Literate Coding Vs. std::pair, solutions?

Question

As most programmers I admire and try to follow the principles of Literate programming, but in C++ I routinely find myself using std::pair, for a gazillion common tasks. But std::pair is, IMHO, a vile enemy of literate programming...

My point is when I come back to code I've written a day or two ago, and I see manipulations of a std::pair (typically as an iterator) I wonder to myself "what did iter->first and iter->second mean???".

I'm guessing others have the same doubts when looking at their std::pair code, so I was wondering, has anyone come up with some good solutions to recover literacy when using std::pair?

Answer 1

std::pair is a good way to make a "local" and essentially anonymous type with essentially anonymous columns; if you're using a certain pair over so large a lexical space that you need to name the type and columns, I'd use a plain struct instead.

Answer 2

How about this:

struct MyPair : public std::pair < int, std::string >
{
    const int& keyInt() { return first; }
    void keyInt( const int& keyInt ) { first = keyInt; }
    const std::string& valueString() { return second; }
    void valueString( const std::string& valueString ) { second = valueString; }
};

It's a bit verbose, however using this in your code might make things a little easier to read, eg:

std::vector < MyPair > listPairs;

std::vector < MyPair >::iterator iterPair( listPairs.begin() );
if ( iterPair->keyInt() == 123 )
    iterPair->valueString( "hello" );

Other than this, I can't see any silver bullet that's going to make things much clearer.

Answer 3

typedef std::pair<bool, int> IsPresent_Value;
typedef std::pair<double, int> Price_Quantity;

...you get the point.

Answer 4

You can create two pairs of getters (const and non) that will merely return a reference to first and second, but will be much more readable. For instance:

string& GetField(pair& p) { return p.first; }
int& GetValue(pair& p) { return p.second; }

Will let you get the field and value members from a given pair without having to remember which member holds what.

If you expect to use this a lot, you could also create a macro that will generate those getters for you, given the names and types: MAKE_PAIR_GETTERS(Field, string, Value, int) or so. Making the getters straightforward will probably allow the compiler to optimize them away, so they'll add no overhead at runtime; and using the macro will make it a snap to create those getters for whatever use you make of pairs.

Answer 5

Recently I've found myself using boost::tuple as a replacement for std::pair. You can define enumerators for each member and so it's obvious what each member is:

typedef boost::tuple<int, int> KeyValueTuple;
enum {
  KEY
  , VALUE
};

void foo (KeyValueTuple & p) {
    p.get<KEY> () = 0;
    p.get<VALUE> () = 0;
}

void bar (int key, int value)
{
  foo (boost:tie (key, value));
}

BTW, comments welcome on if there is a hidden cost to using this approach.

EDIT: Remove names from global scope.

Just a quick comment regarding global namespace. In general I would use:

struct KeyValueTraits
{
  typedef boost::tuple<int, int> Type;
  enum {
    KEY
    , VALUE
  };
};

void foo (KeyValueTuple::Type & p) {
    p.get<KeyValueTuple::KEY> () = 0;
    p.get<KeyValueTuple::VALUE> () = 0;
}

It does look to be the case that boost::fusion does tie the identity and value closer together.

Answer 6

You could use boost tuples, but they don't really alter the underlying issue: Do your really want to access each part of the pair/tuple with a small integral type, or do you want more 'literate' code. See this question I posted a while back.

However, boost::optional is a useful tool which I've found replaces quite a few of the cases where pairs/tuples are touted as ther answer.

Answer 7

As Alex mentioned, std::pair is very convenient but when it gets confusing create a structure and use it in the same way, have a look at std::pair code, it's not that complex.

Answer 8

I don't like std::pair as used in std::map either, map entries should have had members key and value.
I even used boost::MIC to avoid this. However, boost::MIC also comes with a cost.

Also, returning a std::pair results in less than readable code:

if (cntnr.insert(newEntry).second) { ... }

???

I also found that std::pair is commonly used by the lazy programmers who needed 2 values but didn't think why these values where needed together.