Initialize static std::map with non copyable value in a uniformed initialization
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I'd like to initialize a static std::map
where the value is not copyable. I'll call my class ValueClass. ValueClass has an std::unique_ptr
as private member and I even ensure that ValueClass is not copyable by extending non_copyable
that looks like the following:
class non_copyable {
public:
non_copyable() = default;
protected:
virtual ~non_copyable() = default;
private:
non_copyable(const non_copyable&) = delete;
non_copyable& operator=(const non_copyable&) = delete;
};
Now I'm trying to define a std::map using my class as value:
static std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes = {
{0, ValueClass()},
{1, ValueClass() }
};
I get compilation error as initializer_list
tries to copy this class.
I've tried to write my own make_map
function whole this weekend during many hours to enable initialization without copying but I've failed. I've tried this, that and other but none of them compile with Visual Studio 15.9.4.
How can I initialize static std::map where copy is not forced, and the initialization is uniformed in one function, using Visual Studio compiler?
EDIT:
Here is the simplified version of the real life scenario where I'm trying to get this working (forgive me for lack of naming convention and inconsistency for cases):
#include <iostream>
#include <optional>
#include <map>
class non_copyable {
public:
non_copyable() = default;
protected:
virtual ~non_copyable() = default;
private:
non_copyable(const non_copyable&) = delete;
non_copyable& operator=(const non_copyable&) = delete;
};
class InnerValueClass : public non_copyable
{
public:
InnerValueClass(const int inner_number) : inner_number_(inner_number) { }
private:
int inner_number_;
};
class ValueClass : public non_copyable
{
public:
ValueClass(const int number1) : number1_(number1) { }
ValueClass(const int number1, InnerValueClass&& inner_value) : number1_(number1), inner_value_(std::make_unique<InnerValueClass>(5)) { }
private:
int number1_;
std::unique_ptr<InnerValueClass> inner_value_{};
};
/* Inline initialization of std::map copies, this is for initialization of non-copy types*/
template <typename TKey, typename TNonCopyableValue>
class make_map_by_moving
{
typedef std::map<TKey, TNonCopyableValue> map_type;
map_type map_;
public:
make_map_by_moving(const TKey& key, TNonCopyableValue&& val)
{
map_.emplace(std::make_pair(key, std::forward<TNonCopyableValue>(val)));
}
make_map_by_moving<TKey, TNonCopyableValue>& operator()(const TKey& key, TNonCopyableValue&& val)
{
map_.emplace(std::make_pair(key, std::forward<TNonCopyableValue>(val)));
return *this;
}
operator const map_type&()
{
return map_;
}
};
static std::map<int, ValueClass> map =
make_map_by_moving(1, ValueClass(5))
(2, ValueClass(5, InnerValueClass(3)));
/* It goes on like this for hundreds of lines, so I really appreciate any
solution that leave me with a clean initialization rather than calling
functions on std::map */
int main()
{
}
c++ c++17 static-initialization noncopyable
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I'd like to initialize a static std::map
where the value is not copyable. I'll call my class ValueClass. ValueClass has an std::unique_ptr
as private member and I even ensure that ValueClass is not copyable by extending non_copyable
that looks like the following:
class non_copyable {
public:
non_copyable() = default;
protected:
virtual ~non_copyable() = default;
private:
non_copyable(const non_copyable&) = delete;
non_copyable& operator=(const non_copyable&) = delete;
};
Now I'm trying to define a std::map using my class as value:
static std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes = {
{0, ValueClass()},
{1, ValueClass() }
};
I get compilation error as initializer_list
tries to copy this class.
I've tried to write my own make_map
function whole this weekend during many hours to enable initialization without copying but I've failed. I've tried this, that and other but none of them compile with Visual Studio 15.9.4.
How can I initialize static std::map where copy is not forced, and the initialization is uniformed in one function, using Visual Studio compiler?
EDIT:
Here is the simplified version of the real life scenario where I'm trying to get this working (forgive me for lack of naming convention and inconsistency for cases):
#include <iostream>
#include <optional>
#include <map>
class non_copyable {
public:
non_copyable() = default;
protected:
virtual ~non_copyable() = default;
private:
non_copyable(const non_copyable&) = delete;
non_copyable& operator=(const non_copyable&) = delete;
};
class InnerValueClass : public non_copyable
{
public:
InnerValueClass(const int inner_number) : inner_number_(inner_number) { }
private:
int inner_number_;
};
class ValueClass : public non_copyable
{
public:
ValueClass(const int number1) : number1_(number1) { }
ValueClass(const int number1, InnerValueClass&& inner_value) : number1_(number1), inner_value_(std::make_unique<InnerValueClass>(5)) { }
private:
int number1_;
std::unique_ptr<InnerValueClass> inner_value_{};
};
/* Inline initialization of std::map copies, this is for initialization of non-copy types*/
template <typename TKey, typename TNonCopyableValue>
class make_map_by_moving
{
typedef std::map<TKey, TNonCopyableValue> map_type;
map_type map_;
public:
make_map_by_moving(const TKey& key, TNonCopyableValue&& val)
{
map_.emplace(std::make_pair(key, std::forward<TNonCopyableValue>(val)));
}
make_map_by_moving<TKey, TNonCopyableValue>& operator()(const TKey& key, TNonCopyableValue&& val)
{
map_.emplace(std::make_pair(key, std::forward<TNonCopyableValue>(val)));
return *this;
}
operator const map_type&()
{
return map_;
}
};
static std::map<int, ValueClass> map =
make_map_by_moving(1, ValueClass(5))
(2, ValueClass(5, InnerValueClass(3)));
/* It goes on like this for hundreds of lines, so I really appreciate any
solution that leave me with a clean initialization rather than calling
functions on std::map */
int main()
{
}
c++ c++17 static-initialization noncopyable
Is this map meant to be editable at runtime after the first initialization? I do recall a proposal (or implementation even) for a global const structure that offers natural initialization and map-like performance
– M.M
6 hours ago
I found this link: blog.knatten.org/2018/10/05/… that may give you some insight!
– Francis Cugler
6 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I'd like to initialize a static std::map
where the value is not copyable. I'll call my class ValueClass. ValueClass has an std::unique_ptr
as private member and I even ensure that ValueClass is not copyable by extending non_copyable
that looks like the following:
class non_copyable {
public:
non_copyable() = default;
protected:
virtual ~non_copyable() = default;
private:
non_copyable(const non_copyable&) = delete;
non_copyable& operator=(const non_copyable&) = delete;
};
Now I'm trying to define a std::map using my class as value:
static std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes = {
{0, ValueClass()},
{1, ValueClass() }
};
I get compilation error as initializer_list
tries to copy this class.
I've tried to write my own make_map
function whole this weekend during many hours to enable initialization without copying but I've failed. I've tried this, that and other but none of them compile with Visual Studio 15.9.4.
How can I initialize static std::map where copy is not forced, and the initialization is uniformed in one function, using Visual Studio compiler?
EDIT:
Here is the simplified version of the real life scenario where I'm trying to get this working (forgive me for lack of naming convention and inconsistency for cases):
#include <iostream>
#include <optional>
#include <map>
class non_copyable {
public:
non_copyable() = default;
protected:
virtual ~non_copyable() = default;
private:
non_copyable(const non_copyable&) = delete;
non_copyable& operator=(const non_copyable&) = delete;
};
class InnerValueClass : public non_copyable
{
public:
InnerValueClass(const int inner_number) : inner_number_(inner_number) { }
private:
int inner_number_;
};
class ValueClass : public non_copyable
{
public:
ValueClass(const int number1) : number1_(number1) { }
ValueClass(const int number1, InnerValueClass&& inner_value) : number1_(number1), inner_value_(std::make_unique<InnerValueClass>(5)) { }
private:
int number1_;
std::unique_ptr<InnerValueClass> inner_value_{};
};
/* Inline initialization of std::map copies, this is for initialization of non-copy types*/
template <typename TKey, typename TNonCopyableValue>
class make_map_by_moving
{
typedef std::map<TKey, TNonCopyableValue> map_type;
map_type map_;
public:
make_map_by_moving(const TKey& key, TNonCopyableValue&& val)
{
map_.emplace(std::make_pair(key, std::forward<TNonCopyableValue>(val)));
}
make_map_by_moving<TKey, TNonCopyableValue>& operator()(const TKey& key, TNonCopyableValue&& val)
{
map_.emplace(std::make_pair(key, std::forward<TNonCopyableValue>(val)));
return *this;
}
operator const map_type&()
{
return map_;
}
};
static std::map<int, ValueClass> map =
make_map_by_moving(1, ValueClass(5))
(2, ValueClass(5, InnerValueClass(3)));
/* It goes on like this for hundreds of lines, so I really appreciate any
solution that leave me with a clean initialization rather than calling
functions on std::map */
int main()
{
}
c++ c++17 static-initialization noncopyable
I'd like to initialize a static std::map
where the value is not copyable. I'll call my class ValueClass. ValueClass has an std::unique_ptr
as private member and I even ensure that ValueClass is not copyable by extending non_copyable
that looks like the following:
class non_copyable {
public:
non_copyable() = default;
protected:
virtual ~non_copyable() = default;
private:
non_copyable(const non_copyable&) = delete;
non_copyable& operator=(const non_copyable&) = delete;
};
Now I'm trying to define a std::map using my class as value:
static std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes = {
{0, ValueClass()},
{1, ValueClass() }
};
I get compilation error as initializer_list
tries to copy this class.
I've tried to write my own make_map
function whole this weekend during many hours to enable initialization without copying but I've failed. I've tried this, that and other but none of them compile with Visual Studio 15.9.4.
How can I initialize static std::map where copy is not forced, and the initialization is uniformed in one function, using Visual Studio compiler?
EDIT:
Here is the simplified version of the real life scenario where I'm trying to get this working (forgive me for lack of naming convention and inconsistency for cases):
#include <iostream>
#include <optional>
#include <map>
class non_copyable {
public:
non_copyable() = default;
protected:
virtual ~non_copyable() = default;
private:
non_copyable(const non_copyable&) = delete;
non_copyable& operator=(const non_copyable&) = delete;
};
class InnerValueClass : public non_copyable
{
public:
InnerValueClass(const int inner_number) : inner_number_(inner_number) { }
private:
int inner_number_;
};
class ValueClass : public non_copyable
{
public:
ValueClass(const int number1) : number1_(number1) { }
ValueClass(const int number1, InnerValueClass&& inner_value) : number1_(number1), inner_value_(std::make_unique<InnerValueClass>(5)) { }
private:
int number1_;
std::unique_ptr<InnerValueClass> inner_value_{};
};
/* Inline initialization of std::map copies, this is for initialization of non-copy types*/
template <typename TKey, typename TNonCopyableValue>
class make_map_by_moving
{
typedef std::map<TKey, TNonCopyableValue> map_type;
map_type map_;
public:
make_map_by_moving(const TKey& key, TNonCopyableValue&& val)
{
map_.emplace(std::make_pair(key, std::forward<TNonCopyableValue>(val)));
}
make_map_by_moving<TKey, TNonCopyableValue>& operator()(const TKey& key, TNonCopyableValue&& val)
{
map_.emplace(std::make_pair(key, std::forward<TNonCopyableValue>(val)));
return *this;
}
operator const map_type&()
{
return map_;
}
};
static std::map<int, ValueClass> map =
make_map_by_moving(1, ValueClass(5))
(2, ValueClass(5, InnerValueClass(3)));
/* It goes on like this for hundreds of lines, so I really appreciate any
solution that leave me with a clean initialization rather than calling
functions on std::map */
int main()
{
}
c++ c++17 static-initialization noncopyable
c++ c++17 static-initialization noncopyable
edited 5 hours ago
asked 7 hours ago
U. Bulle
170110
170110
Is this map meant to be editable at runtime after the first initialization? I do recall a proposal (or implementation even) for a global const structure that offers natural initialization and map-like performance
– M.M
6 hours ago
I found this link: blog.knatten.org/2018/10/05/… that may give you some insight!
– Francis Cugler
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Is this map meant to be editable at runtime after the first initialization? I do recall a proposal (or implementation even) for a global const structure that offers natural initialization and map-like performance
– M.M
6 hours ago
I found this link: blog.knatten.org/2018/10/05/… that may give you some insight!
– Francis Cugler
6 hours ago
Is this map meant to be editable at runtime after the first initialization? I do recall a proposal (or implementation even) for a global const structure that offers natural initialization and map-like performance
– M.M
6 hours ago
Is this map meant to be editable at runtime after the first initialization? I do recall a proposal (or implementation even) for a global const structure that offers natural initialization and map-like performance
– M.M
6 hours ago
I found this link: blog.knatten.org/2018/10/05/… that may give you some insight!
– Francis Cugler
6 hours ago
I found this link: blog.knatten.org/2018/10/05/… that may give you some insight!
– Francis Cugler
6 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
You cannot do this directly, because initializer_list
has const
backing for all of its elements - and they have to be copied from the initializer list into the container. That, obviously, requires copying. There's no way to emplace from an initializer list unfortunately.
In C++17, thanks to guaranteed copy elision, you can do this:
std::map<int, non_copyable> get() {
std::map<int, non_copyable> m;
m.emplace(std::piecewise_construct, std::tuple(0), std::tuple());
m.emplace(std::piecewise_construct, std::tuple(1), std::tuple());
return m;
}
std::map<int, non_copyable> value_classes = get();
This code performs no copies on non_copyable
. We emplace construct inside of the map
, and then beacuse get()
is a prvalue, there is no copy/move from get()
into value_classes
. The m
within get()
is the object value_classes
.
A slightly sneaker approach would be to abuse try_emplace()
for this:
std::map<int, non_copyable> get() {
std::map<int, non_copyable> m;
m.try_emplace(0);
m.try_emplace(1);
return m;
}
try_emplace()
takes the key type by itself (so you can just pass an int
) and then the arguments for the value for emplacing separately, which makes for a much less verbose way of accomplishing this.
Another way is to simply callm[0]; m[1];
. It will emplace default-constructed objects. See en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/map/operator_at.
– tmlen
7 hours ago
Whytry_emplace
instead of simple oldemplace
?
– R2RT
7 hours ago
Thank you for the answer! I realized that I was not clear in the question, I'm sorry for that. I don't want to leave the values to be defined later on, I'd like to define the values as well. I've updated my question with the code showing the real scenario I'm having.
– U. Bulle
7 hours ago
@U.Bulle Well, I don't know how you expect yourValueClass(int, const InnerValueClass&)
constructor to work given thatInnerValueClass
isn't copyable - but besides that, this answer provides a path to provide arbitrary constructor arguments just fine.
– Barry
6 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
I think you need to create the object with insert_or_assign
in a function and then return it:
std::map<int, ValueClass> populate()
{
std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes;
value_classes.insert_or_assign(std::make_pair(0, ValueClass());
return value_classes;
}
And your initialization becomes:
std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes = populate();
But then, this class has a virtual destructor, which means that you want actually may actually be a std::map<int, std::unique_ptr<ValueClass>>
and not a map of actual objects (not sure what these objects are going to be used for?).
Edit after the question edit:
In this case, Barrys suggestion is the one to follow, using
emplace`:
std::map<int, ValueClass> populate()
{
std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes;
value_classes.emplace(1, 5);
return value_classes;
}
Also include functional
.
Thank you for very fast and informative answer. I've updated my question with the code showing the real life application.insert_or_assign
did not help it to compile either.
– U. Bulle
7 hours ago
Wow, that's a completely different beast...
– Matthieu Brucher
7 hours ago
I getC2660 'std::pair<const _Kty,_Ty>::pair': function does not take 2 arguments
with your integration of Barry`s suggestion :(
– U. Bulle
6 hours ago
Seems like a bug, works with clang :/
– Matthieu Brucher
6 hours ago
I would suggest you change your special class to remove the usage of emplace. Barry's code or mine work for your case, just create an actual function. Also, you have a big bug in your code, as the reference_wrapper points to a temporary that is destroyed.
– Matthieu Brucher
6 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
You simply can not use initializer_list
to move
an object from a non-copyable
object.
Your class deletes the copy constructor
& assignment operator
. When you try to initialize your map
or any other container
with an initializer_list
the initializer_list
strictly forces you to reference an LValue
and forbids RValue
move or forward semantics.
Here is a very nice blog article that explains all of the details: knatten.org as well as a similar Q/A found here.
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: "1"
};
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',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
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%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53806687%2finitialize-static-stdmap-with-non-copyable-value-in-a-uniformed-initialization%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
You cannot do this directly, because initializer_list
has const
backing for all of its elements - and they have to be copied from the initializer list into the container. That, obviously, requires copying. There's no way to emplace from an initializer list unfortunately.
In C++17, thanks to guaranteed copy elision, you can do this:
std::map<int, non_copyable> get() {
std::map<int, non_copyable> m;
m.emplace(std::piecewise_construct, std::tuple(0), std::tuple());
m.emplace(std::piecewise_construct, std::tuple(1), std::tuple());
return m;
}
std::map<int, non_copyable> value_classes = get();
This code performs no copies on non_copyable
. We emplace construct inside of the map
, and then beacuse get()
is a prvalue, there is no copy/move from get()
into value_classes
. The m
within get()
is the object value_classes
.
A slightly sneaker approach would be to abuse try_emplace()
for this:
std::map<int, non_copyable> get() {
std::map<int, non_copyable> m;
m.try_emplace(0);
m.try_emplace(1);
return m;
}
try_emplace()
takes the key type by itself (so you can just pass an int
) and then the arguments for the value for emplacing separately, which makes for a much less verbose way of accomplishing this.
Another way is to simply callm[0]; m[1];
. It will emplace default-constructed objects. See en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/map/operator_at.
– tmlen
7 hours ago
Whytry_emplace
instead of simple oldemplace
?
– R2RT
7 hours ago
Thank you for the answer! I realized that I was not clear in the question, I'm sorry for that. I don't want to leave the values to be defined later on, I'd like to define the values as well. I've updated my question with the code showing the real scenario I'm having.
– U. Bulle
7 hours ago
@U.Bulle Well, I don't know how you expect yourValueClass(int, const InnerValueClass&)
constructor to work given thatInnerValueClass
isn't copyable - but besides that, this answer provides a path to provide arbitrary constructor arguments just fine.
– Barry
6 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
You cannot do this directly, because initializer_list
has const
backing for all of its elements - and they have to be copied from the initializer list into the container. That, obviously, requires copying. There's no way to emplace from an initializer list unfortunately.
In C++17, thanks to guaranteed copy elision, you can do this:
std::map<int, non_copyable> get() {
std::map<int, non_copyable> m;
m.emplace(std::piecewise_construct, std::tuple(0), std::tuple());
m.emplace(std::piecewise_construct, std::tuple(1), std::tuple());
return m;
}
std::map<int, non_copyable> value_classes = get();
This code performs no copies on non_copyable
. We emplace construct inside of the map
, and then beacuse get()
is a prvalue, there is no copy/move from get()
into value_classes
. The m
within get()
is the object value_classes
.
A slightly sneaker approach would be to abuse try_emplace()
for this:
std::map<int, non_copyable> get() {
std::map<int, non_copyable> m;
m.try_emplace(0);
m.try_emplace(1);
return m;
}
try_emplace()
takes the key type by itself (so you can just pass an int
) and then the arguments for the value for emplacing separately, which makes for a much less verbose way of accomplishing this.
Another way is to simply callm[0]; m[1];
. It will emplace default-constructed objects. See en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/map/operator_at.
– tmlen
7 hours ago
Whytry_emplace
instead of simple oldemplace
?
– R2RT
7 hours ago
Thank you for the answer! I realized that I was not clear in the question, I'm sorry for that. I don't want to leave the values to be defined later on, I'd like to define the values as well. I've updated my question with the code showing the real scenario I'm having.
– U. Bulle
7 hours ago
@U.Bulle Well, I don't know how you expect yourValueClass(int, const InnerValueClass&)
constructor to work given thatInnerValueClass
isn't copyable - but besides that, this answer provides a path to provide arbitrary constructor arguments just fine.
– Barry
6 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
You cannot do this directly, because initializer_list
has const
backing for all of its elements - and they have to be copied from the initializer list into the container. That, obviously, requires copying. There's no way to emplace from an initializer list unfortunately.
In C++17, thanks to guaranteed copy elision, you can do this:
std::map<int, non_copyable> get() {
std::map<int, non_copyable> m;
m.emplace(std::piecewise_construct, std::tuple(0), std::tuple());
m.emplace(std::piecewise_construct, std::tuple(1), std::tuple());
return m;
}
std::map<int, non_copyable> value_classes = get();
This code performs no copies on non_copyable
. We emplace construct inside of the map
, and then beacuse get()
is a prvalue, there is no copy/move from get()
into value_classes
. The m
within get()
is the object value_classes
.
A slightly sneaker approach would be to abuse try_emplace()
for this:
std::map<int, non_copyable> get() {
std::map<int, non_copyable> m;
m.try_emplace(0);
m.try_emplace(1);
return m;
}
try_emplace()
takes the key type by itself (so you can just pass an int
) and then the arguments for the value for emplacing separately, which makes for a much less verbose way of accomplishing this.
You cannot do this directly, because initializer_list
has const
backing for all of its elements - and they have to be copied from the initializer list into the container. That, obviously, requires copying. There's no way to emplace from an initializer list unfortunately.
In C++17, thanks to guaranteed copy elision, you can do this:
std::map<int, non_copyable> get() {
std::map<int, non_copyable> m;
m.emplace(std::piecewise_construct, std::tuple(0), std::tuple());
m.emplace(std::piecewise_construct, std::tuple(1), std::tuple());
return m;
}
std::map<int, non_copyable> value_classes = get();
This code performs no copies on non_copyable
. We emplace construct inside of the map
, and then beacuse get()
is a prvalue, there is no copy/move from get()
into value_classes
. The m
within get()
is the object value_classes
.
A slightly sneaker approach would be to abuse try_emplace()
for this:
std::map<int, non_copyable> get() {
std::map<int, non_copyable> m;
m.try_emplace(0);
m.try_emplace(1);
return m;
}
try_emplace()
takes the key type by itself (so you can just pass an int
) and then the arguments for the value for emplacing separately, which makes for a much less verbose way of accomplishing this.
answered 7 hours ago
Barry
176k18299555
176k18299555
Another way is to simply callm[0]; m[1];
. It will emplace default-constructed objects. See en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/map/operator_at.
– tmlen
7 hours ago
Whytry_emplace
instead of simple oldemplace
?
– R2RT
7 hours ago
Thank you for the answer! I realized that I was not clear in the question, I'm sorry for that. I don't want to leave the values to be defined later on, I'd like to define the values as well. I've updated my question with the code showing the real scenario I'm having.
– U. Bulle
7 hours ago
@U.Bulle Well, I don't know how you expect yourValueClass(int, const InnerValueClass&)
constructor to work given thatInnerValueClass
isn't copyable - but besides that, this answer provides a path to provide arbitrary constructor arguments just fine.
– Barry
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Another way is to simply callm[0]; m[1];
. It will emplace default-constructed objects. See en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/map/operator_at.
– tmlen
7 hours ago
Whytry_emplace
instead of simple oldemplace
?
– R2RT
7 hours ago
Thank you for the answer! I realized that I was not clear in the question, I'm sorry for that. I don't want to leave the values to be defined later on, I'd like to define the values as well. I've updated my question with the code showing the real scenario I'm having.
– U. Bulle
7 hours ago
@U.Bulle Well, I don't know how you expect yourValueClass(int, const InnerValueClass&)
constructor to work given thatInnerValueClass
isn't copyable - but besides that, this answer provides a path to provide arbitrary constructor arguments just fine.
– Barry
6 hours ago
Another way is to simply call
m[0]; m[1];
. It will emplace default-constructed objects. See en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/map/operator_at.– tmlen
7 hours ago
Another way is to simply call
m[0]; m[1];
. It will emplace default-constructed objects. See en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/map/operator_at.– tmlen
7 hours ago
Why
try_emplace
instead of simple old emplace
?– R2RT
7 hours ago
Why
try_emplace
instead of simple old emplace
?– R2RT
7 hours ago
Thank you for the answer! I realized that I was not clear in the question, I'm sorry for that. I don't want to leave the values to be defined later on, I'd like to define the values as well. I've updated my question with the code showing the real scenario I'm having.
– U. Bulle
7 hours ago
Thank you for the answer! I realized that I was not clear in the question, I'm sorry for that. I don't want to leave the values to be defined later on, I'd like to define the values as well. I've updated my question with the code showing the real scenario I'm having.
– U. Bulle
7 hours ago
@U.Bulle Well, I don't know how you expect your
ValueClass(int, const InnerValueClass&)
constructor to work given that InnerValueClass
isn't copyable - but besides that, this answer provides a path to provide arbitrary constructor arguments just fine.– Barry
6 hours ago
@U.Bulle Well, I don't know how you expect your
ValueClass(int, const InnerValueClass&)
constructor to work given that InnerValueClass
isn't copyable - but besides that, this answer provides a path to provide arbitrary constructor arguments just fine.– Barry
6 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
I think you need to create the object with insert_or_assign
in a function and then return it:
std::map<int, ValueClass> populate()
{
std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes;
value_classes.insert_or_assign(std::make_pair(0, ValueClass());
return value_classes;
}
And your initialization becomes:
std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes = populate();
But then, this class has a virtual destructor, which means that you want actually may actually be a std::map<int, std::unique_ptr<ValueClass>>
and not a map of actual objects (not sure what these objects are going to be used for?).
Edit after the question edit:
In this case, Barrys suggestion is the one to follow, using
emplace`:
std::map<int, ValueClass> populate()
{
std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes;
value_classes.emplace(1, 5);
return value_classes;
}
Also include functional
.
Thank you for very fast and informative answer. I've updated my question with the code showing the real life application.insert_or_assign
did not help it to compile either.
– U. Bulle
7 hours ago
Wow, that's a completely different beast...
– Matthieu Brucher
7 hours ago
I getC2660 'std::pair<const _Kty,_Ty>::pair': function does not take 2 arguments
with your integration of Barry`s suggestion :(
– U. Bulle
6 hours ago
Seems like a bug, works with clang :/
– Matthieu Brucher
6 hours ago
I would suggest you change your special class to remove the usage of emplace. Barry's code or mine work for your case, just create an actual function. Also, you have a big bug in your code, as the reference_wrapper points to a temporary that is destroyed.
– Matthieu Brucher
6 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
I think you need to create the object with insert_or_assign
in a function and then return it:
std::map<int, ValueClass> populate()
{
std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes;
value_classes.insert_or_assign(std::make_pair(0, ValueClass());
return value_classes;
}
And your initialization becomes:
std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes = populate();
But then, this class has a virtual destructor, which means that you want actually may actually be a std::map<int, std::unique_ptr<ValueClass>>
and not a map of actual objects (not sure what these objects are going to be used for?).
Edit after the question edit:
In this case, Barrys suggestion is the one to follow, using
emplace`:
std::map<int, ValueClass> populate()
{
std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes;
value_classes.emplace(1, 5);
return value_classes;
}
Also include functional
.
Thank you for very fast and informative answer. I've updated my question with the code showing the real life application.insert_or_assign
did not help it to compile either.
– U. Bulle
7 hours ago
Wow, that's a completely different beast...
– Matthieu Brucher
7 hours ago
I getC2660 'std::pair<const _Kty,_Ty>::pair': function does not take 2 arguments
with your integration of Barry`s suggestion :(
– U. Bulle
6 hours ago
Seems like a bug, works with clang :/
– Matthieu Brucher
6 hours ago
I would suggest you change your special class to remove the usage of emplace. Barry's code or mine work for your case, just create an actual function. Also, you have a big bug in your code, as the reference_wrapper points to a temporary that is destroyed.
– Matthieu Brucher
6 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
I think you need to create the object with insert_or_assign
in a function and then return it:
std::map<int, ValueClass> populate()
{
std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes;
value_classes.insert_or_assign(std::make_pair(0, ValueClass());
return value_classes;
}
And your initialization becomes:
std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes = populate();
But then, this class has a virtual destructor, which means that you want actually may actually be a std::map<int, std::unique_ptr<ValueClass>>
and not a map of actual objects (not sure what these objects are going to be used for?).
Edit after the question edit:
In this case, Barrys suggestion is the one to follow, using
emplace`:
std::map<int, ValueClass> populate()
{
std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes;
value_classes.emplace(1, 5);
return value_classes;
}
Also include functional
.
I think you need to create the object with insert_or_assign
in a function and then return it:
std::map<int, ValueClass> populate()
{
std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes;
value_classes.insert_or_assign(std::make_pair(0, ValueClass());
return value_classes;
}
And your initialization becomes:
std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes = populate();
But then, this class has a virtual destructor, which means that you want actually may actually be a std::map<int, std::unique_ptr<ValueClass>>
and not a map of actual objects (not sure what these objects are going to be used for?).
Edit after the question edit:
In this case, Barrys suggestion is the one to follow, using
emplace`:
std::map<int, ValueClass> populate()
{
std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes;
value_classes.emplace(1, 5);
return value_classes;
}
Also include functional
.
edited 6 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
Matthieu Brucher
10.8k21935
10.8k21935
Thank you for very fast and informative answer. I've updated my question with the code showing the real life application.insert_or_assign
did not help it to compile either.
– U. Bulle
7 hours ago
Wow, that's a completely different beast...
– Matthieu Brucher
7 hours ago
I getC2660 'std::pair<const _Kty,_Ty>::pair': function does not take 2 arguments
with your integration of Barry`s suggestion :(
– U. Bulle
6 hours ago
Seems like a bug, works with clang :/
– Matthieu Brucher
6 hours ago
I would suggest you change your special class to remove the usage of emplace. Barry's code or mine work for your case, just create an actual function. Also, you have a big bug in your code, as the reference_wrapper points to a temporary that is destroyed.
– Matthieu Brucher
6 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Thank you for very fast and informative answer. I've updated my question with the code showing the real life application.insert_or_assign
did not help it to compile either.
– U. Bulle
7 hours ago
Wow, that's a completely different beast...
– Matthieu Brucher
7 hours ago
I getC2660 'std::pair<const _Kty,_Ty>::pair': function does not take 2 arguments
with your integration of Barry`s suggestion :(
– U. Bulle
6 hours ago
Seems like a bug, works with clang :/
– Matthieu Brucher
6 hours ago
I would suggest you change your special class to remove the usage of emplace. Barry's code or mine work for your case, just create an actual function. Also, you have a big bug in your code, as the reference_wrapper points to a temporary that is destroyed.
– Matthieu Brucher
6 hours ago
Thank you for very fast and informative answer. I've updated my question with the code showing the real life application.
insert_or_assign
did not help it to compile either.– U. Bulle
7 hours ago
Thank you for very fast and informative answer. I've updated my question with the code showing the real life application.
insert_or_assign
did not help it to compile either.– U. Bulle
7 hours ago
Wow, that's a completely different beast...
– Matthieu Brucher
7 hours ago
Wow, that's a completely different beast...
– Matthieu Brucher
7 hours ago
I get
C2660 'std::pair<const _Kty,_Ty>::pair': function does not take 2 arguments
with your integration of Barry`s suggestion :(– U. Bulle
6 hours ago
I get
C2660 'std::pair<const _Kty,_Ty>::pair': function does not take 2 arguments
with your integration of Barry`s suggestion :(– U. Bulle
6 hours ago
Seems like a bug, works with clang :/
– Matthieu Brucher
6 hours ago
Seems like a bug, works with clang :/
– Matthieu Brucher
6 hours ago
I would suggest you change your special class to remove the usage of emplace. Barry's code or mine work for your case, just create an actual function. Also, you have a big bug in your code, as the reference_wrapper points to a temporary that is destroyed.
– Matthieu Brucher
6 hours ago
I would suggest you change your special class to remove the usage of emplace. Barry's code or mine work for your case, just create an actual function. Also, you have a big bug in your code, as the reference_wrapper points to a temporary that is destroyed.
– Matthieu Brucher
6 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
You simply can not use initializer_list
to move
an object from a non-copyable
object.
Your class deletes the copy constructor
& assignment operator
. When you try to initialize your map
or any other container
with an initializer_list
the initializer_list
strictly forces you to reference an LValue
and forbids RValue
move or forward semantics.
Here is a very nice blog article that explains all of the details: knatten.org as well as a similar Q/A found here.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
You simply can not use initializer_list
to move
an object from a non-copyable
object.
Your class deletes the copy constructor
& assignment operator
. When you try to initialize your map
or any other container
with an initializer_list
the initializer_list
strictly forces you to reference an LValue
and forbids RValue
move or forward semantics.
Here is a very nice blog article that explains all of the details: knatten.org as well as a similar Q/A found here.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
You simply can not use initializer_list
to move
an object from a non-copyable
object.
Your class deletes the copy constructor
& assignment operator
. When you try to initialize your map
or any other container
with an initializer_list
the initializer_list
strictly forces you to reference an LValue
and forbids RValue
move or forward semantics.
Here is a very nice blog article that explains all of the details: knatten.org as well as a similar Q/A found here.
You simply can not use initializer_list
to move
an object from a non-copyable
object.
Your class deletes the copy constructor
& assignment operator
. When you try to initialize your map
or any other container
with an initializer_list
the initializer_list
strictly forces you to reference an LValue
and forbids RValue
move or forward semantics.
Here is a very nice blog article that explains all of the details: knatten.org as well as a similar Q/A found here.
answered 5 hours ago
Francis Cugler
4,32411227
4,32411227
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- 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.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
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%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53806687%2finitialize-static-stdmap-with-non-copyable-value-in-a-uniformed-initialization%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
Is this map meant to be editable at runtime after the first initialization? I do recall a proposal (or implementation even) for a global const structure that offers natural initialization and map-like performance
– M.M
6 hours ago
I found this link: blog.knatten.org/2018/10/05/… that may give you some insight!
– Francis Cugler
6 hours ago