Thank You. But compieler says: …/Source/MainComponent.cpp:193:29: No matching member function for call to ‘push_back’ …/Source/MainComponent.cpp:193:7: Cannot form a reference to ‘void’
I will search further.
I would disagree here. In case of a vector/list of unique_ptr in conjunction with std::make_unique, push_back is the right choice. The point of emplace_back is to avoid an unnecessary temorary copy of an object, but for a type like unique_ptr that has a deleted copy constructor and only a move constructor, creating the instance inside make_unique and implicitly moving it into the container in push_back is the most straightforward way of expressing what you are actually doing in your code in my opinion. Why would you chose emplace back here?
It’s more a general remark, since I see a lot of older-C++ coding styles on the forum where people don’t seem to be aware of methods like this.
emplace_back is a good default choice to avoid unnecessary copies in general imho. And it has no disadvantages compared with push_back.
Kind of awareness alert
With emplace_back you don’t need back (), for instance. It returns a ref, referring to the remarks by @daniel and @benvining
emplace_back constructs an object in place with the arguments forwarded as an rvalue reference template parameter pack. Emplace vs Push is less of an issue with non-copyable objects like std::unique_ptr, as trying to pass by value will cause the compiler to explode anyway.
This is perfectly fine:
container.emplace_back (new MarkerInfo);
Although I would personally do:
auto marker = std::make_unique<MarkerInfo>();
// do things to/with 'marker'
// this will likely call 'emplace_back' anyway but clearly shows intent
container.push_back (std::move (marker));
// and if you want a reference to it
auto& markerRef = container.back();
^^ Clearly describes who owns things.
std::container::*_back returning a reference is a c++17 thing, so be careful if you plan to support older compilers.
Totally agree with ImJimmy about not creating a std::unique_ptr variable and then moving out of it. Leaving an empty pointer in scope for no good reason is a bit untidy.
I tend to not expect push_back() to return the reference… Although I’m on c++17, doing that always seems to cause problems. But maybe compilers have caught up a bit now and it’s something I should get more into the habit of doing.
The thing I’m adding to the debate is the defreference of the std::unique_ptr so that the marker variable is a reference to the object itself, and not to the pointer.
That’s really important for a couple of reasons:
your code will be neater because you’ll be using . rather than -> when you use it.
If the code that follows this mutates the vector, then this reference will still be valid. But if you have a reference to the pointer inside the vector, it’ll be a dangling pointer. This is the kind of bug that you get when you write code that works, and then someone comes along later and adds a bit more code that mutates the vector without noticing this, so it’s best to write your original code defensively.
void addChildComponent (Component* child, int zOrder=-1)
void addChildComponent (Component& child, int zOrder=-1)
So you can either pass a reference or a raw pointer. A std::unique_ptr is not implicitly convertible to any of the two versions, this was different with juce::ScopedPointer that was implicitly convertible to its underlying pointer. But you can explicitly obtain the underlying raw pointer via get() or dereference it via * like:
You replied to me, but you seem to have ignored the suggestion that I posted! My point was that you should use a reference to the pointer, not the pointer itself. If you did that, you wouldn’t have got confused about how to use the pointer, and your code would have been neater without all the -> operators