ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

Iterate through a C++ Vector using a 'for' loop

I am new to the C++ language. I have been starting to use vectors, and have noticed that in all of the code I see to iterate though a vector via indices, the first parameter of the for loop is always something based on the vector. In Java I might do something like this with an ArrayList:

for(int i=0; i < vector.size(); i++){
   vector[i].doSomething();
}

Is there a reason I don't see this in C++? Is it bad practice?

The for loop isn't a function, so it doesn't have parameters (or arguments, which is what you pass in). Do you mean something like std::vector<int>::size_type i = 0;, though, or perhaps std::vector<int>::iterator it = vector.begin();?
In Java, I would prefer a for-each loop or use iterators. Pretty much same as C++ although slightly different syntax.
Most of the answers here incorrectly assume the Q to be : What is the best/shortest way to iterate over std::vector?, the actual Q being asked here is: Is there any reason I don't see thisin C++? Is it bad practice? aka Why do I always see code in C++ which uses iterators while iterating over std::vector?
I think a better explanation is given in this question stackoverflow.com/questions/409348/iteration-over-vector-in-c

i
iammilind

The reason why you don't see such practice is quite subjective and cannot have a definite answer, because I have seen many of the code which uses your mentioned way rather than iterator style code.

Following can be reasons of people not considering vector.size() way of looping:

Being paranoid about calling size() every time in the loop condition. However either it's a non-issue or it can be trivially fixed Preferring std::for_each() over the for loop itself Later changing the container from std::vector to other one (e.g. map, list) will also demand the change of the looping mechanism, because not every container support size() style of looping

C++11 provides a good facility to move through the containers. That is called "range based for loop" (or "enhanced for loop" in Java).

With little code you can traverse through the full (mandatory!) std::vector:

vector<int> vi;
...
for(int i : vi) 
  cout << "i = " << i << endl;

Just to note a small disadvantage of range based for loop: you cannot use it with #pragma omp parallel for.
I like the compact version because there's less code to read. Once you make the mental adjustment it's much easier to understand and bugs stand out more. It also makes it much more obvious when there's a non-standard iteration happening because there's a much bigger chunk of code.
@liborm note that this is no longer true; OpenMP 5.0 supports range-based iteration. (source: stackoverflow.com/a/51390846/2378475)
The range based for loop syntax is nice and concise. However, debugging may call for the explicit knowledge of the index. For example: a file is written by the loop. It is found that line 125 corresponding to the 125th iteration produces incorrect values. How do you breakpoint the loop at the 125th iteration for debug? (You do not know the value of the loop variable at the failing iteration without changing the code and printing that explicitly as well.
C
Community

The cleanest way of iterating through a vector is via iterators:

for (auto it = begin (vector); it != end (vector); ++it) {
    it->doSomething ();
}

or (equivalent to the above)

for (auto & element : vector) {
    element.doSomething ();
}

Prior to C++0x, you have to replace auto by the iterator type and use member functions instead of global functions begin and end.

This probably is what you have seen. Compared to the approach you mention, the advantage is that you do not heavily depend on the type of vector. If you change vector to a different "collection-type" class, your code will probably still work. You can, however, do something similar in Java as well. There is not much difference conceptually; C++, however, uses templates to implement this (as compared to generics in Java); hence the approach will work for all types for which begin and end functions are defined, even for non-class types such as static arrays. See here: How does the range-based for work for plain arrays?


auto, free begin/end are also C++11. And too, you should use ++it, instead of it++ in many cases.
Yes, you're right. Implementing begin and end, however, is a one-liner.
@JohnB it is a more-than-one-liner, because it works for fixed size arrays too. auto on the other hand would be quite tricky.
If you need it for vector only it's a one-liner.
Still, the first example is misleading, since it cannot work in C++03, whereas your phrasing suggests that it does.
s
sifferman

Is there any reason I don't see this in C++? Is it bad practice?

No. It is not a bad practice, but the following approach renders your code certain flexibility.

Usually, pre-C++11 the code for iterating over container elements uses iterators, something like:

std::vector<int>::iterator it = vector.begin();

This is because it makes the code more flexible.

All standard library containers support and provide iterators. If at a later point of development you need to switch to another container, then this code does not need to be changed.

Note: Writing code which works with every possible standard library container is not as easy as it might seem to be.


Could anyone please explain me why in this particular case/code snippet you advise iterators over indexing? What is this "flexibility" you're talking about? Personally, I don't like iterators, they bloat the code - simply more characters to type for the same effect. Especially if you can't use auto.
@VioletGiraffe: While using iterators it is hard to go wrong with certain cases like empty ranges and the code is more verbose.Ofcourse its a matter or perception and choice, So it can be debated endlessly.
Why do you only show how to declare the iterator but not how to use it to do the loop...?
D
Dig

The right way to do that is:

for(std::vector<T>::iterator it = v.begin(); it != v.end(); ++it) {
    it->doSomething();
 }

Where T is the type of the class inside the vector. For example if the class was CActivity, just write CActivity instead of T.

This type of method will work on every STL (Not only vectors, which is a bit better).

If you still want to use indexes, the way is:

for(std::vector<T>::size_type i = 0; i != v.size(); i++) {
    v[i].doSomething();
}

isn't std::vector<T>::size_type always size_t? That's the type I always use for it.
@VioletGiraffe I'm pretty sure you are right (haven't really checked), but it's a better practice to use std::vector::size_type.
H
Hrishikesh

Using the auto operator really makes it easy to use as one does not have to worry about the data type and the size of the vector or any other data structure

Iterating vector using auto and for loop

vector<int> vec = {1,2,3,4,5}

for(auto itr : vec)
    cout << itr << " ";

Output:

1 2 3 4 5

You can also use this method to iterate sets and list. Using auto automatically detects the data type used in the template and lets you use it. So, even if we had a vector of string or char the same syntax will work just fine


M
Mario Petrovic

A correct way of iterating over the vector and printing its values is as follows:

#include<vector>

// declare the vector of type int
vector<int> v;

// insert elements in the vector
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 5; ++i){
    v.push_back(i);
}

// print those elements
for (auto it = v.begin(); it != v.end(); ++it){
    std::cout << *it << std::endl;
}

But at least in the present case it is nicer to use a range-based for loop:
for (auto x: v) std::cout << x << "\n";
(You may also add & after auto to make x a reference to the elements rather than a copy of them. It is then very similar to the above iterator-based approach, but easier to read and write.)


why use auto instead of int?
E
Eddie Parker

There's a couple of strong reasons to use iterators, some of which are mentioned here:

Switching containers later doesn't invalidate your code.

i.e., if you go from a std::vector to a std::list, or std::set, you can't use numerical indices to get at your contained value. Using an iterator is still valid.

Runtime catching of invalid iteration

If you modify your container in the middle of your loop, the next time you use your iterator it will throw an invalid iterator exception.


could you point to some we article/post that explains the above points with example code? would be great! or if you could add one :)
1. IIRC, using (actually, dereferencing) an invalid iterator is UB (ouch!). While some implementations MAY throw exceptions - IIRC, it is far from universal.
2. Certain modifications to certain containers in the middle of the loop are perfectly fine (for example, in list<>/map<>/etc.)
A
Akram Mohammed

Here is a simpler way to iterate and print values in vector.

for(int x: A) // for integer x in vector A
    cout<< x <<" "; 

P
Peter Mortensen

With STL, programmers use iterators for traversing through containers, since iterator is an abstract concept, implemented in all standard containers. For example, std::list has no operator [] at all.


D
Diomidis Spinellis

I was surprised nobody mentioned that iterating through an array with an integer index makes it easy for you to write faulty code by subscripting an array with the wrong index. For example, if you have nested loops using i and j as indices, you might incorrectly subscript an array with j rather than i and thus introduce a fault into the program.

In contrast, the other forms listed here, namely the range based for loop, and iterators, are a lot less error prone. The language's semantics and the compiler's type checking mechanism will prevent you from accidentally accessing an array using the wrong index.


b
bashar
 //different declaration type
    vector<int>v;  
    vector<int>v2(5,30); //size is 5 and fill up with 30
    vector<int>v3={10,20,30};
    
    //From C++11 and onwards
    for(auto itr:v2)
        cout<<"\n"<<itr;
     
     //(pre c++11)   
    for(auto itr=v3.begin(); itr !=v3.end(); itr++)
        cout<<"\n"<<*itr;

S
Shujaul Hind
int main()
{
    int n;
    int input;
    vector<int> p1;
    vector<int> ::iterator it;

    cout << "Enter the number of elements you want to insert" << endl;
    cin >> n;

    for (int i = 0;i < n;i++)
    {
        cin >> input;
        p1.push_back(input);
    }
    for(it=p1.begin();it!=p1.end();it++)
    {
        cout << *it << endl;
    }
      //Iterating in vector through iterator it

    return 0;
}

conventional form of iterator


J
John O'Donnell

don't forget examples with const correctness - can the loop modify the elements. Many examples here do not, and should use cont iterators. Here we assume

class T {
  public:
    T (double d) : _d { d } {}
    void doSomething () const { cout << _d << endl; return; }
    void changeSomething ()   { ++_d; return; }
  private:
    double _d;
};

vector<T> v;
// ...
for (const auto iter = v.cbegin(); iter != v.cend(); ++iter) {
    iter->doSomething();
}

Note also, that with the C++11 notation, the default is to copy the element. Use a reference to avoid this, and/or to allow for original elements to be modified:

vector<T> v;
// ...
for (auto t : v) {
    t.changeSomething(); // changes local t, but not element of v
    t.doSomething();
}
for (auto& t : v) {      // reference avoids copying element
    t.changeSomething(); // changes element of v
    t.doSomething();
}
for (const auto& t : v) { // reference avoids copying element
    t.doSomething();      // element can not be changed
}

r
rob

If you use

std::vector<std::reference_wrapper<std::string>> names{ };

Do not forget, when you use auto in the for loop, to use also get, like this:

for (auto element in : names)
{
    element.get()//do something
}

That is not valid syntax.