Suppose I have a std::vector<std::vector<double>> d
and want to assign it to a std::vector<std::vector<int>> i
; the best I could come up with was:
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
int main() {
vector<vector<double>> d = { {1.0, 2.0}, {3.0, 4.0} };
vector<vector<int>> i;
for_each(begin(d), end(d), [&i](vector<double> &x) {
i.emplace_back(begin(x), end(x));
}
);
return 0;
}
If both vectors were using the same type internally, I could just use the assignment operator (see C++ copying multidimensional vector ):
i = d;
If the vectors were storing different types internally, but one-dimensional, I could do:
i.assign(begin(d), end(d));
Both of those are really obvious in their intention, which I don't feel is the case with my solution for the multi-dimensional approach. Is there a better way, or an accepted idiom, to do this?
It seems to me that your solution for the 2D vector is a good one. The problem arises when you have to copy a N-dimension vectors of vectors of vectors...
Suppose you want a function copy_multi_vec()
that works in a case as follows
std::vector<std::vector<std::vector<double>>> vvvd
{ { {1.0, 2.0, 3.0}, { 4.0, 5.0, 6.0} },
{ {7.0, 8.0, 9.0}, {10.0, 11.0, 12.0} } };
std::vector<std::vector<std::vector<int>>> vvvi;
copy_multi_vec(vvvi, vvvd);
In this case you can use partial template specialization in an helper class; by example
template <typename T1, typename T2>
struct cmvH
{ static void func (T1 & v1, T2 const & v2) { v1 = v2; } };
template <typename T1, typename T2>
struct cmvH<std::vector<T1>, std::vector<T2>>
{
static void func (std::vector<T1> & v1, std::vector<T2> const & v2)
{
v1.resize( v2.size() );
std::size_t i { 0U };
for ( auto const & e2 : v2 )
cmvH<T1, T2>::func(v1[i++], e2);
}
};
template <typename T1, typename T2>
void copy_multi_vec (T1 & v1, T2 const & v2)
{ cmvH<T1, T2>::func(v1, v2); }
or, if you want use the assign()
method for the last level, you can define the helper struct as follows
template <typename, typename>
struct cmvH;
template <typename T1, typename T2>
struct cmvH<std::vector<T1>, std::vector<T2>>
{
static void func (std::vector<T1> & v1, std::vector<T2> const & v2)
{
v1.resize( v2.size() );
v1.assign( v2.cbegin(), v2.cend() );
}
};
template <typename T1, typename T2>
struct cmvH<std::vector<std::vector<T1>>, std::vector<std::vector<T2>>>
{
static void func (std::vector<std::vector<T1>> & v1,
std::vector<std::vector<T2>> const & v2)
{
v1.resize( v2.size() );
std::size_t i { 0U };
for ( auto const & e2 : v2 )
cmvH0<std::vector<T1>, std::vector<T2>>::func(v1[i++], e2);
}
};
Is there a better way, or an accepted idiom, to do this?
There is no getting away from assigning one element of the array at a time. The best you can do is create a function to help with it.
For example, you could use:
template <typename T1, typename T2>
void vector_copy(std::vector<std::vector<T1>>& dest,
std::vector<std::vector<T2>> const& src)
{
// Add the code to do the copy
}
and then, use
vector_copy(d, i);
The technical post webpages of this site follow the CC BY-SA 4.0 protocol. If you need to reprint, please indicate the site URL or the original address.Any question please contact:yoyou2525@163.com.