Printable View
Hey folks. Question: How do you implement Vectors for a user defined class? Is this even possible? I've searched the boards, the faq and the tutorials and all of them only refer to using the predefined C++ datatypes. What about custom data types or classes? Could someone please shine some light on this for me? Thanks.
It's possible. It should be the same as any other data type.
I agree, it should. It's just that it doesn't work when I use my own custom defined types. I was wondering if there was something else that I needed to do. Hence, the post. Any ideas?
>How do you implement Vectors for a user defined class?
I'm not quite sure what you mean, are you trying to create a vector of objects?
-PreludeCode:#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
class obj
{
public:
void show ( int i )
{
std::cout<<"index "<< i <<" working!"<<std::endl;
}
};
int main()
{
std::vector<obj> v ( 5 );
for ( std::vector<int>::size_type i = 0; i < v.size(); i++ )
v[i].show ( i );
}
Yes, a vector of objects. You know it's interesting, that's exactly how I defined my vector of objects. Check this:
Which is supposed to be a vector of books. However, when I compile, I get this error:Code:vector<Book> vBook;
which doesn't make sense to me. I was thinking that I was doing the wrong thing. I have made vectors of predefined data types like int, float, char* etc... But I can never get it to work for user defined data types or objects. So I was thinking it's not possible. What am I doing wrong?Quote:
Error: memory.h(194,33):Could not find a match for 'Book::Book(const Book)'
Thanks again.
[Edit]
I'm using Borland C++ Builder 5.02 btw.
The vector class assumes that you have done certain things in your class. If you want to put a bunch of your objects in a vector, you must have the following:
- a default constructor that takes no arguments
- a copy constructor ex: book(const &book b);
- an overloaded assignment operator
The error message you showed sounds like your missing the copy constructor.
You see, it's things like that which annoy me. :mad: They [the text] tell you how to do everything except the most important thing. Now how was I supposed to know that vectors for user defined objects required an overloaded assignment operator? I would never have thought of that. What's odd joshdick is that I already have a copy constructor in the class. Go figure.
Is it just me or does everyone build their classes with all these things checked off? I must be weird or something. Thanks for the enlightenment joshdick. You were most helpful.
[EDIT]
Prelude - sorry I wasn't clearer in the earlier post. I'm still recovering after my hiatus with C++ binary file handling (ask Codeplug). This learning experience is not working for me. :(
>Is it just me or does everyone build their classes with all these things checked off?
Yes, most people have their classes designed and debugged before ever writing a bit of code (or they should). Most problems in the implementation stem from lack of proper design.
-Prelude
No, what I meant was, do most people build their classes with the assignment operator overloaded and have a copy constructor? The reason I ask is because the text (and most other sources) do not mention that those things are required for defining a vector for a user defined class.
In other words, when building just about any class (regardless of its simplicity), do you always create copy constructors and overloaded assignment operators? Is it common practice like how you'd have private: and public: members?
I'm trying to get at the fact that these things were assumed in the text and other sources. Can u see my point? Someone new to C++ would never have known that if they didn't directly ask someone. That's what I'm getting at.
Joshdick, are those requirements compiler-specific? I have no problems creating vector of objects in MSVC++ that have NONE of those requirements you specified.
Of course, if you try to do things that require one of those, then you will get an error. For example:
Johnnyd, what exactly is the line that the error is on?Code:#include<vector>
using namespace std;
class myclass
{
public:
myclass(int X) : x(X) {};
void doSomething() { return;};
private:
int x;
};
int main()
{
vector<myclass> vec1; // compiles just fine
vector<myclass> vec2(5); // error! can't create the 5 objects since no default constructor
return 0;
}
I'm glad you posted PJYelton, because from your code:
would give me the compile error I mentioned earlier. Whereas, in your case, where MS VC++6 you said, it compiles fine. Again, I'm using Borland C++ 5.02.Code:vector<myclass> vec1;
So it is pretty clear to me then this problem is obviously compiler specific. I guess I cannot rely on just any source where this is concerned. I guess that's why most sources don't include the fact that you need an overloaded assignment operator and a copy constructor. Cuz I was wondering, who'd need to define those for every class if they're not going to be used that way?
>I guess that's why most sources don't include the fact that you need an overloaded assignment operator and a copy constructor.
You don't need either of these unless the default copying (member-wise copy) is insufficient, such as when you have pointer members.
>Again, I'm using Borland C++ 5.02.
You haven't given us the code that is giving you problems. Seeing as how you keep getting errors that we can't duplicate, it is difficult to tell what is going wrong. The problem as you have described is not a problem on any of my compilers, including Borland 5.5. So, post the code that is giving you problems and we can solve this more quickly than a thread full of educated guesses.
-Prelude
Here's what SAMS Teach Yourself C++ in 21 Days says about vectors.
And yes, I do go through every class I write to ensure that I have made a default constructor, a copy constructor, and have overloaded the assignment operator.Quote:
The default constructor ... is called to create a new element. This provides another argument in favor of explicitly defining a default constructor for your own classes. If you do not, you cannot use the standard vector container to hold a set of instances of your class.
For this function (push_back) to work, your class must define a copy constructor. Otherwise, this push_back() function will not be able to make a copy of your object.
DO define an overloaded assigment operator for a class if its instances are likely to be held in a vector.
Thanks all. Problem solved. ( You guys are good :D)
Thank you. Man, it really feels good to help people :-)