Search Results

Search found 5655 results on 227 pages for 'stl algorithm'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 73/227 | < Previous Page | 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Function template accepting nothing less than a bidirectional iterator or a pointer

    - by san
    I need a function template that accepts two iterators that could be pointers. If the two arguments are random_access iterators I want the return type to be an object of std::iterator<random_access_iterator_tag, ...> type else a std::iterator<bidirectional_iterator_tag, ...> type. I also want the code to refuse compilation if the arguments are neither a bidirectional iterator, nor a pointer. I cannot have dependency on third party libraries e.g. Boost Could you help me with the signature of this function so that it accepts bidirectional iterators as well as pointers, but not say input_iterator, output_iterator, forward_iterators. One partial solution I can think of is the following template<class T> T foo( T iter1, T iter2) { const T tmp1 = reverse_iterator<T>(iter1); const T tmp2 = reverse_iterator<T>(iter2); // do something } The idea is that if it is not bidirectional the compiler will not let me construct a reverse_iterator from it.

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Two dimensional strings in C++

    - by dada
    I want to write something like 2d strings in C++. I tried with : vector< vector<string> > table; int m,n,i,j; string s; cin>>n>>m; for(i=0;i<n;i++) { for(j=0;j<m;j++) { cin>>s; table[i][j] = s; } } cout << "\n\n\n\n"; for(i=0;i<n;i++) { for(j=0;j<m;j++) { cout<<table[i][j]<<" "; } cout<<"\n"; } no compile errors, but when i enter input like: 10 20 .....#.............. .....#.............. .....#.............. .....#.............. ######.............. .......###.......... .......#.#.......... .......###...####### .............#.....# .............####### It gives me segmentation fault. Why ? What's wrong ? And how it should be done so it would work correctly ? Thank you.

    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

  • 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++ Vector at/[] operator speed

    - by sub
    In order to give functions the option to modify the vector I can't do curr = myvec.at( i ); doThis( curr ); doThat( curr ); doStuffWith( curr ); But I have to do: doThis( myvec.at( i ) ); doThat( myvec.at( i ) ); doStuffWith( myvec.at( i ) ); (as the answers of my other question pointed out) I'm going to make a hell lot of calls to myvec.at() then. How fast is it, compared to the first example using a variable to store the result? Is there a different option for me? Can I somehow use pointers? When it's getting serious there will be thousands of calls to myvec.at() per second. So every little performance-eater is important.

    Read the article

  • accessing nth element (value) of a vector after sorting

    - by memC
    dear experts, This question is an extension of this question I asked. I have a std::vector vec_B.which stores instances of class Foo. The order of elements in this vector changes in the code. Now, I want to access the value of the current "last element" or current 'nth' element of the vector. If I use the code below to get the last element using getLastFoo() method, it doesn't return the correct value. For example, to begin with the last element of the vector has Foo.getNumber() = 9. After sorting it in descending order of num, for the last element, Foo.getNumber() = 0. But with the code below, it still returns 9.. that means it is still pointing to the original element that was the last element. What change should I make to the code below so that "lastFoo" points to the correct last element? class Foo { public: Foo(int i); ~Foo(){}; int getNum(); private: int num; }; Foo:Foo(int i){ num = i; } int Foo::getNum(){ return num; } class B { public: Foo* getLastFoo(); B(); ~B(){}; private: vector<Foo> vec_B; }; B::B(){ int i; for (i = 0; i< 10; i++){ vec_B.push_back(Foo(i)); } // Do some random changes to the vector vec_B so that elements are reordered. For // example rearrange elements in decreasing order of 'num' //... } Foo* B::getLastFoo(){ &vec_B.back(); }; int main(){ B b; Foo* lastFoo; lastFoo = b.getLastFoo() cout<<lastFoo->getNumber(); return 0; }

    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

  • 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

  • Is the "==" operator required to be defined to use std::find

    - by user144182
    Let's say I have: class myClass std::list<myClass> myList where myClass does not define the == operator and only consists of public fields. In both VS2010 and VS2005 the following does not compile: myClass myClassVal = myList.front(); std::find( myList.begin(), myList.end(), myClassVal ) complaining about lack of == operator. I naively assumed it would do a value comparison of the myClass object's public members, but I am almost positive this is not correct. I assume if I define a == operator or perhaps use a functor instead, it will solve the problem. Alternatively, if my list was holding pointers instead of values, the comparison would work. Is this right or should I be doing something else?

    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

  • C++ Generic List Assignment

    - by S73417H
    I've clearly been stuck in Java land for too long... Is it possible to do the C++ equivalent of the following Java code: // Method List<Bar> getBars() { return new LinkedList<Bar>(); } // Assignment statement. List<Foo> stuff = getBars(); Where Foo is a sub-class of Bar. So in C++.... std::list<Bar> & getBars() { std::list<Bar> bars; return bars; } std::list<Foo> stuff = getBars(); Hope that makes sense....

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80  | Next Page >