ALL,
I have a function with the following signature:
void foo(const std::vector<Bar *> &myvec);
Inside this function I need to loop thru the members of the vector and perform some operations.
So, I tried this:
for( std::vector<Bar *>::const_iterator it = myvec.begin(); it < myvec.end(); ++it )
{
// modify properties of Bar * pointer
(*it)->SetSomeValue( baz );
}
however this code asserts since the iterator is constant.
Now obviously the vector is constant, which means that the function shouldn't be modifying myvec.
What's the best solution here?
Can I use const_cast here to remove constness? It would be kind of hack-ish, but if it works.
But I feel there must be a better solution.
TIA!!
You should use the myvec.cbegin() method instead of myvec.begin(), to ensure that you are not modifying the object the iterator points to.
Of course, for myvec.end(), use myvec.cend() accordingly.
The iterator itself doesn't need to be a const_iterator, in the contrary, you want to modify the objects it gives you - set_...() sounds like a non-const activity.
Related
I'm building a publish-subscribe class (called SystermInterface), which is responsible to receive updates from its instances, and publish them to subscribers.
Adding a subscriber callback function is trivial and has no issues, but removing it yields an error, because std::function<()> is not comparable in C++.
std::vector<std::function<void()> subs;
void subscribe(std::function<void()> f)
{
subs.push_back(f);
}
void unsubscribe(std::function<void()> f)
{
std::remove(subs.begin(), subs.end(), f); // Error
}
I've came down to five solutions to this error:
Registering the function using a weak_ptr, where the subscriber must keep the returned shared_ptr alive.
Solution example at this link.
Instead of registering at a vector, map the callback function by a custom key, unique per callback function.
Solution example at this link
Using vector of function pointers. Example
Make the callback function comparable by utilizing the address.
Use an interface class (parent class) to call a virtual function.
In my design, all intended classes inherits a parent class called
ServiceCore, So instead of registering a callback function, just
register ServiceCore reference in the vector.
Given that the SystemInterface class has a field attribute per instance (ID) (Which is managed by ServiceCore, and supplied to SystemInterface by constructing a ServiceCore child instance).
To my perspective, the first solution is neat and would work, but it requires handling at subscribers, which is something I don't really prefer.
The second solution would make my implementation more complex, where my implementation looks as:
using namespace std;
enum INFO_SUB_IMPORTANCE : uint8_t
{
INFO_SUB_PRIMARY, // Only gets the important updates.
INFO_SUB_COMPLEMENTARY, // Gets more.
INFO_SUB_ALL // Gets all updates
};
using CBF = function<void(string,string)>;
using INFO_SUBTREE = map<INFO_SUB_IMPORTANCE, vector<CBF>>;
using REQINF_SUBS = map<string, INFO_SUBTREE>; // It's keyed by an iterator, explaining it goes out of the question scope.
using INFSRC_SUBS = map<string, INFO_SUBTREE>;
using WILD_SUBS = INFO_SUBTREE;
REQINF_SUBS infoSubrs;
INFSRC_SUBS sourceSubrs;
WILD_SUBS wildSubrs;
void subscribeInfo(string info, INFO_SUB_IMPORTANCE imp, CBF f) {
infoSubrs[info][imp].push_back(f);
}
void subscribeSource(string source, INFO_SUB_IMPORTANCE imp, CBF f) {
sourceSubrs[source][imp].push_back(f);
}
void subscribeWild(INFO_SUB_IMPORTANCE imp, CBF f) {
wildSubrs[imp].push_back(f);
}
The second solution would require INFO_SUBTREE to be an extended map, but can be keyed by an ID:
using KEY_T = uint32_t; // or string...
using INFO_SUBTREE = map<INFO_SUB_IMPORTANCE, map<KEY_T,CBF>>;
For the third solution, I'm not aware of the limitations given by using function pointers, and the consequences of the fourth solution.
The Fifth solution would eliminate the purpose of dealing with CBFs, but it'll be more complex at subscriber-side, where a subscriber is required to override the virtual function and so receives all updates at one place, in which further requires filteration of the message id and so direct the payload to the intended routines using multiple if/else blocks, which will increase by increasing subscriptions.
What I'm looking for is an advice for the best available option.
Regarding your proposed solutions:
That would work. It can be made easy for the caller: have subscribe() create the shared_ptr and corresponding weak_ptr objects, and let it return the shared_ptr.
Then the caller must not lose the key. In a way this is similar to the above.
This of course is less generic, and then you can no longer have (the equivalent of) captures.
You can't: there is no way to get the address of the function stored inside a std::function. You can do &f inside subscribe() but that will only give you the address of the local variable f, which will go out of scope as soon as you return.
That works, and is in a way similar to 1 and 2, although now the "key" is provided by the caller.
Options 1, 2 and 5 are similar in that there is some other data stored in subs that refers to the actual std::function: either a std::shared_ptr, a key or a pointer to a base class. I'll present option 6 here, which is kind of similar in spirit but avoids storing any extra data:
Store a std::function<void()> directly, and return the index in the vector where it was stored. When removing an item, don't std::remove() it, but just set it to std::nullptr. Next time subscribe() is called, it checks if there is an empty element in the vector and reuses it:
std::vector<std::function<void()> subs;
std::size_t subscribe(std::function<void()> f) {
if (auto it = std::find(subs.begin(), subs.end(), std::nullptr); it != subs.end()) {
*it = f;
return std::distance(subs.begin(), it);
} else {
subs.push_back(f);
return subs.size() - 1;
}
}
void unsubscribe(std::size_t index) {
subs[index] = std::nullptr;
}
The code that actually calls the functions stored in subs must now of course first check against std::nullptrs. The above works because std::nullptr is treated as the "empty" function, and there is an operator==() overload that can check a std::function against std::nullptr, thus making std::find() work.
One drawback of option 6 as shown above is that a std::size_t is a rather generic type. To make it safer, you might wrap it in a class SubscriptionHandle or something like that.
As for the best solution: option 1 is quite heavy-weight. Options 2 and 5 are very reasonable, but 6 is, I think, the most efficient.
I have the following member variable in a class:
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Object>> objects_;
I explicitly want the vector to maintain ownership at all times. I've seen suggestions that in order for a member function to access a pointer in the vector and make changes to the object T wrapped in the std::unique_ptr, we must move the pointer to calling code, i.e:
void foo(int i) {
auto object = std::move( vector.at( i ) ); // move object to caller (caller owns)
object->dosomething();
vector.at(i) = std::move(object); // move back into vector (vector owns)
}
Another method was to work with raw pointers:
void foo(int i) {
Object* object = vector.at( i ).get();
object->doSomething();
}
However, I've been working with this:
void foo(int i) {
auto& object = vector.at( i );
object->doSomething();
}
Which is the correct and most robust method for my case? Does this function ever take ownership of the data in the std::unique_ptr? Is there a way to access Object without playing with the std::unique_ptr?
(excuse me if my methods are incorrect, I hope I got the point across)
The first approach will not retain ownership of the object if object->dosomething() throws an exception (i.e. it is not exception safe) since the second std::move() statement will not be executed.
Assuming C++11, both of the other approaches are effectively equivalent, subject to the assumption that the owned pointer is not null. Under the same assumption, the code can be simplified to
void foo(int i)
{
vector.at(i)->doSomething();
}
which will work with all C++ standards (not just C++11 or later).
It is possible to access the object without monkeying with the unique_ptr - simply store the pointer elsewhere and use that. However, that does compromise the purpose of using std::unique_ptr in the first place. And is error-prone - for example, the std::unique_ptr can destroy the object, and leave those other pointers dangling.
If you are really that worried about the potential of your vector losing ownership, consider using a shared_ptr instead.
I've some code that moves an object into another object. I won't need the original, moved object anymore in the upper level. Thus move is the right choice I think.
However, thinking about safety I wonder if there is a way to invalidate the moved object and thus preventing undefined behaviour if someone accesses it.
Here is a nice example:
// move example
#include <utility> // std::move
#include <vector> // std::vector
#include <string> // std::string
int main () {
std::string foo = "foo-string";
std::string bar = "bar-string";
std::vector<std::string> myvector;
myvector.push_back (foo); // copies
myvector.push_back (std::move(bar)); // moves
return 0;
}
The description says:
The first call to myvector.push_back copies the value of foo into the
vector (foo keeps the value it had before the call). The second call
moves the value of bar into the vector. This transfers its content
into the vector (while bar loses its value, and now is in a valid but
unspecified state).
Is there a way to invalidate bar, such that access to it will cause a compiler error? Something like:
myvector.push_back (std::move(bar)); // moves
invalidate(bar); //something like bar.end() will then result in a compiler error
Edit: And if there is no such thing, why?
Accessing the moved object is not undefined behavior. The moved object is still a valid object, and the program may very well want to continue using said object. For example,
template< typename T >
void swap_by_move(T &a, T &b)
{
using std::move;
T c = move(b);
b = move(a);
a = move(c);
}
The bigger picture answer is because moving or not moving is a decision made at runtime, and giving a compile-time error is a decision made at compile time.
foo(bar); // foo might move or not
bar.baz(); // compile time error or not?
It's not going to work.. you can approximate in compile time analysis, but then it's going to be really difficult for developers to either not get an error or making anything useful in order to keep a valid program or the developer has to make annoying and fragile annotations on functions called to promise not to move the argument.
To put it a different way, you are asking about having a compile time error if you use an integer variable that contains the value 42. Or if you use a pointer that contains a null pointer value. You might be succcessful in implementing an approximate build-time code convention checker using clang the analysis API, however, working on the CFG of the C++ AST and erroring out if you can't prove that std::move has not been called till a given use of a variable.
Move semantics works like that so you get an object in any it's correct state. Correct state means that all fields have correct value, and all internal invariants are still good. That was done because after move you don't actually care about contents of moved object, but stuff like resource management, assignments and destructors should work OK.
All STL classes (and all classed with default move constructor/assignment) just swap it's content with new one, so both states are correct, and it's very easy to implement, fast, and convinient enough.
You can define your class that has isValid field that's generally true and on move (i. e. in move constructor / move assignment) sets that to false. Then your object will have correct state I am invalid. Just don't forget to check it where needed (destructor, assignment etc).
That isValid field can be either one pointer having null value. The point is: you know, that object is in predictable state after move, not just random bytes in memory.
Edit: example of String:
class String {
public:
string data;
private:
bool m_isValid;
public:
String(string const& b): data(b.data), isValid(true) {}
String(String &&b): data(move(b.data)) {
b.m_isValid = false;
}
String const& operator =(String &&b) {
data = move(b.data);
b.m_isValid = false;
return &this;
}
bool isValid() {
return m_isValid;
}
}
In C#, you can define a custom enumeration very trivially, eg:
public IEnumerable<Foo> GetNestedFoos()
{
foreach (var child in _SomeCollection)
{
foreach (var foo in child.FooCollection)
{
yield return foo;
}
foreach (var bar in child.BarCollection)
{
foreach (var foo in bar.MoreFoos)
{
yield return foo;
}
}
}
foreach (var baz in _SomeOtherCollection)
{
foreach (var foo in baz.GetNestedFoos())
{
yield return foo;
}
}
}
(This can be simplified using LINQ and better encapsulation but that's not the point of the question.)
In C++11, you can do similar enumerations but AFAIK it requires a visitor pattern instead:
template<typename Action>
void VisitAllFoos(const Action& action)
{
for (auto& child : m_SomeCollection)
{
for (auto& foo : child.FooCollection)
{
action(foo);
}
for (auto& bar : child.BarCollection)
{
for (auto& foo : bar.MoreFoos)
{
action(foo);
}
}
}
for (auto& baz : m_SomeOtherCollection)
{
baz.VisitAllFoos(action);
}
}
Is there a way to do something more like the first, where the function returns a range that can be iterated externally rather than calling a visitor internally?
(And I don't mean by constructing a std::vector<Foo> and returning it -- it should be an in-place enumeration.)
I am aware of the Boost.Range library, which I suspect would be involved in the solution, but I'm not particularly familiar with it.
I'm also aware that it's possible to define custom iterators to do this sort of thing (which I also suspect might be involved in the answer) but I'm looking for something that's easy to write, ideally no more complicated than the examples shown here, and composable (like with _SomeOtherCollection).
I would prefer something that does not require the caller to use lambdas or other functors (since that just makes it a visitor again), although I don't mind using lambdas internally if needed (but would still prefer to avoid them there too).
If I'm understanding your question correctly, you want to perform some action over all elements of a collection.
C++ has an extensive set of iterator operations, defined in the iterator header. Most collection structures, including the std::vector that you reference, have .begin and .end methods which take no arguments and return iterators to the beginning and the end of the structure. These iterators have some operations that can be performed on them manually, but their primary use comes in the form of the algorithm header, which defines several very useful iteration functions.
In your specific case, I believe you want the for_each function, which takes a range (as a beginning to end iterator) and a function to apply. So if you had a function (or function object) called action and you wanted to apply it to a vector called data, the following code would be correct (assuming all necessary headers are included appropriately):
std::for_each(data.begin(), data.end(), action);
Note that for_each is just one of many functions provided by the algorithm header. It also provides functions to search a collection, copy a set of data, sort a list, find a minimum/maximum, and much more, all generalized to work over any structure that has an iterator. And if even these aren't enough, you can write your own by reading up on the operations supported on iterators. Simply define a template function that takes iterators of varying types and document what kind of iterator you want.
template <typename BidirectionalIterator>
void function(BidirectionalIterator begin, BidirectionalIterator end) {
// Do something
}
One final note is that all of the operations mentioned so far also operate correctly on arrays, provided you know the size. Instead of writing .begin and .end, you write + 0 and + n, where n is the size of the array. The trivial zero addition is often necessary in order to decay the type of the array into a pointer to make it a valid iterator, but array pointers are indeed random access iterators just like any other container iterator.
What you can do is writing your own adapter function and call it with different ranges of elements of the same type.
This is a non tested solution, that will probably needs some tweaking to make it compile,but it will give you an idea. It uses variadic templates to move from a collection to the next one.
template<typename Iterator, Args...>
visitAllFoos(std::pair<Iterator, Iterator> collection, Args&&... args)
{
std::for_each(collection.first, collection.second, {}(){ // apply action });
return visitAllFoos(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
}
//you can call it with a sequence of begin/end iterators
visitAllFoos(std::make_pair(c1.begin(), c1,end()), std::make_pair(c2.begin(), c2,end()))
I believe, what you're trying to do can be done with Boost.Range, in particular with join and any_range (the latter would be needed if you want to hide the types of the containers and remove joined_range from the interface).
However, the resulting solution would not be very practical both in complexity and performance - mostly because of the nested joined_ranges and type erasure overhead incurred by any_range. Personally, I would just construct std::vector<Foo*> or use visitation.
You can do this with the help of boost::asio::coroutine; see examples at https://pubby8.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/multi-step-iterators-using-coroutines/ and http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_55_0/doc/html/boost_asio/overview/core/coroutine.html.
I'm new to the bimap functionality of the Boost libraries, and I'm having trouble passing a bimap into another function. My bimap looks like this:
typedef boost::bimap< int, int > bimap_type;
bimap_type bm;
I have an add_values() function that adds a set of values to the bimap:
add_values(int a, int b)
{
bm.insert(bimap_type::value_type(a, b));
}
I then have a function that is meant to set the values of the bimap by getting them from a Singleton Class:
void set_values()
{
MyClass::instance()->get_values(bm);
}
And, in MyClass, get_values() looks like this:
void get_values(bimap_type myBimap)
{
myBimap.add_values(3, 5);
}
However, MyClass does not recognise 'bimap_type'. I try putting the typedef in a separate header file and including that in MyClass, but I get the error message:
'class bimap_type' has no member named 'add_values'
How can I successfully pass the bimap to this Singleton Class in order to fill it with values from the Class? Does anyone know?
Thanks a lot.
Er, boost::bimap itself doesn't have an add_values method and it's hard to tell from these code fragments why you're suddenly expecting one to appear.
Consider renaming your functions: set_values() that calls get_values() that calls add_values() is one confusing call chain...
When you need to modify an object in a function, you have to take it by reference (or a pointer). The idea is that you must work with the same object inside and outside of the function. If you pass by value, function will see a copy, so anything it does with it does not reflect on original object.
// formerly known as add_values()
void initialize(bimap_type& bm, int a, int b)
{
bm.insert(bimap_type::value_type(a, b));
}
And this is how you will call it:
initialize(myBitmap, 3, 5);
Make sure to update your whole call chain to pass by reference where appropriate, because currently your get_values() works with a copy too.