operator< comparing multiple fields

Question

I have the following operator< that is supposed to sort first by a value, then by another value:

    inline bool operator < (const obj& a, const ob         


        

Answer 1

I'd like to do it all by myself..

You should only compare the values of Obj::field2 if the values of Obj::field1 are equal.

The easy-to-understand way:

/* This will meet the requirements of Strict-Weak-Ordering */

if (a.field1 != b.field1) return a.field1 < b.field1;
else                      return a.field2 < b.field2;

The correct (recommended) way:

The "correct" way of implementing it uses only operator< to compare the fields, the below looks more complicated than it really is.

It will however yield the same result as the easy-to-understand example previously written.

return a.field1 < b.field1 || (
  !(b.field1 < a.field1) && a.field2 < b.field2
);

---

There must be a way of implementing operator< without causing a lot of headache?

C++11

You can use std::tuple from the STL which already have operator< for multiple fields defined, such as in the below example.

#include 

...

inline bool
operator< (Obj const& lhs, Obj const& rhs)
{
  return std::tie (lhs.field1, lhs.field2) < std::tie (rhs.field1, rhs.field);
}

C++03

If your compiler doesn't have support for C++11 yet and you only need to compare two fields from each object you could use std::pair instead.

The reason for std::make_pair is the same as in the previous example using std::tie.

#include 

...

inline bool
operator< (Obj const& lhs, Obj const& rhs)
{
  return std::make_pair (lhs.field1, lhs.field2)
       < std::make_pair (rhs.field1, rhs.field2);
}

^{using std::pair will require copies of the members to be created, which in some circumstances is undesirable.}

Is this really recommended practise?

See the below question/answers for more information, but to sum it up; the c++11 approach doesn't cause that much overhead and it's very simple to implement.

• Implementing comparision operators via 'tuple' and 'tie', a good idea?