Hi Raghava, With the typical use case being that the operator< is not used, I believe that it does not make sense to have the thrift compiler define the predicate. Compared to operator==, the operator < is almost always more context dependent.
It looks like you are actually using the operator <, and hence seeing that error in which case I don't see any way around except defining the operator. - Basu -----Original Message----- From: Raghava Mutharaju [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 3:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: C++ thrift code -- operator < not defined Hi Rush, Thank you for the reply :). I was thinking that the compiler can do something on the lines of what it does for operator ==. It checks for the equality of all the fields. Similarly, may be operator <() can compare all the fields or provide an option for a comparator. If you don't provide the definition for operator <, then I might be missing something here because I get linker errors due to that. I tried the thrift test classes that come with the source. They also generate the same kind of linker errors. Errors from one of the tests that come with thrift is given below. I do include boost & thrift libs and provide -lthrift option to g++. Undefined symbols: "thrift::test::Insanity::operator<(thrift::test::Insanity const&) const", referenced from: std::less<thrift::test::Insanity>::operator()(thrift::test::Insanity const&, thrift::test::Insanity const&) constin ThriftTest_types.o bool std::operator< <thrift::test::Insanity const, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >(std::pair<thrift::test::Insanity const, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > > const&, std::pair<thrift::test::Insanity const, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > > const&)in ThriftTest_types.o bool std::operator< <thrift::test::Insanity const, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >(std::pair<thrift::test::Insanity const, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > > const&, std::pair<thrift::test::Insanity const, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > > const&)in ThriftTest_types.o ld: symbol(s) not found collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make: *** [ThriftTest] Error 1 Regards, Raghava. On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Rush Manbert <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Raghava, > > I'm surprised that none of the developers have chimed in, but I'll give it > a try. > > The compiler declares the operator, but it can't define it for you because, > in general, it can't know what "less than" means for your thrift struct. But > the compiler does know that you'll need to define this operator if you want > to put your structure into a set, or use it as a key in a map, so it > helpfully provides the declaration. You need to provide the definition. > > I would imaging that we are like many other thrift users. We use it for > many things, and have lots of fairly complicated structures defined, but I > have yet to need to write an implementation for operator<, because we don't > use the thrift classes in a way that requires it. > > - Rush > > On Jul 26, 2010, at 2:18 PM, Raghava Mutharaju wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I got the answer on why overloading of operator < is required. std::set > > orders its elements, so "<" operator is required for comparison on the > type > > of elements it is holding. > > > > But I haven't got answer to my other question -- why doesn't thrift > compiler > > generate code for this? Does the thrift community write their own > > implementations for "operator <" ? > > > > Thank you. > > > > Regards, > > Raghava. > > > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Raghava Mutharaju < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hello all, > >> > >> In the code that thrift generates for C++, in all the classes, it > overloads > >> 3 operators, ==, != and <. Implementations for == and != are provided > but > >> there won't be any implementation for < operator. Why is this so? How > come > >> it doesn't generate any compilation errors? (except in one case I got a > >> linker error -- mentioned in my previous post). How are these overloaded > >> operators used? > >> > >> Thank you. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Raghava. > >> > >
