Design problem: std::map, custom key, inheritance

I would like to derive classes from an ABC, the main difference between the children would be the key (a nested class in the ABC) to access data stored into a std::map member. Here is some test-code with comments showing the problems I encounter.

Code:

---

#include <map>
class Base
{
    public:
    class Key
    {
        public:
        /* virtual bool operator<(const Key&) const = 0; NOT POSSIBLE */
    };
   
    std::map<Key, double> map;
   
    /* virtual double lookup(Key&) = 0; REMAINS PURE VIRTUAL */
};

/* THIS ONE IS CALLED */
#include <cassert>
inline bool operator<(const Base::Key& lhs, const Base::Key& rhs)
{ assert(false); return true; }

class A: public Base
{
    public:
    class Key: public Base::Key
    {
    public:
        Key(int i = 0): i_(i) {}

        bool operator<(const Key& rhs) const
        { return i_ < rhs.i_; }

    private:
        int i_;

        friend bool operator<(const A::Key&, const A::Key&);
    };

    double lookup(Key& key)
    { return map[key]; }
};

/* NEVER CALLED */
inline bool operator<(const A::Key& lhs, const A::Key& rhs)
{ return lhs.i_ < rhs.i_; }

int main()
{
    A a;
    A::Key k1(1);
    A::Key k2(2);

    a.map[k1] = 0.1;
    a.map[k2] = 0.2;

    return 0;
};

---

I hope the code makes it clear. I would also have methods summing all the elements of a map and that kind of things. I did not include them in the code to simplify.

I understand that one problem comes from std::map<Key, double> where Key is not a pointer, that is probably why the operator< for the base is called, but it would be less than practical to have a std::map<Key*, double, cmp_pointees<Key> > type. I also tried this approach without much success anyway. Is there a practical solution?

Using a pointer to Key is the only solution, but you can use a smart pointer to get rid of the memory management necessary.

I think it couldn't possibly work like this: if the map has Base::Key as key_type, you simply cannot put A::Key into it without slicing - the variable i_ is lost.

If the map stored Base::Key* you might be able to make it work polymorphically. However, it seems that it would require a double dispatch mechanism. The map could contain A::Key's, B::Key's etc and all these would have to be comparable among themselves...

Perhaps you could move the map into A and use A::Key as the key_type.

I'm pretty sure you could make the Base class a template and the Key could be a template parameter. Does the Key class actually need to be defined inside the Base class?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anon

Perhaps you could move the map into A and use A::Key as the key_type.

---

Thank you all for your input. I would actually need to define 3 keys for my program, so for now, I just do not use inheritance at all and define all 3 keys independently. It would improve clarity to say "these things are the same things" with inheritance, though. I found on the internet that a virtual operator< can be made using a double dispatch mechanism, as pointed out. But this above my C++ skills for now I think. I should check on the template-based solution, too.