Initialize static std::map with non copyable value in a uniformed inline initialization












8














I'd like to initialize a static std::map where the value is not copyable. I'll call my class ValueClass. ValueClass has an std::unique_ptr as private member and I even ensure that ValueClass is not copyable by extending non_copyable that looks like the following:



class non_copyable {
public:
non_copyable() = default;
protected:
virtual ~non_copyable() = default;
private:
non_copyable(const non_copyable&) = delete;
non_copyable& operator=(const non_copyable&) = delete;
};


Now I'm trying to define a std::map using my class as value:



static std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes = {
{0, ValueClass()},
{1, ValueClass() }
};


I get compilation error as initializer_list tries to copy this class.



I've tried to write my own make_map function whole this weekend during many hours to enable initialization without copying but I've failed. I've tried this, that and other but none of them compile with Visual Studio 15.9.4.



How can I initialize static std::map where copy is not forced, and the initialization is uniformed in one function, using Visual Studio compiler?



EDIT:
Here is the simplified version of the real life scenario where I'm trying to get this working (forgive me for lack of naming convention and inconsistency for cases):



#include <iostream>
#include <map>

class non_copyable {
public:
non_copyable() = default;
protected:
virtual ~non_copyable() = default;
private:
non_copyable(const non_copyable&) = delete;
non_copyable& operator=(const non_copyable&) = delete;
};

class InnerValueClass : public non_copyable
{
public:
InnerValueClass(const int inner_number) : inner_number_(inner_number) { }
private:
int inner_number_;
};

class ValueClass : public non_copyable
{
public:
ValueClass(const int number1) : number1_(number1) { }
ValueClass(const bool condition) : condition_(condition), inner_value_(
std::make_unique<InnerValueClass>(5)) { }
private:
int number1_{};
bool condition_{};
std::unique_ptr<InnerValueClass> inner_value_{};
};

/* Inline initialization of std::map copies, this is for initialization of non-copy types*/
template <typename TKey, typename TNonCopyableValue>
class make_map_by_moving
{
typedef std::map<TKey, TNonCopyableValue> map_type;
map_type map_;
public:
make_map_by_moving(const TKey& key, TNonCopyableValue&& val)
{
map_.emplace(key, std::move(val));
}
make_map_by_moving<TKey, TNonCopyableValue>& operator()(const TKey& key, TNonCopyableValue&& val)
{
map_.emplace(key, std::move(val));
return *this;
}
operator const map_type&()
{
return map_;
}
};

static std::map<int, ValueClass> map =
make_map_by_moving<int, ValueClass>
(1, ValueClass(5))
(2, ValueClass(true));
/* It goes on like this for hundreds of lines, so I really appreciate any
solution that leave me with a clean initialization rather than calling
functions on std::map */

int main() { }


Duplicate edit: The solution provided in that question does not work the class structure I have. I'm also looking for a solution to fix make_map_by_moving function in other words an inline initialization, the answer provided there is an imperative solution with function calls.










share|improve this question
























  • Is this map meant to be editable at runtime after the first initialization? I do recall a proposal (or implementation even) for a global const structure that offers natural initialization and map-like performance
    – M.M
    Dec 16 at 23:09










  • I found this link: blog.knatten.org/2018/10/05/… that may give you some insight!
    – Francis Cugler
    Dec 16 at 23:12
















8














I'd like to initialize a static std::map where the value is not copyable. I'll call my class ValueClass. ValueClass has an std::unique_ptr as private member and I even ensure that ValueClass is not copyable by extending non_copyable that looks like the following:



class non_copyable {
public:
non_copyable() = default;
protected:
virtual ~non_copyable() = default;
private:
non_copyable(const non_copyable&) = delete;
non_copyable& operator=(const non_copyable&) = delete;
};


Now I'm trying to define a std::map using my class as value:



static std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes = {
{0, ValueClass()},
{1, ValueClass() }
};


I get compilation error as initializer_list tries to copy this class.



I've tried to write my own make_map function whole this weekend during many hours to enable initialization without copying but I've failed. I've tried this, that and other but none of them compile with Visual Studio 15.9.4.



How can I initialize static std::map where copy is not forced, and the initialization is uniformed in one function, using Visual Studio compiler?



EDIT:
Here is the simplified version of the real life scenario where I'm trying to get this working (forgive me for lack of naming convention and inconsistency for cases):



#include <iostream>
#include <map>

class non_copyable {
public:
non_copyable() = default;
protected:
virtual ~non_copyable() = default;
private:
non_copyable(const non_copyable&) = delete;
non_copyable& operator=(const non_copyable&) = delete;
};

class InnerValueClass : public non_copyable
{
public:
InnerValueClass(const int inner_number) : inner_number_(inner_number) { }
private:
int inner_number_;
};

class ValueClass : public non_copyable
{
public:
ValueClass(const int number1) : number1_(number1) { }
ValueClass(const bool condition) : condition_(condition), inner_value_(
std::make_unique<InnerValueClass>(5)) { }
private:
int number1_{};
bool condition_{};
std::unique_ptr<InnerValueClass> inner_value_{};
};

/* Inline initialization of std::map copies, this is for initialization of non-copy types*/
template <typename TKey, typename TNonCopyableValue>
class make_map_by_moving
{
typedef std::map<TKey, TNonCopyableValue> map_type;
map_type map_;
public:
make_map_by_moving(const TKey& key, TNonCopyableValue&& val)
{
map_.emplace(key, std::move(val));
}
make_map_by_moving<TKey, TNonCopyableValue>& operator()(const TKey& key, TNonCopyableValue&& val)
{
map_.emplace(key, std::move(val));
return *this;
}
operator const map_type&()
{
return map_;
}
};

static std::map<int, ValueClass> map =
make_map_by_moving<int, ValueClass>
(1, ValueClass(5))
(2, ValueClass(true));
/* It goes on like this for hundreds of lines, so I really appreciate any
solution that leave me with a clean initialization rather than calling
functions on std::map */

int main() { }


Duplicate edit: The solution provided in that question does not work the class structure I have. I'm also looking for a solution to fix make_map_by_moving function in other words an inline initialization, the answer provided there is an imperative solution with function calls.










share|improve this question
























  • Is this map meant to be editable at runtime after the first initialization? I do recall a proposal (or implementation even) for a global const structure that offers natural initialization and map-like performance
    – M.M
    Dec 16 at 23:09










  • I found this link: blog.knatten.org/2018/10/05/… that may give you some insight!
    – Francis Cugler
    Dec 16 at 23:12














8












8








8


2





I'd like to initialize a static std::map where the value is not copyable. I'll call my class ValueClass. ValueClass has an std::unique_ptr as private member and I even ensure that ValueClass is not copyable by extending non_copyable that looks like the following:



class non_copyable {
public:
non_copyable() = default;
protected:
virtual ~non_copyable() = default;
private:
non_copyable(const non_copyable&) = delete;
non_copyable& operator=(const non_copyable&) = delete;
};


Now I'm trying to define a std::map using my class as value:



static std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes = {
{0, ValueClass()},
{1, ValueClass() }
};


I get compilation error as initializer_list tries to copy this class.



I've tried to write my own make_map function whole this weekend during many hours to enable initialization without copying but I've failed. I've tried this, that and other but none of them compile with Visual Studio 15.9.4.



How can I initialize static std::map where copy is not forced, and the initialization is uniformed in one function, using Visual Studio compiler?



EDIT:
Here is the simplified version of the real life scenario where I'm trying to get this working (forgive me for lack of naming convention and inconsistency for cases):



#include <iostream>
#include <map>

class non_copyable {
public:
non_copyable() = default;
protected:
virtual ~non_copyable() = default;
private:
non_copyable(const non_copyable&) = delete;
non_copyable& operator=(const non_copyable&) = delete;
};

class InnerValueClass : public non_copyable
{
public:
InnerValueClass(const int inner_number) : inner_number_(inner_number) { }
private:
int inner_number_;
};

class ValueClass : public non_copyable
{
public:
ValueClass(const int number1) : number1_(number1) { }
ValueClass(const bool condition) : condition_(condition), inner_value_(
std::make_unique<InnerValueClass>(5)) { }
private:
int number1_{};
bool condition_{};
std::unique_ptr<InnerValueClass> inner_value_{};
};

/* Inline initialization of std::map copies, this is for initialization of non-copy types*/
template <typename TKey, typename TNonCopyableValue>
class make_map_by_moving
{
typedef std::map<TKey, TNonCopyableValue> map_type;
map_type map_;
public:
make_map_by_moving(const TKey& key, TNonCopyableValue&& val)
{
map_.emplace(key, std::move(val));
}
make_map_by_moving<TKey, TNonCopyableValue>& operator()(const TKey& key, TNonCopyableValue&& val)
{
map_.emplace(key, std::move(val));
return *this;
}
operator const map_type&()
{
return map_;
}
};

static std::map<int, ValueClass> map =
make_map_by_moving<int, ValueClass>
(1, ValueClass(5))
(2, ValueClass(true));
/* It goes on like this for hundreds of lines, so I really appreciate any
solution that leave me with a clean initialization rather than calling
functions on std::map */

int main() { }


Duplicate edit: The solution provided in that question does not work the class structure I have. I'm also looking for a solution to fix make_map_by_moving function in other words an inline initialization, the answer provided there is an imperative solution with function calls.










share|improve this question















I'd like to initialize a static std::map where the value is not copyable. I'll call my class ValueClass. ValueClass has an std::unique_ptr as private member and I even ensure that ValueClass is not copyable by extending non_copyable that looks like the following:



class non_copyable {
public:
non_copyable() = default;
protected:
virtual ~non_copyable() = default;
private:
non_copyable(const non_copyable&) = delete;
non_copyable& operator=(const non_copyable&) = delete;
};


Now I'm trying to define a std::map using my class as value:



static std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes = {
{0, ValueClass()},
{1, ValueClass() }
};


I get compilation error as initializer_list tries to copy this class.



I've tried to write my own make_map function whole this weekend during many hours to enable initialization without copying but I've failed. I've tried this, that and other but none of them compile with Visual Studio 15.9.4.



How can I initialize static std::map where copy is not forced, and the initialization is uniformed in one function, using Visual Studio compiler?



EDIT:
Here is the simplified version of the real life scenario where I'm trying to get this working (forgive me for lack of naming convention and inconsistency for cases):



#include <iostream>
#include <map>

class non_copyable {
public:
non_copyable() = default;
protected:
virtual ~non_copyable() = default;
private:
non_copyable(const non_copyable&) = delete;
non_copyable& operator=(const non_copyable&) = delete;
};

class InnerValueClass : public non_copyable
{
public:
InnerValueClass(const int inner_number) : inner_number_(inner_number) { }
private:
int inner_number_;
};

class ValueClass : public non_copyable
{
public:
ValueClass(const int number1) : number1_(number1) { }
ValueClass(const bool condition) : condition_(condition), inner_value_(
std::make_unique<InnerValueClass>(5)) { }
private:
int number1_{};
bool condition_{};
std::unique_ptr<InnerValueClass> inner_value_{};
};

/* Inline initialization of std::map copies, this is for initialization of non-copy types*/
template <typename TKey, typename TNonCopyableValue>
class make_map_by_moving
{
typedef std::map<TKey, TNonCopyableValue> map_type;
map_type map_;
public:
make_map_by_moving(const TKey& key, TNonCopyableValue&& val)
{
map_.emplace(key, std::move(val));
}
make_map_by_moving<TKey, TNonCopyableValue>& operator()(const TKey& key, TNonCopyableValue&& val)
{
map_.emplace(key, std::move(val));
return *this;
}
operator const map_type&()
{
return map_;
}
};

static std::map<int, ValueClass> map =
make_map_by_moving<int, ValueClass>
(1, ValueClass(5))
(2, ValueClass(true));
/* It goes on like this for hundreds of lines, so I really appreciate any
solution that leave me with a clean initialization rather than calling
functions on std::map */

int main() { }


Duplicate edit: The solution provided in that question does not work the class structure I have. I'm also looking for a solution to fix make_map_by_moving function in other words an inline initialization, the answer provided there is an imperative solution with function calls.







c++ c++17 static-initialization noncopyable






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 13 hours ago

























asked Dec 16 at 21:35









U. Bulle

180111




180111












  • Is this map meant to be editable at runtime after the first initialization? I do recall a proposal (or implementation even) for a global const structure that offers natural initialization and map-like performance
    – M.M
    Dec 16 at 23:09










  • I found this link: blog.knatten.org/2018/10/05/… that may give you some insight!
    – Francis Cugler
    Dec 16 at 23:12


















  • Is this map meant to be editable at runtime after the first initialization? I do recall a proposal (or implementation even) for a global const structure that offers natural initialization and map-like performance
    – M.M
    Dec 16 at 23:09










  • I found this link: blog.knatten.org/2018/10/05/… that may give you some insight!
    – Francis Cugler
    Dec 16 at 23:12
















Is this map meant to be editable at runtime after the first initialization? I do recall a proposal (or implementation even) for a global const structure that offers natural initialization and map-like performance
– M.M
Dec 16 at 23:09




Is this map meant to be editable at runtime after the first initialization? I do recall a proposal (or implementation even) for a global const structure that offers natural initialization and map-like performance
– M.M
Dec 16 at 23:09












I found this link: blog.knatten.org/2018/10/05/… that may give you some insight!
– Francis Cugler
Dec 16 at 23:12




I found this link: blog.knatten.org/2018/10/05/… that may give you some insight!
– Francis Cugler
Dec 16 at 23:12












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















6














You cannot do this directly, because initializer_list has const backing for all of its elements - and they have to be copied from the initializer list into the container. That, obviously, requires copying. There's no way to emplace from an initializer list unfortunately.



In C++17, thanks to guaranteed copy elision, you can do this:



std::map<int, non_copyable> get() {
std::map<int, non_copyable> m;
m.emplace(std::piecewise_construct, std::tuple(0), std::tuple());
m.emplace(std::piecewise_construct, std::tuple(1), std::tuple());
return m;
}

std::map<int, non_copyable> value_classes = get();


This code performs no copies on non_copyable. We emplace construct inside of the map, and then beacuse get() is a prvalue, there is no copy/move from get() into value_classes. The m within get() is the object value_classes.



A slightly sneaker approach would be to abuse try_emplace() for this:



std::map<int, non_copyable> get() {
std::map<int, non_copyable> m;
m.try_emplace(0);
m.try_emplace(1);
return m;
}


try_emplace() takes the key type by itself (so you can just pass an int) and then the arguments for the value for emplacing separately, which makes for a much less verbose way of accomplishing this.






share|improve this answer





















  • Another way is to simply call m[0]; m[1];. It will emplace default-constructed objects. See en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/map/operator_at.
    – tmlen
    Dec 16 at 22:11












  • Why try_emplace instead of simple old emplace?
    – R2RT
    Dec 16 at 22:11










  • Thank you for the answer! I realized that I was not clear in the question, I'm sorry for that. I don't want to leave the values to be defined later on, I'd like to define the values as well. I've updated my question with the code showing the real scenario I'm having.
    – U. Bulle
    Dec 16 at 22:13










  • @U.Bulle Well, I don't know how you expect your ValueClass(int, const InnerValueClass&) constructor to work given that InnerValueClass isn't copyable - but besides that, this answer provides a path to provide arbitrary constructor arguments just fine.
    – Barry
    Dec 16 at 22:40



















4














I think you need to create the object with insert_or_assign in a function and then return it:



std::map<int, ValueClass> populate()
{
std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes;
value_classes.insert_or_assign(std::make_pair(0, ValueClass());
return value_classes;
}


And your initialization becomes:



std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes = populate();


But then, this class has a virtual destructor, which means that you want actually may actually be a std::map<int, std::unique_ptr<ValueClass>> and not a map of actual objects (not sure what these objects are going to be used for?).



Edit after the question edit:



In this case, Barrys suggestion is the one to follow, usingemplace`:



std::map<int, ValueClass> populate()
{
std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes;
value_classes.emplace(1, 5);
return value_classes;
}


Also include functional.






share|improve this answer























  • Thank you for very fast and informative answer. I've updated my question with the code showing the real life application. insert_or_assign did not help it to compile either.
    – U. Bulle
    Dec 16 at 22:12










  • Wow, that's a completely different beast...
    – Matthieu Brucher
    Dec 16 at 22:18










  • I get C2660 'std::pair<const _Kty,_Ty>::pair': function does not take 2 arguments with your integration of Barry`s suggestion :(
    – U. Bulle
    Dec 16 at 22:34










  • Seems like a bug, works with clang :/
    – Matthieu Brucher
    Dec 16 at 22:38










  • I would suggest you change your special class to remove the usage of emplace. Barry's code or mine work for your case, just create an actual function. Also, you have a big bug in your code, as the reference_wrapper points to a temporary that is destroyed.
    – Matthieu Brucher
    Dec 16 at 22:40



















2














You simply can not use initializer_list to move an object from a non-copyable object.



Your class deletes the copy constructor & assignment operator. When you try to initialize your map or any other container with an initializer_list the initializer_list strictly forces you to reference an LValue and forbids RValue move or forward semantics.



Here is a very nice blog article that explains all of the details: knatten.org as well as a similar Q/A found here.






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',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    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%2f53806687%2finitialize-static-stdmap-with-non-copyable-value-in-a-uniformed-inline-initial%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    6














    You cannot do this directly, because initializer_list has const backing for all of its elements - and they have to be copied from the initializer list into the container. That, obviously, requires copying. There's no way to emplace from an initializer list unfortunately.



    In C++17, thanks to guaranteed copy elision, you can do this:



    std::map<int, non_copyable> get() {
    std::map<int, non_copyable> m;
    m.emplace(std::piecewise_construct, std::tuple(0), std::tuple());
    m.emplace(std::piecewise_construct, std::tuple(1), std::tuple());
    return m;
    }

    std::map<int, non_copyable> value_classes = get();


    This code performs no copies on non_copyable. We emplace construct inside of the map, and then beacuse get() is a prvalue, there is no copy/move from get() into value_classes. The m within get() is the object value_classes.



    A slightly sneaker approach would be to abuse try_emplace() for this:



    std::map<int, non_copyable> get() {
    std::map<int, non_copyable> m;
    m.try_emplace(0);
    m.try_emplace(1);
    return m;
    }


    try_emplace() takes the key type by itself (so you can just pass an int) and then the arguments for the value for emplacing separately, which makes for a much less verbose way of accomplishing this.






    share|improve this answer





















    • Another way is to simply call m[0]; m[1];. It will emplace default-constructed objects. See en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/map/operator_at.
      – tmlen
      Dec 16 at 22:11












    • Why try_emplace instead of simple old emplace?
      – R2RT
      Dec 16 at 22:11










    • Thank you for the answer! I realized that I was not clear in the question, I'm sorry for that. I don't want to leave the values to be defined later on, I'd like to define the values as well. I've updated my question with the code showing the real scenario I'm having.
      – U. Bulle
      Dec 16 at 22:13










    • @U.Bulle Well, I don't know how you expect your ValueClass(int, const InnerValueClass&) constructor to work given that InnerValueClass isn't copyable - but besides that, this answer provides a path to provide arbitrary constructor arguments just fine.
      – Barry
      Dec 16 at 22:40
















    6














    You cannot do this directly, because initializer_list has const backing for all of its elements - and they have to be copied from the initializer list into the container. That, obviously, requires copying. There's no way to emplace from an initializer list unfortunately.



    In C++17, thanks to guaranteed copy elision, you can do this:



    std::map<int, non_copyable> get() {
    std::map<int, non_copyable> m;
    m.emplace(std::piecewise_construct, std::tuple(0), std::tuple());
    m.emplace(std::piecewise_construct, std::tuple(1), std::tuple());
    return m;
    }

    std::map<int, non_copyable> value_classes = get();


    This code performs no copies on non_copyable. We emplace construct inside of the map, and then beacuse get() is a prvalue, there is no copy/move from get() into value_classes. The m within get() is the object value_classes.



    A slightly sneaker approach would be to abuse try_emplace() for this:



    std::map<int, non_copyable> get() {
    std::map<int, non_copyable> m;
    m.try_emplace(0);
    m.try_emplace(1);
    return m;
    }


    try_emplace() takes the key type by itself (so you can just pass an int) and then the arguments for the value for emplacing separately, which makes for a much less verbose way of accomplishing this.






    share|improve this answer





















    • Another way is to simply call m[0]; m[1];. It will emplace default-constructed objects. See en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/map/operator_at.
      – tmlen
      Dec 16 at 22:11












    • Why try_emplace instead of simple old emplace?
      – R2RT
      Dec 16 at 22:11










    • Thank you for the answer! I realized that I was not clear in the question, I'm sorry for that. I don't want to leave the values to be defined later on, I'd like to define the values as well. I've updated my question with the code showing the real scenario I'm having.
      – U. Bulle
      Dec 16 at 22:13










    • @U.Bulle Well, I don't know how you expect your ValueClass(int, const InnerValueClass&) constructor to work given that InnerValueClass isn't copyable - but besides that, this answer provides a path to provide arbitrary constructor arguments just fine.
      – Barry
      Dec 16 at 22:40














    6












    6








    6






    You cannot do this directly, because initializer_list has const backing for all of its elements - and they have to be copied from the initializer list into the container. That, obviously, requires copying. There's no way to emplace from an initializer list unfortunately.



    In C++17, thanks to guaranteed copy elision, you can do this:



    std::map<int, non_copyable> get() {
    std::map<int, non_copyable> m;
    m.emplace(std::piecewise_construct, std::tuple(0), std::tuple());
    m.emplace(std::piecewise_construct, std::tuple(1), std::tuple());
    return m;
    }

    std::map<int, non_copyable> value_classes = get();


    This code performs no copies on non_copyable. We emplace construct inside of the map, and then beacuse get() is a prvalue, there is no copy/move from get() into value_classes. The m within get() is the object value_classes.



    A slightly sneaker approach would be to abuse try_emplace() for this:



    std::map<int, non_copyable> get() {
    std::map<int, non_copyable> m;
    m.try_emplace(0);
    m.try_emplace(1);
    return m;
    }


    try_emplace() takes the key type by itself (so you can just pass an int) and then the arguments for the value for emplacing separately, which makes for a much less verbose way of accomplishing this.






    share|improve this answer












    You cannot do this directly, because initializer_list has const backing for all of its elements - and they have to be copied from the initializer list into the container. That, obviously, requires copying. There's no way to emplace from an initializer list unfortunately.



    In C++17, thanks to guaranteed copy elision, you can do this:



    std::map<int, non_copyable> get() {
    std::map<int, non_copyable> m;
    m.emplace(std::piecewise_construct, std::tuple(0), std::tuple());
    m.emplace(std::piecewise_construct, std::tuple(1), std::tuple());
    return m;
    }

    std::map<int, non_copyable> value_classes = get();


    This code performs no copies on non_copyable. We emplace construct inside of the map, and then beacuse get() is a prvalue, there is no copy/move from get() into value_classes. The m within get() is the object value_classes.



    A slightly sneaker approach would be to abuse try_emplace() for this:



    std::map<int, non_copyable> get() {
    std::map<int, non_copyable> m;
    m.try_emplace(0);
    m.try_emplace(1);
    return m;
    }


    try_emplace() takes the key type by itself (so you can just pass an int) and then the arguments for the value for emplacing separately, which makes for a much less verbose way of accomplishing this.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Dec 16 at 21:44









    Barry

    176k18301557




    176k18301557












    • Another way is to simply call m[0]; m[1];. It will emplace default-constructed objects. See en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/map/operator_at.
      – tmlen
      Dec 16 at 22:11












    • Why try_emplace instead of simple old emplace?
      – R2RT
      Dec 16 at 22:11










    • Thank you for the answer! I realized that I was not clear in the question, I'm sorry for that. I don't want to leave the values to be defined later on, I'd like to define the values as well. I've updated my question with the code showing the real scenario I'm having.
      – U. Bulle
      Dec 16 at 22:13










    • @U.Bulle Well, I don't know how you expect your ValueClass(int, const InnerValueClass&) constructor to work given that InnerValueClass isn't copyable - but besides that, this answer provides a path to provide arbitrary constructor arguments just fine.
      – Barry
      Dec 16 at 22:40


















    • Another way is to simply call m[0]; m[1];. It will emplace default-constructed objects. See en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/map/operator_at.
      – tmlen
      Dec 16 at 22:11












    • Why try_emplace instead of simple old emplace?
      – R2RT
      Dec 16 at 22:11










    • Thank you for the answer! I realized that I was not clear in the question, I'm sorry for that. I don't want to leave the values to be defined later on, I'd like to define the values as well. I've updated my question with the code showing the real scenario I'm having.
      – U. Bulle
      Dec 16 at 22:13










    • @U.Bulle Well, I don't know how you expect your ValueClass(int, const InnerValueClass&) constructor to work given that InnerValueClass isn't copyable - but besides that, this answer provides a path to provide arbitrary constructor arguments just fine.
      – Barry
      Dec 16 at 22:40
















    Another way is to simply call m[0]; m[1];. It will emplace default-constructed objects. See en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/map/operator_at.
    – tmlen
    Dec 16 at 22:11






    Another way is to simply call m[0]; m[1];. It will emplace default-constructed objects. See en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/map/operator_at.
    – tmlen
    Dec 16 at 22:11














    Why try_emplace instead of simple old emplace?
    – R2RT
    Dec 16 at 22:11




    Why try_emplace instead of simple old emplace?
    – R2RT
    Dec 16 at 22:11












    Thank you for the answer! I realized that I was not clear in the question, I'm sorry for that. I don't want to leave the values to be defined later on, I'd like to define the values as well. I've updated my question with the code showing the real scenario I'm having.
    – U. Bulle
    Dec 16 at 22:13




    Thank you for the answer! I realized that I was not clear in the question, I'm sorry for that. I don't want to leave the values to be defined later on, I'd like to define the values as well. I've updated my question with the code showing the real scenario I'm having.
    – U. Bulle
    Dec 16 at 22:13












    @U.Bulle Well, I don't know how you expect your ValueClass(int, const InnerValueClass&) constructor to work given that InnerValueClass isn't copyable - but besides that, this answer provides a path to provide arbitrary constructor arguments just fine.
    – Barry
    Dec 16 at 22:40




    @U.Bulle Well, I don't know how you expect your ValueClass(int, const InnerValueClass&) constructor to work given that InnerValueClass isn't copyable - but besides that, this answer provides a path to provide arbitrary constructor arguments just fine.
    – Barry
    Dec 16 at 22:40













    4














    I think you need to create the object with insert_or_assign in a function and then return it:



    std::map<int, ValueClass> populate()
    {
    std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes;
    value_classes.insert_or_assign(std::make_pair(0, ValueClass());
    return value_classes;
    }


    And your initialization becomes:



    std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes = populate();


    But then, this class has a virtual destructor, which means that you want actually may actually be a std::map<int, std::unique_ptr<ValueClass>> and not a map of actual objects (not sure what these objects are going to be used for?).



    Edit after the question edit:



    In this case, Barrys suggestion is the one to follow, usingemplace`:



    std::map<int, ValueClass> populate()
    {
    std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes;
    value_classes.emplace(1, 5);
    return value_classes;
    }


    Also include functional.






    share|improve this answer























    • Thank you for very fast and informative answer. I've updated my question with the code showing the real life application. insert_or_assign did not help it to compile either.
      – U. Bulle
      Dec 16 at 22:12










    • Wow, that's a completely different beast...
      – Matthieu Brucher
      Dec 16 at 22:18










    • I get C2660 'std::pair<const _Kty,_Ty>::pair': function does not take 2 arguments with your integration of Barry`s suggestion :(
      – U. Bulle
      Dec 16 at 22:34










    • Seems like a bug, works with clang :/
      – Matthieu Brucher
      Dec 16 at 22:38










    • I would suggest you change your special class to remove the usage of emplace. Barry's code or mine work for your case, just create an actual function. Also, you have a big bug in your code, as the reference_wrapper points to a temporary that is destroyed.
      – Matthieu Brucher
      Dec 16 at 22:40
















    4














    I think you need to create the object with insert_or_assign in a function and then return it:



    std::map<int, ValueClass> populate()
    {
    std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes;
    value_classes.insert_or_assign(std::make_pair(0, ValueClass());
    return value_classes;
    }


    And your initialization becomes:



    std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes = populate();


    But then, this class has a virtual destructor, which means that you want actually may actually be a std::map<int, std::unique_ptr<ValueClass>> and not a map of actual objects (not sure what these objects are going to be used for?).



    Edit after the question edit:



    In this case, Barrys suggestion is the one to follow, usingemplace`:



    std::map<int, ValueClass> populate()
    {
    std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes;
    value_classes.emplace(1, 5);
    return value_classes;
    }


    Also include functional.






    share|improve this answer























    • Thank you for very fast and informative answer. I've updated my question with the code showing the real life application. insert_or_assign did not help it to compile either.
      – U. Bulle
      Dec 16 at 22:12










    • Wow, that's a completely different beast...
      – Matthieu Brucher
      Dec 16 at 22:18










    • I get C2660 'std::pair<const _Kty,_Ty>::pair': function does not take 2 arguments with your integration of Barry`s suggestion :(
      – U. Bulle
      Dec 16 at 22:34










    • Seems like a bug, works with clang :/
      – Matthieu Brucher
      Dec 16 at 22:38










    • I would suggest you change your special class to remove the usage of emplace. Barry's code or mine work for your case, just create an actual function. Also, you have a big bug in your code, as the reference_wrapper points to a temporary that is destroyed.
      – Matthieu Brucher
      Dec 16 at 22:40














    4












    4








    4






    I think you need to create the object with insert_or_assign in a function and then return it:



    std::map<int, ValueClass> populate()
    {
    std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes;
    value_classes.insert_or_assign(std::make_pair(0, ValueClass());
    return value_classes;
    }


    And your initialization becomes:



    std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes = populate();


    But then, this class has a virtual destructor, which means that you want actually may actually be a std::map<int, std::unique_ptr<ValueClass>> and not a map of actual objects (not sure what these objects are going to be used for?).



    Edit after the question edit:



    In this case, Barrys suggestion is the one to follow, usingemplace`:



    std::map<int, ValueClass> populate()
    {
    std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes;
    value_classes.emplace(1, 5);
    return value_classes;
    }


    Also include functional.






    share|improve this answer














    I think you need to create the object with insert_or_assign in a function and then return it:



    std::map<int, ValueClass> populate()
    {
    std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes;
    value_classes.insert_or_assign(std::make_pair(0, ValueClass());
    return value_classes;
    }


    And your initialization becomes:



    std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes = populate();


    But then, this class has a virtual destructor, which means that you want actually may actually be a std::map<int, std::unique_ptr<ValueClass>> and not a map of actual objects (not sure what these objects are going to be used for?).



    Edit after the question edit:



    In this case, Barrys suggestion is the one to follow, usingemplace`:



    std::map<int, ValueClass> populate()
    {
    std::map<int, ValueClass> value_classes;
    value_classes.emplace(1, 5);
    return value_classes;
    }


    Also include functional.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Dec 16 at 23:03

























    answered Dec 16 at 21:42









    Matthieu Brucher

    11.5k22137




    11.5k22137












    • Thank you for very fast and informative answer. I've updated my question with the code showing the real life application. insert_or_assign did not help it to compile either.
      – U. Bulle
      Dec 16 at 22:12










    • Wow, that's a completely different beast...
      – Matthieu Brucher
      Dec 16 at 22:18










    • I get C2660 'std::pair<const _Kty,_Ty>::pair': function does not take 2 arguments with your integration of Barry`s suggestion :(
      – U. Bulle
      Dec 16 at 22:34










    • Seems like a bug, works with clang :/
      – Matthieu Brucher
      Dec 16 at 22:38










    • I would suggest you change your special class to remove the usage of emplace. Barry's code or mine work for your case, just create an actual function. Also, you have a big bug in your code, as the reference_wrapper points to a temporary that is destroyed.
      – Matthieu Brucher
      Dec 16 at 22:40


















    • Thank you for very fast and informative answer. I've updated my question with the code showing the real life application. insert_or_assign did not help it to compile either.
      – U. Bulle
      Dec 16 at 22:12










    • Wow, that's a completely different beast...
      – Matthieu Brucher
      Dec 16 at 22:18










    • I get C2660 'std::pair<const _Kty,_Ty>::pair': function does not take 2 arguments with your integration of Barry`s suggestion :(
      – U. Bulle
      Dec 16 at 22:34










    • Seems like a bug, works with clang :/
      – Matthieu Brucher
      Dec 16 at 22:38










    • I would suggest you change your special class to remove the usage of emplace. Barry's code or mine work for your case, just create an actual function. Also, you have a big bug in your code, as the reference_wrapper points to a temporary that is destroyed.
      – Matthieu Brucher
      Dec 16 at 22:40
















    Thank you for very fast and informative answer. I've updated my question with the code showing the real life application. insert_or_assign did not help it to compile either.
    – U. Bulle
    Dec 16 at 22:12




    Thank you for very fast and informative answer. I've updated my question with the code showing the real life application. insert_or_assign did not help it to compile either.
    – U. Bulle
    Dec 16 at 22:12












    Wow, that's a completely different beast...
    – Matthieu Brucher
    Dec 16 at 22:18




    Wow, that's a completely different beast...
    – Matthieu Brucher
    Dec 16 at 22:18












    I get C2660 'std::pair<const _Kty,_Ty>::pair': function does not take 2 arguments with your integration of Barry`s suggestion :(
    – U. Bulle
    Dec 16 at 22:34




    I get C2660 'std::pair<const _Kty,_Ty>::pair': function does not take 2 arguments with your integration of Barry`s suggestion :(
    – U. Bulle
    Dec 16 at 22:34












    Seems like a bug, works with clang :/
    – Matthieu Brucher
    Dec 16 at 22:38




    Seems like a bug, works with clang :/
    – Matthieu Brucher
    Dec 16 at 22:38












    I would suggest you change your special class to remove the usage of emplace. Barry's code or mine work for your case, just create an actual function. Also, you have a big bug in your code, as the reference_wrapper points to a temporary that is destroyed.
    – Matthieu Brucher
    Dec 16 at 22:40




    I would suggest you change your special class to remove the usage of emplace. Barry's code or mine work for your case, just create an actual function. Also, you have a big bug in your code, as the reference_wrapper points to a temporary that is destroyed.
    – Matthieu Brucher
    Dec 16 at 22:40











    2














    You simply can not use initializer_list to move an object from a non-copyable object.



    Your class deletes the copy constructor & assignment operator. When you try to initialize your map or any other container with an initializer_list the initializer_list strictly forces you to reference an LValue and forbids RValue move or forward semantics.



    Here is a very nice blog article that explains all of the details: knatten.org as well as a similar Q/A found here.






    share|improve this answer


























      2














      You simply can not use initializer_list to move an object from a non-copyable object.



      Your class deletes the copy constructor & assignment operator. When you try to initialize your map or any other container with an initializer_list the initializer_list strictly forces you to reference an LValue and forbids RValue move or forward semantics.



      Here is a very nice blog article that explains all of the details: knatten.org as well as a similar Q/A found here.






      share|improve this answer
























        2












        2








        2






        You simply can not use initializer_list to move an object from a non-copyable object.



        Your class deletes the copy constructor & assignment operator. When you try to initialize your map or any other container with an initializer_list the initializer_list strictly forces you to reference an LValue and forbids RValue move or forward semantics.



        Here is a very nice blog article that explains all of the details: knatten.org as well as a similar Q/A found here.






        share|improve this answer












        You simply can not use initializer_list to move an object from a non-copyable object.



        Your class deletes the copy constructor & assignment operator. When you try to initialize your map or any other container with an initializer_list the initializer_list strictly forces you to reference an LValue and forbids RValue move or forward semantics.



        Here is a very nice blog article that explains all of the details: knatten.org as well as a similar Q/A found here.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Dec 16 at 23:21









        Francis Cugler

        4,38211227




        4,38211227






























            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%2f53806687%2finitialize-static-stdmap-with-non-copyable-value-in-a-uniformed-inline-initial%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

            If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

            Alcedinidae

            Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]