I want to clean up the initialization of std::map
has been closed and Continued questions has been deleted, so I will preserve them.
It's up to you to think that a pretty code is subjective, but this question is technical enough and there is no other correct way to express it.
I don't mean to argue, but I'm not looking for an answer with only one correct answer, and I've saved it because I feel it's inappropriate to deal with the lack of further questions.
As stated in /help/dont-ask in the Help Center, Stack Overflow explicitly prohibits questions that invite feedback.The practice is to narrow down the scope of questions that this site will address and make it easier for the entire community to operate.
Closed Questions clearly asked for feedback on the source code in the questionnaire, so we had no choice but to close it.The first question still had an objective indicator that std::map initialization should be done beautifully using constructors and initialization lists, so I personally don't think this question is enough to close.
If you look at the entire Stack Exchange, please consider posting here because there is a separate site called Code Review Stack Exchange for questions like this one, although it is in English.
Additionally, there are a few additional things to add:
Mr. Dameo has indicated several times that he has no intention of discussing it, and I personally would like to respect that, but unfortunately, it is difficult to deal with this series of questions on this site unless you improve or close the post.
*This answer is to re-burn the comment that was attached to the closed question
I've seen some better code questions before, and I've posted them before.
So I personally understand why you want to ask these questions, and if you could make the expression "" a little more technical (from the question that started, would it be "simplified without increasing dependency" or "do not use global variables as much as possible?"
"Personally speaking, I think the question that started with the work was too big, so I could only express it as """" a little more beautifully."
I thought it would be easier to answer questions if I subdivided the parts I didn't like/want to improve without looking for a clean code at once.
I'll take your comment and add it.
Ultimately, I think the following is a summary of why the question that originated was considered a problem.
Avoid questions that may be subjective, cause a fire, or require lengthy discussions.This is a place for clear answers!
Quoted from Help Center (emphasis is mine)
I don't think that the question that originated was strongly subjective, but unfortunately it was controversial because it is certain that the answer would change depending on the individual's subjectivity.
For example, you can agree that "beautiful code" and "great code" are very subjective.
"On the other hand, ""pretty code"" is a little more specific, and I think people with certain program experience can share a fluffy image."
However, some people may feel that this fluffy image is as subjective as the beautiful code.
There are two conflicting and different opinions, which can lead to lengthy discussions.
Also, stackoverflow.com is a website that collects questions and answers that people who see questions later can refer to by looking at Q&A.
From this point of view,
Comments and answers that require specificity through the expressions in the question should not be confusing to everyone who views the question later.
There were more comments during the postscript.
I am posting a response to std::map initialization that exists in stackoverflow META (continued).
So
It's up to you to think that a pretty code is subjective, but this question is technical enough and there is no other correct way to express it.
I don't mean to argue, but I'm not looking for an answer with only one correct answer, and I've saved it because I feel it's inappropriate to deal with the lack of further questions.
The answer is my thoughts on .
I will post a new answer (before it disappears) to the questions that I asked myself to meet the requirements of this time.
I turned off the time measurement function for static initialization this time.
This is another example.
#include<iostream>
# include <map>
# include <sstream>
# include <iomanip>
# include "magic_enum.hpp" // https://github.com/Neargye/magic_enum/releases/download/v0.8.1/magic_enum.hpp
using namespace std;
enum TCPSTATUS {
UNKNOWN, ESTABLISHED, SYN_SENT, SYN_RECV, FIN_WAIT1, FIN_WAIT2, TIME_WAIT, CLOSE, CLOSE_WAIT, LAST_ACK, LISTEN, CLOSING,
};
structureKeyGenerator {
using input_type = TCPSTATUS;
using value_type=string;
static value_type generate(input_type i){
US>stringstream s;
ss<hex<<uppercase<<setw(2)<setfill('0')<magic_enum::enum_integer(i);
returns.str();
}
};
template<typename OriginalIterator, typename Generator>
structure pair_generator_iterator{
// using original_value_type = typename OriginalIterator::value_type; // for class/structure/union
using original_value_type=typename remove_pointer<OriginalIterator>::type;//forpointer
using key_type = typename Generator::value_type;
usingiterator_category = input_iterator_tag;
using difference_type=int;
using value_type=pair<key_type,original_value_type>;
using pointer = value_type*;
using reference=value_type&;
pair_generator_iterator(OriginalIterator):_iter {iter} {}
value_type operator*()const{
original_value_type v=*_iter;
return make_pair(KeyGenerator::generate(v),v);
}
pair_generator_iterator&operator++(){_iter++;return*this;}
friend bool operator==(const pair_generator_iterator&a, const pair_generator_iterator&b) {return a._iter==b._iter;}
friend bool operator!=(const pair_generator_iterator&a, const pair_generator_iterator&b) {return!(a==b);}
private:
OriginalIterator_iter;
};
map<string, TCPSTATUS>table {
pair_generator_iterator<decltype(magic_enum::enum_values<TCPSTATUS>().begin(), KeyGenerator>(magic_enum::enum_values<TCPSTATUS>().begin(),
pair_generator_iterator<decltype(magic_enum::enum_values<TCPSTATUS>().end(), KeyGenerator>(magic_enum::enum_values<TCPSTATUS>().end())
};
int main(intargc, char*argv[]){
for (const auto&p:table) {
cout<<p.first<"->"<magic_enum::enum_name(p.second)<endl;
}
return 0;
}
© 2024 OneMinuteCode. All rights reserved.