Why try_emplace is not implemented for std::multimap











up vote
6
down vote

favorite












c++17 introduces try_emplace method for std::map, so now I can write code like below



struct Test

{

    Test(int i, int j){}

};

std::map<int, Test> tmap;

tmap.try_emplace(10, 10, 10);


but there is no try_emplace for std::multimap, so piecewise_construct is still needed.



Is there a technical reason for this?






c++ c++17







share|improve this question




















  • 1




    std::multimap does not need try_emplace as it always inserts, so emplace is enough.
    – Slava
    5 hours ago










  • I see, but it's really handy if piecewise_construct can be get rid of for std::multimap
    – Lei Yu
    48 mins ago















up vote
6
down vote

favorite












c++17 introduces try_emplace method for std::map, so now I can write code like below



struct Test

{

    Test(int i, int j){}

};

std::map<int, Test> tmap;

tmap.try_emplace(10, 10, 10);


but there is no try_emplace for std::multimap, so piecewise_construct is still needed.



Is there a technical reason for this?






c++ c++17







share|improve this question




















  • 1




    std::multimap does not need try_emplace as it always inserts, so emplace is enough.
    – Slava
    5 hours ago










  • I see, but it's really handy if piecewise_construct can be get rid of for std::multimap
    – Lei Yu
    48 mins ago













up vote
6
down vote

favorite









up vote
6
down vote

favorite











c++17 introduces try_emplace method for std::map, so now I can write code like below



struct Test

{

    Test(int i, int j){}

};

std::map<int, Test> tmap;

tmap.try_emplace(10, 10, 10);


but there is no try_emplace for std::multimap, so piecewise_construct is still needed.



Is there a technical reason for this?






c++ c++17







share|improve this question















c++17 introduces try_emplace method for std::map, so now I can write code like below



struct Test

{

    Test(int i, int j){}

};

std::map<int, Test> tmap;

tmap.try_emplace(10, 10, 10);


but there is no try_emplace for std::multimap, so piecewise_construct is still needed.



Is there a technical reason for this?






c++ c++17




c++ c++17






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago









Shafik Yaghmour

125k23320527




125k23320527










asked 5 hours ago









Lei Yu

484




484








  • 1




    std::multimap does not need try_emplace as it always inserts, so emplace is enough.
    – Slava
    5 hours ago










  • I see, but it's really handy if piecewise_construct can be get rid of for std::multimap
    – Lei Yu
    48 mins ago














  • 1




    std::multimap does not need try_emplace as it always inserts, so emplace is enough.
    – Slava
    5 hours ago










  • I see, but it's really handy if piecewise_construct can be get rid of for std::multimap
    – Lei Yu
    48 mins ago








1




1




std::multimap does not need try_emplace as it always inserts, so emplace is enough.
– Slava
5 hours ago




std::multimap does not need try_emplace as it always inserts, so emplace is enough.
– Slava
5 hours ago












I see, but it's really handy if piecewise_construct can be get rid of for std::multimap
– Lei Yu
48 mins ago




I see, but it's really handy if piecewise_construct can be get rid of for std::multimap
– Lei Yu
48 mins ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote













As pointed out in the comments it is not necessary. The rational for adding it to map was all the error prone code needed to deal with the case that key already exits, see the proposal n4279 (emphasis mine):




The existing interface of unique-keyed map containers (std::map,
std::unordered_map) is slightly underspecified, which makes certain
container mutations more complicated to write and error-prone than
necessary. This paper describes new member function templates to
fill this gap.



The justification and rationale for the new interface are given in
N3873. The initial reaction to N3873 in Issaquah was that the existing
map interfaces should be fixed rather than adding new interfaces. We
explored this idea in N4006 in Rapperswil and decided that the
original proposal was preferable (with some name changes). This paper
only summarises the proposed extension without repeating the original
discussion. We only restate the motivating code snippet here for
motivation:



std::map<std::string, std::unique_ptr<Foo>> m;

m["foo"] = nullptr;



auto ptr = std::make_unique_ptr<Foo>;

auto res = m.emplace("foo", std::move(ptr));



assert(ptr);    // ??? (may or may not fire)






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    thanks for the explanation, but it's kind of against intuition that ptr would still be valid after std::move is called on it.
    – Lei Yu
    51 mins ago










  • @LeiYu I believe the answer here explains the issues with emplace and unique_ptr and why this is the case.
    – Shafik Yaghmour
    22 mins ago


















up vote
3
down vote














is there a technical reason for this?




Yes. The purpose of try_emplace() is to not do anything if the key already exists in the map. But for std::{unordered_,}multi{map,set}, you can have multiple values for each key. That is, indeed, the point of these containers: to have multiple values for a given key.



As a result, try_emplace() cannot fail for these containers - so it would be confusing and pointless to provide such a function.






share|improve this answer





















    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    });
    });
    }, "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53772218%2fwhy-try-emplace-is-not-implemented-for-stdmultimap%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    4
    down vote













    As pointed out in the comments it is not necessary. The rational for adding it to map was all the error prone code needed to deal with the case that key already exits, see the proposal n4279 (emphasis mine):




    The existing interface of unique-keyed map containers (std::map,
    std::unordered_map) is slightly underspecified, which makes certain
    container mutations more complicated to write and error-prone than
    necessary    . This paper describes new member function templates to
    fill this gap.



    The justification and rationale for the new interface are given in
    N3873. The initial reaction to N3873 in Issaquah was that the existing
    map interfaces should be fixed rather than adding new interfaces. We
    explored this idea in N4006 in Rapperswil and decided that the
    original proposal was preferable (with some name changes). This paper
    only summarises the proposed extension without repeating the original
    discussion. We only restate the motivating code snippet here for
    motivation:



    std::map<std::string, std::unique_ptr<Foo>> m;
    
m["foo"] = nullptr;
    

    
auto ptr = std::make_unique_ptr<Foo>;
    
auto res = m.emplace("foo", std::move(ptr));
    

    
assert(ptr);    // ??? (may or may not fire)






    share|improve this answer

















    • 1




      thanks for the explanation, but it's kind of against intuition that ptr would still be valid after std::move is called on it.
      – Lei Yu
      51 mins ago










    • @LeiYu I believe the answer here explains the issues with emplace and unique_ptr and why this is the case.
      – Shafik Yaghmour
      22 mins ago















    up vote
    4
    down vote













    As pointed out in the comments it is not necessary. The rational for adding it to map was all the error prone code needed to deal with the case that key already exits, see the proposal n4279 (emphasis mine):




    The existing interface of unique-keyed map containers (std::map,
    std::unordered_map) is slightly underspecified, which makes certain
    container mutations more complicated to write and error-prone than
    necessary    . This paper describes new member function templates to
    fill this gap.



    The justification and rationale for the new interface are given in
    N3873. The initial reaction to N3873 in Issaquah was that the existing
    map interfaces should be fixed rather than adding new interfaces. We
    explored this idea in N4006 in Rapperswil and decided that the
    original proposal was preferable (with some name changes). This paper
    only summarises the proposed extension without repeating the original
    discussion. We only restate the motivating code snippet here for
    motivation:



    std::map<std::string, std::unique_ptr<Foo>> m;
    
m["foo"] = nullptr;
    

    
auto ptr = std::make_unique_ptr<Foo>;
    
auto res = m.emplace("foo", std::move(ptr));
    

    
assert(ptr);    // ??? (may or may not fire)






    share|improve this answer

















    • 1




      thanks for the explanation, but it's kind of against intuition that ptr would still be valid after std::move is called on it.
      – Lei Yu
      51 mins ago










    • @LeiYu I believe the answer here explains the issues with emplace and unique_ptr and why this is the case.
      – Shafik Yaghmour
      22 mins ago













    up vote
    4
    down vote










    up vote
    4
    down vote









    As pointed out in the comments it is not necessary. The rational for adding it to map was all the error prone code needed to deal with the case that key already exits, see the proposal n4279 (emphasis mine):




    The existing interface of unique-keyed map containers (std::map,
    std::unordered_map) is slightly underspecified, which makes certain
    container mutations more complicated to write and error-prone than
    necessary    . This paper describes new member function templates to
    fill this gap.



    The justification and rationale for the new interface are given in
    N3873. The initial reaction to N3873 in Issaquah was that the existing
    map interfaces should be fixed rather than adding new interfaces. We
    explored this idea in N4006 in Rapperswil and decided that the
    original proposal was preferable (with some name changes). This paper
    only summarises the proposed extension without repeating the original
    discussion. We only restate the motivating code snippet here for
    motivation:



    std::map<std::string, std::unique_ptr<Foo>> m;
    
m["foo"] = nullptr;
    

    
auto ptr = std::make_unique_ptr<Foo>;
    
auto res = m.emplace("foo", std::move(ptr));
    

    
assert(ptr);    // ??? (may or may not fire)






    share|improve this answer












    As pointed out in the comments it is not necessary. The rational for adding it to map was all the error prone code needed to deal with the case that key already exits, see the proposal n4279 (emphasis mine):




    The existing interface of unique-keyed map containers (std::map,
    std::unordered_map) is slightly underspecified, which makes certain
    container mutations more complicated to write and error-prone than
    necessary    . This paper describes new member function templates to
    fill this gap.



    The justification and rationale for the new interface are given in
    N3873. The initial reaction to N3873 in Issaquah was that the existing
    map interfaces should be fixed rather than adding new interfaces. We
    explored this idea in N4006 in Rapperswil and decided that the
    original proposal was preferable (with some name changes). This paper
    only summarises the proposed extension without repeating the original
    discussion. We only restate the motivating code snippet here for
    motivation:



    std::map<std::string, std::unique_ptr<Foo>> m;
    
m["foo"] = nullptr;
    

    
auto ptr = std::make_unique_ptr<Foo>;
    
auto res = m.emplace("foo", std::move(ptr));
    

    
assert(ptr);    // ??? (may or may not fire)







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 5 hours ago









    Shafik Yaghmour

    125k23320527




    125k23320527








    • 1




      thanks for the explanation, but it's kind of against intuition that ptr would still be valid after std::move is called on it.
      – Lei Yu
      51 mins ago










    • @LeiYu I believe the answer here explains the issues with emplace and unique_ptr and why this is the case.
      – Shafik Yaghmour
      22 mins ago














    • 1




      thanks for the explanation, but it's kind of against intuition that ptr would still be valid after std::move is called on it.
      – Lei Yu
      51 mins ago










    • @LeiYu I believe the answer here explains the issues with emplace and unique_ptr and why this is the case.
      – Shafik Yaghmour
      22 mins ago








    1




    1




    thanks for the explanation, but it's kind of against intuition that ptr would still be valid after std::move is called on it.
    – Lei Yu
    51 mins ago




    thanks for the explanation, but it's kind of against intuition that ptr would still be valid after std::move is called on it.
    – Lei Yu
    51 mins ago












    @LeiYu I believe the answer here explains the issues with emplace and unique_ptr and why this is the case.
    – Shafik Yaghmour
    22 mins ago




    @LeiYu I believe the answer here explains the issues with emplace and unique_ptr and why this is the case.
    – Shafik Yaghmour
    22 mins ago












    up vote
    3
    down vote














    is there a technical reason for this?




    Yes. The purpose of try_emplace() is to not do anything if the key already exists in the map. But for std::{unordered_,}multi{map,set}, you can have multiple values for each key. That is, indeed, the point of these containers: to have multiple values for a given key.



    As a result, try_emplace() cannot fail for these containers - so it would be confusing and pointless to provide such a function.






    share|improve this answer

























      up vote
      3
      down vote














      is there a technical reason for this?




      Yes. The purpose of try_emplace() is to not do anything if the key already exists in the map. But for std::{unordered_,}multi{map,set}, you can have multiple values for each key. That is, indeed, the point of these containers: to have multiple values for a given key.



      As a result, try_emplace() cannot fail for these containers - so it would be confusing and pointless to provide such a function.






      share|improve this answer























        up vote
        3
        down vote










        up vote
        3
        down vote










        is there a technical reason for this?




        Yes. The purpose of try_emplace() is to not do anything if the key already exists in the map. But for std::{unordered_,}multi{map,set}, you can have multiple values for each key. That is, indeed, the point of these containers: to have multiple values for a given key.



        As a result, try_emplace() cannot fail for these containers - so it would be confusing and pointless to provide such a function.






        share|improve this answer













        is there a technical reason for this?




        Yes. The purpose of try_emplace() is to not do anything if the key already exists in the map. But for std::{unordered_,}multi{map,set}, you can have multiple values for each key. That is, indeed, the point of these containers: to have multiple values for a given key.



        As a result, try_emplace() cannot fail for these containers - so it would be confusing and pointless to provide such a function.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 5 hours ago









        Barry

        175k18299554




        175k18299554






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53772218%2fwhy-try-emplace-is-not-implemented-for-stdmultimap%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            數位音樂下載

            Image
            數位音樂下載 為非以「實體」方式來販賣音樂的相關產品，而使用數位格式如mp3、AAC等文件格式來進行銷售販賣的一种音乐产业形式。著名的數位音樂下載服務商有iTunes Store、RecoChoku、Google Play音乐和微软Zune等。数字音乐下载在二十一世纪初一度风靡全球， [1] [2] 使得传统唱片产业走向衰落，但其自身也在2010年代流媒体音乐服务如Apple Music、Spotify等的挤压下迅速失去市场份额。 [3] [4] 数字音乐下载有便于携带、传播迅速、制作简单成本低等优点，与流媒体音乐相比也能更好保障音乐人权益； [5] 但它同时很可能带来侵犯版权和滥用的情形， [6] 也给音乐产业带来了诸多不利影响。数字音乐下载为音乐人和乐迷提供了更加便捷直接的交流渠道，也一定程度上推动了网络音乐人的出现和独立音乐的迅速发展。 [7] 目录 1 历史 1.1 技术积淀（1987-2000） 1.2 出现与兴起（2000-2004） 1.3 唱片市场的颠覆者（2004-2007） 1.4 巅峰和衰落（2005-2013） 1.5 摇摇欲坠的现状与不可预知的明天（2014至今） 2 主要文件格式 2.1 PCM编码格式 2.1.1 WAV 2.1.2 APE 2.1.3 FLAC 2.2 苹果推出的无损文件格式 2.2.1 AIFF 2.2.2 ALAC 2.3 有损压缩格式 2.3.1 MP3 2.3.2 AAC 3 主要市场 3.1 iTunes Store 3.2 Google Play音乐商店 3.3 亚马逊音乐商店 3.4 部分其他音乐商店 4 影响与评价 4.1 对音乐产业的影响 4.2 对科技行业的影响 4.3 正面评价 4.4 负面评价 4.4.1 侵权问题 4.4.2 经营模式不明晰 4.4.3 不适应移动时代 4.5 文化现象 5 延伸阅读 6 参考资料 历史 苹果iTunes+iPod的软硬件搭配让数字音...
            Read more

            When can things happen in Etherscan, such as the picture below?

            Image
            2 I don't know why balance of the address is 0. when can this situation? etherscan balances share | improve this question asked yesterday Ru Hi Ru Hi 11 1 New contributor Ru Hi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct. add a comment  |  ...
            Read more

            格利澤436b

            Image
            格利泽436b 太陽系外行星 太陽系外行星列表 艺术家笔下的格利泽436b 母恆星 母恆星 Gliese 436 星座 獅子座 赤經 ( α ) 11 h  42 m  11.0941 s [1] 赤緯 ( δ ) +26° 42′ 23.652″ [1] 距離 33.4 ly (10.2 pc) 光譜類型 M2.5 V [1] 軌道參數 半长轴 ( a ) 0.0291±0.0004 [2] AU 軌道離心率 ( e ) 0.150±0.012 [2] 公轉週期 ( P ) 2.643904±0.000005 [3] d (0.00723849 y) 軌道傾角 ( i ) 85.8 +0.21 −0.25 [3] ° 角距 ( θ ) 2.794 mas 近星點時間 ( T 0 ) 2,451,551.716 ±0.01 JD 半振幅 ( K ) 18.68±0.8 m/s 物理性质 质量 ( m ) 22.2±1.0 [2] M ⊕ 半徑 ( r ) 4.327±0.183 [2] [4] R ⊕ 密度 ( ρ ) 1.51 g cm -3 表面重力 ( g ) 1.18 g 溫度 ( T ) 712±36 [2] K 發現 發現時間 2004 發現者 巴特勒、沃格特、 馬西 et al. 發現方法 徑向速度、凌日法 發現地點 美國加利福尼亞州 發表論文 出版 其他名稱 Ross 905 b, GJ 436 b, [5] LTT 13213 b, GCTP 2704.10 b, LHS 310, AC+27:28217 b, Vyssotsky 616 b, HIP 57087 b, GEN# +9.80120068 b, LP 319-75 b, G 121-7 b, LSPM J1142+2642 b, 1RXS J114211.9+264328 b, ASCC 683818 b, G 147-68 b, UCAC2 41198281 b, BP...
            Read more