Often when iterating through a string (or any enumerable object), we are not only interested in the current value, but also the position (index). To accomplish this by using
I would use it-str.begin() In this particular case std::distance and operator- are the same. But if container will change to something without random access, std::distance will increment first argument until it reach second, giving thus linear time and operator- will not compile. Personally I prefer the second behaviour - it's better to be notified when you algorithm from O(n) became O(n^2)...
I've never heard of a best practice for this specific question. However, one best practice in general is to use the simplest solution that solves the problem. In this case the array-style access (or c-style if you want to call it that) is the simplest way to iterate while having the index value available. So I would certainly recommend that way.
A good practice would be based on readability, e.g.:
string str ("Test string");
for (int index = 0, auto it = str.begin(); it < str.end(); ++it)
cout << index++ << *it;
Or:
string str ("Test string");
for (int index = 0, auto it = str.begin(); it < str.end(); ++it, ++index)
cout << index << *it;
Or your original:
string str ("Test string");
int index = 0;
for (auto it = str.begin() ; it < str.end(); ++it, ++index)
cout << index << *it;
Etc. Whatever is easiest and cleanest to you.
It's not clear there is any one best practice as you'll need a counter variable somewhere. The question seems to be whether where you define it and how it is incremented works well for you.
For strings, you can use string.c_str()
which will return you a const char*, which can be treated as an array, example:
const char* strdata = str.c_str();
for (int i = 0; i < str.length(); ++i)
cout << i << strdata[i];
Like this:
std::string s("Test string");
std::string::iterator it = s.begin();
//Use the iterator...
++it;
//...
std::cout << "index is: " << std::distance(s.begin(), it) << std::endl;
Since std::distance
is only constant time for random-access iterators, I would probably prefer explicit iterator arithmetic.
Also, since we're writing C++ code here, I do believe a more C++ idiomatic solution is preferable over a C-style approach.
string str{"Test string"};
auto begin = str.begin();
for (auto it = str.begin(), end = str.end(); it != end; ++it)
{
cout << it - begin << *it;
}