE I'M TRYING TO USE ANY MEMBER FROM Vector<T> AND I'M GETTING ERR SAYING: ILLEGAL CALL OF NON-STATIC MEMBER FUNCTION*/} Iterator(T** ty) { itData_ = ty; } Iterator operator++() { return ++itData_; } T operator*() { return *itData_[0]; } bool operator==(const Iterator& obj) { return *itData_ == *obj.itData_; } bool operator!=(const Iterator& obj) { return *itData_ != *obj.itData_; } bool operator<(const Iterator& obj) { return *itData_ < *obj.itData_; } }; typedef Iterator iterator; iterator begin()const { assert(mySize_ > 0); return myData_; } iterator end()const { return myData_ + myIndex_; } }; See line marked as COMMENT. So can I or I can't use members from external class while in internal class? Don't bother about naming, it's not a Vector it's a Set. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Turning temporary stringstream to c_str() in single statement

    - by AshleysBrain
    Consider the following function: void f(const char* str); Suppose I want to generate a string using stringstream and pass it to this function. If I want to do it in one statement, I might try: f((std::ostringstream() << "Value: " << 5).str().c_str()); // error This gives an error: 'str()' is not a member of 'basic_ostream'. OK, so operator<< is returning ostream instead of ostringstream - how about casting it back to an ostringstream? 1) Is this cast safe? f(static_cast<std::ostringstream&>(std::ostringstream() << "Value: " << 5).str().c_str()); // incorrect output Now with this, it turns out for the operator<<("Value: ") call, it's actually calling ostream's operator<<(void*) and printing a hex address. This is wrong, I want the text. 2) Why does operator<< on the temporary std::ostringstream() call the ostream operator? Surely the temporary has a type of 'ostringstream' not 'ostream'? I can cast the temporary to force the correct operator call too! f(static_cast<std::ostringstream&>(static_cast<std::ostringstream&>(std::ostringstream()) << "Value: " << 5).str().c_str()); This appears to work and passes "Value: 5" to f(). 3) Am I relying on undefined behavior now? The casts look unusual. I'm aware the best alternative is something like this: std::ostringstream ss; ss << "Value: " << 5; f(ss.str().c_str()); ...but I'm interested in the behavior of doing it in one line. Suppose someone wanted to make a (dubious) macro: #define make_temporary_cstr(x) (static_cast<std::ostringstream&>(static_cast<std::ostringstream&>(std::ostringstream()) << x).str().c_str()) // ... f(make_temporary_cstr("Value: " << 5)); Would this function as expected?

    Read the article

  • heterogeneous comparisons in python3

    - by Matt Anderson
    I'm 99+% still using python 2.x, but I'm trying to think ahead to the day when I switch. So, I know that using comparison operators (less/greater than, or equal to) on heterogeneous types that don't have a natural ordering is no longer supported in python3.x -- instead of some consistent (but arbitrary) result we raise TypeError instead. I see the logic in that, and even mostly think its a good thing. Consistency and refusing to guess is a virtue. But what if you essentially want the python2.x behavior? What's the best way to go about getting it? For fun (more or less) I was recently implementing a Skip List, a data structure that keeps its elements sorted. I wanted to use heterogeneous types as keys in the data structure, and I've got to compare keys to one another as I walk the data structure. The python2.x way of comparing makes this really convenient -- you get an understandable ordering amongst elements that have a natural ordering, and some ordering amongst those that don't. Consistently using a sort/comparison key like (type(obj).__name__, obj) has the disadvantage of not interleaving the objects that do have a natural ordering; you get all your floats clustered together before your ints, and your str-derived class separates from your strs. I came up with the following: import operator def hetero_sort_key(obj): cls = type(obj) return (cls.__name__+'_'+cls.__module__, obj) def make_hetero_comparitor(fn): def comparator(a, b): try: return fn(a, b) except TypeError: return fn(hetero_sort_key(a), hetero_sort_key(b)) return comparator hetero_lt = make_hetero_comparitor(operator.lt) hetero_gt = make_hetero_comparitor(operator.gt) hetero_le = make_hetero_comparitor(operator.le) hetero_ge = make_hetero_comparitor(operator.gt) Is there a better way? I suspect one could construct a corner case that this would screw up -- a situation where you can compare type A to B and type A to C, but where B and C raise TypeError when compared, and you can end up with something illogical like a > b, a < c, and yet b > c (because of how their class names sorted). I don't know how likely it is that you'd run into this in practice.

    Read the article

  • Potential g++ template bug?

    - by Evan Teran
    I've encountered some code which I think should compile, but doesn't. So I'm hoping some of the local standards experts here at SO can help :-). I basically have some code which resembles this: #include <iostream> template <class T = int> class A { public: class U { }; public: U f() const { return U(); } }; // test either the work around or the code I want... #ifndef USE_FIX template <class T> bool operator==(const typename A<T>::U &x, int y) { return true; } #else typedef A<int> AI; bool operator==(const AI::U &x, int y) { return true; } #endif int main() { A<int> a; std::cout << (a.f() == 1) << std::endl; } So, to describe what is going on here. I have a class template (A) which has an internal class (U) and at least one member function which can return an instance of that internal class (f()). Then I am attempting to create an operator== function which compares this internal type to some other type (in this case an int, but it doesn't seem to matter). When USE_FIX is not defined I get the following error: test.cc: In function 'int main()': test.cc:27:25: error: no match for 'operator==' in 'a.A<T>::f [with T = int]() == 1' Which seems odd, because I am clearly (I think) defining a templated operator== which should cover this, in fact if I just do a little of the work for the compiler (enable USE_FIX), then I no longer get an error. Unfortunately, the "fix" doesn't work generically, only for a specific instantiation of the template. Is this supposed to work as I expected? Or is this simply not allowed? BTW: if it matters I am using gcc 4.5.2.

    Read the article

  • Simple syntax error still eluding me.

    - by melee
    Here is the header for a class I started: #ifndef CANVAS_ #define CANVAS_ #include <iostream> #include <iomanip> #include <string> #include <stack> class Canvas { public: Canvas(); void Paint(int R, int C, char Color); const int Nrow; const int Ncol; string Title; int image[][100]; stack<int> path; struct PixelCoordinates { unsigned int r; unsigned int c; } position; Canvas operator<< (const Canvas& One ); Canvas operator>>( Canvas& One ); }; /*----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: operator<< Purpose: Put a Canvas into an output stream -----------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ ostream& operator<<( ostream& Out, const Canvas& One ) { Out << One.Title << endl; Out << "Rows: " << One.Nrow << " Columns: " << One.Ncol << endl; int i,j; for( i=0; i<One.Nrow; i++) { cout<<"\n\n\n"; cout<< " COLUMN\n"; cout<< " 1 2 3"; for(i=0;i<One.Nrow;i++) { cout<<"\nROW "<<i+1; for(j=0;j<One.Ncol;j++) cout<< One.image[i][j]; } } return Out; } /*----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: operator>> Purpose: Get a Canvas from an input stream -----------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ istream& operator>>( istream& In, Canvas& One ) { // string Line; // int Place = 0; // { // In >> Line; // if (In.good()) // { // One.image[Place][0] = Line; // Place++; // } // return In; #endif Here is my implementation file for class Canvas: using namespace std; #include <iostream> #include <iomanip> #include <string> #include <stack> #include "proj05.canvas.h" //----------------Constructor----------------// Canvas::Canvas() { Title = ""; Nrow = 0; Ncol = 0; image[][100] = {}; position.r = 0; position.c = 0; } //-------------------Paint------------------// void Canvas::Paint(int R, int C, char Color) { cout << "Paint to be implemented" << endl; } And the errors I'm getting are these: proj05.canvas.cpp: In function 'std::istream& operator>>(std::istream&, Canvas&)': proj05.canvas.cpp:11: error: expected `;' before '{' token proj05.canvas.cpp:24: error: expected `}' at end of input From my limited experience, they look like simple syntax errors but for the life of me, I cannot see what I am missing. I know putting a ; at the end of Canvas::Canvas() is wrong but that seems to be what it expects. Could someone please clarify for me? (Also, I know much of the code for the << and operator definitions look terrible, but unless that is the specific reason for the error please do not address it. This is a draft :) )

    Read the article

  • Access Violation When Accessing an STL Object Through A Pointer or Reference In A Different DLL or E

    - by Yan Cheng CHEOK
    I experience the following problem while using legacy VC6. I just cann't switch to modern compiler, as I am working on a legacy code base. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/172396 Since there are no way to export map, my planned workaround is using static linking instead of dynamic linking. I was wondering whether you all had encountered the similar situation? What is your workaround for this? Another workaround is to create wrapper class around the stl map, to ensure creation and accessing stl map, are within the same DLL space. Note that, fun0, which uses wrapper class will just work fine. fun1 will crash. Here is the code example : // main.cpp. Compiled it as exe. #pragma warning (disable : 4786) #include <map> #include <string> template <class K, class V> class __declspec(dllimport) map_wrapper { public: map_wrapper(); ~map_wrapper(); map_wrapper(const map_wrapper&); map_wrapper& operator=(const map_wrapper&); V& operator[](const K&); const V& operator[](const K&) const; const V& get(const K&) const; void put(const K&, const V&); int size() const; private: std::map<K, V> *m; }; __declspec(dllimport) void fun0(map_wrapper<std::string, int>& m); __declspec(dllimport) void fun1(std::map<std::string, int>& m); int main () { map_wrapper<std::string, int> m0; std::map<std::string, int> m1; m0["hello"] = 888; m1["hello"] = 888; // Safe. The we create std::map and access map both in dll space. fun0(m0); // Crash! The we create std::map in exe space, and access map in dll space. fun1(m1); return 0; } // dll.cpp. Compiled it as dynamic dll. #pragma warning (disable : 4786) #include <map> #include <string> #include <iostream> /* In map_wrapper.h */ template <class K, class V> class __declspec(dllexport) map_wrapper { public: map_wrapper(); ~map_wrapper(); map_wrapper(const map_wrapper&); map_wrapper& operator=(const map_wrapper&); V& operator[](const K&); const V& operator[](const K&) const; const V& get(const K&) const; void put(const K&, const V&); int size() const; private: std::map<K, V> *m; }; /* End */ /* In map_wrapper.cpp */ template <class K, class V> map_wrapper<K, V>::map_wrapper() : m(new std::map<K, V>()) { } template <class K, class V> map_wrapper<K, V>::~map_wrapper() { delete m; } template <class K, class V> map_wrapper<K, V>::map_wrapper(const map_wrapper<K, V>& map) : m(new std::map<K, V>(*(map.m))) { } template <class K, class V> map_wrapper<K, V>& map_wrapper<K, V>::operator=(const map_wrapper<K, V>& map) { std::map<K, V>* tmp = this->m; this->m = new std::map<K, V>(*(map.m)); delete tmp; return *this; } template <class K, class V> V& map_wrapper<K, V>::operator[](const K& key) { return (*this->m)[key]; } template <class K, class V> const V& map_wrapper<K, V>::operator[](const K& key) const { return (*this->m)[key]; } template <class K, class V> const V& map_wrapper<K, V>::get(const K& key) const { return (*this->m)[key]; } template <class K, class V> void map_wrapper<K, V>::put(const K& key, const V& value) { (*this->m)[key] = value; } template <class K, class V> int map_wrapper<K, V>::size() const { return this->m->size(); } // See : http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/templates.html#faq-35.15 // [35.15] How can I avoid linker errors with my template classes? template class __declspec(dllexport) map_wrapper<std::string, int>; /* End */ __declspec(dllexport) void fun0(map_wrapper<std::string, int>& m) { std::cout << m["hello"] << std::endl; } __declspec(dllexport) void fun1(std::map<std::string, int>& m) { std::cout << m["hello"] << std::endl; }

    Read the article

  • Macro and array crossing

    - by Thomas
    I am having a problem with a lisp macro. I would like to create a macro which generate a switch case according to an array. Here is the code to generate the switch-case: (defun split-elem(val) `(,(car val) ',(cdr val))) (defmacro generate-switch-case (var opts) `(case ,var ,(mapcar #'split-elem opts))) I can use it with a code like this: (generate-switch-case onevar ((a . A) (b . B))) But when I try to do something like this: (defparameter *operators* '((+ . OPERATOR-PLUS) (- . OPERATOR-MINUS) (/ . OPERATOR-DIVIDE) (= . OPERATOR-EQUAL) (* . OPERATOR-MULT))) (defmacro tokenize (data ops) (let ((sym (string->list data))) (mapcan (lambda (x) (generate-switch-case x ops)) sym))) (tokenize data *operators*) I got this error: *** - MAPCAR: A proper list must not end with OPS. But I don't understand why. When I print the type of ops I get SYMBOL I was expecting CONS, is it related? Also, for my function tokenize how many times the lambda is evaluated (or the macro expanded)?

    Read the article

  • What does this structure actually do?

    - by LGTrader
    I found this structure code in a Julia Set example from a book on CUDA. I'm a newbie C programmer and cannot get my head around what it's doing, nor have I found the right thing to read on the web to clear it up. Here's the structure: struct cuComplex { float r; float i; cuComplex( float a, float b ) : r(a), i(b) {} float magnitude2( void ) { return r * r + i * i; } cuComplex operator*(const cuComplex& a) { return cuComplex(r*a.r - i*a.i, i*a.r + r*a.i); } cuComplex operator+(const cuComplex& a) { return cuComplex(r+a.r, i+a.i); } }; and it's called very simply like this: cuComplex c(-0.8, 0.156); cuComplex a(jx, jy); int i = 0; for (i=0; i<200; i++) { a = a * a + c; if (a.magnitude2() > 1000) return 0; } return 1; So, the code did what? Defined something of structure type 'cuComplex' giving the real and imaginary parts of a number. (-0.8 & 0.156) What is getting returned? (Or placed in the structure?) How do I work through the logic of the operator stuff in the struct to understand what is actually calculated and held there? I think that it's probably doing recursive calls back into the stucture float magnitude2 (void) { return return r * r + i * i; } probably calls the '*' operator for r and again for i, and then the results of those two operations call the '+' operator? Is this correct and what gets returned at each step? Just plain confused. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • floating constants in C

    - by Daziplqa
    Hi floks, I have a question concerning floating constants in C. In Java, the default type of floating point constants in double, so the following will causes a compilation error in java: float f = 100.0; // we either need to uses type case operator or put f at the end of the number constant. This is because the default floating-point constants are of type double and casting from double to float without type cast operator is an error, so we need either add a type case operator or put f at the end of the number. So, Why in C this doesn't produce an error, Is it because the default floating-point constants are of type float, or because the compiler do an implicit down-cast conversion (that doesn't requires type case operator in C)????

    Read the article

  • Simplifying const Overloading?

    - by templatetypedef
    Hello all- I've been teaching a C++ programming class for many years now and one of the trickiest things to explain to students is const overloading. I commonly use the example of a vector-like class and its operator[] function: template <typename T> class Vector { public: T& operator[] (size_t index); const T& operator[] (size_t index) const; }; I have little to no trouble explaining why it is that two versions of the operator[] function are needed, but in trying to explain how to unify the two implementations together I often find myself wasting a lot of time with language arcana. The problem is that the only good, reliable way that I know how to implement one of these functions in terms of the other is with the const_cast/static_cast trick: template <typename T> const T& Vector<T>::operator[] (size_t index) const { /* ... your implementation here ... */ } template <typename T> T& Vector<T>::operator[] (size_t index) { return const_cast<T&>(static_cast<const Vector&>(*this)[index]); } The problem with this setup is that it's extremely tricky to explain and not at all intuitively obvious. When you explain it as "cast to const, then call the const version, then strip off constness" it's a little easier to understand, but the actual syntax is frightening,. Explaining what const_cast is, why it's appropriate here, and why it's almost universally inappropriate elsewhere usually takes me five to ten minutes of lecture time, and making sense of this whole expression often requires more effort than the difference between const T* and T* const. I feel that students need to know about const-overloading and how to do it without needlessly duplicating the code in the two functions, but this trick seems a bit excessive in an introductory C++ programming course. My question is this - is there a simpler way to implement const-overloaded functions in terms of one another? Or is there a simpler way of explaining this existing trick to students? Thanks so much!

    Read the article

  • how to structure code that uses std::rel_ops

    - by R Samuel Klatchko
    I was working on some code and wanted to make use of std::rel_ops. From what I can tell, you need to do using std::rel_ops to your source code to make use of them. But I'm not sure where the best place to put that is. Let's say I have a header file with a class that only defines the minimal operator== and operator<: // foo.h class foo { public: bool operator==(const foo &other) const; bool operator<(const foo &other) const; }; I'm not sure where to put using std::rel_ops. If I leave it out of the foo.h, then every user of foo.h needs to know the implementation detail that foo is not defining all the operators itself. But putting using std::rel_ops inside foo.h breaks the rule of thumb about not having a using in a header file. How do other people resolve this issue?

    Read the article

  • c++ property class structure

    - by Without me Its just Aweso
    I have a c++ project being developed in QT. The problem I'm running in to is I am wanting to have a single base class that all my property classes inherit from so that I can store them all together. Right now I have: class AbstractProperty { public: AbstractProperty(QString propertyName); virtual QString toString() const = 0; virtual QString getName() = 0; virtual void fromString(QString str) = 0; virtual int toInteger() = 0; virtual bool operator==(const AbstractProperty &rightHand) = 0; virtual bool operator!=(const AbstractProperty &rightHand) = 0; virtual bool operator<(const AbstractProperty &rightHand) = 0; virtual bool operator>(const AbstractProperty &rightHand) = 0; virtual bool operator>=(const AbstractProperty &rightHand) = 0; virtual bool operator<=(const AbstractProperty &rightHand) = 0; protected: QString name; }; then I am implementing classes such as PropertyFloat and PropertyString and providing implementation for the comparator operators based on the assumption that only strings are being compared with strings and so on. However the problem with this is there would be no compiletime error thrown if i did if(propertyfloat a < propertystring b) however my implementation of the operators for each derived class relies on them both being the same derived class. So my problem is I cant figure out how to implement a property structure so that I can have them all inherit from some base type but code like what I have above would throw a compile time error. Any ideas on how this can be done? For those familiar with QT I tried using also a implementation with QVariant however QVariant doesn't have operators < and defined in itself only in some of its derived classes so it didn't work out. What my end goal is, is to be able to generically refer to properties. I have an element class that holds a hashmap of properties with string 'name' as key and the AbstractProperty as value. I want to be able to generically operate on the properties. i.e. if I want to get the max and min values of a property given its string name I have methods that are completely generic that will pull out the associated AbstactProperty from each element and find the max/min no matter what the type is. so properties although initially declared as PropertyFloat/PropertyString they will be held generically.

    Read the article

  • Operators vs Functions in C/C++

    - by user356106
    Someone recently asked me the difference between a C++ standard operator (e.g. new,delete,sizeof) and function (e.g. tan,delete, malloc). By "standard" I mean those provided by default by the compiler suite, and not user defined. Below were the answers I gave, though neither seemed satisfactory. (1) An operator doesn't need any headers to be included to use it : E.g. you can have a call to new without including any headers. However, a function (say free() ) does need headers included, compulsorily. (2) An operator is defined as such (ie as a class operator) somewhere in the standard headers. A function isn't. Can you critique these answers and give me a better idea of the difference?

    Read the article

  • Implementing comparision operators via 'tuple' and 'tie', a good idea?

    - by Xeo
    (Note: tuple and tie can be taken from Boost or C++11.) When writing small structs with only two elements, I sometimes tend to choose a std::pair, as all important stuff is already done for that datatype, like operator< for strict-weak-ordering. The downsides though are the pretty much useless variable names. Even if I myself created that typedef, I won't remember 2 days later what first and what second exactly was, especially if they are both of the same type. This gets even worse for more than two members, as nesting pairs pretty much sucks. The other option for that is a tuple, either from Boost or C++11, but that doesn't really look any nicer and clearer. So I go back to writing the structs myself, including any needed comparision operators. Since especially the operator< can be quite cumbersome, I thought of circumventing this whole mess by just relying on the operations defined for tuple: Example of operator<, e.g. for strict-weak-ordering: bool operator<(MyStruct const& lhs, MyStruct const& rhs){ return std::tie(lhs.one_member, lhs.another, lhs.yet_more) < std::tie(rhs.one_member, rhs.another, rhs.yet_more); } (tie makes a tuple of T& references from the passed arguments.) Edit: The suggestion from @DeadMG to privately inherit from tuple isn't a bad one, but it got quite some drawbacks: If the operators are free-standing (possibly friends), I need to inherit publicly With casting, my functions / operators (operator= specifically) can be easily bypassed With the tie solution, I can leave out certain members if they don't matter for the ordering Are there any drawbacks in this implementation that I need to consider?

    Read the article

  • possible implementations of casting in c++

    - by lego69
    I have this snippet of the code in my header: class A { private: int player; public: A(int initPlayer = 0); A(const A&); A& operator=(const A&); ~A(); void foo() const; friend int operator==(const A& i, const A& member) const; }; implementation of the operator== int operator==(const A& i, const A& member) const{ if(i.player == member.player){ return 1; } return 0; } and I need casting for this part of my code: A *pa1 = new A(a2); assert(i == *pa1); i - is some int, which my function receives I receive an error non-member function, How can I fix it? thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • std::bind overload resolution

    - by bpw1621
    The following code works fine #include <functional> using namespace std; using namespace std::placeholders; class A { int operator()( int i, int j ) { return i - j; } }; A a; auto aBind = bind( &A::operator(), ref(a), _2, _1 ); This does not #include <functional> using namespace std; using namespace std::placeholders; class A { int operator()( int i, int j ) { return i - j; } int operator()( int i ) { return -i; } }; A a; auto aBind = bind( &A::operator(), ref(a), _2, _1 ); I have tried playing around with the syntax to try and explicitly resolve which function I want in the code that does not work without luck so far. How do I write the bind line in order to choose the call that takes the two integer arguments?

    Read the article

  • conversions in C++

    - by lego69
    I have this snippet of the code: header class A { private: int player; public: A(int initPlayer = 0); A(const A&); A& operator=(const A&); ~A(); void foo() const; friend A& operator=(A& i, const A& member); }; operator= A& operator=(A& i, const A& member){ i(member.player); return i; } and I have row in my code: i = *pa1; A *pa1 = new A(a2); at the beginning i was int how can I fix it, thanks in advance I have an error must be non-static function

    Read the article

  • C++0x Smart Pointer Comparisons: Inconsistent, what's the rationale?

    - by GManNickG
    In C++0x (n3126), smart pointers can be compared, both relationally and for equality. However, the way this is done seems inconsistent to me. For example, shared_ptr defines operator< be equivalent to: template <typename T, typename U> bool operator<(const shared_ptr<T>& a, const shared_ptr<T>& b) { return std::less<void*>()(a.get(), b.get()); } Using std::less provides total ordering with respect to pointer values, unlike a vanilla relational pointer comparison, which is unspecified. However, unique_ptr defines the same operator as: template <typename T1, typename D1, typename T2, typename D2> bool operator<(const unique_ptr<T1, D1>& a, const unique_ptr<T2, D2>& b) { return a.get() < b.get(); } It also defined the other relational operators in similar fashion. Why the change in method and "completeness"? That is, why does shared_ptr use std::less while unique_ptr uses the built-in operator<? And why doesn't shared_ptr also provide the other relational operators, like unique_ptr? I can understand the rationale behind either choice: with respect to method: it represents a pointer so just use the built-in pointer operators, versus it needs to be usable within an associative container so provide total ordering (like a vanilla pointer would get with the default std::less predicate template argument) with respect to completeness: it represents a pointer so provide all the same comparisons as a pointer, versus it is a class type and only needs to be less-than comparable to be used in an associative container, so only provide that requirement But I don't see why the choice changes depending on the smart pointer type. What am I missing? Bonus/related: std::shared_ptr seems to have followed from boost::shared_ptr, and the latter omits the other relational operators "by design" (and so std::shared_ptr does too). Why is this?

    Read the article

  • polymorphism in C++

    - by user550413
    I am trying to implement the next 2 functions Number& DoubleClass::operator+( Number& x); Number& IntClass::operator+(Number& x); I am not sure how to do it..(their unidirectionality is explained below): class IntClass; class DoubleClass; class Number { //return a Number object that's the results of x+this, when x is either //IntClass or DoubleClass virtual Number& operator+(Number& x) = 0; }; class IntClass : public Number { private: int my_number; //return a Number object that's the result of x+this. //The actual class of the returned object depends on x. //If x is IntClass, then the result if IntClass. //If x is DoubleClass, then the results is DoubleClass. public: Number& operator+(Number& x); }; class DoubleClass : public Number { private: double my_number; public: //return a DoubleClass object that's the result of x+this. //This should work if x is either IntClass or DoubleClass Number& operator+( Number& x); };

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >