STL: vector<T> to T[]

[nerdrakesh]

Hi -
Is there a method in STL vector to get the elements as an array
instead of as a vector.

Something like

vector<intvt;
vt.push_back(1) ;
vt.push_back(2) ;

int [] arr = vt. xyz ();

[Victor Bazarov]

ne********@gmai l.com wrote:

Is there a method in STL vector to get the elements as an array
instead of as a vector.

Something like

vector<intvt;
vt.push_back(1) ;
vt.push_back(2) ;

int [] arr = vt. xyz ();

First of all, you cannot declare an array like that. Brackets
follow the name and they need to contain the size.

Second, arrays cannot be initialised like that. You need to use
pointers:

int *arr = &vt[0];

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[Barry]

ne********@gmai l.com wrote:

Hi -
Is there a method in STL vector to get the elements as an array
instead of as a vector.

Something like

vector<intvt;
vt.push_back(1) ;
vt.push_back(2) ;

int [] arr = vt. xyz ();

I think your program habit is heavily affected by Java,
It's not that often you need to convert a vector in C++ into an array,
because of the vector implementation in C++, and the cooperation of
`vector', `iterator' and `algorithm'.

If you really wanna get a copy of the vector content into an array,
you can it like this:

int* arr = new int[vec.size()];
std::copy(vec.b egin(), vec.end(), arr);

Or if you just have a reference(actua lly pointer) to the vector content,
you can do this way:

std::vector<int >::const_iterat or it = vec.begin();

but I think the latter one is unusefull.

[Justin.SpahrSummers]

On Aug 1, 7:30 pm, "Victor Bazarov" <v.Abaza...@com Acast.netwrote:

vector<intvt;
vt.push_back(1) ;
vt.push_back(2) ;

int [] arr = vt. xyz ();

First of all, you cannot declare an array like that. Brackets
follow the name and they need to contain the size.

As far as I'm aware (please correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't have a
copy of the C++ standard), std::vector does have a default constructor
that automatically gets called in that declaration, and will construct
a vector with a size of zero. Since vectors are dynamic, the following
invocations of push_back() automatically resize the internal storage
to the necessary size.

[Justin.SpahrSummers]

On Aug 2, 12:44 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <[e-mail] wrote:

* Justin.SpahrSum [e-mail]:

On Aug 1, 7:30 pm, "Victor Bazarov" <v.Abaza...@com Acast.netwrote:

>vector<intvt ;
vt.push_back(1 );
vt.push_back(2 );
int [] arr = vt. xyz ();
First of all, you cannot declare an array like that. Brackets
follow the name and they need to contain the size.

As far as I'm aware (please correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't have a
copy of the C++ standard), std::vector does have a default constructor
that automatically gets called in that declaration, and will construct
a vector with a size of zero.

Yes.

But Victor was referring to the declaration

int [] arr = ...

which does not follow C++ syntax.

Right! Very true. I went braindead for a second there and looked at
the wrong code. My apologies, Victor.

[red floyd]

Barry wrote:

ne********@gmai l.com wrote:

>Hi -
Is there a method in STL vector to get the elements as an array
instead of as a vector.

Or if you just have a reference(actua lly pointer) to the vector content,
you can do this way:

std::vector<int >::const_iterat or it = vec.begin();

No, you can't do it that way. Repeat after me. An iterator is not a
pointer. It can be implemented as one, and I really can't see why a
vector iterator wouldn't be implemented as such (modulo checked iterators).

If you want a pointer to the data (which is guaranteed to be
contiguous), use &vec[0]

[Barry]

red floyd wrote:

Barry wrote:

>ne********@gmai l.com wrote:

>>Hi -
Is there a method in STL vector to get the elements as an array
instead of as a vector.

>Or if you just have a reference(actua lly pointer) to the vector content,
you can do this way:

std::vector<in t>::const_itera tor it = vec.begin();

No, you can't do it that way. Repeat after me. An iterator is not a
pointer. It can be implemented as one, and I really can't see why a
vector iterator wouldn't be implemented as such (modulo checked iterators).

If you want a pointer to the data (which is guaranteed to be
contiguous), use &vec[0]

Got your point,
I am influenced by much by the sgi sTL,
which implement vector in this way

typedef value_type* pointer;
typedef value_type* iterator;
typedef value_type const* const_poiter;
typedef value_type const* const_iterator;

anyway, assume vec.begin() as Tp* is bad idea
thx

[Daniel Kraft]

Anyway, to get at the internal array in a vector v, e.g. for the

purposes of passing to some C function, simply do &v[0].

This works of course for the usual concept of a vector -- but is this
guaranteed to work? To me it seems like maybe safe but still dirty hack...

Cheers,
Daniel

--
Got two Dear-Daniel-Instant Messages
by MSN, associate ICQ with stress --
so please use good, old E-MAIL!

[Victor Bazarov]

Daniel Kraft wrote:

>Anyway, to get at the internal array in a vector v, e.g. for the
purposes of passing to some C function, simply do &v[0].

This works of course for the usual concept of a vector -- but is this
guaranteed to work? To me it seems like maybe safe but still dirty
hack...

It is guaranteed to work with all conforming implementations of the
standard library. The Standard requires 'std::vector' to have its
elements in contiguous storage.

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[Jeff F]

"Victor Bazarov" <v.********@com Acast.netwrote in message
news:f8******** **@news.datemas .de...

Daniel Kraft wrote:

>>Anyway, to get at the internal array in a vector v, e.g. for the
purposes of passing to some C function, simply do &v[0].

This works of course for the usual concept of a vector -- but is this
guaranteed to work? To me it seems like maybe safe but still dirty
hack...

It is guaranteed to work with all conforming implementations of the
standard library. The Standard requires 'std::vector' to have its
elements in contiguous storage.

Assuming of course that v.empty() != true.

Jeff F.