By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
 424,825 Members | 1,254 Online + Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,825 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

# overloaded operators returning wrong values

 P: n/a i have overlaoded all of my arithmetic operators but all are functioning as multiplication. below is a sample of the addition operator: Rational operator + (const Rational& r1, const Rational& r2){ //Postcondition: sum of r1 and r2 are returned int numerator; int denominator; denominator = (r1.getDen() * r2.getDen()); numerator = (r1.getNum() * r2.getDen() + r2.getNum() * r1.getDen()); Rational sum (numerator, denominator); return sum; } Mar 28 '06 #1
Share this Question
10 Replies

 P: n/a andrew browning wrote : i have overlaoded all of my arithmetic operators but all are functioning as multiplication. below is a sample of the addition operator: Rational operator + (const Rational& r1, const Rational& r2){ //Postcondition: sum of r1 and r2 are returned int numerator; int denominator; denominator = (r1.getDen() * r2.getDen()); numerator = (r1.getNum() * r2.getDen() + r2.getNum() * r1.getDen()); Rational sum (numerator, denominator); return sum; } And your problem is ? This is correct addition of rationals to me. Mar 28 '06 #2

 P: n/a The following is the recommended approach to overloading arithmetic and assignment operators: T& T::operator+=(const T&){ //.... impl return *this } T operator+(const T& lhs, const T& rhs){ T temp(lhs); return temp += rhs; } ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Maisonave http://axter.com Top ten member of C++ Expert Exchange: http://www.experts-exchange.com/Cplusplus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mar 29 '06 #3

 P: n/a Axter wrote: The following is the recommended approach to overloading arithmetic and assignment operators: T& T::operator+=(const T&){ //.... impl return *this } T operator+(const T& lhs, const T& rhs){ T temp(lhs); return temp += rhs; } Recommended for which reason? I would like to see the "recommended" approach carried out for matrix multiplication or arbitrary precission integer multiplication. In both cases, an in-place implementation is far from obvious (if possible); and implementing * in terms of *= for matrices or BigInt is likely to create more temporaries internally than implementing *= in terms of *. Assuming there is an efficient swap method (like for std::vector), what is wrong with: T operator+ ( T const & a, T const & b ) { // impl ... return ( result ); } T & operator+= ( T const & t ) { T temp = *this + t; swap( *this, temp ); return ( *this ); } Also note that, if profiling shows the need for using expression templates, an implementation of *= in terms of * is more natural that the other way around -- in fact, I do not see how I would write an expression template for * in terms of *=; but that could be a lack of imagination on my part. Best Kai-Uwe Bux Mar 29 '06 #4

 P: n/a * Kai-Uwe Bux: Axter wrote: The following is the recommended approach to overloading arithmetic and assignment operators: T& T::operator+=(const T&){ //.... impl return *this } T operator+(const T& lhs, const T& rhs){ T temp(lhs); return temp += rhs; } Recommended for which reason? Axter's example shows two independent guidelines: 1) Implement operator+ in terms of operator+=. 2) Implement operator+ as a non-member function. (1) is a somewhat contested guideline. E.g., I seem to recall that Microsoft has published the exact opposite guideline, and here you are also arguing against it. As I see it, using (1) you can do no worse than the opposite approach, and will mostly do better (allowing operator+= to be as efficient as possible with no temporary involved, where possible). (2) has a simple rationale: to treat both arguments on an equal footing. For example, to allow the same implicit conversions. I would like to see the "recommended" approach carried out for matrix multiplication or arbitrary precission integer multiplication. In both cases, an in-place implementation is far from obvious (if possible); and implementing * in terms of *= for matrices or BigInt is likely to create more temporaries internally than implementing *= in terms of *. Yes, there are cases where you can't do in-place operations, but how can you get fewer temporaries by implementing operator+= in terms of operator+? As I see it, for operator+= you can take advantage of access to internals, in particular reusing an outer encapsulation or already allocated internal memory. That seems to me to generally imply fewer temporaries and such. Assuming there is an efficient swap method (like for std::vector), what is wrong with: T operator+ ( T const & a, T const & b ) { // impl ... return ( result ); } T & operator+= ( T const & t ) { T temp = *this + t; swap( *this, temp ); return ( *this ); } Mostly, what's "wrong" is that this approach /can't/ guarantee an efficient in-place addition, when type T is such that that could otherwise be done. If client code has "T x, y; ...; x += y;" then only the compiler's optimizations can turn that into an in-place addition. I'm thinking here of client code like T o; for( hee; haa; hoo ) { o += something; } Also note that, if profiling shows the need for using expression templates, an implementation of *= in terms of * is more natural that the other way around -- in fact, I do not see how I would write an expression template for * in terms of *=; but that could be a lack of imagination on my part. I'm not sure, it may be that you have a good point why expression templates are simply different, but consider template< typename T > struct Multiply { static inline T apply( T const& a, T const& b ) { T result( a ); return (result += b); } }; as a kind of generic implementation, and then e.g. for double, if necessary for efficiency, template<> struct Multiply { static inline double apply( double a, double b ) { return a*b; } }; and so on (disclaimer: I haven't tried this!). -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is it such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? Mar 29 '06 #5

 P: n/a Alf P. Steinbach wrote: * Kai-Uwe Bux: Axter wrote: The following is the recommended approach to overloading arithmetic and assignment operators: T& T::operator+=(const T&){ //.... impl return *this } T operator+(const T& lhs, const T& rhs){ T temp(lhs); return temp += rhs; } Recommended for which reason? Axter's example shows two independent guidelines: 1) Implement operator+ in terms of operator+=. 2) Implement operator+ as a non-member function. (1) is a somewhat contested guideline. E.g., I seem to recall that Microsoft has published the exact opposite guideline, and here you are also arguing against it. As I see it, using (1) you can do no worse than the opposite approach, and will mostly do better (allowing operator+= to be as efficient as possible with no temporary involved, where possible). That works if (and I would contest only if) you can implement operator *= in-place. I am not arguing against using that idiom where it works. I am arguing against recommending this as a general rule. (2) has a simple rationale: to treat both arguments on an equal footing. For example, to allow the same implicit conversions. Ok. I would like to see the "recommended" approach carried out for matrix multiplication or arbitrary precission integer multiplication. In both cases, an in-place implementation is far from obvious (if possible); and implementing * in terms of *= for matrices or BigInt is likely to create more temporaries internally than implementing *= in terms of *. Yes, there are cases where you can't do in-place operations, but how can you get fewer temporaries by implementing operator+= in terms of operator+? As I see it, for operator+= you can take advantage of access to internals, in particular reusing an outer encapsulation or already allocated internal memory. That seems to me to generally imply fewer temporaries and such. In matrix multiplication, you cannot overwrite the coefficients because you still need them. Thus, you will end up allocating a temporary matrix for *= anyway. If then, on top of this, you implement * in terms of *=, you may end up with more temporaries. [snip] Also note that, if profiling shows the need for using expression templates, an implementation of *= in terms of * is more natural that the other way around -- in fact, I do not see how I would write an expression template for * in terms of *=; but that could be a lack of imagination on my part. I'm not sure, it may be that you have a good point why expression templates are simply different, but consider template< typename T > struct Multiply { static inline T apply( T const& a, T const& b ) { T result( a ); return (result += b); } }; as a kind of generic implementation, and then e.g. for double, if necessary for efficiency, template<> struct Multiply { static inline double apply( double a, double b ) { return a*b; } }; and so on (disclaimer: I haven't tried this!). Probably, I need to me more specific on the expressions template business. Here is a simple expression template implementation for vector addition -- something that I would implement using += as the primitive (since it can be done in place) and then defining + in terms of +=. However, with expression templates, it appears that the other way around is more natural: #include #include std::size_t const length = 4; typedef double Number; class VectorStoragePolicy { Number data [length]; public: VectorStoragePolicy ( Number e = 0 ) { for ( std::size_t i = 0; i < length; ++i ) { data[i] = e; } } VectorStoragePolicy ( VectorStoragePolicy const & other ) { for ( std::size_t i = 0; i < length; ++i ) { data[i] = other[i]; } } Number operator[] ( std::size_t i ) const { return ( data[i] ); } Number & operator[] ( std::size_t i ) { return ( data[i] ); } }; template < typename ExprA, typename ExprB > class VectorPlusVector { ExprA a_ref; ExprB b_ref; public: VectorPlusVector ( ExprA const & a, ExprB const & b ) : a_ref ( a ) , b_ref ( b ) {} Number operator[] ( std::size_t i ) const { return ( a_ref[i] + b_ref[i] ); } }; template < typename Expr > struct VectorTag : public Expr { VectorTag ( void ) : Expr() {} template < typename A > VectorTag ( A const & a ) : Expr( a ) {} }; template < typename ExprA, typename ExprB > VectorTag< VectorPlusVector< ExprA, ExprB > > operator+ ( VectorTag< ExprA > const & a, VectorTag< ExprB > const & b ) { return ( VectorPlusVector< ExprA, ExprB >( a, b ) ); } struct Vector : public VectorTag< VectorStoragePolicy > { Vector ( Number a = 0 ) : VectorTag< VectorStoragePolicy >( a ) {} template < typename Expr > Vector & operator= ( VectorTag< Expr > const & other ) { for ( std::size_t i = 0; i < length; ++i ) { (*this)[i] = other[i]; } return ( *this ); } template < typename Expr > Vector & operator+= ( VectorTag< Expr > const & other ) { *this = *this + other; return ( *this ); } }; template < typename Expr > std::ostream & operator<< ( std::ostream & o_str, VectorTag< Expr > const & v ) { for ( std::size_t i = 0; i < length; ++i ) { o_str << v[i] << ' '; } return ( o_str ); } int main ( void ) { Vector a ( 1.0 ); Vector b ( 2.3 ); a += b; std::cout << a+b << '\n'; } As you can see, there is the VectorPlusVector template that postpones evaluation of sums. So if you write (a + b + c + d); there is no additional temporary vector but the expression gets translated into: a + b + c + d The challenge is to define a VectorIncrement expression template (representing +=) and then define + in terms of that. I just don't see how to do that without loosing the advantage of expression templates (elimination of temporaries). Best Kai-Uwe Bux Mar 29 '06 #6

 P: n/a "Axter" writes: The following is the recommended approach to overloading arithmetic and assignment operators: T& T::operator+=(const T&){ //.... impl return *this } T operator+(const T& lhs, const T& rhs){ T temp(lhs); return temp += rhs; } Or, more succinctly, T operator+( T lhs, const T& rhs){ return lhs += rhs; } IIRC recommended by Meyers in Effective C++, 3rd Ed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Steffen, Ph.D. Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists Software Engineer IV suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses Numerica Corporation remove it. ph (970) 419-8343 x27 -- Alan Perlis fax (970) 223-6797 dg*******@numerica.us Mar 29 '06 #7

 P: n/a Kai-Uwe Bux wrote: Axter wrote: The following is the recommended approach to overloading arithmetic and assignment operators: T& T::operator+=(const T&){ //.... impl return *this } T operator+(const T& lhs, const T& rhs){ T temp(lhs); return temp += rhs; } Recommended for which reason? See C++ Coding Standards by Herb Sutter and Andrei Alexandrescu Item 27 [Prefer the canonical forms of arithmetic and assignment operators] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Maisonave http://axter.com Top ten member of C++ Expert Exchange: http://www.experts-exchange.com/Cplusplus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Apr 6 '06 #8

 P: n/a Axter wrote: Kai-Uwe Bux wrote: Axter wrote: > The following is the recommended approach to overloading arithmetic and > assignment operators: > > T& T::operator+=(const T&){ > //.... impl > return *this > } > > T operator+(const T& lhs, const T& rhs){ > T temp(lhs); > return temp += rhs; > } Recommended for which reason? See C++ Coding Standards by Herb Sutter and Andrei Alexandrescu Item 27 [Prefer the canonical forms of arithmetic and assignment operators] Thanks for the reference. I just read it. Maybe I am missing something, but that item does *not* at all contain a discussion of + in terms of += vs += in terms of + Rather, the main concern is consistency: "In general, for some binary operator @ (be it +, -, *, and so on), you should define its assignment version such that a @= b and a = a @ b have the same meaning (other than that the first form might be more efficient and only evaluates a once)." Then the authors set out to propose the "canonical way" @ in terms of @= observing that this achieves the stated design goal; but they do not provide a rational as to why this is superior to the obvious alternative @= in terms of @. The next paragraph enters a discussion of the virtues of non-member implementations for operators. This is undisputed. The section closes with variations, examples, and finally a notable exception to the canonical recommendation. This addendum is actually the first point in the item where the alternative "@= in terms of @" is mentioned. The way I read it, item 27 (as opposed to Alf's post) provides no technical reason at all to prefer: @ in terms of @= to: @= in terms of @ Best Kai-Uwe Bux Apr 7 '06 #9

 P: n/a Kai-Uwe Bux wrote: Axter wrote: Kai-Uwe Bux wrote: Axter wrote: > The following is the recommended approach to overloading arithmetic and > assignment operators: > > T& T::operator+=(const T&){ > //.... impl > return *this > } > > T operator+(const T& lhs, const T& rhs){ > T temp(lhs); > return temp += rhs; > } Recommended for which reason? See C++ Coding Standards by Herb Sutter and Andrei Alexandrescu Item 27 [Prefer the canonical forms of arithmetic and assignment operators] Thanks for the reference. I just read it. Maybe I am missing something, but that item does *not* at all contain a discussion of + in terms of += vs += in terms of + Rather, the main concern is consistency: "In general, for some binary operator @ (be it +, -, *, and so on), you should define its assignment version such that a @= b and a = a @ b have the same meaning (other than that the first form might be more efficient and only evaluates a once)." Then the authors set out to propose the "canonical way" @ in terms of @= observing that this achieves the stated design goal; but they do not provide a rational as to why this is superior to the obvious alternative @= in terms of @. The next paragraph enters a discussion of the virtues of non-member implementations for operators. This is undisputed. The section closes with variations, examples, and finally a notable exception to the canonical recommendation. This addendum is actually the first point in the item where the alternative "@= in terms of @" is mentioned. The way I read it, item 27 (as opposed to Alf's post) provides no technical reason at all to prefer: @ in terms of @= to: @= in terms of @ Best Kai-Uwe Bux I've reread you're previous post on this subject, but I don't see where you're giving a valid reason why Herb Sutters recommend method should not be recommended as a general rule. Your followup post suggested the opposite approach using swap method. But not all classes have swap method, and infact, most don't. Those that do, don't always have an efficient swap method. I'm sure there are times when using the opposite approach would be more efficient, but in general, I would recommend Herb Sutters method. Remember, that a general rule is for general purposes. It doesn't mean that the rule is required to be followed for every requirement. Apr 8 '06 #10

 P: n/a Axter wrote: [snip] I've reread you're previous post on this subject, but I don't see where you're giving a valid reason why Herb Sutters recommend method should not be recommended as a general rule. Right. I just gave examples where it might be better/easier to go the other way. Given the closing remark of your current posting, I see now that I was reading too much into the recommendation. Sorry. However, in the course of this conversation, I have been thinking about this issue more carefully; and now I feel prepared to actually provide a reason why the general recommendation should be to define operator@= in terms of operator@ and operator=. I think it is less error prone than the Sutter/Alexandrescu way. The example of the OP can be used to illustrate this. Let us have a look at a rational number class: class rational { long n; // numerator long d; // denominator public: // ... stuff }; Ignoring reduction to lowest possible terms, the Sutter/Alexandrescu way to go about addition is: rational & operator+= ( rational & lhs, rational const & rhs ) { lhs.n = lhs.n * rhs.d + lhs.d * rhs.n; lhs.d *= rhs.d; return ( lhs ); } rational operator+ ( rational const & lhs, rational const & rhs ) { rational result ( lhs ); result += rhs; return ( result ); } This is easy to get wrong: rational & operator+= ( rational & lhs, rational const & rhs ) { lhs.d *= rhs.d; lhs.n = lhs.n * rhs.d + lhs.d * rhs.n; // wrong: uses new lhs.d ! } The archives show posts dealing with re-implementations of std::complex that suffer from this kind of bug. And I myself found myself recently falling for this while working on a matrix class (maybe that is why I am so sensitive to this issue right now): I was using entries that I had just overwritten. On the other hand, rational operator+ ( rational const & lhs, rational const & rhs ) { rational result ( lhs.n * rhs.d + lhs.d * rhs.n, lhs.d * rhs.d ); return result; } rational & operator+= ( rational & lhs, rational const & rhs ) { lhs = lhs + rhs; return ( lhs ); } is much less prone to this kind of bug. (Come to think of it, this might be the reason that Sutter and Alexandrescu mention the complex number class as a case where they would recommend the second approach.) Your followup post suggested the opposite approach using swap method. Actually, I wrote that in my first post on this topic. In my follow up, I elaborated on expression templates. But not all classes have swap method, and infact, most don't. Those that do, don't always have an efficient swap method. True, in that case, you would use assignment. I suggested the swap method because of the examples that I mentioned: matrix multiplication and arbitrary precission operations. In both cases, a swap method *should* be there and more efficient than assignment. I'm sure there are times when using the opposite approach would be more efficient, but in general, I would recommend Herb Sutters method. As far as efficiency is concerned, you are right. However, I would remark that this optimizes operator@= only: operator@ will not get any faster than a direct implementation. Also, I would contend that expression templates are yet more efficient to eliminate unwanted temporaries (altough the added complexity to the code is considerable and for this reason I would not recommend this as a general approach). Anyway, as a measure to optimize performance, I would agree with you. However, as a general guideline I would rather recommend the following procedure: 1) First, write operator@= in terms of operator@ and operator= because that is the most easy version to get right. 2) If profiling shows a need for optimization, refactor operator@=. Use your operator@ code for inspiration. 3) Run tests to check whether the semantics agree. This should catch bugs like the one above. 4) Finally rewrite operator@ following the Sutter/Alexandrescu approach. This eliminates code dubblication. The Sutter/Alexandrescu recommendation, to me, looks a little bit like premature optimization. Remember, that a general rule is for general purposes. It doesn't mean that the rule is required to be followed for every requirement. Thanks for reminding me. I tend to forget about caveats that always apply. Best regards Kai-Uwe Bux Apr 8 '06 #11

### This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion. 