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 >

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

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

    Read the article

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

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

    - by user63898
    Hello all, I have std::list<multimap<std::string,std::string>::iterator> > Now i have new element: multimap<std::string,std::string>::value_type aNewMmapValue("foo1","test") I want to avoid the need to set temp multimap and do insert to the new element just to get its iterator back so i could to push it back to the: std::list<multimap<std::string,std::string>::iterator> > can i somehow avoid this creation of the temp multimap. Thanks

    Read the article

  • std::map keys in C++

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

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

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

    Read the article

  • C++ 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

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

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • 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++ 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Confused about std::runtime_error vs. std::logic_error

    - by David Gladfelter
    I recently saw that the boost program_options library throws a logic_error if the command-line input was un-parsable. That challenged my assumptions about logic_error vs. runtime_error. I assumed that logic errors (logic_error and its derived classes) were problems that resulted from internal failures to adhere to program invariants, often in the form of illegal arguments to internal API's. In that sense they are largely equivalent to ASSERT's, but meant to be used in released code (unlike ASSERT's which are not usually compiled into released code.) They are useful in situations where it is infeasible to integrate separate software components in debug/test builds or the consequences of a failure are such that it is important to give runtime feedback about the invalid invariant condition to the user. Similarly, I thought that runtime_errors resulted exclusively from runtime conditions outside of the control of the programmer: I/O errors, invalid user input, etc. However, program_options is obviously heavily (primarily?) used as a means of parsing end-user input, so under my mental model it certainly should throw a runtime_error in the case of bad input. Where am I going wrong? Do you agree with the boost model of exception typing?

    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 >