Discard qualifiers

[john]

Hi,
I'm trying to sort a vector using
sort(corelist.begin(),corelist.end());
so I've provided a method to overload the < operator in the file, like
so, but it isn't a class member and the code which uses it is in
another file containing a class which inherits from this class:

bool operator< ( const Core& a, const Core& b) {
return a.getdistance() < b.getdistance();

}

Only problem is I get a const discard qualifiers error, which seems
very annoying. It seems to make me choose whether I want to hide my
code's variables or have them const. Removing the const seems to allow
the program to compile but there are a lot of errors (top line of
which shown below). getdistance just returns a double and I'm using
gcc. I haven't got a == operator in the code, but think I may possibly
need one.

Any help would be gratefully received

/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.2/include/g++-v4/bits/stl_algo.h:
In function 'void std:artial_sort(_RandomAccessIterator,
_RandomAccessIterator, _RandomAccessIterator) [with
_RandomAccessIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<Core*,
std::vector<Core, std::allocator<Core> > >]':

 

[Ben Pfaff]

I'm trying to sort a vector using
sort(corelist.begin(),corelist.end());
so I've provided a method to overload the < operator in the file, like
so, but it isn't a class member and the code which uses it is in
another file containing a class which inherits from this class:

You are likely to get better responses to C++ questions in
comp.lang.c++.

 

[Seebs]

bool operator< ( const Core& a, const Core& b) {

You might want comp.lang.c++.

Alternatively, I could just point out that this is a syntax error and
won't compile, and that's probably your problem.

Your call.

-s

 

[Phil Carmody]

You are likely to get better responses to C++ questions in
comp.lang.c++.

You lose.

Please evolve a defence mechanism against such completely
obvious trolls.
c.f. http://bytes.com/topic/c/answers/698289-discard-qualifiers
dating back to 2007.

 

[Ben Pfaff]

Please evolve a defence mechanism against such completely
obvious trolls.
c.f. http://bytes.com/topic/c/answers/698289-discard-qualifiers
dating back to 2007.

I'm not going to spend more time searching for a reason to call
an article a troll than I would spend writing up a completely
reasonable answer to it.

 

[Phil Carmody]

I'm not going to spend more time searching for a reason to call
an article a troll than I would spend writing up a completely
reasonable answer to it.

So what? I did not suggest that you spend any time *searching* for
a reason to *call* an article a troll. I suggested that you evolve
an ability to detect such completely obvious trolls without needing
to perform a search, and that once you've so detected them, there's
no need for any response at all.

Phil

 

[Ben Pfaff]

So what? I did not suggest that you spend any time *searching* for
a reason to *call* an article a troll. I suggested that you evolve
an ability to detect such completely obvious trolls without needing
to perform a search, and that once you've so detected them, there's
no need for any response at all.

I don't know how you tell the difference between an article
carelessly posted to the wrong newsgroup and a troll. To me, the
article resembled the former more than the latter.

 

[Nick Keighley]

So what? I did not suggest that you spend any time *searching* for
a reason to *call* an article a troll. I suggested that you evolve
an ability to detect such completely obvious trolls without needing
to perform a search,
how?

and that once you've so detected them, there's
no need for any response at all.