I have a menu system that I want to initialise from constant data. A MenuItem
can contain, as a sub-menu, a vector of MenuItems
. But it only works
boost::optional and boost::recursive_wrapper look useful for this
struct S { // one brace
boost::optional< // another brace
boost::recursive_wrapper< // another brace
std::vector< // another brace
S
>
>
> v;
};
You need 4 braces for every submenu you add. Brace elision does not happen when constructor calls are involved. For example
S m{{{{
{{{{ }}}},
{{{{
{{{{ }}}},
{{{{ }}}}
}}}}
}}}};
Honestly, using constructors look more readable
struct S {
// this one is not really required by C++0x, but some GCC versions
// require it.
S(char const *s)
:v(s) { }
S(std::string const& s)
:v(s) { }
S(std::initialize_list<S> s)
:v(std::vector<S>(s)) { }
boost::variant<
std::string,
boost::recursive_wrapper<
std::vector<
S
>
>
> v;
};
Now it simplifies to
S s{
"S1",
{
"SS1",
"SS2",
{ "SSS1", "SSS2" }
}
};
GMan is correct in his comment: in the declaration of S::v
in your code, S
is still incomplete. A type must be complete to be usable as the value type in an STL container. For more information see Matt Austern's article "The Standard Librarian: Containers of Incomplete Types."
If you were to switch to a container that is usable with an incomplete type, then your code is fine. For example, given the following:
#include <initializer_list>
template <typename T>
struct Container
{
Container() { }
Container(std::initializer_list<T>) { }
};
struct S { Container<S> v; };
then your original initialization should work fine:
S s3 = { { { } } } ;
This would work too:
S s4 = { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { /*zomg*/ } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } };
what you are trying to do is an upcomingcurrent feature of C++ called "initializer lists", where a vector or list can be initialized with = { }.
I don't know if they have come out with it in TR1 or not. maybe it's in TR2.
#include <vector>
#include <list>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main(void) {
vector<int> vi = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
list<int> li = {5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0};
cout<<"vector size="<<vi.size()<<", list size="<<li.size()<<endl;
return 0;
}
the code you are using doesn't look proper to me. If you want to implement structures that contain structures (a tree), include a list of pointers to the structures/nodes (or just void pointers if that's not implementable) within the node.
most menu structures are essentially an ordered list-based tree (n nodes in one place, but could be m nodes elsewhere, etc). Robert Sedgewick makes a textbook "Algorithms in C++".
#include <vector>
#include <iterator>
#include <string>
void * pRoot = NULL; //pointer to CTree
class CTreenode;
class CTree;
class CTree {
public:
vector<class CTreeNode> lctnNodeList; //list does not have at() or operator[]
vector<class CTreeNode>::iterator lctni;
public:
CTree() {}
~CTree() {
for (lctni=lctnNodeList.begin(); lctni != lctnNodeList.end(); nctni++) {
if (NULL==lctni->getChildPtr()) {
//do nothing, we have already done all we can
} else {
delete (CTree *)lctnNodeList.pChild;
}
//do action here
}
}
void addToList(string& data, CTree * p) {
CTreeNode ctn(data, p);
lctnNodeList.push_back(d);
}
void eraseAt(size_t index) {
vector<class CTreeNode>::iterator i = lctnNodeList.begin();
vector<class CTreeNode>::iterator i2 = lctnNodeList.begin();
i2++;
size_t x;
for (x=0; x <= index; x++,i++,i2++) {
if (index == x) {
lctnNodeList.erase(i,i2);
break;
}
}
}
void at(size_t index, string& returndata, CTree * &p) {
vector<class CTreeNode>::iterator i = lctnNodeList.begin();
size_t x;
for (x=0; x <= index; i++,x++) {
if (x==index) {
i->getData(returndata, p);
break;
}
}
}
const CTreeNode& operator[](const size_t idx) {
if (idx < lctnNodeList(size)) {
return lctnNodeList.at(idx);
} else {
//throw an error
}
}
const size() {
return lctnNodeList.size();
}
//this can be applied to the root of the tree (pRoot).
doActionToThisSubtree(void * root) {
CTree * pct = (CTree *)root;
for (pct->lctni=pct->lctnNodeList.begin(); pct->lctni != pct->lctnNodeList.end(); pct->nctni++) {
//this is a depth-first traversal.
if (NULL==pct->lctni->getChildPtr()) {
//do nothing, we have already done all we can
//we do this if statement to prevent infinite recursion
} else {
//at this point, recursively entering child domain
doActionToThisSubtree(pct->lctni->getChildPtr());
//at thisd point, exiting child domain
}
//do Action on CTreeNode node pct->lctni-> here.
}
}
};
class CTreeNode {
public:
CTree * pChild; //CTree *, may have to replace with void *
string sData;
public:
CTreeNode() : pChild(NULL) {}
CTreeNode(string& data, pchild) : pChild(pchild) {
sData = data;
}
~CTreeNode() {
if (NULL!=pChild) {
delete pChild;//delete (CTree *)pChild;
pChild = NULL;
}
void getChild(CTreeNode& child) {
child = *pChild;//child = *((CTree *)pChild);
}
bool addChild(string& s) {
if (NULL==pChild) {
return false;
} else {
pChild = new CTree;
}
return true;
}
void * getChildPtr() { return pChild; }
void getData(string& data, CTree * &p) { //not sure about how to put the & in there on CTree
data=sData;
p = pChild;
}
void setData(string& data, CTree * p) {
sData=data;
pChild = p;
}
};
the problem is mutual dependency here, and I think I have it resolved with the class declaration. do class CTreeNode; before class CTree {}. http://www.codeguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=383253
I am probably mangling this code, and it's incomplete, because I haven't had the need to write a tree in years, but I think I've covered the basics. I didn't implement operator[].