Question

I have a function that translates data using std::map

struct HistoParameter
{
  int nbins;
  float first;
  float last;
  HistoParameter(int _nbins, int _first, int _last) :
    nbins(_nbins), first(_first), last(_last) {};
};

HistoParameter* variable_to_parameter(char* var_name)
{
  std::map<const std::string, HistoParameter*> hp;
  hp[std::string("ph_pt")] = new HistoParameter(100,0,22000);
  hp[std::string("ph_eta")] = new HistoParameter(100,-3,3);
  // ...
  return hp[var_name];
}

My struct is very light, but image it can be heavy. The prolem is that every time I call this function it create a lot of HistoParameter objects, maybe a switch case is more efficient. First question: I’m creating garbage?

Second solution:

bool first_time = true;
HistoParameter* variable_to_parameter(char* var_name)
{
  static std::map<const std::string, HistoParameter*> hp;
  if (first_time)
    {
  hp[std::string("ph_pt")] = new HistoParameter(100,0,22000);
  hp[std::string("ph_eta")] = new HistoParameter(100,-3,3);
  // ...
    }
  first_time = false;
  return hp[var_name];

is it ok? Better solution?

Answer 1

Your second solution should certainly improve efficiency, but isn’t (at least IMO) the best implementation possible. First of all, it makes first_time publicly visible, even though only variable_to_parameter actually cares about it. You’ve already made hp a static variable in the function, and first_time should be as well.

Second, I would not use pointers and/or dynamic allocation for the HistoParameter values. At one int and two floats, there’s simply no reason to do so. If you’re really passing them around so much that copying became a problem, you’d probably be better off using some sort of smart pointer class instead of a raw pointer — the latter is more difficult to use and much more difficult to make exception safe.

Third, I’d consider whether it’s worthwhile to make variable_to_parameter into a functor instead of a function. In this case, you’d initialize the map in the ctor, so you wouldn’t have to check whether it was initialized every time operator() was invoked. You can also combine the two, by have a static map in the functor. The ctor initializes it if it doesn’t exist, and operator() just does a lookup.

Finally, I’d note that map::operator[] is primarily useful for inserting items — it creates an item with the specified key if it doesn’t exist, but when you’re looking for an item, you usually don’t want to create an item. For this, you’re generally better off using map.find() instead.