use of deleted function in class operator=
old version worked with old compiler but not with new versions
I need this "operator=" overloading for container operation.
#include <boost/interprocess/ipc/message_queue.hpp>
#include <iostream>
using namespace boost::interprocess;
class X {
public:
size_t m_len;
shared_memory_object m_shm;
const char* m_ptr;
X():
m_len(0),
m_shm(shared_memory_object()),
m_ptr(nullptr){}
X(size_t t, const char* n):
m_len(t),
m_shm(shared_memory_object()),
m_ptr(nullptr){
shared_memory_object::remove(n);
m_shm = shared_memory_object(open_or_create,n, read_write);
m_shm.truncate (m_len);
mapped_region region(m_shm, read_write);
m_ptr = static_cast<char*>(region.get_address());
}
X(const X&& x){
m_len = x.m_len;
m_shm = x.m_shm; //error use deleted function
m_ptr = x.m_ptr;
}
virtual ~X(){}
X& operator = (const X&& a) {
if(&a == this) return *this;
m_len = a.m_len;
m_ptr = a.m_ptr;
m_shm = a.m_shm; //error use deleted function
return (*this);
}
const char* get_name(){
return m_shm.get_name();
}
};
int main ()
{
X a = X(22, "test");
X b = a; //Error
return 0;
};
The above class will be used in std::vector and operator= is needed.
boost shared_memory_object has member:
shared_memory_object(shared_memory_object &&);
shared_memory_object& operator=(shared_memory_object &&);
Move operations can only work on non-const objects. Why? Because it steals resources from the source instance, then it must be non-const to be modifiable. So your move operations should take non-const objects:
now should be
----------------------------------------------------------
X(const X&& x) ==> X(X&& x)
X& operator = (const X&& a) { ==> X& operator = (X&& a) {
Named variable is treated as L-value, it implies copy operations are called. You need to use std::move to cast source to R-value reference, then move operations can be called:
m_shm = std::move(x.m_shm); // in move ctor
m_shm = std::move(a.m_shm); // in move assignment operator
and finally to call move ctor:
X b = std::move(a);
Related
My problem is this. I am passing arguments to a function that uses generics. For example I am passing element. I need to use element.length in the function but it gives me this error:
The property 'length' can't be unconditionally accessed because the receiver can be 'null'.
Try making the access conditional (using '?.') or adding a null check to the target ('!'). dartunchecked_use_of_nullable_value
void main(List<String> args) {
const List keyList = ['asd', 3, 'tyu', 67];
const List valueList = ['dfg', 'ert', 4, 'lkj'];
print(myMap(keyList, valueList));
}
Map myMap<K, V>(K key, V val) {
final Map<K, V> myMap = {};
for (int i = 0; i < key.length; i++) {
myMap[key[i]] = val[i];
}
return myMap;
}
I don't know if null aware operators can be used here, or if they solve the problem and how to use it.
You defined your generic types, but your parameters are lists of that type. You did not make this clear to your compiler. For your compiler, K is now of type List<dynamic> while what you wanted it to be is just dynamic.
Changing it to make it fit (my guess of) your requirements:
Map<K, V> myMap<K, V>(List<K> keys, List<V> values) {
final result = <K, V>{};
for (int i = 0; i < keys.length; i++) {
result[keys[i]] = values[i];
}
return result;
}
Please note that you are reinventing the wheel here. There already is a constructor that does this:
void main(List<String> args) {
const List keyList = ['asd', 3, 'tyu', 67];
const List valueList = ['dfg', 'ert', 4, 'lkj'];
print(Map.fromIterables(keyList, valueList));
}
Is it possible to test if a value is a function that can be called? I can test for null easily but after that I have no idea how to ensure the parameter passed in is actually a function?
void myMethod(funcParam)
{
if (funcParam != null)
{
/* How to test if funcParam is actually a function that can be called? */
funcParam();
}
}
void myMethod(funcParam) {
if(funcParam is Function) {
funcParam();
}
}
Of course, the call to funcParams() only works if the parameter list matches - is Function doesn't check for that. If there are parameters involved, one can use typedefs to ensure this.
typedef void MyExpectedFunction(int someInt, String someString);
void myMethod(MyExpectedFunction funcParam, int intParam, String stringParam) {
if(funcParam is MyExpectedFunction) {
funcParam(intParam, stringParam);
}
}
In your case, you want to check if the function can be called with zero arguments.
typedef NullaryFunction();
main () {
var f = null;
print(f is NullaryFunction); // false
f = () {};
print(f is NullaryFunction); // true
f = (x) {};
print(f is NullaryFunction); // false
}
If you just want to know that it is some function, you can test with ... is Function. All callable objects implement Function, but it is technically possible (though often not useful) to implement Function manually without actually being callable. It does make a kind of sense for objects that mock callability through noSuchMethod.
var f = () {};
print(f is Function); // 'true'
var x = (x){};
print(x is Function); // 'true'
/* There is something wrong with the function delete_back(); I think something wrong with the remove function 3 parts.
Also remove_ele() I do not how to do it, thanks.
why I use the same method to delete element does not work
*/
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
template<class T>
class doulinked
{
private:
doulinked *head;
doulinked *tail;
doulinked *prev;
doulinked *next;
T data;
public:
doulinked()
{
head=tail=prev=next=NULL;
T data;
}
void Inlist (doulinked *head);
void add(T d);
void insert_node();
void remove(doulinked* v);
void push_tail(T d);
void delete_front();
void delete_back();
void remove_ele (T d);
template <class U>
friend ostream & operator<<(ostream & os, const doulinked<U> & dll);
};
template<class U>
ostream & operator<<(ostream & os,const doulinked<U> & dll)
{
doulinked<U> * tmp = dll.head;
while (tmp)
{
os << tmp->data << " ";
tmp = tmp->next;
}
return os;
}
template<class T>
void doulinked<T>::add(T d)
{
doulinked *n = new doulinked;
n->data=d;
if( head == NULL)
{
head = n;
tail = n;
}
else
{
head->prev = n;
n->next = head;
head = n;
}
}
template<class T>
void doulinked<T>::push_tail(T d)
{
doulinked *n = new doulinked;
n->data=d;
if( tail == NULL)
{
head = n;
tail = n;
}
else
{
tail->next = n;
n->prev = tail;
tail = n;
}
}
template <class T>
void doulinked<T>::delete_front()
{
remove(head);
}
template <class T>
void doulinked<T>::delete_back()
{
remove(tail);
}
template <class T>
void doulinked<T>::remove(doulinked* v)
{
if(v->prev!=NULL && v->next!=NULL)
{
doulinked* p = v->prev;
doulinked* n = v->next;
p->next = n;
n->prev = p;
delete v;
}
else if(v->prev==NULL && v->next!=NULL)
{
doulinked* n =v->next;
head->next = n;
n->prev = head;
delete head;
head=n;
}
else if(v->prev!=NULL && v->next==NULL) // have some wrong with this loop;
{
doulinked* p=v->prev;
p->next=tail;
tail->prev=p;
delete tail;
tail=p;
}
}
template <class T>
void doulinked<T>::remove_ele(T d) // have some wrong with this loop
{
if(head->data==d)
{
remove(head);
head=head->next;
}
else
head=head->next;
}
int main()
{
doulinked<int> dll;
dll.add(5123);
dll.add(1227);
dll.add(127);
dll.push_tail(1235);
dll.push_tail(834);
dll.push_tail(1595);
dll.delete_front();
//dll.delete_back();
//dll.remove_ele(834);
cout<<dll<<endl;
system("pause");
}
Your design is a little confused.
The traditional C++ way to design a linked list (like std::list) has separate node and list classes, instead of a single class that acts as both:
template <typename T> struct node {
node *prev, *next;
};
template <typename T> struct list {
node *head, *tail;
};
If you want to just pass around node pointers, that's fine—but then you have to pass around node pointers, not node objects. And the mutator functions have to return a pointer as well—if you call delete_front on the head node, you've now got a reference to a deleted node; you need its next or you've lost any reference to the list. Since the constructor has to return a pointer, you can't use a real public constructor; you want a static factory method instead. And so on.
You also have to be consistent about whether there's a "sentinel node" before the head (and after the tail) or not. If you're creating a sentinel in your constructor—as you are doing—new nodes inserted at the end(s) need to point at the sentinel(s)—which you aren't doing.
Also, the whole head/tail notion you're using is wrong for a node API. (Also, it's incredibly confusing to mix and match names from different styles—you've got add matching delete_front and push_tail matching delete_back…) To have a push_tail method, you either have to walk the entire list (making it O(N)), or you have to have every node hold the tail pointer (making any list change O(N)), or you have to make the head hold a tail pointer and the tail hold a head pointer.
The last one works (it wastes a couple of pointers for every node when only one node needs each, but that rarely matters). But it gets confusing to think about.
It's actually a lot simpler to just create a circular list, where the head's prev points at the tail (or sentinel) instead of 0, and the tail's next points at the head (or sentinel) instead of 0. This gets you all the advantages of a separate list class, without needing that class—if you have a pointer to the head, that's all you need to refer to the entire list (because node is the head and node->prev is the tail, or or similarly if you have a sentinel).
Also, your constructor doesn't make much sense:
doulinked()
{
head=tail=prev=next=NULL;
T data;
}
This creates a local default-constructed T variable named data, and then… does nothing with it. You probably wanted to set data to something. And you probably wanted to use initializers for this. And in that case, you don't need to do anything, because that's already the default.
And I'm not sure what Inlist is even supposed to do.
As for remove_ele(T d), presumably you want to remove the first element whose data == d, right? If you write a find method first, then it's trivial: remove(find(d)). (I'm assuming that find throws an exception; if you want find to return null or the sentinel or something else instead, and remove_ele to return true or false, obviously you need one more line to check whether the find worked.)
If you don't know how to write a find method… well, that's kind of the whole point of a linked list, there's a trivial recursive definition for all traversal functions, including find:
node *node::find(T d) {
if (data == d) { return this; }
if (next) { return next->find(d); }
return 0;
}
Anyway, I think rather than try to bang on your code until it works, you should look at existing implementations of the various designs until you understand the differences, then pick the design you want and try to implement that.
I have the following:
typedef std::function<void(const EventArgs&)> event_type;
class Event : boost::noncopyable
{
private:
typedef std::vector<event_type> EventVector;
typedef EventVector::const_iterator EventVector_cit;
EventVector m_Events;
public:
Event()
{
}; // eo ctor
Event(Event&& _rhs) : m_Events(std::move(_rhs.m_Events))
{
}; // eo mtor
// operators
Event& operator += (const event_type& _ev)
{
assert(std::find(m_Events.begin(), m_Events.end(), _ev) == m_Events.end());
m_Events.push_back(_ev);
return *this;
}; // eo +=
Event& operator -= (const event_type& _ev)
{
EventVector_cit cit(std::find(m_Events.begin(), m_Events.end(), _ev));
assert(cit != m_Events.end());
m_Events.erase(cit);
return *this;
}; // eo -=
}; // eo class Event
And during compilation:
1>c:\program files (x86)\microsoft visual studio 10.0\vc\include\algorithm(41): error C2451: conditional expression of type 'void' is illegal
1> Expressions of type void cannot be converted to other types
Now, I understand this is because of what is being stored in the vector and the operator ==. Is there another way to store std::function in an STL container? Do I need to wrap it up in something else?
You can store boost::function in the vector, provided you don't use std::find. Since you seem to need this, wrapping the function in its own class with equality would be probably the best.
class EventFun
{
int id_;
boost::function<...> f_;
public:
...
bool operator==(const EventFun& o) const { return id_==o.id_; } // you get it...
};
Note that this requires you maintain the id_ in a sane way (eg. two different EventFuns will have different id_s, etc.).
Another possibility would be to store boost::functions with a tag the client would remember and use to identify the particular function on deleting it.
I have written code that allows one to traverse mapped data in the order it was entered.
The solution I coded a couple of times was:
Given a keytype, K, and and data type, D,
std::map
std::vector
When one wanted to randomly find a data entry, use map.find(K). When one wanted to traverse the map in entry order, use std::vector::iterator (begin(), end()].
This was fine, but as an exercise, I wanted to write this 'OrderedMap' as an STL compliant container. I also have (stripped down to this discussion):
template <typename K, typename D>
class OrderedMapValue
{
private:
K first_ref;
std::map<K,size_t>& m;
std::vector<D>& v;
public:
const K& first
D& second
assignment operator=(const D& data)
{
std::map<K,size_t>::const_iterator iter = m.find(first_ref);
v[iter.second] = data; // error checking of iter stripped
}
};
Further assuming
template <typename K, typename D>
class OrderedMap
{
public:
typename OrderedMapValue<K,D>& OrderedMap<K,D>::operator[](const K&);
// snip...
};
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass(std::string s) : _my_data(s) {}
private:
std::string _my_data;
};
The following code works:
OrderedMap<std::string,MyClass*> omap;
omap["MyKey"] = new MyClass("dummy");
However, this code does not:
OrderedMap::iterator iter = omap.find("MyKey");
MyClass * obj = iter->second;
delete obj;
iter->second = new MyClass("dummy");
Assuming I have done something
a) Structurally silly or
b) Unnecessarily complex, how should this be done?
I realize that I'm likely reinventing the wheel here, but again, this effort is mainly to increase my knowledge of STL containers, their design patterns and proper use.
Thanks in advance for any insights,
I don't have a compiler right now to test this, so there could be errors, but I think you want it more like:
template <typename K, typename D>
class OrderedMap
{
private:
std::map<K,size_t> &m;
std::vector<D> &v;
public:
typename pair<K,D> TYPE;
TYPE& operator[](const K &k)
{
return v[ m[ k ]];
}
TYPE& operator[](size_t idx)
{
return v[ idx ];
}
pair<iterator,bool> insert( const TYPE& pair )
{
map<K, size_t>::const_iterator iter;
iter = m.find( pair.first );
if( iter != m.end() )
return make_pair( v[ iter.second], false );
m.insert( make_pair( pair->first, v.size() ));
v.push_back( pair->second );
return make_pair( v.last() , inserted );
}
iterator &begin()
{
return v.begin();
}
// etc
};
In OrderedMapValue::operator=, you have:
std::map<K,size_t>::const_iterator iter = m.find(first_ref);
What is first_ref? The code doesn't reference it (no pun intended) elsewhere. It looks to me like it might be a vestige from an older implementation, replaced elsewhere by the public member
const K& first.
Could this be the problem?
EDIT from the comments: The code doesn't show that first_ref is initialized anywhere; so for all I can tell, the call to m.find(first_ref) is searching for an empty string, rather than the key for the OrderedMapValue.