For some reason I am iterating over elements of a class in an std::set
and would like to slightly modify the keys, knowing that the order will be unchanged.
Iterators on std::set
are const_iterators
because if the key is modified, it might result in a bad order and therefore in set corruption. However I know for sure that my operations won't change the order of my elements in the set.
For the moment, here is my solution:
class Foo
{
public:
Foo(int a, int b): a_(a),b_(b) {}
~Foo(){}
bool operator < (const Foo& o) const { return this.a_ < o.a_ ; }
void incrementB() const { ++b_; } // <-- the problem: it is not const!
private:
const int a_;
mutable int b_; // <-- I would like to avoid this
}
void f()
{
std::set<Foo> s;
// loop and insert many (distinct on a_) Foo elements;
std::for_each(s.begin(), c.end(), [](const Foo& s) { s.incrementB(); }); // Foo must be const. iterators are const_iterators
}
How would you modify it (I know I could use an std::map
but I am curious whether you can suggest other options) to remove mutable and const?
Thanks
You can't. Set elements are required to be const for container correctness:
It forces you to realize that the key part needs to be immutable, or the data structure invariants would be broken.
struct element
{
std::string key_part; // const in the set
bool operator<(const element&o) const { return key_part<o.key_part; }
private:
mutable int m_cached; // non-key, *NOT* used in operator<
};
If you wanted to retain the possibility to 'express' const-ness in the non-key part, split it out into pairs and store them in a map:
std::map<std::string /*key_part*/, int /*m_cached*/> mapped;
or, more flexibly:
struct element
{
std::string key_part; // const in the set
bool operator<(const element&o) const { return key_part<o.key_part; }
struct value {
int m_cached;
int m_moredata; //...
} /*not in the element itself*/;
};
std::map<element, element::value> mapped;
Another option is to const_cast
to a reference type :
class Foo
{
public:
void incrementB() const { ++ const_cast< int& >( b_ ); }
private:
int b_;
};
But as sehe already said, you shouldn't modify set's elements.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With