destucting objects - correct way

I'd like to confirm should I do what I'm doing and is correct/advised.

I've vector of objects:

Code:

---

std::vector<Microbiome*> diversity;

      Microbiome* temp_object=new Microbiome(domain,phyla,clas,order,family,genus,species); //create object

diversity.push_back(temp_object);

---

I could have used emplace and avoided usage of new.
I've a function to delete Microbiome objects for this vector. I've destructor seating back in Microbiome class.

Code:

---


void Excel::delete_microb_obj(const std::vector<Microbiome*>& temp_diversity ){

  std::string poison_string="-Z"; //poison string
  for(std::vector<Microbiome *>::const_iterator it = temp_diversity.begin(); it!=temp_diversity.end() ; ++it){

    (*it)->set_domain(poison_string);
    (*it)->set_phyla(poison_string);
    (*it)->set_clas(poison_string);
    (*it)->set_order(poison_string);
    (*it)->set_species(poison_string);
    (*it)->set_genus(poison_string);
    delete *it;
  }
}

---

Is this correct to poison object attributes and delete?

My first question is why are you using a pointer in the vector in the first place. Why not just use a "normal" non-pointer instance?

Code:

---

std::vector<Microbiome> diversity;

---

My second question is why are you const qualifying that parameter in the second snippet?

Jim

Quote:

---

I could have used emplace and avoided usage of new.

---

You clearly don't understand emplace then, or new, if you're thinking this.

The emplace or emplace_back member function is an in-place construction of an object in the container's memory. Normally, when you use push_back, you allocate a temporary object and then copy it back to the container. This is why emplace_back is faster, it does a direct construction of the object at a location in memory.

You using new() is you requesting that the kernel give you a region of memory from the heap equal to the size of the allocation requested. If the memory request it successful, the object is then constructed with the parameters you passed.

Again, why are you trying to create a vector of pointers to an object instead of a vector of objects?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimblumberg

My first question is why are you using a pointer in the vector in the first place. Why not just use a "normal" non-pointer instance?

[/code]std::vector<Microbiome> diversity;[/code]

My second question is why are you const qualifying that parameter in the second snippet?

Jim

---

Hi Jim,
Thank you for your reply.

1- I played around with it, no specific reason.
Like I said, I could have used emplace with constructors. Also, I want to check if Microbiome object is already present with a specific diversity.

2- I do not want the ownership of vector object.

I need more guidance with these usages, I'm doing some random stuff. Kindly bear with me.

Thanks.

Quote:

---

I need more guidance with these usages

---

My suggestion is to stay away from pointers whenever possible and when you do require pointers prefer one of the "smart" pointers. One of the reasons for using a vector is to avoid messy dynamic memory allocations.

Quote:

---

Also, I want to check if Microbiome object is already present with a specific diversity.

---

What does this have to do with using nasty dynamic memory allocation. You'll still need to iterate through the vector to determine if there is a duplicate.

Quote:

---

Like I said, I could have used emplace with constructors.

---

This still doesn't explain why you want to use a pointer in your vector. You can use emplace_back() without the pointer.

Jim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MutantJohn

The emplace or emplace_back member function is an in-place construction of an object in the container's memory. Normally, when you use push_back, you allocate a temporary object and then copy it back to the container. This is why emplace_back is faster, it does a direct construction of the object at a location in memory.

---

Correction: Move it into the container. If the object cannot be moved, then it falls back to copying the object.

Oh really? Interesting. Man, I'm a little out of touch with my C++ container internals. In that case, emplace_back() just seems a little silly now. What would make an object non-movable?

emplace_back() is even more efficient. You don't have to construct a temporary and move it. You just construct it directly in the container's memory.
As for what would make an object non-movable is if the move constructor/operator are deleted, inaccessible or cannot be compiler generated. As an example of an object that's non-movable, look no further than our local C++ I/O streams.

There should be a flowchart for this...

To decide which option to use for storing items in a vector:
Are the object lifetimes greater than the vector itself and the objects lifetimes are entirely managed by something else? Yes => use vector of raw pointers (rare in practice)
Do the objects in the vector need shared ownership with other code? Yes => use vector of shared_ptrs
Does the object in the vector need to be used polymorphically? Yes => Use vector of unique_ptrs.
Are the objects very expensive to copy-construct, or assign? Yes => Possibly use vector of unique_ptrs. (Even then, the copying slowness has to outweigh the loss of cache coherence)
All answers No => Use objects directly in the vector. (most common)

Oh, missed one other case above...
Does the class prevent copy-construction & assignment, and move variants of these? Yes => Use vector of unique_ptrs.