How can I create a std::set of structures?

The std::set template provides an associative container that contains a sorted set of unique objects. The key words there is sorted and unique. To support sorting, a number of possibilities ensue, but ultimately the all must lead to a conforming with strict weak ordering.

The second template argument to std::set is a comparison type. The default, std::less<Key>, is supplied by the standard library, where Key is the type of object you're storing in your container (in your case, Point). That default simply generates a comparison using any allowable available operator < supporting the key type. Which means one way or another, if you're using the default comparator (std::less<Point> in your case), then your class must suppose operations like this:

Point pt1(args);
Point pt2(args);

if (pt1 < pt2)  // <<=== this operation
    dosomething();

Multiple methods for doing this appear below:

Provide a member operator <

By far the easiest method to accomplish this is to provide a member operator < for your Point class. In doing so pt1 < pt2 becomes valid and std::less<Point> is then happy. Assuming your class is a traditional x,y point, it would look like this:

struct Point
{
    int x,y;

    // compare for order.     
    bool operator <(const Point& pt) const
    {
        return (x < pt.x) || ((!(pt.x < x)) && (y < pt.y));
    }
};

---

Provide a Custom Comparator Type

Another method would be to provide a custom comparator type rather than relying on std::less<Point>. The biggest advantage in this is the ability to define several that can mean different things, and use them in containers or algorithms as appropriately needed.

struct CmpPoint
{
    bool operator()(const Point& lhs, const Point& rhs) const
    {
        return (lhs.x < rhs.x) || ((!(rhs.x < lhs.x)) && (lhs.y < rhs.y));
    }
};

With that, you can now declare your std::set like this:

std::set<Point,CmpPoint> mySet;

Something to consider with this approach: The type is not part of Point, so any access to private member variables or functions has to be accounted for via friending in come capacity.

---

Provide a free-function operator <

Another less common mechanism is simply provide a global free-function that provides operator <. This is NOT a member function. In doing this, once again, the default std::less<Point> will result in valid code.

bool operator <(const Point& lhs, const Point& rhs)
{
    return (lhs.x < rhs.x) || ((!(rhs.x < lhs.x)) && (lhs.y < rhs.y));
}

This may seem a mix of both the custom comparator and the member operator, and indeed many of the pros and cons of each come along. Ex: like the member operator <, you can just use the default std::less<Point>. Like the custom comparator, this is a non-class function, so access to private members must be provided via friending or accessors.

---

Summary

For your needs, I'd go with the simple approach; just make a member operator <. Chances are you'll always want to order your Points in that fashion. If not, go with the custom comparator. In either case make sure you honor strict weak ordering.

To expand on WhozCraig's answer, since C++11 you can also use a lambda expression instead of defining a comparison object. For the lambda expression in the following code, I'm also assuming that your Point class just consists of x and y members:

auto comp = [](const Point& p1, const Point& p2) {
    return p1.x < p2.x || (p1.x == p2.x && p1.y < p2.y);
};
std::set<Point, decltype(comp)> mySet(comp);

Point myPoint;
mySet.insert(myPoint);

As for the solutions given by WhozCraig, also comp must fulfil the strict weak ordering condition.

Code on Ideone