"NULL" iterator?

I have some code which is using std::map iterators in a manner similar to pointers. I have a wrapper class around the iterator which facilitates pulling elements out of them. The problem is, when I compile, I get the error "no appropriate default constructor available".

Code:

typedef std::map<int, int> foo;

class FooElem
{
  foo::const_iterator ci;
  
  public:
    FooElem (foo::const_iterator const & iter) : ci(iter) { }

    std::string getId() { return ci->first; }
    int getAge() { return ci->second; }
};

So, what I want to do is add a constructor like this...

Code:

    FooElem() : ci(NULL?) { }

But... that clearly won't work. What can I do to get this effect? The best I can think of is to use a pointer to the iterator, but it seems like there should be a way to just make a zero-iterator or something.

What does getId() and getAge() mean when the iterator cannot be dereferenced? It sounds to me that you can just make it a pre-condition that the iterator can be dereferenced, so passing map.end() to the constructor explicitly results in undefined behaviour.

Actually, it may be better to just provide getId() and getAge() as free functions instead of member functions.

If it makes sense for a FooItem to "not exist" (i.e., not have an actual item referenced), then you wouldn't want a foo::const_iterator, but maybe something like a pair<int, int> *, I guess. (Somebody will be along soon to tell me how wrong I am, but that's what I say.)

If it doesn't make sense for a FooItem to "not exist", then you need to look at the line with the error and figure out what you want to do there.

(Also: how does return ci->first give you a std::string if ci iterates over <int, int>?)

It is somewhat strange to have an iterator with non-local scope. Normally they are used for iterating (or obtaining the result from an algorithm) and not kept around longer.

There is no NULL iterator if I'm not mistaken (the closest would be the return value of end() of the respective container), so perhaps a pointer might be more appropriate. (Or perhaps a redesign of the system.)

Originally Posted by QuestionC

I have some code which is using std::map iterators in a manner similar to pointers. I have a wrapper class around the iterator which facilitates pulling elements out of them. The problem is, when I compile, I get the error "no appropriate default constructor available".

I'm not sure "facilitates" is the right term. This wrapper class seems superfluous. What is the difficulty in simply accessing iter->first or iter->second?

Syntactic candy? Code readability (OK, so it->first and it->second aren't so bad, but the wrapper makes it better)?