Why wouldn't boost::icl::interval_map add up the value?-CodePudding

Consider the following program:

#include <iostream>
#include <boost/icl/interval_map.hpp>

struct Value
{
    explicit Value(int v) : v(v), is_empty(false) {}
    Value() : v(0), is_empty(true) {}

    Value& operator =(const Value& other)
    {
        v  = other.v;
        return *this;
    }

    bool operator==(const Value& other) const { return is_empty == other.is_empty; }
    bool operator!=(const Value& other) const { return is_empty != other.is_empty; }

    int v;
    bool is_empty;
};

int main()
{
    boost::icl::interval_map<int, Value> m;
    m.add(std::make_pair(boost::icl::interval<int>::right_open(10, 20), Value(2)));
    m.add(std::make_pair(boost::icl::interval<int>::right_open(15, 30), Value(3)));
    std::cout << m.iterative_size() << '\n';
    std::cout << m.begin()->first.lower() << '\n';
    std::cout << m.begin()->first.upper() << '\n';
    std::cout << m.begin()->second.v << '\n';
}

The output is

Questons:

Why is the last line 2?
Isn't the interval map expected to add up the value, so that it is 5?
How to achieve the behavior that intervals are added and the value from = is preserved?

CodePudding user response：

This is my own attempt on a pragmatic answer only on the last question:

How to achieve the behavior that intervals are added and the value from = is preserved?

I found another implementation, way simpler, but that can be easily customized to the behavior I want. It takes interval type as template parameter, and uses method join to join intervals, so I specialize it with my own interval type, which adds the value and on join sums the value:

#include <iostream>
#include "interval_tree.hpp"

using iv_base = lib_interval_tree::interval<int, lib_interval_tree::right_open>;
struct iv_t : iv_base
{
    int value;

    iv_t(const iv_base& base, int v)
        : iv_base(base)
        , value(v)
    {
    }

    iv_t(value_type low, value_type high, int v)
        : iv_base(low, high)
        , value(v)
    {
    }

    iv_t join(iv_t const& other) const
    {
        return iv_t(iv_base::join(other), value   other.value);
    }
};

using it_t = lib_interval_tree::interval_tree<iv_t>;

int main()
{
    it_t it;

    it.insert_overlap(iv_t( 10, 20, 2 ));
    it.insert_overlap(iv_t{ 15, 30, 3 });
    it.insert_overlap(iv_t{ 40, 50, 11 });

    for (decltype(auto) v : it)
    {
        std::cout << v.low() << ".." << v.high() << ":" << v.value << "\n";
    }
}

Totally possible Boost.Icl can be customized for the same behavior, but it is more complex to understand if it is possible and how to do it.

CodePudding user response：

The problem is that

bool operator==(const Value& other) const { return is_empty == other.is_empty; }
bool operator!=(const Value& other) const { return is_empty != other.is_empty; }

make it so that ANY value is "identical". That makes the behaviour unspecified, and likely ends up merging any touching intervals and keeping the previous value (because it was "equal" according to your own operator==).

Let's have C generate a more correct comparison:

struct Value {
    explicit Value(int v) : value(v) {}
    Value() : is_empty(true) {}

    Value& operator =(const Value& other) { value  = other.value; return *this; }

    auto operator<=>(Value const&) const = default;

    bool is_empty = false;
    int  value    = 0;
};

Now you can Live On Compiler Explorer

#include <iostream>
#include <boost/icl/interval_map.hpp>
int main()
{
    namespace icl = boost::icl;
    using I = icl::interval<int>;
    using Value = int;

    auto const a = std::make_pair(I::right_open(10, 20), Value(2));
    auto const b = std::make_pair(I::right_open(15, 30), Value(3));
    auto const c = std::make_pair(I::right_open(40, 50), Value(11));

    icl::interval_map<int, Value> m;
    m.add(a);
    m.add(b);
    m.add(c);

    std::cout << m << "\n";

    m.subtract(a);

    std::cout << m << "\n";
}

Printing

{([10,15)->(2))([15,20)->(5))([20,30)->(3))([40,50)->(11))}

However, I'm struggling to understand what Value adds over optional<int> which, in fact is already the behaviour of the interval_map anyways:

int main()
{
    namespace icl = boost::icl;
    using I = icl::interval<int>;

    auto const a = std::make_pair(I::right_open(10, 20), 2);
    auto const b = std::make_pair(I::right_open(15, 30), 3);
    auto const c = std::make_pair(I::right_open(40, 50), 11);

    icl::interval_map<int, int> m;
    m.add(a);
    m.add(b);
    m.add(c);

    std::cout << m << "\n";

    m.subtract(a);

    std::cout << m << "\n";
}

Prints:

{([10,15)->2)([15,20)->5)([20,30)->3)([40,50)->11)}
{([15,30)->3)([40,50)->11)}

In fact, in some respects, your custom Value take seems "wrong" to me, evem with the fixed comparison:

Live On Compiler Explorer

#include <iostream>
#include <boost/icl/interval_map.hpp>

struct Value {
    explicit Value(int v) : value(v) {}
    Value() : is_empty(true) {}

    Value& operator =(const Value& other) { value  = other.value; return *this; }
    Value& operator-=(const Value& other) { value -= other.value; return *this; }

    auto operator<=>(Value const&) const = default;

    bool is_empty = false;
    int  value    = 0;

    friend std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, Value const& v) {
        return v.is_empty ? os << "#EMPTY" : os << v.value;
    }
};

int main()
{
    namespace icl = boost::icl;
    using I = icl::interval<int>;

    auto const a = std::make_pair(I::right_open(10, 20), Value(2));
    auto const b = std::make_pair(I::right_open(15, 30), Value(3));
    auto const c = std::make_pair(I::right_open(40, 50), Value(11));

    icl::interval_map<int, Value> m;
    m.add(a);
    m.add(b);
    m.add(c);

    std::cout << m << "\n";

    m.subtract(a);

    std::cout << m << "\n";
}

Printing

{([10,15)->2)([15,20)->5)([20,30)->3)([40,50)->11)}
{([10,15)->0)([15,30)->3)([40,50)->11)}

Is [10,15)->0 really intended, desired?