Can a vector hold multiple objects of a different type?

If a vector can hold multiple objects of a different type, then how can one distinguish between them?

If it can't, then what is recommended to allow the placement of different object types into a single structure that may be referenced at any time and the object's type can be inferred and understood?

I am not referring to a union although I know it will do the job but not in a way I desire.

AFAIK C++ does not have any truly heterogeneous data structures.

but you can have a vector of base class pointers, and put derived class pointers in it.

boost::any might be a possibility if you need more than that.

O_o

You can use a combination of `boost::any', as an abstract function, and function templates to do pretty much everything you might wish to do with a heterogeneous container.

What are you trying to do? (Note: This is a very different beast from "How are you trying to do it?".)

Soma

Directly or indirectly, you can put anything you like inside a vector. The only hard part is figuring out how you are going to represent the variant type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phantomotap

O_o

What are you trying to do? (Note: This is a very different beast from "How are you trying to do it?".)

Soma

---

As I wrote, I would like to place objects of different class types into a single vector. The vector will be of the type of the base class and, as was noted above, the derived classes would place a pointer to a derived class object inside the vector thus enabling the vector to take different types.

Then you'll not need to do "any" vodoo!
Make good use of virtual functions to do away with any type inference required.
Also, the items must be pointers or references, otherwise they'll be spliced . [EDIT: sliced, not spliced !]

This is what OOP is almost all about, so make sure you understand it thoroughly.
Also google "Liskov Substitution Principle".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manasij7479

otherwise they'll be spliced.

---

maybe you just mistyped it, but it's important to note that the term we usually use is "sliced." as in the data implemented by the derived class(es) get "sliced" off, leaving only the base. in this situation, the derived object is not recoverable.

spliced implies exactly the opposite concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elkvis

maybe you just mistyped it, but it's important to note that the term we usually use is "sliced." as in the data implemented by the derived class(es) get "sliced" off, leaving only the base. in this situation, the derived object is not recoverable.

spliced implies exactly the opposite concept.

---

Thought they were the same !(I had an idea that splice came from splinter .) :confused:
Thanks for making my vocabulary less ambigious.

Actually comes from Middle Dutch, from a verb meaning "to split" apparently. Odd. Splice - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manasij7479

Then you'll not need to do "any" vodoo!
Make good use of virtual functions to do away with any type inference required.
Also, the items must be pointers or references, otherwise they'll be spliced . [EDIT: sliced, not spliced !]

This is what OOP is almost all about, so make sure you understand it thoroughly.
Also google "Liskov Substitution Principle".

---

You obviously can't store references in a vector...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manasij7479

Thought they were the same !(I had an idea that splice came from splinter .) :confused:
Thanks for making my vocabulary less ambigious.

---

based on whiteflags's post, it appears that splinter and splice could be related, since they both came from middle dutch - Splinter