polymorphic sorting functors

[L. Kliemann]

#include <iostream>
#include <vector>

using namespace std;

class cmp_base : public std::binary_function<int, int, bool> {
public:
virtual bool operator()(int i, int j) { return i>j; }
};
class cmp_inc : public cmp_base {
public:
virtual bool operator()(int i, int j) { return i<j; }
};
void sort_it(vector<int> *v, cmp_base *cmp) {
sort(v->begin(), v->end(), *cmp);
}
int main(void) {
vector<int> v;
v.push_back(10);v.push_back(1);v.push_back(20);
cmp_inc cmp;
sort_it(&v, &cmp);
for (unsigned int i=0; i<v.size(); ++i) { cout << v.at(i) << endl; }
return 0;
}


It should be clear what I am trying to implement here: function sort_it shall
sort the given vector according to the comparison functor passed in the
second argument. The base class 'cmp_base' would usually be implemented
purely virtual, but is here given with an implementation for sorting the
vector in decreasing order, for demonstration purposes.

The problem is that although I create an object of type 'cmp_inc', the vector
is sorted in decreasing order. If 'cmp_base' is implemented as an ABC, the
program won't even compile.

As far as I understood, I am following a standard approach here: having a
base class and functions taking pointers to the base class, but in fact
handing pointers to objects of derived classes to these functions. However,
the sort function from the STL expects an object, not a pointer, and so I
pass *cmp to it. This seems to be the cause of all the trouble.

Is there still a way to do this without using templates?

 

[Ivan]

#include <iostream>
#include <vector>

using namespace std;

class cmp_base : public std::binary_function<int, int, bool> {
   public:
   virtual bool operator()(int i, int j) { return i>j; }};

class cmp_inc : public cmp_base {
   public:
   virtual bool operator()(int i, int j) { return i<j; }};

void sort_it(vector<int> *v, cmp_base *cmp) {
   sort(v->begin(), v->end(), *cmp);}

int main(void) {
   vector<int> v;
   v.push_back(10);v.push_back(1);v.push_back(20);
   cmp_inc cmp;
   sort_it(&v, &cmp);
   for (unsigned int i=0; i<v.size(); ++i) { cout << v.at(i) << endl; }
   return 0;

}

It should be clear what I am trying to implement here: function sort_it shall
sort the given vector according to the comparison functor passed in the
second argument. The base class 'cmp_base' would usually be implemented
purely virtual, but is here given with an implementation for sorting the
vector in decreasing order, for demonstration purposes.

The problem is that although I create an object of type 'cmp_inc', the vector
is sorted in decreasing order. If 'cmp_base' is implemented as an ABC, the
program won't even compile.

As far as I understood, I am following a standard approach here: having a
base class and functions taking pointers to the base class, but in fact
handing pointers to objects of derived classes to these functions. However,
the sort function from the STL expects an object, not a pointer, and so I
pass *cmp to it. This seems to be the cause of all the trouble.

Is there still a way to do this without using templates?

It seems std::sort takes the 3rd parameter as a pass by value not a
pass by reference.

Therefore when you pass a reference to a cmp_base by value into
std::sort, std::sort has no idea about the derived object type you are
actually passing.

Makes sense?

Ivan Novick

 

[L. Kliemann]

void sort_it(vector<int> *v, cmp_base *cmp) {
   sort(v->begin(), v->end(), *cmp);}

[...]

As far as I understood, I am following a standard approach here: having a
base class and functions taking pointers to the base class, but in fact
handing pointers to objects of derived classes to these functions. However,
the sort function from the STL expects an object, not a pointer, and so I
pass *cmp to it. This seems to be the cause of all the trouble.

Is there still a way to do this without using templates?

It seems std::sort takes the 3rd parameter as a pass by value not a
pass by reference.

Therefore when you pass a reference to a cmp_base by value into
std::sort, std::sort has no idea about the derived object type you are
actually passing.

Makes sense?

Yes, that makes sense.

Isn't that pretty bad design on the part of std::sort?

 

[Triple-DES]

#include <iostream>
#include <vector>

using namespace std;

class cmp_base : public std::binary_function<int, int, bool> {
   public:
   virtual bool operator()(int i, int j) { return i>j; }};

class cmp_inc : public cmp_base {
   public:
   virtual bool operator()(int i, int j) { return i<j; }};

You have forgotten to declare your operator const, by the way.

void sort_it(vector<int> *v, cmp_base *cmp) {
   sort(v->begin(), v->end(), *cmp);}

int main(void) {
   vector<int> v;
   v.push_back(10);v.push_back(1);v.push_back(20);
   cmp_inc cmp;
   sort_it(&v, &cmp);
   for (unsigned int i=0; i<v.size(); ++i) { cout << v.at(i) << endl; }
   return 0;

}

It should be clear what I am trying to implement here: function sort_it shall
sort the given vector according to the comparison functor passed in the
second argument. The base class 'cmp_base' would usually be implemented
purely virtual, but is here given with an implementation for sorting the
vector in decreasing order, for demonstration purposes.

The problem is that although I create an object of type 'cmp_inc', the vector
is sorted in decreasing order. If 'cmp_base' is implemented as an ABC, the
program won't even compile.

As far as I understood, I am following a standard approach here: having a
base class and functions taking pointers to the base class, but in fact
handing pointers to objects of derived classes to these functions. However,
the sort function from the STL expects an object, not a pointer, and so I
pass *cmp to it. This seems to be the cause of all the trouble.

Is there still a way to do this without using templates?

Any reason in particular that you can't use templates here?

template<typename Comp>
void sort_it(vector<int> *v, const Comp& cmp) {
sort(v->begin(), v->end(), cmp);

}

DP

 

[Road.Tang]

void sort_it(vector<int> *v, cmp_base *cmp) {
sort(v->begin(), v->end(), *cmp);}

[...]

As far as I understood, I am following a standard approach here: having a
base class and functions taking pointers to the base class, but in fact
handing pointers to objects of derived classes to these functions. However,
the sort function from the STL expects an object, not a pointer, and so I
pass *cmp to it. This seems to be the cause of all the trouble.
Is there still a way to do this without using templates?

It seems std::sort takes the 3rd parameter as a pass by value not a
pass by reference.

Therefore when you pass a reference to a cmp_base by value into
std::sort, std::sort has no idea about the derived object type you are
actually passing.

Makes sense?

Yes, that makes sense.

Isn't that pretty bad design on the part of std::sort?

You used cmp_base* , because you want a unique sort interface, here is
sort_it.
so you can pass any subclass of cmp_base to sort_it , regardless of
what's logic in your sub-class.

but note standard sort is better one, it accepts any sub-class you
have, including sub-classesof cmp_base and all other functional
objects or functions themself.
and no performance cost of a indirection of base pointer.


-roadt

 

[L. Kliemann]

[...]
You used cmp_base* , because you want a unique sort interface, here is
sort_it.
so you can pass any subclass of cmp_base to sort_it , regardless of
what's logic in your sub-class.

but note standard sort is better one, it accepts any sub-class you
have, including sub-classesof cmp_base and all other functional
objects or functions themself.
and no performance cost of a indirection of base pointer.

Ok, I see. Could you please point out to me how I can write a function
with an interface as std::sort has got? Then I would use that for sort_it.

Thank you!

 

[Jerry Coffin]

[ ... using std::sort ]

The problem is that although I create an object of type 'cmp_inc', the vector
is sorted in decreasing order. If 'cmp_base' is implemented as an ABC, the
program won't even compile.

Since it's passed by value, the derived object is being "sliced" to
become a base object.

As far as I understood, I am following a standard approach here: having a
base class and functions taking pointers to the base class, but in fact
handing pointers to objects of derived classes to these functions. However,
the sort function from the STL expects an object, not a pointer, and so I
pass *cmp to it. This seems to be the cause of all the trouble.

Is there still a way to do this without using templates?

Sure -- you can use a smart pointer class of some sort, which can be
passed by value, and still point at derived objects.

The big question would be why you want to do this -- you haven't said
why you want to rule out templates, but unless your code is doing
something a lot different from what you've shown, a template will make
simplify your code considerably.

 

[L. Kliemann]

* Jerry Coffin <[email protected]>:

[ ... using std::sort ]

Sure -- you can use a smart pointer class of some sort, which can be
passed by value, and still point at derived objects.

The big question would be why you want to do this -- you haven't said
why you want to rule out templates, but unless your code is doing
something a lot different from what you've shown, a template will make
simplify your code considerably.

My question was mostly out of curiosity. I've been working with C++ for about
half a year now, and I came across several occasions where my first approach
was to use polymorphism, but it did not work (could not write compilable code
that would express what I meant). In many of these cases, using templates was
a solution. In fact, I cannot recall any major issue where polymorphism was a
solution. Now I wanted to review these cases to see if I missed something.

In the case at hand, it looks like polymorphism really is the inferior
approach. Templates look better. There is, however, a third alternative: give
my function sort_it() a similar interface to that of std::sort(), so that I
can pass any comparison functor to it (by value). Maybe someone can point out
to me how to accomplish that. Thank you!

 

[Jerry Coffin]

[ ... ]

In the case at hand, it looks like polymorphism really is the inferior
approach. Templates look better. There is, however, a third alternative: give
my function sort_it() a similar interface to that of std::sort(), so that I
can pass any comparison functor to it (by value). Maybe someone can point out
to me how to accomplish that. Thank you!

That could make sense if you passed the comparison function by
_reference_ instead of value. If you pass it by value, I don't see the
point, since you just end up with essentially a clone of std::sort.

As far as the basic point of polymorphism goes, it's mostly for
situations where you don't know until _runtime_ exactly what type of
object you're going to work with. The most obvious case is a collection
that's heterogenous, so different objects in the collection need to act
in different ways to get the correct behavior.

Another type of situation is where the polymorphic objects are
essentially similar to device drivers. For example, you might have a
database front-end that can talk to various different kinds of database
servers. From the viewpoint of the front-end, any server (that can meet
its requirements) is the same, but you still need some customized pieces
of code to allow that common interface to talk to the individual
servers, and you do that by having objects to talk to the servers, and
virtual functions to define the interface.

 

[L. Kliemann]

[ ... ]

In the case at hand, it looks like polymorphism really is the inferior
approach. Templates look better. There is, however, a third alternative: give
my function sort_it() a similar interface to that of std::sort(), so that I
can pass any comparison functor to it (by value). Maybe someone can point out
to me how to accomplish that. Thank you!

That could make sense if you passed the comparison function by
_reference_ instead of value. If you pass it by value, I don't see the
point, since you just end up with essentially a clone of std::sort.

My function f shall implement an algorithm which at some point of its
operation has to sort things. I wish to use the algorithms with different
ways of sorting. In which way to sort shall be passed to the function by some
parameter. Wouldn't it be an elegant way to allow that parameter to resemble
the corresponding one in the std::sort function, in order that my function f
can just pass it through?

 

[Kai-Uwe Bux]

[ ... ]

In the case at hand, it looks like polymorphism really is the inferior
approach. Templates look better. There is, however, a third alternative:
give my function sort_it() a similar interface to that of std::sort(),
so that I can pass any comparison functor to it (by value). Maybe
someone can point out to me how to accomplish that. Thank you!

That could make sense if you passed the comparison function by
_reference_ instead of value. If you pass it by value, I don't see the
point, since you just end up with essentially a clone of std::sort.

My function f shall implement an algorithm which at some point of its
operation has to sort things. I wish to use the algorithms with different
ways of sorting. In which way to sort shall be passed to the function by
some parameter.

And how does that differ from std::sort?

Wouldn't it be an elegant way to allow that parameter to
resemble the corresponding one in the std::sort function, in order that my
function f can just pass it through?

If all you want is a wrapper around std::sort that operates on containers,
you could do:

template < typename Range, typename Comp >
void sort_range( Range & r, Comp p ) {
std::sort( r.begin(), r.end(), p );
}


Best

Kai-Uwe Bux

 

[Jerry Coffin]

[ ... ]

My function f shall implement an algorithm which at some point of its
operation has to sort things. I wish to use the algorithms with different
ways of sorting. In which way to sort shall be passed to the function by some
parameter. Wouldn't it be an elegant way to allow that parameter to resemble
the corresponding one in the std::sort function, in order that my function f
can just pass it through?

Yes, it probably would. std::sort can use either a comparison object OR
a comparison function. TTBOMK, the only way to do that in C++ is to use
a template parameter.

 

[Thomas J. Gritzan]

My function f shall implement an algorithm which at some point of its
operation has to sort things. I wish to use the algorithms with different
ways of sorting. In which way to sort shall be passed to the function by some
parameter. Wouldn't it be an elegant way to allow that parameter to resemble
the corresponding one in the std::sort function, in order that my function f
can just pass it through?

If you want to change the sorting behaviour at run-time, you could pass
a tr1::function object to std::sort.

 

[L. Kliemann]

If you want to change the sorting behaviour at run-time, you could pass
a tr1::function object to std::sort.

Great! I'd never heard of tr1 before, but it seems to be a solution.

This code works (using gcc 4.2.4, produced no warnings with -Wall and
-Wextra):


#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
#include <tr1/functional>

using namespace std;

typedef tr1::function <bool (int, int)> func_t;

class cmp_base : public std::binary_function<int, int, bool> {
public:
virtual bool operator()(int i, int j) = 0; };
class cmp_inc : public cmp_base {
public:
virtual bool operator()(int i, int j) { return i<j; } };
class cmp_dec : public cmp_base {
public:
virtual bool operator()(int i, int j) { return i>j; } };
void sort_it(vector<int> *v, func_t cmp) {
sort(v->begin(), v->end(), cmp); }
int main(void) {
vector<int> v;
v.push_back(10);v.push_back(1);v.push_back(20);
cmp_dec cmp1;
sort_it(&v, cmp1);
cout << "decreasing:" << endl;
for (unsigned int i=0; i<v.size(); ++i) { cout << v.at(i) << endl; }
cmp_inc cmp2;
sort_it(&v, cmp2);
cout << "increasing:" << endl;
for (unsigned int i=0; i<v.size(); ++i) { cout << v.at(i) << endl; }
return 0; }

 

[Thomas J. Gritzan]

Great! I'd never heard of tr1 before, but it seems to be a solution.

tr1 will be part of the coming C++ standard. Most parts of it were
developed and were/are part of the Boost library. Both tr1 and Boost are
worth to know.

This code works (using gcc 4.2.4, produced no warnings with -Wall and
-Wextra):

Some comments:

#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
#include <tr1/functional>

using namespace std;

typedef tr1::function <bool (int, int)> func_t;

class cmp_base : public std::binary_function<int, int, bool> {
public:
virtual bool operator()(int i, int j) = 0; };
class cmp_inc : public cmp_base {
public:
virtual bool operator()(int i, int j) { return i<j; } };
class cmp_dec : public cmp_base {
public:
virtual bool operator()(int i, int j) { return i>j; } };

You don't need a hierarchy with virtual functions. You can contruct a
tr1::function object with a simply functor (class with operator()) or
even a normal function. tr1::function works internally with virtual
functions and will dispatch the call to the currently assigned function
or functor.

But be aware that this run-time dispatch will disable some compiler
optimization, like inlineing the comparator function into the sort
algorithm. It's not a problem unless you have many objects to sort and
you need speed.

void sort_it(vector<int> *v, func_t cmp) {
sort(v->begin(), v->end(), cmp); }

Prefer pass by reference:

void sort_it(vector<int>& v, const func_t& cmp) {
sort(v.begin(), v.end(), cmp);
}

Pointers have additional complexity that's not needed in this case.
Pointers can be null, they can be reseated, you can do arithmetics with
them. Prefer to use pointers only when you need them.

I would also pass the comparator by (const) reference to avoid a copy.
It is a kind of microoptimization, but a common one.

int main(void) {
vector<int> v;
v.push_back(10);v.push_back(1);v.push_back(20);
cmp_dec cmp1;
sort_it(&v, cmp1);
cout << "decreasing:" << endl;
for (unsigned int i=0; i<v.size(); ++i) { cout << v.at(i) << endl; }
cmp_inc cmp2;
sort_it(&v, cmp2);
cout << "increasing:" << endl;
for (unsigned int i=0; i<v.size(); ++i) { cout << v.at(i) << endl; }
return 0; }

In general, if you want others to read your code, please insert more
whitespace/newlines. This code might be compact formatted, but it is
horrible to read it.