sets with different comparators have same iterator type; standard?

[Dan Tsafrir]

is the following code standard? (cleanly compiles under g++-4.0.2):

struct Asc { bool operator()(int a, int b) {return a < b;} };
struct Des { bool operator()(int a, int b) {return b > a;} };
int main() {
int arr[] = {1, 2, 3};
set<int,Asc> asc(arr, arr+3);
set<int,Des>::i terator beg = asc.begin(); //[*]
set<int,Des>::i terator end = asc.end(); //[*]
copy(beg, end, ostream_iterato r<int>(cout, "")); // prints 123
return 0;
}

note that the types of the _sets_ in both sides of assignment[*] are
different due to their different comparators (Asc/Des). nevertheless,[*] seems to be standard as the template parameters of the iterator
are 'Key' and 'Distance' (not the 'Comparator'), and so the iterator
types are equal, right? [we use user defined template 'Comparator'
parameters (Des/Asc), so they don't have standard specialization,
which means we can be sure the 'Distance' type of the two iterators
is the same; the 'Key' type (int) is also obviously the same].

thanks,
--dan

[Greg]

Dan Tsafrir wrote:

is the following code standard? (cleanly compiles under g++-4.0.2):

struct Asc { bool operator()(int a, int b) {return a < b;} };
struct Des { bool operator()(int a, int b) {return b > a;} };
int main() {
int arr[] = {1, 2, 3};
set<int,Asc> asc(arr, arr+3);
set<int,Des>::i terator beg = asc.begin(); //[*]
set<int,Des>::i terator end = asc.end(); //[*]
copy(beg, end, ostream_iterato r<int>(cout, "")); // prints 123
return 0;
}

note that the types of the _sets_ in both sides of assignment[*] are
different due to their different comparators (Asc/Des). nevertheless,
[*] seems to be standard as the template parameters of the iterator
are 'Key' and 'Distance' (not the 'Comparator'), and so the iterator
types are equal, right? [we use user defined template 'Comparator'
parameters (Des/Asc), so they don't have standard specialization,
which means we can be sure the 'Distance' type of the two iterators
is the same; the 'Key' type (int) is also obviously the same].

thanks,
--dan

This code is fine. std::copy does not require that the two iterators be
of the same type. In fact, they need not even belong to containers that
hold identical types - as long as the type being copied is convertible
to the output iterator's type.

So in this example, you could copy a set<int> to a set<long> or even a
set<double> and still be OK.

Greg

[red floyd]

Dan Tsafrir wrote:

is the following code standard? (cleanly compiles under g++-4.0.2):

struct Asc { bool operator()(int a, int b) {return a < b;} };
struct Des { bool operator()(int a, int b) {return b > a;} };
int main() {
int arr[] = {1, 2, 3};
set<int,Asc> asc(arr, arr+3);
set<int,Des>::i terator beg = asc.begin(); //[*]
set<int,Des>::i terator end = asc.end(); //[*]
copy(beg, end, ostream_iterato r<int>(cout, "")); // prints 123
return 0;
}

Note 1: You Asc and Des functors have identical behavior.

Note 2: operator() in Asc and Des should be const methods, and
Asc and Desc should probably inherit from std::binary_fun ction<>.

e.g.:

#include <functional>

struct Asc: public std::binary_fun ction<int,int,b ool>
{
bool operator()(int a, int b) const { return a < b; }
}

struct Des: public std::binary_fun ction<int,int,b ool>
{
// assumes you didn't want identical behavior for
// Asc and Des
bool operator()(int a, int b) const { return a > b; }
}

[Dan Tsafrir]

Greg wrote:

Dan Tsafrir wrote:

is the following code standard? (cleanly compiles under g++-4.0.2):

struct Asc { bool operator()(int a, int b) {return a < b;} };
struct Des { bool operator()(int a, int b) {return b > a;} };
int main() {
int arr[] = {1, 2, 3};
set<int,Asc> asc(arr, arr+3);
set<int,Des>::i terator beg = asc.begin(); //[*]
set<int,Des>::i terator end = asc.end(); //[*]
copy(beg, end, ostream_iterato r<int>(cout, "")); // prints 123
return 0;
}

This code is fine. std::copy does not require that the two iterators be
of the same type. In fact, they need not even belong to containers that
hold identical types - as long as the type being copied is convertible
to the output iterator's type.

So in this example, you could copy a set<int> to a set<long> or even a
set<double> and still be OK.

the question is not about copy(), it's about[*] (the copy() is just there
to make the program meaningful). the problem with[*] is that the program
assigns an object of the type: set<int,Asc>::i terator
to an object of the type : set<int,Dec>::i terator

thanks,
--dan

[Dan Tsafrir]

red floyd wrote:

Dan Tsafrir wrote:

is the following code standard? (cleanly compiles under g++-4.0.2):

struct Asc { bool operator()(int a, int b) {return a < b;} };
struct Des { bool operator()(int a, int b) {return b > a;} };
int main() {
int arr[] = {1, 2, 3};
set<int,Asc> asc(arr, arr+3);
set<int,Des>::i terator beg = asc.begin(); //[*]
set<int,Des>::i terator end = asc.end(); //[*]
copy(beg, end, ostream_iterato r<int>(cout, "")); // prints 123
return 0;
}

Note 1: You Asc and Des functors have identical behavior.

right you are (my mistake). nevertheless, they are different types.
regardless the question is about[*] in which the program assigns an
object of the type : set<int,Asc>::i terator
to an object of the type: set<int,Dec>::i terator


Note 2: operator() in Asc and Des should be const methods, and
Asc and Desc should probably inherit from std::binary_fun ction<>.

e.g.:

#include <functional>

struct Asc: public std::binary_fun ction<int,int,b ool>
{
bool operator()(int a, int b) const { return a < b; }
}

struct Des: public std::binary_fun ction<int,int,b ool>
{
// assumes you didn't want identical behavior for
// Asc and Des
bool operator()(int a, int b) const { return a > b; }
}

unfortunately, this too is not related to my original question :(

--dan

[Greg]

Dan Tsafrir wrote:

red floyd wrote:

Dan Tsafrir wrote:

is the following code standard? (cleanly compiles under g++-4.0.2):

struct Asc { bool operator()(int a, int b) {return a < b;} };
struct Des { bool operator()(int a, int b) {return b > a;} };
int main() {
int arr[] = {1, 2, 3};
set<int,Asc> asc(arr, arr+3);
set<int,Des>::i terator beg = asc.begin(); //[*]
set<int,Des>::i terator end = asc.end(); //[*]
copy(beg, end, ostream_iterato r<int>(cout, "")); // prints 123
return 0;
}

Note 1: You Asc and Des functors have identical behavior.

right you are (my mistake). nevertheless, they are different types.
regardless the question is about[*] in which the program assigns an
object of the type : set<int,Asc>::i terator
to an object of the type: set<int,Dec>::i terator

Note 2: operator() in Asc and Des should be const methods, and
Asc and Desc should probably inherit from std::binary_fun ction<>.

e.g.:

#include <functional>

struct Asc: public std::binary_fun ction<int,int,b ool>
{
bool operator()(int a, int b) const { return a < b; }
}

struct Des: public std::binary_fun ction<int,int,b ool>
{
// assumes you didn't want identical behavior for
// Asc and Des
bool operator()(int a, int b) const { return a > b; }
}

unfortunately, this too is not related to my original question :(

I believe the answer is implementation-dependent depending on how
set<>::iterator is declared. If the code compiles - then the iterators
would have to be of the same type (usually declared in a red-black tree
class). Therefore since the code compiles for you, the assignments are
OK. I would just not expect them to be portable however.

Greg

[TIT]

Dan Tsafrir sade:

is the following code standard? (cleanly compiles under g++-4.0.2):

struct Asc { bool operator()(int a, int b) {return a < b;} };
struct Des { bool operator()(int a, int b) {return b > a;} };
int main() {
int arr[] = {1, 2, 3};
set<int,Asc> asc(arr, arr+3);
set<int,Des>::i terator beg = asc.begin(); //[*]
set<int,Des>::i terator end = asc.end(); //[*]
copy(beg, end, ostream_iterato r<int>(cout, "")); // prints 123
return 0;
}

note that the types of the _sets_ in both sides of assignment[*] are
different due to their different comparators (Asc/Des). nevertheless,
[*] seems to be standard as the template parameters of the iterator
are 'Key' and 'Distance' (not the 'Comparator'), and so the iterator
types are equal, right? [we use user defined template 'Comparator'
parameters (Des/Asc), so they don't have standard specialization,
which means we can be sure the 'Distance' type of the two iterators
is the same; the 'Key' type (int) is also obviously the same].

thanks,
--dan

The standard defines the implementation of iterators as implementation
defined. The above code doesn't compile with RW since that
implemenation of the underlying tree class is defined as:

template <class _Key, class _Val, class _KeyOf, class _Comp, class _Alloc>
class __rb_tree {
class iterator : public __it {};
};

but with STLport the class iterator is not nested within their
underlying tree class:

template <class _Value, class _Traits>
struct _Rb_tree_iterat or : public _Rb_tree_base_i terator
{ };

template <class _Key, class _Value, class _KeyOfValue, class _Compare,
_STLP_DEFAULT_A LLOCATOR_SELECT (_Value) >
class _Rb_tree : public _Rb_tree_base<_ Value, _Alloc> {

typedef _Rb_tree_iterat or<value_type, _Nonconst_trait s<value_type> >
iterator;

};

And _Compare is not used with the iterator template so your
code will compile using this implementation.

TIT

[Dan Tsafrir]

TIT wrote:

Dan Tsafrir sade:

is the following code standard? (cleanly compiles under g++-4.0.2):

struct Asc { bool operator()(int a, int b) {return a < b;} };
struct Des { bool operator()(int a, int b) {return b > a;} };
int main() {
int arr[] = {1, 2, 3};
set<int,Asc> asc(arr, arr+3);
set<int,Des>::i terator beg = asc.begin(); //[*]
set<int,Des>::i terator end = asc.end(); //[*]
copy(beg, end, ostream_iterato r<int>(cout, "")); // prints 123
return 0;
}

note that the types of the _sets_ in both sides of assignment[*] are
different due to their different comparators (Asc/Des). nevertheless,
[*] seems to be standard as the template parameters of the iterator
are 'Key' and 'Distance' (not the 'Comparator'), and so the iterator
types are equal, right? [we use user defined template 'Comparator'
parameters (Des/Asc), so they don't have standard specialization,
which means we can be sure the 'Distance' type of the two iterators
is the same; the 'Key' type (int) is also obviously the same].

thanks,
--dan

The standard defines the implementation of iterators as implementation
defined. The above code doesn't compile with RW since that
implemenation of the underlying tree class is defined as:

template <class _Key, class _Val, class _KeyOf, class _Comp, class _Alloc>
class __rb_tree {
class iterator : public __it {};
};

but with STLport the class iterator is not nested within their
underlying tree class:

template <class _Value, class _Traits>
struct _Rb_tree_iterat or : public _Rb_tree_base_i terator
{ };

template <class _Key, class _Value, class _KeyOfValue, class _Compare,
_STLP_DEFAULT_A LLOCATOR_SELECT (_Value) >
class _Rb_tree : public _Rb_tree_base<_ Value, _Alloc> {

typedef _Rb_tree_iterat or<value_type, _Nonconst_trait s<value_type> >
iterator;

};

And _Compare is not used with the iterator template so your
code will compile using this implementation.

TIT

Ok, I understand, it's implementation dependent.
However, wouldn't it be great had such an iterator assignment been standard?
I'm suggesting this because it would have allowed iteration over a collection
of objects sorted according to an arbitrary criterion, without the overhead of
virtual function calls:

For example, assume you have a collection of N "Job" objects sorted
according to various criteria:

set<Job,cmp_run time> s1; // holds N jobs
set<Job,cmp_arr ival> s2; // holds the same N jobs
... // etc.

And you want some loop to iterate through the job collection according
to a criterion which is specified by a user parameter 'p'. Wouldn't being
able to do the following be very beneficial in terms of performance:

set<Job>::const _iterator beg, end;
if( p == RUNTIME ) {
beg = s1.begin();
end = s1.end();
}
else if( p == ARRIVAL ) {
beg = s2.begin();
end = s2.end();
}
else if( ... ) {
// ...
} // ...

for(set<Job>::c onst_iterator i=beg; i!=end; ++i) {
// do whatever...
}

Regrettably, the only alternative I can think of that will obtain the
above, involves inheritance and virtual function calls that turn out
to be very expensive in my application (the above loop is its kernel).

What do you think? I personally can't think of any reason why the above
shouldn't be made possible/standard. Am I missing something? is there
some other simple alternative I am not aware of?

thanks,
--dan

[Greg]

Dan Tsafrir wrote:

TIT wrote:

Dan Tsafrir sade:

is the following code standard? (cleanly compiles under g++-4.0.2):

struct Asc { bool operator()(int a, int b) {return a < b;} };
struct Des { bool operator()(int a, int b) {return b > a;} };
int main() {
int arr[] = {1, 2, 3};
set<int,Asc> asc(arr, arr+3);
set<int,Des>::i terator beg = asc.begin(); //[*]
set<int,Des>::i terator end = asc.end(); //[*]
copy(beg, end, ostream_iterato r<int>(cout, "")); // prints 123
return 0;
}

note that the types of the _sets_ in both sides of assignment[*] are
different due to their different comparators (Asc/Des). nevertheless,
[*] seems to be standard as the template parameters of the iterator
are 'Key' and 'Distance' (not the 'Comparator'), and so the iterator
types are equal, right? [we use user defined template 'Comparator'
parameters (Des/Asc), so they don't have standard specialization,
which means we can be sure the 'Distance' type of the two iterators
is the same; the 'Key' type (int) is also obviously the same].

thanks,
--dan

The standard defines the implementation of iterators as implementation
defined. The above code doesn't compile with RW since that
implemenation of the underlying tree class is defined as:

template <class _Key, class _Val, class _KeyOf, class _Comp, class _Alloc>
class __rb_tree {
class iterator : public __it {};
};

but with STLport the class iterator is not nested within their
underlying tree class:

template <class _Value, class _Traits>
struct _Rb_tree_iterat or : public _Rb_tree_base_i terator
{ };

template <class _Key, class _Value, class _KeyOfValue, class _Compare,
_STLP_DEFAULT_A LLOCATOR_SELECT (_Value) >
class _Rb_tree : public _Rb_tree_base<_ Value, _Alloc> {

typedef _Rb_tree_iterat or<value_type, _Nonconst_trait s<value_type> >
iterator;

};

And _Compare is not used with the iterator template so your
code will compile using this implementation.

TIT

Ok, I understand, it's implementation dependent.
However, wouldn't it be great had such an iterator assignment been standard?
I'm suggesting this because it would have allowed iteration over a collection
of objects sorted according to an arbitrary criterion, without the overhead of
virtual function calls:

For example, assume you have a collection of N "Job" objects sorted
according to various criteria:

set<Job,cmp_run time> s1; // holds N jobs
set<Job,cmp_arr ival> s2; // holds the same N jobs
... // etc.

And you want some loop to iterate through the job collection according
to a criterion which is specified by a user parameter 'p'. Wouldn't being
able to do the following be very beneficial in terms of performance:

set<Job>::const _iterator beg, end;
if( p == RUNTIME ) {
beg = s1.begin();
end = s1.end();
}
else if( p == ARRIVAL ) {
beg = s2.begin();
end = s2.end();
}
else if( ... ) {
// ...
} // ...

for(set<Job>::c onst_iterator i=beg; i!=end; ++i) {
// do whatever...
}

Regrettably, the only alternative I can think of that will obtain the
above, involves inheritance and virtual function calls that turn out
to be very expensive in my application (the above loop is its kernel).

What do you think? I personally can't think of any reason why the above
shouldn't be made possible/standard. Am I missing something? is there
some other simple alternative I am not aware of?

The Comparator is a property of the container and not its iterator. In
other words, the Container arranges the items in a particular order and
uses the Comparator to determine that order. So any iterator that
traverses the container from beginning to end will encounter each
contained item in a just one specific order. Since the items can be
sorted in only one order per container at a time, it would take more
than just a different iterator to traverse the items in a different
order.

Since the iterators of one container can be elements in another
Container, one solution would be to declare, say, a list with the
elements in one order, and then declare another list populated with the
iterators (or elements) of the first list, but sorted in a different
order. There would be some extra management involved in keeping the
sorted lists, but some savings as well gained by essentially sharing
the elements between more than one list.

Greg

[Ali Çehreli]

"Dan Tsafrir" <da***@cs.huji. ac.il> wrote in message
news:43******** ******@cs.huji. ac.il...

TIT wrote:

Dan Tsafrir sade:

is the following code standard? (cleanly compiles under g++-4.0.2):

struct Asc { bool operator()(int a, int b) {return a < b;} };
struct Des { bool operator()(int a, int b) {return b > a;} };
int main() {
int arr[] = {1, 2, 3};
set<int,Asc> asc(arr, arr+3);
set<int,Des>::i terator beg = asc.begin(); //[*]
set<int,Des>::i terator end = asc.end(); //[*]
copy(beg, end, ostream_iterato r<int>(cout, "")); // prints 123
return 0;
}

[...] However, wouldn't it be great had such an iterator assignment been
standard?
I'm suggesting this because it would have allowed iteration over a
collection
of objects sorted according to an arbitrary criterion, without the
overhead of
virtual function calls:

For example, assume you have a collection of N "Job" objects sorted
according to various criteria:

set<Job,cmp_run time> s1; // holds N jobs
set<Job,cmp_arr ival> s2; // holds the same N jobs
... // etc.
Would keeping the jobs in one place, and having sets of iterators work for
you application?

typedef vector<Job> Jobs;
Jobs jobs;

typedef set<Jobs::itera tor, cmp_runtime> S1;
typedef set<Jobs::itera tor, cmp_arrival> S2;

Now the iterators stored in S1 and S2 are the same type.

(Of course cmp_runtime and cmp_arrival now take Jobs::iterator types.)
And you want some loop to iterate through the job collection according
to a criterion which is specified by a user parameter 'p'. Wouldn't being
able to do the following be very beneficial in terms of performance:

set<Job>::const _iterator beg, end;
if( p == RUNTIME ) {
beg = s1.begin();
end = s1.end();
}
else if( p == ARRIVAL ) {
beg = s2.begin();
end = s2.end();
}
else if( ... ) {
// ...
} // ...

for(set<Job>::c onst_iterator i=beg; i!=end; ++i) {
// do whatever...
}

How about:

if (p == RUNTIME)
{
for_each(s1.beg in(), /* ... */);
}
else if (/* ... */)
{
for_each(s2.beg in(), /* ... */);
}
// etc.

Ali