Search Results

Search found 173 results on 7 pages for 'iterators'.

Page 6/7 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7  | Next Page >

  • How to yield a single element from for loop in scala?

    - by Julio Faerman
    Much like this question: Functional code for looping with early exit Say the code is def findFirst[T](objects: List[T]):T = { for (obj <- objects) { if (expensiveFunc(obj) != null) return /*???*/ Some(obj) } None } How to yield a single element from a for loop like this in scala? I do not want to use find, as proposed in the original question, i am curious about if and how it could be implemented using the for loop. * UPDATE * First, thanks for all the comments, but i guess i was not clear in the question. I am shooting for something like this: val seven = for { x <- 1 to 10 if x == 7 } return x And that does not compile. The two errors are: - return outside method definition - method main has return statement; needs result type I know find() would be better in this case, i am just learning and exploring the language. And in a more complex case with several iterators, i think finding with for can actually be usefull. Thanks commenters, i'll start a bounty to make up for the bad posing of the question :)

    Read the article

  • C++ Reference of vector

    - by void
    Hello, class Refvect { public: vector<int> &refv; Refvect(int t, vector<int> &refv = vector<int>()) : refv(refv) { }; void operator()() { refv.clear(); } }; int main () { Refvect r(0); r(); } With Visual Studio 2010, this gives me an error : "vector iterators incompatible" at the execution, but I don't understand why (but I can insert elements in refv without any problem). The temporary object vector() lives as long as the reference, no?

    Read the article

  • When to use typedef?

    - by futlib
    I'm a bit confused about if and when I should use typedef in C++. I feel it's a balancing act between readability and clarity. Here's a code sample without any typedefs: int sum(std::vector<int>::const_iterator first, std::vector<int>::const_iterator last) { static std::map<std::tuple<std::vector<int>::const_iterator, std::vector<int>::const_iterator>, int> lookup_table; std::map<std::tuple<std::vector<int>::const_iterator, std::vector<int>::const_iterator>, int>::iterator lookup_it = lookup_table.find(lookup_key); if (lookup_it != lookup_table.end()) return lookup_it->second; ... } Pretty ugly IMO. So I'll add some typedefs within the function to make it look nicer: int sum(std::vector<int>::const_iterator first, std::vector<int>::const_iterator last) { typedef std::tuple<std::vector<int>::const_iterator, std::vector<int>::const_iterator> Lookup_key; typedef std::map<Lookup_key, int> Lookup_table; static Lookup_table lookup_table; Lookup_table::iterator lookup_it = lookup_table.find(lookup_key); if (lookup_it != lookup_table.end()) return lookup_it->second; ... } The code is still a bit clumsy, but I get rid of most nightmare material. But there's still the int vector iterators, this variant gets rid of those: typedef std::vector<int>::const_iterator Input_iterator; int sum(Input_iterator first, Input_iterator last) { typedef std::tuple<Input_iterator, Input_iterator> Lookup_key; typedef std::map<Lookup_key, int> Lookup_table; static Lookup_table lookup_table; Lookup_table::iterator lookup_it = lookup_table.find(lookup_key); if (lookup_it != lookup_table.end()) return lookup_it->second; ... } This looks clean, but is it still readable? When should I use a typedef? As soon as I have a nightmare type? As soon as it occurs more than once? Where should I put them? Should I use them in function signatures or keep them to the implementation?

    Read the article

  • Complete Beginner to Game Programming and Unreal Engine 4, Looking For Advice [on hold]

    - by onemic
    I am currently a 2nd year programming student(Just finished my first year so I will be starting my second year in September) and have mainly learned C and C++ in my classes. In terms of what I know of C++, I know about general inheritance, polymorphism, overloading operators, iterators, a little bit about templates(only class and function templates) etc. but not of the more advanced topics like linked lists and other sequential containers(containers in general I guess), enumerations, most of the standard library(other than like strings and vectors), and probably a bunch of other stuff I dont even know about yet. I subscribed to Unreal Engine 4 as I was very intrigued by their Unreal Tournament announcement earlier this month, especially after hearing that UE4 is going completely C++. Of course my end goal in doing this programming program is to eventually go into game/graphics programming. Since it's my summer off, I thought what better way then to actually apply some of my skills to a personal project so I actually have a firmer understanding of C++ past what my professors tell me. My questions are this: What would be the best way to start off making a small personal game in UE4 as a project for the summer? What should I be aiming for, especially for someone that is still learning C++? Should I focus on making a simple 2D game rather than a 3D one to get started? Seeing the Flappy Chicken showcase intrigued me because before I thought the UE engine was pretty much pigeonholed into being for FPS games What should my expectations be going into UE4 and a game engine for the first time?(UE4 will be my first foray into making a game) What can I expect to gain from making things in UE4, in terms of making games and in terms of further fleshing out my knowledge of C++? Would you recommend I start off 100% using C++ for scripting or using the visual blueprints? Since I'm not a designer, how would I be able to add objects and designs to my game? For someone at my level is retaining the UE4 subscription worth it or is it better to cancel and resub when I learn enough about UE4 and C++? Lastly is there anything to be gained in terms of knowledge/insight through me looking at the source code for UE4? I opened it in VS2013, but noticed that most of the files were C# files and not cpp's. Thanks in advance for taking the time to answer.

    Read the article

  • Changes in Language Punctuation [closed]

    - by Wes Miller
    More social curiosity than actual programming question... (I got shot for posting this on Stack Overflow. They sent me here. At least i hope here is where they meant.) Based on the few responses I got before the content police ran me off Stack Overflow, I should note that I am legally blind and neatness and consistency in programming are my best friends. A thousand years ago when I took my first programming class (Fortran 66) and a mere 500 years ago when I tokk my first C and C++ classes, there were some pretty standard punctuation practices across languages. I saw them in Basic (shudder), PL/1, PL/AS, Rexx even Pascal. Ok, APL2 is not part of this discussion. Each language has its own peculiar punctuation. Pascal's periods, Fortran's comma separated do loops, almost everybody else's semicolons. As I learned it, each language also has KEYWORDS (if, for, do, while, until, etc.) which are set off by whitespace (or the left margin) if, etc. Each language has function, subroutines of whatever they're called. Some built-in some user coded. They were set off by function_name( parameters );. As in sqrt( x ) or rand( y ); Lately, there seems to be a new set of punctuation rules. Especially in c++ where initializers get glued onto the end of variable declarations int x(0); or auto_ptr p(new gizmo); This usually, briefly fools me into thinking someone is declaring a function prototype or using a function as a integer. Then "if" and 'for' seems to have grown parens; if(true) for(;;), etc. Since when did keywords become functions. I realize some people think they ARE functions with iterators as parameters. But if "for" is a function, where did the arg separating commas go? And finally, functions seem to have shed their parens; sqrt (2) select (...) I know, I koow, loosening whitespace rules is good. Keep reading. Question: when did the old ways disappear and this new way come into vogue? Does anyone besides me find it irritating to read and that the information that the placement of punctuation used to convey is gone? I know full well that K&R put the { at the end of the "if" or "for" to save a byte here and there. Can't use that excuse here. Space as an excuse for loss of readability died as HDD space soared past 100 MiB. Your thoughts are solicited. If there is a good reason to do this, I'll gladly learn it and maybe in another 50 years I'll get used to it. Of course it's good that compilers recognize these (IMHO) typos and keep right on going, but just because you CAN code it that way doesn't mean you HAVE to, right?

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice to make an iterator that is aware of its own end

    - by aaronman
    For some background of why I am asking this question here is an example. In python the method chain chains an arbitrary number of ranges together and makes them into one without making copies. Here is a link in case you don't understand it. I decided I would implement chain in c++ using variadic templates. As far as I can tell the only way to make an iterator for chain that will successfully go to the next container is for each iterator to to know about the end of the container (I thought of a sort of hack in where when != is called against the end it will know to go to the next container, but the first way seemed easier and safer and more versatile). My question is if there is anything inherently wrong with an iterator knowing about its own end, my code is in c++ but this can be language agnostic since many languages have iterators. #ifndef CHAIN_HPP #define CHAIN_HPP #include "iterator_range.hpp" namespace iter { template <typename ... Containers> struct chain_iter; template <typename Container> struct chain_iter<Container> { private: using Iterator = decltype(((Container*)nullptr)->begin()); Iterator begin; const Iterator end;//never really used but kept it for consistency public: chain_iter(Container & container, bool is_end=false) : begin(container.begin()),end(container.end()) { if(is_end) begin = container.end(); } chain_iter & operator++() { ++begin; return *this; } auto operator*()->decltype(*begin) { return *begin; } bool operator!=(const chain_iter & rhs) const{ return this->begin != rhs.begin; } }; template <typename Container, typename ... Containers> struct chain_iter<Container,Containers...> { private: using Iterator = decltype(((Container*)nullptr)->begin()); Iterator begin; const Iterator end; bool end_reached = false; chain_iter<Containers...> next_iter; public: chain_iter(Container & container, Containers& ... rest, bool is_end=false) : begin(container.begin()), end(container.end()), next_iter(rest...,is_end) { if(is_end) begin = container.end(); } chain_iter & operator++() { if (begin == end) { ++next_iter; } else { ++begin; } return *this; } auto operator*()->decltype(*begin) { if (begin == end) { return *next_iter; } else { return *begin; } } bool operator !=(const chain_iter & rhs) const { if (begin == end) { return this->next_iter != rhs.next_iter; } else return this->begin != rhs.begin; } }; template <typename ... Containers> iterator_range<chain_iter<Containers...>> chain(Containers& ... containers) { auto begin = chain_iter<Containers...>(containers...); auto end = chain_iter<Containers...>(containers...,true); return iterator_range<chain_iter<Containers...>>(begin,end); } } #endif //CHAIN_HPP

    Read the article

  • New Sample Demonstrating the Traversing of Tree Bindings

    - by Duncan Mills
    A technique that I seem to use a fair amount, particularly in the construction of dynamic UIs is the use of a ADF Tree Binding to encode a multi-level master-detail relationship which is then expressed in the UI in some kind of looping form – usually a series of nested af:iterators, rather than the conventional tree or treetable. This technique exploits two features of the treebinding. First the fact that an treebinding can return both a collectionModel as well as a treeModel, this collectionModel can be used directly by an iterator. Secondly that the “rows” returned by the collectionModel themselves contain an attribute called .children. This attribute in turn gives access to a collection of all the children of that node which can also be iterated over. Putting this together you can represent the data encoded into a tree binding in all sorts of ways. As an example I’ve put together a very simple sample based on the HT schema and uploaded it to the ADF Sample project. It produces this UI: The important code is shown here for a Region -> Country -> Location Hierachy: <af:iterator id="i1" value="#{bindings.AllRegions.collectionModel}" var="rgn"> <af:showDetailHeader text="#{rgn.RegionName}" disclosed="true" id="sdh1"> <af:iterator id="i2" value="#{rgn.children}" var="cnty">     <af:showDetailHeader text="#{cnty.CountryName}" disclosed="true" id="sdh2">       <af:iterator id="i3" value="#{cnty.children}" var="loc">         <af:panelList id="pl1">         <af:outputText value="#{loc.City}" id="ot3"/>           </af:panelList>         </af:iterator>       </af:showDetailHeader>     </af:iterator>   </af:showDetailHeader> </af:iterator>  You can download the entire sample from here:

    Read the article

  • Manually iterating over a selection of XML elements (C#, XDocument)

    - by user316117
    What is the “best practice” way of manually iterating (i.e., one at a time with a “next” button) over a set of XElements in my XDocument? Say I select the set of elements I want thusly: var elems = from XElement el in m_xDoc.Descendants() where (el.Name.LocalName.ToString() == "q_a") select el; I can use an IEnumerator to iterate over them, i.e., IEnumerator m_iter; But when I get to the end and I want to wrap around to the beginning if I call Reset() on it, it throws a NotSupportedException. That’s because, as the Microsoft C# 2.0 Specification under chapter 22 "Iterators" says "Note that enumerator objects do not support the IEnumerator.Reset method. Invoking this method causes a System.NotSupportedException to be thrown ." So what IS the right way of doing this? And what if I also want to have bidirectional iteration, i.e., a “back” button, too? Someone on a Microsoft discussion forum said I shouldn’t be using IEnumerable directly anyway. He said there was a way to do what I want with LINQ but I didn’t understand what. Someone else suggested dumping the XElements into a List with ToList(), which I think would work, but I wasn’t sure it was “best practice”. Thanks in advance for any suggestions!

    Read the article

  • How to write a streaming 'operator<<' that can take arbitary containers (of type 'X')?

    - by Drew Dormann
    I have a C++ class "X" which would have special meaning if a container of them were to be sent to a std::ostream. I originally implemented it specifically for std::vector<X>: std::ostream& operator << ( std::ostream &os, const std::vector<X> &c ) { // The specialized logic here expects c to be a "container" in simple // terms - only that c.begin() and c.end() return input iterators to X } If I wanted to support std::ostream << std::deque<X> or std::ostream << std::set<X> or any similar container type, the only solution I know of is to copy-paste the entire function and change only the function signature! Is there a way to generically code operator << ( std::ostream &, const Container & )? ("Container" here would be any type that satisfies the commented description above.)

    Read the article

  • C# and F# lambda expressions code generation

    - by ControlFlow
    Let's look at the code, generated by F# for simple function: let map_add valueToAdd xs = xs |> Seq.map (fun x -> x + valueToAdd) The generated code for lambda expression (instance of F# functional value) will looks like this: [Serializable] internal class map_add@3 : FSharpFunc<int, int> { public int valueToAdd; internal map_add@3(int valueToAdd) { this.valueToAdd = valueToAdd; } public override int Invoke(int x) { return (x + this.valueToAdd); } } And look at nearly the same C# code: using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; static class Program { static IEnumerable<int> SelectAdd(IEnumerable<int> source, int valueToAdd) { return source.Select(x => x + valueToAdd); } } And the generated code for the C# lambda expression: [CompilerGenerated] private sealed class <>c__DisplayClass1 { public int valueToAdd; public int <SelectAdd>b__0(int x) { return (x + this.valueToAdd); } } So I have some questions: Why does F#-generated class is not marked as sealed? Why does F#-generated class contains public fields since F# doesn't allows mutable closures? Why does F# generated class has the constructor? It may be perfectly initialized with the public fields... Why does C#-generated class is not marked as [Serializable]? Also classes generated for F# sequence expressions are also became [Serializable] and classes for C# iterators are not.

    Read the article

  • Composite key syntax in Boost MultiIndex

    - by Sarah
    Even after studying the examples, I'm having trouble figuring out how to extract ranges using a composite key on a MultiIndex container. typedef multi_index_container< boost::shared_ptr< Host >, indexed_by< hashed_unique< const_mem_fun<Host,int,&Host::getID> >, // ID index ordered_non_unique< const_mem_fun<Host,int,&Host::getAgeInY> >, // Age index ordered_non_unique< const_mem_fun<Host,int,&Host::getHousehold> >, // Household index ordered_non_unique< // Age & eligibility status index composite_key< Host, const_mem_fun<Host,int,&Host::getAgeInY>, const_mem_fun<Host,bool,&Host::isPaired> > > > // end indexed_by > HostContainer; My goal is to get an iterator pointing to the first of the subset of elements in HostContainer hmap that has age partnerAge and returns false to Host::isPaired(): std::pair< hmap::iterator,hmap::iterator > pit = hmap.equal_range(boost::make_tuple( partnerAge, false ) ); I think this is very wrong. How/Where do I specify the iterator index (which should be 3 for age & eligibility)? I will include other composite keys in the future. What exactly are the two iterators in std::pair? (I'm copying syntax from an example that I don't understand.) I would ideally use std::count to calculate the number of elements of age partnerAge that are eligible (return false to Host::isPaired()). What is the syntax for extracting the sorted index that meets these requirements? I'm obviously still learning C++ syntax. Thanks in advance for any help.

    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

  • python 'with' statement

    - by Stephen
    Hi, I'm using Python 2.5. I'm trying to use this 'with' statement. from __future__ import with_statement a = [] with open('exampletxt.txt','r') as f: while True: a.append(f.next().strip().split()) print a The contents of 'exampletxt.txt' are simple: a b In this case, I get the error: Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> File "/tmp/python-7036sVf.py", line 5, in <module> a.append(f.next().strip().split()) StopIteration And if I replace f.next() with f.read(), it seems to be caught in an infinite loop. I wonder if I have to write a decorator class that accepts the iterator object as an argument, and define an __exit__ method for it? I know it's more pythonic to use a for-loop for iterators, but I wanted to implement a while loop within a generator that's called by a for-loop... something like def g(f): while True: x = f.next() if test(x): a = x elif test(x): b = f.next() yield [a,x,b] a = [] with open(filename) as f: for x in g(f): a.append(x)

    Read the article

  • The fastest way to iterate through a collection of objects

    - by Trev
    Hello all, First to give you some background: I have some research code which performs a Monte Carlo simulation, essential what happens is I iterate through a collection of objects, compute a number of vectors from their surface then for each vector I iterate through the collection of objects again to see if the vector hits another object (similar to ray tracing). The pseudo code would look something like this for each object { for a number of vectors { do some computations for each object { check if vector intersects } } } As the number of objects can be quite large and the amount of rays is even larger I thought it would be wise to optimise how I iterate through the collection of objects. I created some test code which tests arrays, lists and vectors and for my first test cases found that vectors iterators were around twice as fast as arrays however when I implemented a vector in my code in was somewhat slower than the array I was using before. So I went back to the test code and increased the complexity of the object function each loop was calling (a dummy function equivalent to 'check if vector intersects') and I found that when the complexity of the function increases the execution time gap between arrays and vectors reduces until eventually the array was quicker. Does anyone know why this occurs? It seems strange that execution time inside the loop should effect the outer loop run time.

    Read the article

  • Pairs from single list

    - by Apalala
    Often enough, I've found the need to process a list by pairs. I was wondering which would be the pythonic and efficient way to do it, and found this on Google: pairs = zip(t[::2], t[1::2]) I thought that was pythonic enough, but after a recent discussion involving idioms versus efficiency, I decided to do some tests: import time from itertools import islice, izip def pairs_1(t): return zip(t[::2], t[1::2]) def pairs_2(t): return izip(t[::2], t[1::2]) def pairs_3(t): return izip(islice(t,None,None,2), islice(t,1,None,2)) A = range(10000) B = xrange(len(A)) def pairs_4(t): # ignore value of t! t = B return izip(islice(t,None,None,2), islice(t,1,None,2)) for f in pairs_1, pairs_2, pairs_3, pairs_4: # time the pairing s = time.time() for i in range(1000): p = f(A) t1 = time.time() - s # time using the pairs s = time.time() for i in range(1000): p = f(A) for a, b in p: pass t2 = time.time() - s print t1, t2, t2-t1 These were the results on my computer: 1.48668909073 2.63187503815 1.14518594742 0.105381965637 1.35109519958 1.24571323395 0.00257992744446 1.46182489395 1.45924496651 0.00251388549805 1.70076990128 1.69825601578 If I'm interpreting them correctly, that should mean that the implementation of lists, list indexing, and list slicing in Python is very efficient. It's a result both comforting and unexpected. Is there another, "better" way of traversing a list in pairs? Note that if the list has an odd number of elements then the last one will not be in any of the pairs. Which would be the right way to ensure that all elements are included? I added these two suggestions from the answers to the tests: def pairwise(t): it = iter(t) return izip(it, it) def chunkwise(t, size=2): it = iter(t) return izip(*[it]*size) These are the results: 0.00159502029419 1.25745987892 1.25586485863 0.00222492218018 1.23795199394 1.23572707176 Results so far Most pythonic and very efficient: pairs = izip(t[::2], t[1::2]) Most efficient and very pythonic: pairs = izip(*[iter(t)]*2) It took me a moment to grok that the first answer uses two iterators while the second uses a single one. To deal with sequences with an odd number of elements, the suggestion has been to augment the original sequence adding one element (None) that gets paired with the previous last element, something that can be achieved with itertools.izip_longest().

    Read the article

  • How do I perform this MutliArray setup in Java?

    - by Andy Barlow
    I come from a PHP background and I'm just getting my teeth into some Java. I was wondering how I could implement the following in Java as simply as possible, just echoing the results to a terminal via the usual "System.out.print()" method. <?php $Results[0]['title'] = "No Country for Old Men"; $Results[0]['run_time'] = "122 mins"; $Results[0]['cert'] = "15"; $Results[1]['title'] = "Old School"; $Results[1]['run_time'] = "88 mins"; $Results[1]['cert'] = "18"; // Will basically show the above in order. foreach($Results as value) { echo $Results[$value]['title']; echo $Results[$value]['run_time']; echo $Results[$value]['cert']; } // Lets add some more as I need to do this in Java too $Results[2]['title'] = "Saving Private Ryan"; $Results[2]['run_time'] = "153 mins"; $Results[2]['cert'] = "15"; // Lets remove the first one as an example of another need $Results[0] = null; ?> I hear there are "list iterators" or something that are really good for rolling through data like this. Perhaps it could be implemented with that? A fully working .java file would be most handy in this instance, including how to add and remove items from the array like the above. P.S. I do plan on using this for an Android App in the distant future, so, hopefully it should all work on Android fine too, although, I imagine this sort of thing works on anything Java related :).

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to create a python iterator over pre-defined mutable data?

    - by Wilduck
    I might be doing this wrong, if I am, let me know, but I'm curious if the following is possible: I have a class that holds a number of dictionaries, each of which pairs names to a different set of objects of a given class. For example: items = {"ball" : ItemInstance1, "sword" : ItemInstance2} people = {"Jerry" : PersonInstance1, "Bob" : PersonInstance2, "Jill" : PersonInstance3} My class would then hold the current items and people that are availible, and these would be subject to change as the state changes: Class State: def __init__(self, items, people): self.items = items self.people = people I would like to define a iter() and next() method such that it iterates through all of the values in its attributes. My first question is whether or not this is possible. If it is, will it be able to support a situation as follows: I define items and people as above then: state = State(items, people) for names, thing in state: print name + " is " + thing.color items[cheese] = ItemInstance3 for names, thing in state: print name + " weighs " + thing.weight While I feel like this would be usefull in the code I have, I don't know if it's either possible or the right approach. Everything I've read about user defined iterators has suggested that each instance of them is one use only.

    Read the article

  • Implementing list position locator in C++?

    - by jfrazier
    I am writing a basic Graph API in C++ (I know libraries already exist, but I am doing it for the practice/experience). The structure is basically that of an adjacency list representation. So there are Vertex objects and Edge objects, and the Graph class contains: list<Vertex *> vertexList list<Edge *> edgeList Each Edge object has two Vertex* members representing its endpoints, and each Vertex object has a list of Edge* members representing the edges incident to the Vertex. All this is quite standard, but here is my problem. I want to be able to implement deletion of Edges and Vertices in constant time, so for example each Vertex object should have a Locator member that points to the position of its Vertex* in the vertexList. The way I first implemented this was by saving a list::iterator, as follows: vertexList.push_back(v); v->locator = --vertexList.end(); Then if I need to delete this vertex later, then rather than searching the whole vertexList for its pointer, I can call: vertexList.erase(v->locator); This works fine at first, but it seems that if enough changes (deletions) are made to the list, the iterators will become out-of-date and I get all sorts of iterator errors at runtime. This seems strange for a linked list, because it doesn't seem like you should ever need to re-allocate the remaining members of the list after deletions, but maybe the STL does this to optimize by keeping memory somewhat contiguous? In any case, I would appreciate it if anyone has any insight as to why this happens. Is there a standard way in C++ to implement a locator that will keep track of an element's position in a list without becoming obsolete? Much thanks, Jeff

    Read the article

  • How do you use stl's functions like for_each?

    - by thomas-gies
    I started using stl containers because they came in very handy when I needed functionality of a list, set and map and had nothing else available in my programming environment. I did not care much about the ideas behind it. STL documentations were only interesting up to the point where it came to functions, etc. Then I skipped reading and just used the containers. But yesterday, still being relaxed from my holidays, I just gave it a try and wanted to go a bit more the stl way. So I used the transform function (can I have a little bit of applause for me, thank you). From an academic point of view it really looked interesting and it worked. But the thing that boroughs me is that if you intensify the use of those functions, you need 10ks of helper classes for mostly everything you want to do in your code. The hole logic of the program is sliced in tiny pieces. This slicing is not the result of god coding habits. It's just a technical need. Something, that makes my life probably harder not easier. And I learned the hard way, that you should always choose the simplest approach that solves the problem at hand. And I can't see what, for example, the for_each function is doing for me that justifies the use of a helper class over several simple lines of code that sit inside a normal loop so that everybody can see what is going on. I would like to know, what you are thinking about my concerns? Did you see it like I do when you started working this way and have changed your mind when you got used to it? Are there benefits that I overlooked? Or do you just ignore this stuff as I did (and will go an doing it, probably). Thanks. PS: I know that there is a real for_each loop in boost. But I ignore it here since it is just a convenient way for my usual loops with iterators I guess.

    Read the article

  • "end()" iterator for back inserters?

    - by Thanatos
    For iterators such as those returned from std::back_inserter(), is there something that can be used as an "end" iterator? This seems a little nonsensical at first, but I have an API which is: template<typename InputIterator, typename OutputIterator> void foo( InputIterator input_begin, InputIterator input_end, OutputIterator output_begin, OutputIterator output_end ); foo performs some operation on the input sequence, generating an output sequence. (Who's length is known to foo but may or may not be equal to the input sequence's length.) The taking of the output_end parameter is the odd part: std::copy doesn't do this, for example, and assumes you're not going to pass it garbage. foo does it to provide range checking: if you pass a range too small, it throws an exception, in the name of defensive programming. (Instead of potentially overwriting random bits in memory.) Now, say I want to pass foo a back inserter, specifically one from a std::vector which has no limit outside of memory constraints. I still need a "end" iterator - in this case, something that will never compare equal. (Or, if I had a std::vector but with a restriction on length, perhaps it might sometimes compare equal?) How do I go about doing this? I do have the ability to change foo's API - is it better to not check the range, and instead provide an alternate means to get the required output range? (Which would be needed anyways for raw arrays, but not required for back inserters into a vector.) This would seem less robust, but I'm struggling to make the "robust" (above) work.

    Read the article

  • Tree-like queues

    - by Rehno Lindeque
    I'm implementing a interpreter-like project for which I need a strange little scheduling queue. Since I'd like to try and avoid wheel-reinvention I was hoping someone could give me references to a similar structure or existing work. I know I can simply instantiate multiple queues as I go along, I'm just looking for some perspective by other people who might have better ideas than me ;) I envision that it might work something like this: The structure is a tree with a single root. You get a kind of "insert_iterator" to the root and then push elements onto it (e.g. a and b in the example below). However, at any point you can also split the iterator into multiple iterators, effectively creating branches. The branches cannot merge into a single queue again, but you can start popping elements from the front of the queue (again, using a kind of "visitor_iterator") until empty branches can be discarded (at your discretion). x -> y -> z a -> b -> { g -> h -> i -> j } f -> b Any ideas? Seems like a relatively simple structure to implement myself using a pool of circular buffers but I'm following the "think first, code later" strategy :) Thanks

    Read the article

  • C++ compiler unable to find function (namespace related)

    - by CS student
    I'm working in Visual Studio 2008 on a C++ programming assignment. We were supplied with files that define the following namespace hierarchy (the names are just for the sake of this post, I know "namespace XYZ-NAMESPACE" is redundant): (MAIN-NAMESPACE){ a bunch of functions/classes I need to implement... (EXCEPTIONS-NAMESPACE){ a bunch of exceptions } (POINTER-COLLECTIONS-NAMESPACE){ Set and LinkedList classes, plus iterators } } The MAIN-NAMESPACE contents are split between a bunch of files, and for some reason which I don't understand the operator<< for both Set and LinkedList is entirely outside of the MAIN-NAMESPACE (but within Set and LinkedList's header file). Here's the Set version: template<typename T> std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, const MAIN-NAMESPACE::POINTER-COLLECTIONS-NAMESPACE::Set<T>& set) Now here's the problem: I have the following data structure: Set A Set B Set C double num It's defined to be in a class within MAIN-NAMESPACE. When I create an instance of the class, and try to print one of the sets, it tells me that: error C2679: binary '<<' : no operator found which takes a right-hand operand of type 'const MAIN-NAMESPACE::POINTER-COLLECTIONS-NAMESPACE::Set' (or there is no acceptable conversion) However, if I just write a main() function, and create Set A, fill it up, and use the operator- it works. Any idea what is the problem? (note: I tried any combination of using and include I could think of).

    Read the article

  • std::vector elements initializing

    - by Chameleon
    std::vector<int> v1(1000); std::vector<std::vector<int>> v2(1000); std::vector<std::vector<int>::const_iterator> v3(1000); How elements of these 3 vectors initialized? About int, I test it and I saw that all elements become 0. Is this standard? I believed that primitives remain undefined. I create a vector with 300000000 elements, give non-zero values, delete it and recreate it, to avoid OS memory clear for data safety. Elements of recreated vector were 0 too. What about iterator? Is there a initial value (0) for default constructor or initial value remains undefined? When I check this, iterators point to 0, but this can be OS When I create a special object to track constructors, I saw that for first object, vector run the default constructor and for all others it run the copy constructor. Is this standard? Is there a way to completely avoid initialization of elements? Or I must create my own vector? (Oh my God, I always say NOT ANOTHER VECTOR IMPLEMENTATION) I ask because I use ultra huge sparse matrices with parallel processing, so I cannot use push_back() and of course I don't want useless initialization, when later I will change the value.

    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

  • What is a truly empty std::vector in C++?

    - by RyanG
    I've got a two vectors in class A that contain other class objects B and C. I know exactly how many elements these vectors are supposed to hold at maximum. In the initializer list of class A's constructor, I initialize these vectors to their max sizes (constants). If I understand this correctly, I now have a vector of objects of class B that have been initialized using their default constructor. Right? When I wrote this code, I thought this was the only way to deal with things. However, I've since learned about std::vector.reserve() and I'd like to achieve something different. I'd like to allocate memory for these vectors to grow as large as possible because adding to them is controlled by user-input, so I don't want frequent resizings. However, I iterate through this vector many, many times per second and I only currently work on objects I've flagged as "active". To have to check a boolean member of class B/C on ever iteration is silly. I don't want these objects to even BE there for my iterators to see when I run through this list. Is reserving the max space ahead of time and using push_back to add a new object to the vector a solution to this?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7  | Next Page >