Overloading operator >

Question

Hello,

In my homework, I have to design a class Message; among other attributes, it has attribute "priority" (main goal is to implement priority queue).

As in container I must check if one object is greater than other, I have overloaded operator '>'. Now, I have a few general questions about it...

Question one:

If I overload operator '>', should I overload operator '<' for arguments (const Message&, const Message&)?

My opinion is that overloading both > and < and using it in code will generate an error:

if(message1 > message2)
   { ... }

(Does the following code calls operator > for message1 object, or operator < message2 object?)

But, what if I use operator like this:

if(message1 < message2)
   { ... }

? :confused:

operator> is declared as friend function:

friend bool operator>(const Message& m1, const Message& m2)

Does it need to be declared as member function?

Thank you.

Answer 1

If I overload operator '>', should I overload operator '<' for argumenst (const Message&, const Message&)?

Yes. In fact, it’s convention in most code to prefer the usage of < over > (don’t ask me why, probably historical). But more generally, always overload the complete set of related operators; in your case, this would probably also be ==, !=, <= and >=.

(Does the following code calls operator > for message1 object, or operator < message2 object?)

It always calls what it finds in the code. For the C++ compiler, there’s absolutely no connection between > and <. For us, they look similar but the compiler sees two completely different, unrelated symbols. So there’s no ambiguity: the compiler calls what it sees.

Does it need to be declared as member function?

No. In fact, it’s best not declared as a member function. Declaring it as a member function means that the first argument (i.e. the left-hand side of the expression) must really be a Message object, rather than an object that is implicitly convertible to a Message.

To understand this, consider the following case:

struct RealFraction {
    RealFraction(int x) { this.num = x; this.den = 1; }
    RealFraction(int num, int den) { normalize(num, den); }
    // Rest of code omitted.

    bool operator <(RealFraction const& rhs) {
        return num * rhs.den < den * rhs.num;
    }
};

Now you can write the following comparison:

int x = 1;
RealFraction y = 2;
if (y < x) …

but you cannot write the following:

if (x < y) …

although there exists an implicit conversion from int to RealFraction (using the first constructor).

If, on the other hand, you had used a non-member function to implement the operator, both comparisons would work because C++ would know to call an implicit constructor on the first argument.

Answer 2

Yes, you should... but you can (and arguably should) implement three of <, >, <=, >= in terms of the other one. This ensures that they behave consistently. Typically < is the one which the others are implemented in terms of because it is the default operator used in sets and maps.

E.g. if you implemented <, you could define >, <= and >= like this.

inline operator>(const Message& lhs, const Message& rhs)
{
    return rhs < lhs;
}

inline operator<=(const Message& lhs, const Message& rhs)
{
    return !(rhs < lhs);
}

inline operator>=(const Message& lhs, const Message& rhs)
{
    return !(lhs < rhs);
}

== and != are often implemented separately. Sometimes classes implement == such that a == b if and only if !(a < b) && !(b < a) but sometimes == is implemented as a stricter relationship that !(a < b) && !(b < a). Doing this does result in more complexity for client of the class, though.

In some situations in can be acceptable to have <, >, <= and >= but not == or !=.

Answer 3

If the assignment doesn't explicitly require the use of operator overloading, you could also consider using a function object. The reason is that there is probably more than one way to compare two Messages for "less-than" (e.g compare contents lexicographically, posting time etc), and therefore the meaning of operator< isn't intuitively clear.

With std::priority_queue the function object to use is specified as the third template parameter (unfortunately you'll also need to specify the second - underlying container type):

#include <queue>
#include <string>
#include <functional>
#include <vector>

class Message
{
    int priority;
    std::string contents;
    //...
public:
    Message(int priority, const std::string msg):
        priority(priority),
        contents(msg)
    {}
    int get_priority() const { return priority; }
    //...
};

struct ComparePriority:
    std::binary_function<Message, Message, bool> //this is just to be nice
{
    bool operator()(const Message& a, const Message& b) const
    {
        return a.get_priority() < b.get_priority();
    }
};

int main()
{
    typedef std::priority_queue<Message, std::vector<Message>, ComparePriority> MessageQueue;
    MessageQueue my_messages;
    my_messages.push(Message(10, "Come at once"));
}

When implementing your own priority queue, you can go about it in the following way:

class MessageQueue
{
    std::vector<Message> messages;
    ComparePriority compare;
    //...
    void push(const Message& msg)
    {
        //...
        if (compare(msg, messages[x])) //msg has lower priority
        //...
    }
};