Identifying an object pointer by generating and using a unique IDBit-twiddling for a custom image formatDesigning an EventHandler in C++Unique type ID, no RTTIPolymorphic (owned) reference wrapper for class hierarchiesImplementing my own signal slot mechanism using C++11Protected Pointer: a unique_ptr wrapper that auto encrypts and decrypts data in memoryC++ Parsing with chain of responsibilityFinding non-self-intersecting paths of certain moves that touch all points in a gridGraph Representation using smart pointers. Kosaraju's algorithm implementationSymbolic algebra using a generic smart pointer class
Windows 10 Programs start without visual Interface
What are these arcade games in Ghostbusters 1984?
How to make a crossed out leftrightarrow?
How can people dance around bonfires on Lag Lo'Omer - it's darchei emori?
What is the largest (size) solid object ever dropped from an airplane to impact the ground in freefall?
Logarithm of dependent variable is uniformly distributed. How to calculate a confidence interval for the mean?
Is CD audio quality good enough for the final delivery of music?
Canon 70D often overexposing or underexposing shots
Is there a general effective method to solve Smullyan style Knights and Knaves problems? Is the truth table method the most appropriate one?
Ticket sales for Queen at the Live Aid
Can't remember the name of this game
Employer demanding to see degree after poor code review
What is the most important source of natural gas? coal, oil or other?
Where did Wilson state that the US would have to force access to markets with violence?
How do you say “buy” in the sense of “believe”?
Is there a down side to setting the sampling time of a SAR ADC as long as possible?
Why does the 'metric Lagrangian' approach appear to fail in Newtonian mechanics?
Command to Search for Filenames Exceeding 143 Characters?
What is the difference between nullifying your vote and not going to vote at all?
Why do airplanes use an axial flow jet engine instead of a more compact centrifugal jet engine?
Riley Rebuses that Share a Common Theme
Placing bypass capacitors after VCC reaches the IC
Mother abusing my finances
When do characters level up?
Identifying an object pointer by generating and using a unique ID
Bit-twiddling for a custom image formatDesigning an EventHandler in C++Unique type ID, no RTTIPolymorphic (owned) reference wrapper for class hierarchiesImplementing my own signal slot mechanism using C++11Protected Pointer: a unique_ptr wrapper that auto encrypts and decrypts data in memoryC++ Parsing with chain of responsibilityFinding non-self-intersecting paths of certain moves that touch all points in a gridGraph Representation using smart pointers. Kosaraju's algorithm implementationSymbolic algebra using a generic smart pointer class
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
I have an image
class and a table
class. To each image a single table can be "attached". Each <image, table> pair should be identified with an ID, which can later be used to get the pointer of image or table associated with that ID. Images in this "map" should be unique. Below is my solution, please let me know if it can be improved. Thanks.
browserInfo.h
#include <vector>
#include <tuple>
class BrowserInfo
public:
// Returns a unique ID for the <image, table> pair
/*
@param img The image file pointer
@param tbl The table view pointer
@return A unique ID for the input pair
*/
unsigned getId(image *img, table *tbl) const;
/// Returns a image pointer for the given ID
/*
@param uId The ID of <image, table> pair
@return A pointer to image file if ID exists, otherwise nullptr
*/
image *getImage(unsigned uId) const;
/// Returns a table pointer for the given ID
/*
@param uId The ID of <image, table> pair
@return A pointer to table if ID exists, otherwise nullptr
*/
table *getTable(unsigned uId) const;
private:
// alias for the type
using imageTableToId = std::tuple<image *, table *, unsigned>;
// This vector keeps track of all unique <image, table> pair IDs
mutable std::vector<imageTableToId> m_vecImageTableIds;
// The current ID
mutable unsigned m_iCurrentId = 0;
; // class BrowserInfo
browserInfo.cpp
unsigned BrowserInfo::getId(image *img, table *tbl) const
// first, try to see if we have worked with the provided image before
for (auto &tuple : m_vecImageTableIds)
if (std::get<0>(tuple) == img)
// we support a single table view for each image.
// therefore, if we find that the image is already stored
// in our vector, we just need to update the corresponding
// table pointer and return a new unique ID for this pair
std::get<1>(tuple) = tbl;
std::get<2>(tuple) = ++m_iCurrentId;
return m_iCurrentId;
// if we got here it means the image pointer wasn't stored before
// so we can just insert a new tuple into the vector
m_vecImageTableIds.push_back(std::make_tuple(img, tbl, ++m_iCurrentId));
return m_iCurrentId;
image *BrowserInfo::getImage(const unsigned uId) const
for (const auto &tuple : m_vecImageTableIds)
if (std::get<2>(tuple) == uId)
return std::get<0>(tuple);
return nullptr;
table *BrowserInfo::getTable(const unsigned uId) const
for (const auto &tuple : m_vecImageTableIds)
if (std::get<2>(tuple) == uId)
return std::get<1>(tuple);
return nullptr;
c++
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have an image
class and a table
class. To each image a single table can be "attached". Each <image, table> pair should be identified with an ID, which can later be used to get the pointer of image or table associated with that ID. Images in this "map" should be unique. Below is my solution, please let me know if it can be improved. Thanks.
browserInfo.h
#include <vector>
#include <tuple>
class BrowserInfo
public:
// Returns a unique ID for the <image, table> pair
/*
@param img The image file pointer
@param tbl The table view pointer
@return A unique ID for the input pair
*/
unsigned getId(image *img, table *tbl) const;
/// Returns a image pointer for the given ID
/*
@param uId The ID of <image, table> pair
@return A pointer to image file if ID exists, otherwise nullptr
*/
image *getImage(unsigned uId) const;
/// Returns a table pointer for the given ID
/*
@param uId The ID of <image, table> pair
@return A pointer to table if ID exists, otherwise nullptr
*/
table *getTable(unsigned uId) const;
private:
// alias for the type
using imageTableToId = std::tuple<image *, table *, unsigned>;
// This vector keeps track of all unique <image, table> pair IDs
mutable std::vector<imageTableToId> m_vecImageTableIds;
// The current ID
mutable unsigned m_iCurrentId = 0;
; // class BrowserInfo
browserInfo.cpp
unsigned BrowserInfo::getId(image *img, table *tbl) const
// first, try to see if we have worked with the provided image before
for (auto &tuple : m_vecImageTableIds)
if (std::get<0>(tuple) == img)
// we support a single table view for each image.
// therefore, if we find that the image is already stored
// in our vector, we just need to update the corresponding
// table pointer and return a new unique ID for this pair
std::get<1>(tuple) = tbl;
std::get<2>(tuple) = ++m_iCurrentId;
return m_iCurrentId;
// if we got here it means the image pointer wasn't stored before
// so we can just insert a new tuple into the vector
m_vecImageTableIds.push_back(std::make_tuple(img, tbl, ++m_iCurrentId));
return m_iCurrentId;
image *BrowserInfo::getImage(const unsigned uId) const
for (const auto &tuple : m_vecImageTableIds)
if (std::get<2>(tuple) == uId)
return std::get<0>(tuple);
return nullptr;
table *BrowserInfo::getTable(const unsigned uId) const
for (const auto &tuple : m_vecImageTableIds)
if (std::get<2>(tuple) == uId)
return std::get<1>(tuple);
return nullptr;
c++
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have an image
class and a table
class. To each image a single table can be "attached". Each <image, table> pair should be identified with an ID, which can later be used to get the pointer of image or table associated with that ID. Images in this "map" should be unique. Below is my solution, please let me know if it can be improved. Thanks.
browserInfo.h
#include <vector>
#include <tuple>
class BrowserInfo
public:
// Returns a unique ID for the <image, table> pair
/*
@param img The image file pointer
@param tbl The table view pointer
@return A unique ID for the input pair
*/
unsigned getId(image *img, table *tbl) const;
/// Returns a image pointer for the given ID
/*
@param uId The ID of <image, table> pair
@return A pointer to image file if ID exists, otherwise nullptr
*/
image *getImage(unsigned uId) const;
/// Returns a table pointer for the given ID
/*
@param uId The ID of <image, table> pair
@return A pointer to table if ID exists, otherwise nullptr
*/
table *getTable(unsigned uId) const;
private:
// alias for the type
using imageTableToId = std::tuple<image *, table *, unsigned>;
// This vector keeps track of all unique <image, table> pair IDs
mutable std::vector<imageTableToId> m_vecImageTableIds;
// The current ID
mutable unsigned m_iCurrentId = 0;
; // class BrowserInfo
browserInfo.cpp
unsigned BrowserInfo::getId(image *img, table *tbl) const
// first, try to see if we have worked with the provided image before
for (auto &tuple : m_vecImageTableIds)
if (std::get<0>(tuple) == img)
// we support a single table view for each image.
// therefore, if we find that the image is already stored
// in our vector, we just need to update the corresponding
// table pointer and return a new unique ID for this pair
std::get<1>(tuple) = tbl;
std::get<2>(tuple) = ++m_iCurrentId;
return m_iCurrentId;
// if we got here it means the image pointer wasn't stored before
// so we can just insert a new tuple into the vector
m_vecImageTableIds.push_back(std::make_tuple(img, tbl, ++m_iCurrentId));
return m_iCurrentId;
image *BrowserInfo::getImage(const unsigned uId) const
for (const auto &tuple : m_vecImageTableIds)
if (std::get<2>(tuple) == uId)
return std::get<0>(tuple);
return nullptr;
table *BrowserInfo::getTable(const unsigned uId) const
for (const auto &tuple : m_vecImageTableIds)
if (std::get<2>(tuple) == uId)
return std::get<1>(tuple);
return nullptr;
c++
$endgroup$
I have an image
class and a table
class. To each image a single table can be "attached". Each <image, table> pair should be identified with an ID, which can later be used to get the pointer of image or table associated with that ID. Images in this "map" should be unique. Below is my solution, please let me know if it can be improved. Thanks.
browserInfo.h
#include <vector>
#include <tuple>
class BrowserInfo
public:
// Returns a unique ID for the <image, table> pair
/*
@param img The image file pointer
@param tbl The table view pointer
@return A unique ID for the input pair
*/
unsigned getId(image *img, table *tbl) const;
/// Returns a image pointer for the given ID
/*
@param uId The ID of <image, table> pair
@return A pointer to image file if ID exists, otherwise nullptr
*/
image *getImage(unsigned uId) const;
/// Returns a table pointer for the given ID
/*
@param uId The ID of <image, table> pair
@return A pointer to table if ID exists, otherwise nullptr
*/
table *getTable(unsigned uId) const;
private:
// alias for the type
using imageTableToId = std::tuple<image *, table *, unsigned>;
// This vector keeps track of all unique <image, table> pair IDs
mutable std::vector<imageTableToId> m_vecImageTableIds;
// The current ID
mutable unsigned m_iCurrentId = 0;
; // class BrowserInfo
browserInfo.cpp
unsigned BrowserInfo::getId(image *img, table *tbl) const
// first, try to see if we have worked with the provided image before
for (auto &tuple : m_vecImageTableIds)
if (std::get<0>(tuple) == img)
// we support a single table view for each image.
// therefore, if we find that the image is already stored
// in our vector, we just need to update the corresponding
// table pointer and return a new unique ID for this pair
std::get<1>(tuple) = tbl;
std::get<2>(tuple) = ++m_iCurrentId;
return m_iCurrentId;
// if we got here it means the image pointer wasn't stored before
// so we can just insert a new tuple into the vector
m_vecImageTableIds.push_back(std::make_tuple(img, tbl, ++m_iCurrentId));
return m_iCurrentId;
image *BrowserInfo::getImage(const unsigned uId) const
for (const auto &tuple : m_vecImageTableIds)
if (std::get<2>(tuple) == uId)
return std::get<0>(tuple);
return nullptr;
table *BrowserInfo::getTable(const unsigned uId) const
for (const auto &tuple : m_vecImageTableIds)
if (std::get<2>(tuple) == uId)
return std::get<1>(tuple);
return nullptr;
c++
c++
asked 9 hours ago
user3132457user3132457
23917
23917
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
While your solution works, it can be made even more understandable.
Instead of using a vector of tuples, consider using an std::map
:
std::map<unsigned, std::tuple<image *, table *>> imageTablePairs;
This is the most natural expression of the problem statement: mapping an ID to an image-table pair. It will also simplify the logic of your getId
function. Here's an algorithm for what you need to do:
Cycle through the map and check if the image exists. If it does, delete its record from the map (using
std::map::erase
).
Then, simply do:
imageTablePairs[++m_iCurrentId] = std::make_tuple(img, tbl);
This covers both the case when the image exists (in which case its old record gets deleted per the algorithm above) and the case when the image does not exist (in which case we simply make a new record).
For the other two getter functions, we obviously can't assume that the ID being passed in exists in the map, so we can create a private helper function that takes an ID and returns true if it exists and false otherwise. Then, the logic becomes:
getImage
: if the ID exists, returnstd::get<0>(imageTablePairs[uId])
.getTable
: if the ID exists, returnstd::get<1>(imageTablePairs[uId])
.
If I misunderstood the problem statement and this solution is not possible, please let me know.
Edit: Here's the code I'd use. Tested in Visual Studio 2017 and confirmed that it compiles and runs as expected (I used empty image
and table
structs for testing).
browserInfo.h
#pragma once
#include <map>
#include <tuple>
class BrowserInfo
public:
// Returns a unique ID for the <image, table> pair
/*
@param img The image file pointer
@param tbl The table view pointer
@return A unique ID for the input pair
*/
unsigned getId(image *img, table *tbl) const;
/// Returns a image pointer for the given ID
/*
@param uId The ID of <image, table> pair
@return A pointer to image file if ID exists, otherwise nullptr
*/
image *getImage(unsigned uId) const;
/// Returns a table pointer for the given ID
/*
@param uId The ID of <image, table> pair
@return A pointer to table if ID exists, otherwise nullptr
*/
table *getTable(unsigned uId) const;
private:
bool idExists(unsigned uId) const;
mutable std::map<unsigned, std::tuple<image *, table *>> imageTablePairs;
// The current ID
mutable unsigned m_iCurrentId = 0;
; // class BrowserInfo
browserInfo.cpp
#include "browserInfo.h"
unsigned BrowserInfo::getId(image * img, table * tbl) const
for (auto &record : imageTablePairs)
if (std::get<0>(record.second) == img)
imageTablePairs.erase(record.first);
break;
imageTablePairs[++m_iCurrentId] = std::make_tuple(img, tbl);
return m_iCurrentId;
image * BrowserInfo::getImage(unsigned uId) const
if (idExists(uId))
return std::get<0>(imageTablePairs[uId]);
return nullptr;
table * BrowserInfo::getTable(unsigned uId) const
if (idExists(uId))
return std::get<1>(imageTablePairs[uId]);
return nullptr;
bool BrowserInfo::idExists(unsigned uId) const
std::map<unsigned, std::tuple<image*, table*>>::iterator it = imageTablePairs.find(uId);
return it != imageTablePairs.end();
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
this is better, thanks! i was also worried about the two members being mutable. what about that?
$endgroup$
– user3132457
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's fine, but it suggests a design flaw. The "getter" methods may need to be renamed and theirconst
-ness revoked (if possible), because otherwise they don't really enforce it on anything.
$endgroup$
– AleksandrH
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
i don't feel like the constness needs to be revoked; to the user, they don't modify the class state so they need to be const
$endgroup$
– user3132457
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's up to you, but I figured the skeleton of the BrowserInfo class had been set up for you and you were filling in the .cpp, so I left that as is. The truth is that having const and mutable at the same time makes const obsolete. When applied to a method, const ensures that compilation will fail if a method is attempting to modify internal data. Mutable, on the other hand, overrides this protection. In this case, since the only data in your class is marked mutable, it doesn't make sense to have const methods. Additionally, I would consider changing the names—getters don't usually modify data.
$endgroup$
– AleksandrH
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As every id identifies a tuple of unique image, optional table, why over-complicate things?
Select one alternative from here:
- Add a
table*
toimage
. - Use a
std::map
orstd::unordered_map
fromimage*
totable*
.
And one from here:
- Make the ids
image*
s. - Add a (potentially optional) id to
image
. Just ensure that you can search them by id. - Use a map from arbitrary id to
image*
(and optionally in reverse).
Presto, you are done, and this answer will be far longer and more complicated than the solution.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "196"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f221073%2fidentifying-an-object-pointer-by-generating-and-using-a-unique-id%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
While your solution works, it can be made even more understandable.
Instead of using a vector of tuples, consider using an std::map
:
std::map<unsigned, std::tuple<image *, table *>> imageTablePairs;
This is the most natural expression of the problem statement: mapping an ID to an image-table pair. It will also simplify the logic of your getId
function. Here's an algorithm for what you need to do:
Cycle through the map and check if the image exists. If it does, delete its record from the map (using
std::map::erase
).
Then, simply do:
imageTablePairs[++m_iCurrentId] = std::make_tuple(img, tbl);
This covers both the case when the image exists (in which case its old record gets deleted per the algorithm above) and the case when the image does not exist (in which case we simply make a new record).
For the other two getter functions, we obviously can't assume that the ID being passed in exists in the map, so we can create a private helper function that takes an ID and returns true if it exists and false otherwise. Then, the logic becomes:
getImage
: if the ID exists, returnstd::get<0>(imageTablePairs[uId])
.getTable
: if the ID exists, returnstd::get<1>(imageTablePairs[uId])
.
If I misunderstood the problem statement and this solution is not possible, please let me know.
Edit: Here's the code I'd use. Tested in Visual Studio 2017 and confirmed that it compiles and runs as expected (I used empty image
and table
structs for testing).
browserInfo.h
#pragma once
#include <map>
#include <tuple>
class BrowserInfo
public:
// Returns a unique ID for the <image, table> pair
/*
@param img The image file pointer
@param tbl The table view pointer
@return A unique ID for the input pair
*/
unsigned getId(image *img, table *tbl) const;
/// Returns a image pointer for the given ID
/*
@param uId The ID of <image, table> pair
@return A pointer to image file if ID exists, otherwise nullptr
*/
image *getImage(unsigned uId) const;
/// Returns a table pointer for the given ID
/*
@param uId The ID of <image, table> pair
@return A pointer to table if ID exists, otherwise nullptr
*/
table *getTable(unsigned uId) const;
private:
bool idExists(unsigned uId) const;
mutable std::map<unsigned, std::tuple<image *, table *>> imageTablePairs;
// The current ID
mutable unsigned m_iCurrentId = 0;
; // class BrowserInfo
browserInfo.cpp
#include "browserInfo.h"
unsigned BrowserInfo::getId(image * img, table * tbl) const
for (auto &record : imageTablePairs)
if (std::get<0>(record.second) == img)
imageTablePairs.erase(record.first);
break;
imageTablePairs[++m_iCurrentId] = std::make_tuple(img, tbl);
return m_iCurrentId;
image * BrowserInfo::getImage(unsigned uId) const
if (idExists(uId))
return std::get<0>(imageTablePairs[uId]);
return nullptr;
table * BrowserInfo::getTable(unsigned uId) const
if (idExists(uId))
return std::get<1>(imageTablePairs[uId]);
return nullptr;
bool BrowserInfo::idExists(unsigned uId) const
std::map<unsigned, std::tuple<image*, table*>>::iterator it = imageTablePairs.find(uId);
return it != imageTablePairs.end();
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
this is better, thanks! i was also worried about the two members being mutable. what about that?
$endgroup$
– user3132457
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's fine, but it suggests a design flaw. The "getter" methods may need to be renamed and theirconst
-ness revoked (if possible), because otherwise they don't really enforce it on anything.
$endgroup$
– AleksandrH
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
i don't feel like the constness needs to be revoked; to the user, they don't modify the class state so they need to be const
$endgroup$
– user3132457
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's up to you, but I figured the skeleton of the BrowserInfo class had been set up for you and you were filling in the .cpp, so I left that as is. The truth is that having const and mutable at the same time makes const obsolete. When applied to a method, const ensures that compilation will fail if a method is attempting to modify internal data. Mutable, on the other hand, overrides this protection. In this case, since the only data in your class is marked mutable, it doesn't make sense to have const methods. Additionally, I would consider changing the names—getters don't usually modify data.
$endgroup$
– AleksandrH
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
While your solution works, it can be made even more understandable.
Instead of using a vector of tuples, consider using an std::map
:
std::map<unsigned, std::tuple<image *, table *>> imageTablePairs;
This is the most natural expression of the problem statement: mapping an ID to an image-table pair. It will also simplify the logic of your getId
function. Here's an algorithm for what you need to do:
Cycle through the map and check if the image exists. If it does, delete its record from the map (using
std::map::erase
).
Then, simply do:
imageTablePairs[++m_iCurrentId] = std::make_tuple(img, tbl);
This covers both the case when the image exists (in which case its old record gets deleted per the algorithm above) and the case when the image does not exist (in which case we simply make a new record).
For the other two getter functions, we obviously can't assume that the ID being passed in exists in the map, so we can create a private helper function that takes an ID and returns true if it exists and false otherwise. Then, the logic becomes:
getImage
: if the ID exists, returnstd::get<0>(imageTablePairs[uId])
.getTable
: if the ID exists, returnstd::get<1>(imageTablePairs[uId])
.
If I misunderstood the problem statement and this solution is not possible, please let me know.
Edit: Here's the code I'd use. Tested in Visual Studio 2017 and confirmed that it compiles and runs as expected (I used empty image
and table
structs for testing).
browserInfo.h
#pragma once
#include <map>
#include <tuple>
class BrowserInfo
public:
// Returns a unique ID for the <image, table> pair
/*
@param img The image file pointer
@param tbl The table view pointer
@return A unique ID for the input pair
*/
unsigned getId(image *img, table *tbl) const;
/// Returns a image pointer for the given ID
/*
@param uId The ID of <image, table> pair
@return A pointer to image file if ID exists, otherwise nullptr
*/
image *getImage(unsigned uId) const;
/// Returns a table pointer for the given ID
/*
@param uId The ID of <image, table> pair
@return A pointer to table if ID exists, otherwise nullptr
*/
table *getTable(unsigned uId) const;
private:
bool idExists(unsigned uId) const;
mutable std::map<unsigned, std::tuple<image *, table *>> imageTablePairs;
// The current ID
mutable unsigned m_iCurrentId = 0;
; // class BrowserInfo
browserInfo.cpp
#include "browserInfo.h"
unsigned BrowserInfo::getId(image * img, table * tbl) const
for (auto &record : imageTablePairs)
if (std::get<0>(record.second) == img)
imageTablePairs.erase(record.first);
break;
imageTablePairs[++m_iCurrentId] = std::make_tuple(img, tbl);
return m_iCurrentId;
image * BrowserInfo::getImage(unsigned uId) const
if (idExists(uId))
return std::get<0>(imageTablePairs[uId]);
return nullptr;
table * BrowserInfo::getTable(unsigned uId) const
if (idExists(uId))
return std::get<1>(imageTablePairs[uId]);
return nullptr;
bool BrowserInfo::idExists(unsigned uId) const
std::map<unsigned, std::tuple<image*, table*>>::iterator it = imageTablePairs.find(uId);
return it != imageTablePairs.end();
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
this is better, thanks! i was also worried about the two members being mutable. what about that?
$endgroup$
– user3132457
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's fine, but it suggests a design flaw. The "getter" methods may need to be renamed and theirconst
-ness revoked (if possible), because otherwise they don't really enforce it on anything.
$endgroup$
– AleksandrH
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
i don't feel like the constness needs to be revoked; to the user, they don't modify the class state so they need to be const
$endgroup$
– user3132457
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's up to you, but I figured the skeleton of the BrowserInfo class had been set up for you and you were filling in the .cpp, so I left that as is. The truth is that having const and mutable at the same time makes const obsolete. When applied to a method, const ensures that compilation will fail if a method is attempting to modify internal data. Mutable, on the other hand, overrides this protection. In this case, since the only data in your class is marked mutable, it doesn't make sense to have const methods. Additionally, I would consider changing the names—getters don't usually modify data.
$endgroup$
– AleksandrH
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
While your solution works, it can be made even more understandable.
Instead of using a vector of tuples, consider using an std::map
:
std::map<unsigned, std::tuple<image *, table *>> imageTablePairs;
This is the most natural expression of the problem statement: mapping an ID to an image-table pair. It will also simplify the logic of your getId
function. Here's an algorithm for what you need to do:
Cycle through the map and check if the image exists. If it does, delete its record from the map (using
std::map::erase
).
Then, simply do:
imageTablePairs[++m_iCurrentId] = std::make_tuple(img, tbl);
This covers both the case when the image exists (in which case its old record gets deleted per the algorithm above) and the case when the image does not exist (in which case we simply make a new record).
For the other two getter functions, we obviously can't assume that the ID being passed in exists in the map, so we can create a private helper function that takes an ID and returns true if it exists and false otherwise. Then, the logic becomes:
getImage
: if the ID exists, returnstd::get<0>(imageTablePairs[uId])
.getTable
: if the ID exists, returnstd::get<1>(imageTablePairs[uId])
.
If I misunderstood the problem statement and this solution is not possible, please let me know.
Edit: Here's the code I'd use. Tested in Visual Studio 2017 and confirmed that it compiles and runs as expected (I used empty image
and table
structs for testing).
browserInfo.h
#pragma once
#include <map>
#include <tuple>
class BrowserInfo
public:
// Returns a unique ID for the <image, table> pair
/*
@param img The image file pointer
@param tbl The table view pointer
@return A unique ID for the input pair
*/
unsigned getId(image *img, table *tbl) const;
/// Returns a image pointer for the given ID
/*
@param uId The ID of <image, table> pair
@return A pointer to image file if ID exists, otherwise nullptr
*/
image *getImage(unsigned uId) const;
/// Returns a table pointer for the given ID
/*
@param uId The ID of <image, table> pair
@return A pointer to table if ID exists, otherwise nullptr
*/
table *getTable(unsigned uId) const;
private:
bool idExists(unsigned uId) const;
mutable std::map<unsigned, std::tuple<image *, table *>> imageTablePairs;
// The current ID
mutable unsigned m_iCurrentId = 0;
; // class BrowserInfo
browserInfo.cpp
#include "browserInfo.h"
unsigned BrowserInfo::getId(image * img, table * tbl) const
for (auto &record : imageTablePairs)
if (std::get<0>(record.second) == img)
imageTablePairs.erase(record.first);
break;
imageTablePairs[++m_iCurrentId] = std::make_tuple(img, tbl);
return m_iCurrentId;
image * BrowserInfo::getImage(unsigned uId) const
if (idExists(uId))
return std::get<0>(imageTablePairs[uId]);
return nullptr;
table * BrowserInfo::getTable(unsigned uId) const
if (idExists(uId))
return std::get<1>(imageTablePairs[uId]);
return nullptr;
bool BrowserInfo::idExists(unsigned uId) const
std::map<unsigned, std::tuple<image*, table*>>::iterator it = imageTablePairs.find(uId);
return it != imageTablePairs.end();
$endgroup$
While your solution works, it can be made even more understandable.
Instead of using a vector of tuples, consider using an std::map
:
std::map<unsigned, std::tuple<image *, table *>> imageTablePairs;
This is the most natural expression of the problem statement: mapping an ID to an image-table pair. It will also simplify the logic of your getId
function. Here's an algorithm for what you need to do:
Cycle through the map and check if the image exists. If it does, delete its record from the map (using
std::map::erase
).
Then, simply do:
imageTablePairs[++m_iCurrentId] = std::make_tuple(img, tbl);
This covers both the case when the image exists (in which case its old record gets deleted per the algorithm above) and the case when the image does not exist (in which case we simply make a new record).
For the other two getter functions, we obviously can't assume that the ID being passed in exists in the map, so we can create a private helper function that takes an ID and returns true if it exists and false otherwise. Then, the logic becomes:
getImage
: if the ID exists, returnstd::get<0>(imageTablePairs[uId])
.getTable
: if the ID exists, returnstd::get<1>(imageTablePairs[uId])
.
If I misunderstood the problem statement and this solution is not possible, please let me know.
Edit: Here's the code I'd use. Tested in Visual Studio 2017 and confirmed that it compiles and runs as expected (I used empty image
and table
structs for testing).
browserInfo.h
#pragma once
#include <map>
#include <tuple>
class BrowserInfo
public:
// Returns a unique ID for the <image, table> pair
/*
@param img The image file pointer
@param tbl The table view pointer
@return A unique ID for the input pair
*/
unsigned getId(image *img, table *tbl) const;
/// Returns a image pointer for the given ID
/*
@param uId The ID of <image, table> pair
@return A pointer to image file if ID exists, otherwise nullptr
*/
image *getImage(unsigned uId) const;
/// Returns a table pointer for the given ID
/*
@param uId The ID of <image, table> pair
@return A pointer to table if ID exists, otherwise nullptr
*/
table *getTable(unsigned uId) const;
private:
bool idExists(unsigned uId) const;
mutable std::map<unsigned, std::tuple<image *, table *>> imageTablePairs;
// The current ID
mutable unsigned m_iCurrentId = 0;
; // class BrowserInfo
browserInfo.cpp
#include "browserInfo.h"
unsigned BrowserInfo::getId(image * img, table * tbl) const
for (auto &record : imageTablePairs)
if (std::get<0>(record.second) == img)
imageTablePairs.erase(record.first);
break;
imageTablePairs[++m_iCurrentId] = std::make_tuple(img, tbl);
return m_iCurrentId;
image * BrowserInfo::getImage(unsigned uId) const
if (idExists(uId))
return std::get<0>(imageTablePairs[uId]);
return nullptr;
table * BrowserInfo::getTable(unsigned uId) const
if (idExists(uId))
return std::get<1>(imageTablePairs[uId]);
return nullptr;
bool BrowserInfo::idExists(unsigned uId) const
std::map<unsigned, std::tuple<image*, table*>>::iterator it = imageTablePairs.find(uId);
return it != imageTablePairs.end();
edited 7 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
AleksandrHAleksandrH
33329
33329
$begingroup$
this is better, thanks! i was also worried about the two members being mutable. what about that?
$endgroup$
– user3132457
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's fine, but it suggests a design flaw. The "getter" methods may need to be renamed and theirconst
-ness revoked (if possible), because otherwise they don't really enforce it on anything.
$endgroup$
– AleksandrH
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
i don't feel like the constness needs to be revoked; to the user, they don't modify the class state so they need to be const
$endgroup$
– user3132457
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's up to you, but I figured the skeleton of the BrowserInfo class had been set up for you and you were filling in the .cpp, so I left that as is. The truth is that having const and mutable at the same time makes const obsolete. When applied to a method, const ensures that compilation will fail if a method is attempting to modify internal data. Mutable, on the other hand, overrides this protection. In this case, since the only data in your class is marked mutable, it doesn't make sense to have const methods. Additionally, I would consider changing the names—getters don't usually modify data.
$endgroup$
– AleksandrH
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
this is better, thanks! i was also worried about the two members being mutable. what about that?
$endgroup$
– user3132457
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's fine, but it suggests a design flaw. The "getter" methods may need to be renamed and theirconst
-ness revoked (if possible), because otherwise they don't really enforce it on anything.
$endgroup$
– AleksandrH
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
i don't feel like the constness needs to be revoked; to the user, they don't modify the class state so they need to be const
$endgroup$
– user3132457
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's up to you, but I figured the skeleton of the BrowserInfo class had been set up for you and you were filling in the .cpp, so I left that as is. The truth is that having const and mutable at the same time makes const obsolete. When applied to a method, const ensures that compilation will fail if a method is attempting to modify internal data. Mutable, on the other hand, overrides this protection. In this case, since the only data in your class is marked mutable, it doesn't make sense to have const methods. Additionally, I would consider changing the names—getters don't usually modify data.
$endgroup$
– AleksandrH
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
this is better, thanks! i was also worried about the two members being mutable. what about that?
$endgroup$
– user3132457
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
this is better, thanks! i was also worried about the two members being mutable. what about that?
$endgroup$
– user3132457
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's fine, but it suggests a design flaw. The "getter" methods may need to be renamed and their
const
-ness revoked (if possible), because otherwise they don't really enforce it on anything.$endgroup$
– AleksandrH
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's fine, but it suggests a design flaw. The "getter" methods may need to be renamed and their
const
-ness revoked (if possible), because otherwise they don't really enforce it on anything.$endgroup$
– AleksandrH
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
i don't feel like the constness needs to be revoked; to the user, they don't modify the class state so they need to be const
$endgroup$
– user3132457
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
i don't feel like the constness needs to be revoked; to the user, they don't modify the class state so they need to be const
$endgroup$
– user3132457
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's up to you, but I figured the skeleton of the BrowserInfo class had been set up for you and you were filling in the .cpp, so I left that as is. The truth is that having const and mutable at the same time makes const obsolete. When applied to a method, const ensures that compilation will fail if a method is attempting to modify internal data. Mutable, on the other hand, overrides this protection. In this case, since the only data in your class is marked mutable, it doesn't make sense to have const methods. Additionally, I would consider changing the names—getters don't usually modify data.
$endgroup$
– AleksandrH
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's up to you, but I figured the skeleton of the BrowserInfo class had been set up for you and you were filling in the .cpp, so I left that as is. The truth is that having const and mutable at the same time makes const obsolete. When applied to a method, const ensures that compilation will fail if a method is attempting to modify internal data. Mutable, on the other hand, overrides this protection. In this case, since the only data in your class is marked mutable, it doesn't make sense to have const methods. Additionally, I would consider changing the names—getters don't usually modify data.
$endgroup$
– AleksandrH
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As every id identifies a tuple of unique image, optional table, why over-complicate things?
Select one alternative from here:
- Add a
table*
toimage
. - Use a
std::map
orstd::unordered_map
fromimage*
totable*
.
And one from here:
- Make the ids
image*
s. - Add a (potentially optional) id to
image
. Just ensure that you can search them by id. - Use a map from arbitrary id to
image*
(and optionally in reverse).
Presto, you are done, and this answer will be far longer and more complicated than the solution.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As every id identifies a tuple of unique image, optional table, why over-complicate things?
Select one alternative from here:
- Add a
table*
toimage
. - Use a
std::map
orstd::unordered_map
fromimage*
totable*
.
And one from here:
- Make the ids
image*
s. - Add a (potentially optional) id to
image
. Just ensure that you can search them by id. - Use a map from arbitrary id to
image*
(and optionally in reverse).
Presto, you are done, and this answer will be far longer and more complicated than the solution.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As every id identifies a tuple of unique image, optional table, why over-complicate things?
Select one alternative from here:
- Add a
table*
toimage
. - Use a
std::map
orstd::unordered_map
fromimage*
totable*
.
And one from here:
- Make the ids
image*
s. - Add a (potentially optional) id to
image
. Just ensure that you can search them by id. - Use a map from arbitrary id to
image*
(and optionally in reverse).
Presto, you are done, and this answer will be far longer and more complicated than the solution.
$endgroup$
As every id identifies a tuple of unique image, optional table, why over-complicate things?
Select one alternative from here:
- Add a
table*
toimage
. - Use a
std::map
orstd::unordered_map
fromimage*
totable*
.
And one from here:
- Make the ids
image*
s. - Add a (potentially optional) id to
image
. Just ensure that you can search them by id. - Use a map from arbitrary id to
image*
(and optionally in reverse).
Presto, you are done, and this answer will be far longer and more complicated than the solution.
answered 2 hours ago
DeduplicatorDeduplicator
12.4k2052
12.4k2052
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f221073%2fidentifying-an-object-pointer-by-generating-and-using-a-unique-id%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown