I am trying to implement a TSortedMap with my custom struct as the key. I have overloaded the operators for the struct. However, when I try to compile I get this error at the line of code where I am adding an element to the TSortedMap:
error C2678: binary '<': no operator found which takes a left-hand operand of type 'const T'
(or there is no acceptable conversion)
My struct:
USTRUCT(BlueprintType)
struct FUtility
{
GENERATED_BODY()
public:
UPROPERTY(BlueprintReadWrite, EditAnywhere, meta=(ClampMin = "0.0", ClampMax = "1.0"))
float value = 0.0f;
UPROPERTY(BlueprintReadWrite, EditAnywhere, meta = (ClampMin = "0.0", ClampMax = "1.0"))
float weight = 1.0f;
FORCEINLINE bool operator== (const FUtility& other)
{
return this->value == other.value && this->weight == other.weight;
}
FORCEINLINE bool operator< (const FUtility& other)
{
return (this->value * this->weight) < (other.value * other.weight);
}
.....
friend uint32 GetTypeHash(const FUtility& other)
{
return GetTypeHash(other.value) + GetTypeHash(other.weight);
}
};
Not quite sure why it is not compiling since it is overloaded. Maybe it isn't overloaded correctly. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Well, oddly enough I figured it out. It was really bugging me that all of the operator logic in the documentation took two parameters. It turns out I was just missing the friend keyword. From there I was able to add the second parameter and it compiled nicely.
Example:
friend bool operator< (const FUtility& a, const FUtility& b)
{
return (a.value * a.weight) < (b.value * b.weight);
}
I was wondering how I could change the code below such the bmBc is computed at compile time . The one below works for runtime but it is not ideal since I need to know the bmBc table at compile-time . I could appreciate advice on how I could improve on this.
import std.conv:to;
import std.stdio;
int [string] bmBc;
immutable string pattern = "GCAGAGAG";
const int size = to!int(pattern.length);
struct king {
void calculatebmBc(int i)()
{
static if ( i < size -1 )
bmBc[to!string(pattern[i])]=to!int(size-i-1);
// bmBc[pattern[i]] ~= i-1;
calculatebmBc!(i+1)();
}
void calculatebmBc(int i: size-1)() {
}
}
void main(){
king myKing;
const int start = 0;
myKing.calculatebmBc!(start)();
//1. enum bmBcTable = bmBc;
}
The variables bmBc and bmh can't be read at compile time because you define them as regular runtime variables.
You need to define them as enums, or possibly immutable, to read them at compile time, but that also means that you cannot modify them after initialization. You need to refactor your code to return values instead of using out parameters.
Alternatively, you can initialize them at runtime inside of a module constructor.
Haxe seems to assume that certain things must be Int. In the following function,
class Main {
static function main() {
function mult_s<T,A>(s:T,x:A):A { return cast s*x; }
var bb = mult_s(1.1,2.2);
}
}
I got (with Haxe 3.01):
Main.hx:xx: characters 48-49 : mult_s.T should be Int
Main.hx:xx: characters 50-51 : mult_s.A should be Int
Can anyone please explain why T and A should be Int instead of Float?
A more puzzling example is this:
class Main {
public static function min<T:(Int,Float)>(t:T, t2:T):T { return t < t2 ? t : t2; }
static function main() {
var a = min(1.1,2.2); //compile error
var b = min(1,2); //ok
}
}
I can't see why t<t2 implies that either t or t2 is Int. But Haxe seems prefer Int: min is fine if called with Int's but fails if called with Float's. Is this reasonable?
Thanks,
min<T:(Int,Float)> means T should be both Int and Float. See the constraints section of Haxe Manual.
Given Int can be converted to Float implicitly, you can safely remove the constraint of Int. i.e. the following will works:
http://try.haxe.org/#420bC
class Test {
public static function min<T:Float>(t:T, t2:T):T { return t < t2 ? t : t2; }
static function main() {
var a = min(1.1,2.2); //ok
$type(a); //Float
trace(a); //1.1
var b = min(1,2); //ok
$type(b); //Int
trace(b); //1
}
}
I have a function that takes an array as a parameter, and it keeps returning the following error message:
Test.hx:34: characters 23-24 : Array<Int> should be { length : Void -> Int }
Test.hx:34: characters 23-24 : Invalid type for field length :
Test.hx:34: characters 23-24 : Int should be Void -> Int
Test.hx:34: characters 23-24 : For function argument 'array'
This is the code that produced the error message:
class Test{
static function main() {
var a = new Array();
a = [1,2,3,4];
enlarge1DArray(a); //why won't it work when I try to invoke this function?
}
static function enlarge1DArray(array){
var i = 0;
while(i < array.length()){
i++;
trace("i is " + i);
}
}
}
The length you are trying to access is a property, not a method. See the Array API Documentation.
Change the while line from this:
while(i < array.length())
to this:
while(i < array.length)
Detailed Answer:
The error you're getting is due to Haxe getting confused as it's guessing at the types. Basically, because you had were treating length as a method, it was assuming that the array parameter in the enlarge1DArray had to be some kind of object that had a method called length, with the type signature "Void->Int".
In short, because you were asking for a method, it was expecting the parameter "array" to have:
{ length : Void -> Int }
when an Array actually has:
{ length : Int }
So the compiler got confused and said you had your typing wrong. You can read more about this on the Haxe wiki page for Type Inference. In future you can explicitly state what the types of each function parameter are, and then Haxe will give you more useful error messages.
I have a std::vector of this struct:
struct MS
{
double aT;
double bT;
double cT;
};
which I want to use std::sort on as well as std::lower_bound/equal_range etc...
I need to be able to sort it and look it up on either of the first two elements of the struct. So at the moment I have this:
class MSaTLess
{
public:
bool operator() (const MS &lhs, const MS &rhs) const
{
return TLess(lhs.aT, rhs.aT);
}
bool operator() (const MS &lhs, const double d) const
{
return TLess(lhs.aT, d);
}
bool operator() (const double d, const MS &rhs) const
{
return TLess(d, rhs.aT);
}
private:
bool TLess(const double& d1, const double& d2) const
{
return d1 < d2;
}
};
class MSbTLess
{
public:
bool operator() (const MS &lhs, const MS &rhs) const
{
return TLess(lhs.bT, rhs.bT);
}
bool operator() (const MS &lhs, const double d) const
{
return TLess(lhs.bT, d);
}
bool operator() (const double d, const MS &rhs) const
{
return TLess(d, rhs.bT);
}
private:
bool TLess(const double& d1, const double& d2) const
{
return d1 < d2;
}
};
This allows me to call both std::sort and std::lower_bound with MSaTLess() to sort/lookup based on the aT element and with MSbTLess() to sort/lookup based on the bT element.
I'd like to get away from the functors and use C++0x lambdas instead. For sort that is relatively straightforward as the lambda will take two objects of type MS as arguments.
What about for the lower_bound and other binary search lookup algorithms though? They need to be able to call a comparator with (MS, double) arguments and also the reverse, (double, MS), right? How can I best provide these with a lambda in a call to lower_bound? I know I could create an MS dummy object with the required key value being searched for and then use the same lambda as with std::sort but is there a way to do it without using dummy objects?
It's a little awkward, but if you check the definitions of lower_bound and upper_bound from the standard, you'll see that the definition of lower_bound puts the dereferenced iterator as the first parameter of the comparison (and the value second), whereas upper_bound puts the dereferenced iterator second (and the value first).
So, I haven't tested this but I think you'd want:
std::lower_bound(vec.begin(), vec.end(), 3.142, [](const MS &lhs, double rhs) {
return lhs.aT < rhs;
});
and
std::upper_bound(vec.begin(), vec.end(), 3.142, [](double lhs, const MS &rhs) {
return lhs < rhs.aT;
});
This is pretty nasty, and without looking up a few more things I'm not sure you're actually entitled to assume that the implementation uses the comparator only in the way it's described in the text - that's a definition of the result, not the means to get there. It also doesn't help with binary_search or equal_range.
It's not explicitly stated in 25.3.3.1 that the iterator's value type must be convertible to T, but it's sort of implied by the fact that the requirement for the algorithm is that T (in this case, double) must be LessThanComparable, not that T must be comparable to the value type of the iterator in any particular order.
So I think it's better just to always use a lambda (or functor) that compares two MS structs, and instead of passing a double as a value, pass a dummy MS with the correct field set to the value you're looking for:
std::upper_bound(vec.begin(), vec.end(), MS(3.142,0,0), [](const MS &lhs, const MS &rhs) {
return lhs.aT < rhs.aT;
});
If you don't want to give MS a constructor (because you want it to be POD), then you can write a function to create your MS object:
MS findA(double d) {
MS result = {d, 0, 0};
return result;
}
MS findB(double d) {
MS result = {0, d, 0};
return result;
}
Really, now that there are lambdas, for this job we want a version of binary search that takes a unary "comparator":
double d = something();
unary_upper_bound(vec.begin(), vec.end(), [d](const MS &rhs) {
return d < rhs.aT;
});
C++0x doesn't provide it, though.
The algorithms std::sort, std::lower_bound, and std::binary_search take a predicate that compares two elements of the container. Any lambda that compares two MS objects and returns true when they are in order should work for all three algorithms.
Not directly relevant to what you're saying about lambdas, but this might be an idea for using the binary search functions:
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
#include <vector>
struct MS
{
double aT;
double bT;
double cT;
MS(double a, double b, double c) : aT(a), bT(b), cT(c) {}
};
// template parameter is a data member of MS, of type double
template <double MS::*F>
struct Find {
double d;
Find(double d) : d(d) {}
};
template <double MS::*F>
bool operator<(const Find<F> &lhs, const Find<F> &rhs) {
return lhs.d < rhs.d;
}
template <double MS::*F>
bool operator<(const Find<F> &lhs, const MS &rhs) {
return lhs.d < rhs.*F;
}
template <double MS::*F>
bool operator<(const MS &lhs, const Find<F> &rhs) {
return lhs.*F < rhs.d;
}
int main() {
std::cout << (Find<&MS::bT>(1) < Find<&MS::bT>(2)) << "\n";
std::cout << (Find<&MS::bT>(1) < MS(1,0,0)) << "\n";
std::cout << (MS(1,0,0) < Find<&MS::bT>(1)) << "\n";
std::vector<MS> vec;
vec.push_back(MS(1,0,0));
vec.push_back(MS(0,1,0));
std::lower_bound(vec.begin(), vec.end(), Find<&MS::bT>(0.5));
std::upper_bound(vec.begin(), vec.end(), Find<&MS::bT>(0.5));
}
Basically, by using Find as the value, we don't have to supply a comparator, because Find compares to MS using the field that we specify. This is the same kind of thing as the answer you saw over here: how to sort STL vector, but using the value rather than the comparator as in that case. Not sure if it'd be all that great to use, but it might be, since it specifies the value to search for and the field to search in a single short expression.
I had the same problem for std::equal_range and came up with an alternative solution.
I have a collection of pointers to objects sorted on a type field. I need to find the find the range of objects for a given type.
const auto range = std::equal_range (next, blocks.end(), nullptr,
[type] (Object* o1, Object* o2)
{
return (o1 ? o1->Type() : type) < (o2 ? o2->Type() : type);
});
Although it is less efficient than a dedicated predicate as it introduces an unnecessary nullptr test for each object in my collection, it does provide an interesting alternative.
As an aside, when I do use a class as in your example, I tend to do the following. As well as being shorter, this allows me to add additional types with only 1 function per type rather then 4 operators per type.
class MSbTLess
{
private:
static inline const double& value (const MS& val)
{
return val.bT;
}
static inline const double& value (const double& val)
{
return val;
}
public:
template <typename T1, typename T2>
bool operator() (const T1& lhs, const T2& rhs) const
{
return value (t1) < value (t2);
}
};
In the definition of lower_bound and other STL Algorithms the Compare function is such that the first type must match that of the Forward Iterator and the second type must match that of T (i.e., of the value).
template< class ForwardIt, class T, class Compare >
ForwardIt lower_bound( ForwardIt first, ForwardIt last, const T& value, Compare comp );
So one indeed can compare things from different objects (doing what the other response called an Unary Comparator). In C++11 :
vector<MS> v = SomeSortedVectorofMSByFieldaT();
double a_key;
auto it = std::lower_bound(v.begin(),
v.end(),
a_key,
[]{const MS& m, const double& a) {
m.aT < a;
});
And this can be used with other STL algorithm functions as well.