vector representation

Code:

---

std :: vector <QString, QString, std :: vector <QString, std :: vector <QString>, QString> > configFileDataVector;

---

This results in:

Code:

---

error: wrong number of template arguments (3, should be 2)

/usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stl_vector.h:170: error: provided for ‘template<class _Tp, class _Alloc> class std::vector’

---

What I am missing here now, please point out, is it totally wrong to represent vectors this way?

Well, yes. Generally you only get to have one thing in your pointy brackets for a vector. You can make that type a compound type if you want, i.e., you can declare a class/struct that contains some strings, and then make a vector of those if that's what you need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tabstop

Well, yes. Generally you only get to have one thing in your pointy brackets for a vector.

---

Thanks for replying, but why did you mention Generally? Isn't it always?

Well, as the error message shows, you can provide a second template argument which is the memory allocator you wish to use (i.e., as a replacement to new). I've never used it, nor have I felt a need to, but it's there.

The question is: what are you trying to do here?

Code:

---

std :: vector
<
        QString,
        QString,
        std :: vector
        <
                QString,
                std :: vector <QString>,
                QString
        >
> configFileDataVector;

---

This isn't right.
A vector takes a type, and optionally, an allocator. You are passing it three types, of which the last two are not allocator types.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

A vector takes a type, and optionally, an allocator. You are passing it three types, of which the last two are not allocator types.

---

I am thankful to you for the enlightenment :hattip: Actually recently I had used map and pair (they take multiple arguments) so I was trying to use vector that way!

Thanks for the clarification tabstop.

Well, obviously it doesn't make sense for vector to take two or more types, since it only stores one type. A map maps one type to another, so it makes sense to have two types.
A vector is a dynamic array and an array is simply one type.

I was confused unnecessarily for no obvious reasons :redface: Thanks.

Well, can the structure I showed here be represented with a combination of vectors, maps and pairs in any way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnishaKaul

Well, can the structure I showed here be represented with a combination of vectors, maps and pairs in any way?

---

You're assuming that there is such a thing as "the structure [shown] here", which there isn't. None of us have any idea what, exactly, you're looking for. A vector of three-component objects? A map from the first object to the other two? A triple? Something else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tabstop

You're assuming that there is such a thing as "the structure [shown] here", which there isn't. None of us have any idea what, exactly, you're looking for. A vector of three-component objects? A map from the first object to the other two? A triple? Something else?

---

Thanks for bothering :)

One incomplete rough way of representing the structure shown in my first post is by using "structures":

Code:

---

struct x
{
        string name;
        int id;
};

struct y
{
        string name;
        int id;
        vector <x> xVector;
};

class z
{
      vector <y> yVector;
}

---

My question is: Can I avoid using structures somehow and put every thing in the class itself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnishaKaul

My question is: Can I avoid using structures somehow and put every thing in the class itself?

---

No, realistically, it is not.

"Avoiding structures" is, in itself, a ridiculous requirement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnishaKaul

Thanks for bothering :)

One incomplete rough way of representing the structure shown in my first post is by using "structures":

Code:

---

struct x
{
        string name;
        int id;
};

struct y
{
        string name;
        int id;
        vector <x> xVector;
};

class z
{
      vector <y> yVector;
}

---

My question is: Can I avoid using structures somehow and put every thing in the class itself?

---

Yeah, that's actually a pretty complete and finished way of representing what you want to have happen. (I would never have gotten there from what you posted in the original post, though.)