how to use static keyword in cpp - c++

Correct me if i'm wrong , i know that static keyword is used when we want to make the variable to be initialised only once.I have never used static much before.
Although I was solving a problem today where you have to add the numbers in a BST which are in between the given range.I wanted to try static keyword because i learned about it recently , so this was my code:
`
class Solution {
public:
int rangeSumBST(TreeNode* root, int low, int high) {
static int sum=0;
if(root==NULL)return sum;
if(root->val>=low && root->val<=high)sum+=root->val;
if(root->left)rangeSumBST(root->left,low,high);
if(root->right)rangeSumBST(root->right,low,high);
return sum;
}
};
This worked fine for the input :
root = [10,5,15,3,7,null,18], low = 7, high = 15
where the answer is 32.
But for the next test case:
root = [10,5,15,3,7,13,18,1,null,6], low = 6, high = 10
The answer should be 23 but it shows 55. I tried to see what numbers were being added :
if(root->val>=low && root->val<=high)sum+=root->val;cout<<root->val;
which gave output as: 10,7,6 which should add upto 23 but it gives 55.
My final solution was (without static) :
`
class Solution {
public:
int sum=0;
int rangeSumBST(TreeNode* root, int low, int high) {
if(root==NULL)return sum;
if(root->val>=low && root->val<=high)sum+=root->val;
if(root->left)rangeSumBST(root->left,low,high);
if(root->right)rangeSumBST(root->right,low,high);
return sum;
}
};
How to use static keyword?

Recursion works because a functions context is created every time it is called. In that sense static is a sort of anti-recursion. So I'm having a hard time with the statement that static is mostly used during recursion. It's rarely used like this in my experience, and your example is a good example of why.
Here's your code rewritten so that it works, sum is a local variable, not static, not member, not global.
class Solution {
public:
int rangeSumBST(TreeNode* root, int low, int high) {
if (root == NULL)
return 0;
int sum = 0; // NOT static
if (root->val >= low && root->val <= high)
sum += root->val;
sum += rangeSumBST(root->left, low, high);
sum += rangeSumBST(root->right, low, high);
return sum;
}
};
The important difference is that I use the return value of the recursive calls, instead of trying to return a value via some static, member or global variable. This way each recursive call is independent of each other, which is as it should be.
Static is commonly used for singletons, save it for that.

Your understanding of static is deeply flawed. It's not about being initialized only once, and while I suppose you might use it during recursion, I never have.
Never.
A static variable means there is exactly one copy, and it is persistent. If your program enters that method now, and then enters it again an hour from now, it will have whatever value it had at the end of last run.
Furthermore, if you have a multi-threaded program, there is still only one copy, and both threads are using it.
Even if you have 10 Solution objects, there will be a single sum value.
The use for static is thus rare. The only time I ever use it is for the Singleton pattern, which is advanced for you and considered controversial.
So while it's important to know about it, at your level of programming, you probably aren't going to use it. You are better to make use of fields inside your class rather than static variables inside your methods.
They'll start to creep into your code when you begin multi-threaded programming, which you're probably not anywhere near.

Related

C++ class member variables interaction

I have a class with 2 variables. They are public.
I want to initialise them in such a way that one is always a multiple of the other, and when i update the first, the other will automatically update.
In my class declaration:
`
public:
Int variable1;
Int variable2 = (10*variable1);
`
When I update variable1, i want to check what the updated value of variable2 is, and do some stuff based upon that result.
variable1++;
If (variable2 > 10)
{
//Do stuff
}
So I know that I could get around this by updating the second variable, but I know there must be a way to have he second variable constantly update. The problem is clearly in the declaration, but "const", or "static", won't help... I don't think. If I could find an eloquent way to phrase the problem, I'm sure i could google the answer. But I can't!
You just cannot do it like that. Correct way is through encapsulation.
In the example below, just call the getters to get the value (inlined = as fast as a direct access) and you can modify only variable1. You could add a set_variable2 method but it would have little sense.
public:
inline int get_variable1() const { return variable1; }
inline int get_variable2() const { return variable1*10; }
inline void set_variable1(int new_value) { variable1=new_value; }
private:
int variable1;
Simply don't do it... create only one variable and multiply it when needed.
The best way would be to just use a multiple of variable 1 whenever you would use variable 2
for your if statement, use
if((variable1 * 10) > 10){
//do stuff
}

C++ global extern constant defined at runtime available across multiple source files

I have an integer constant that is to be defined at runtime. This constant needs to be available globally and across multiple source files. I currently have the following simplified situation:
ClassA.h declares extern const int someConstant;
ClassA.cpp uses someConstant at some point.
Constants.h declares extern const int someConstant;
main.cpp includes ClassA.h and Constants.h, declares const int someConstant, and at some point during main() tries to initialize someConstant to the real value during runtime.
This works flawlessly with a char * constant that I use to have the name of the program globally available across all files, and it's declared and defined exactly like the one I'm trying to declare and define here but I can't get it to work with an int.
I get first an error: uninitialized const ‘someConstant’ [-fpermissive] at the line I'm declaring it in main.cpp, and later on I get an error: assignment of read-only variable ‘someConstant’ which I presume is because someConstant is getting default initialized to begin with.
Is there a way to do what I'm trying to achieve here? Thanks in advance!
EDIT (per request from #WhozCraig): Believe me: it is constant. The reason I'm not posting MCVE is because of three reasons: this is an assignment, the source is in Spanish, and because I really wanted to keep the question as general (and reusable) as possible. I started out writing the example and midway it striked me as not the clearest question. I'll try to explain again.
I'm asked to build a program that creates a process that in turn spawns two children (those in turn will spawn two more each, and so on). The program takes as single argument the number of generations it will have to spawn. Essentially creating sort of a binary tree of processes. Each process has to provide information about himself, his parent, the relationship with the original process, and his children (if any).
So, in the example above, ClassA is really a class containing information about the process (PID, PPID, children's PIDs, degree of relation with the original process, etc). For each fork I create a new instance of this class, so I can "save" this information and print it on screen.
When I'm defining the relationship with the original process, there's a single point in which I need to know the argument used when calling the program to check if this process has no children (to change the output of that particular process). That's the constant I need from main: the number of generations to be spawned, the "deepness" of the tree.
EDIT 2: I'll have to apologize, it's been a long day and I wasn't thinking straight. I switched the sources from C to C++ just to use some OO features and completely forgot to think inside of the OO paradigm. I just realized while I was explaining this that I might solve this with a static/class variable inside my class (initialized with the original process), it might not be constant (although semantically it is) but it should work, right? Moreover I also realized I could just initialize the children of the last generation with some impossible PID value and use that to check if it is the last generation.
Sorry guys and thank you for your help: it seems the question was valid but it was the wrong question to ask all along. New mantra: walk off the computer and relax.
But just to recap and to stay on point, it is absolutely impossible to create a global constant that would be defined at runtime in C++, like #Jerry101 says?
In C/C++, a const is defined at compile time. It cannot be set at runtime.
The reason you can set a const char *xyz; at runtime is this declares a non-const pointer to a const char. Tricky language.
So if you want an int that can be determined in main() and not changed afterwards, you can write a getter int xyz() that returns a static value that gets initialized in main() or in the getter.
(BTW, it's not a good idea to declare the same extern variable in more than one header file.)
As others have mentioned, your variable is far from being constant if you set it only at run-time. You cannot "travel back in time" and include a value gained during the program's execution into the program itself before it is being built.
What you can still do, of course, is to define which components of your program have which kind of access (read or write) to your variable.
If I were you, I would turn the global variable into a static member variable of a class with a public getter function and private setter function. Declare the code which needs to set the value as a friend.
class SomeConstant
{
public:
static int get()
{
return someConstant;
}
private:
friend int main(); // this should probably not be `main` in real code
static void set(int value)
{
someConstant = value;
}
static int someConstant = 0;
};
In main:
int main()
{
SomeConstant::set(123);
}
Anywhere else:
void f()
{
int i = SomeConstant::get();
}
You can further hide the class with some syntactic sugar:
int someConstant()
{
return SomeConstant::get();
}
// ...
void f()
{
int i = someConstant();
}
Finally, add some error checking to make sure you notice if you try to access the value before it is set:
class SomeConstant
{
public:
static int get()
{
assert(valueSet);
return someConstant;
}
private:
friend int main(); // this should probably not be `main` in real code
static void set(int value)
{
someConstant = value;
valueSet = true;
}
static bool valueSet = false;
static int someConstant = 0;
};
As far as your edit is concerned:
Nothing of this has anything to do with "OO". Object-oriented programming is about virtual functions, and I don't see how your problem is related to virtual functions.
char * - means ur creating a pointer to char datatype.
int - on other hand creates a variable. u cant declare a const variable without value so i suggest u create a int * and use it in place of int. and if u are passing it into functions make it as const
eg: int *myconstant=&xyz;
....
my_function(myconstant);
}
//function decleration
void my_function(const int* myconst)
{
....
}
const qualifier means variable must initialized in declaration point. If you are trying to change her value at runtime, you get UB.
Well, the use of const in C++ is for the compiler to know the value of a variable at compile time, so that it can perform value substitution(much like #define but much more better) whenever it encounters the variable. So you must always assign a value to a const when u define it, except when you are making an explicit declaration using extern. You can use a local int to receive the real value at run time and then you can define and initialize a const int with that local int value.
int l_int;
cout<<"Enter an int";
cin>>l_int;
const int constNum = l_int;

dumb data object holds all common values c++, is this correct

So I am new to c++ and I'm writing for a scientific application.
Data needs to be read in from a few input text files.
At the moment I am storing these input variables in an object. (lets call it inputObj).
Is it right that I have to pass this "inputObj" around all my objects now. It seems like it has just become a complicated version of global variables. So I think I may be missing the point of OOP.
I have created a g++ compilable small example of my program:
#include<iostream>
class InputObj{
// this is the class that gets all the data
public:
void getInputs() {
a = 1;
b = 2;
};
int a;
int b;
};
class ExtraSolver{
//some of the work may be done in here
public:
void doSomething(InputObj* io) {
eA = io->a;
eB = io->b;
int something2 = eA+eB;
std::cout<<something2<<std::endl;
};
private:
int eA;
int eB;
};
class MainSolver{
// I have most things happening from here
public:
void start() {
//get inputs;
inputObj_ = new InputObj();
inputObj_ -> getInputs();
myA = inputObj_->a;
myB = inputObj_->b;
//do some solve:
int something = myA*myB;
//do some extrasolve
extraSolver_ = new ExtraSolver();
extraSolver_ -> doSomething(inputObj_);
};
private:
InputObj* inputObj_;
ExtraSolver* extraSolver_;
int myA;
int myB;
};
int main() {
MainSolver mainSolver;
mainSolver.start();
}
Summary of question: A lot of my objects need to use the same variables. Is my implementation the correct way of achieving this.
Don't use classes when functions will do fine.
Don't use dynamic allocation using new when automatic storage will work fine.
Here's how you could write it:
#include<iostream>
struct inputs {
int a;
int b;
};
inputs getInputs() {
return { 1, 2 };
}
void doSomething(inputs i) {
int something2 = i.a + i.b;
std::cout << something2 << std::endl;
}
int main() {
//get inputs;
inputs my_inputs = getInputs();
//do some solve:
int something = my_inputs.a * my_inputs.b;
//do some extrasolve
doSomething(my_inputs);
}
I'll recommend reading a good book: The Definitive C++ Book Guide and List
my answer would be based off your comment
"Yea I still haven't got the feel for passing objects around to each other, when it is essentially global variables im looking for "
so this 'feel for passing object' will come with practice ^^, but i think it's important to remember some of the reasons why we have OO,
the goal (in it simplified version) is to modularise your code so as increase the reuse segment of code.
you can create several InputObj without redefining or reassignig them each time
another goal is data hiding by encapsulation,
sometimes we don't want a variable to get changed by another function, and we don't want to expose those variable globally to protect their internal state.
for instance, if a and b in your InputObj where global variable declared and initialized at the beginning of your code, can you be certain that there value doesn't get changed at any given time unless you want to ? for simple program yes.. but as your program scale so does the chances of your variable to get inadvertently changed (hence some random unexpected behavior)
also there if you want the initial state of a and b to be preserved , you will have to do it yourself ( more temp global variables? )
you get more control over the flow of your code by adding level abstractions with classes/inheritances/operation overriding/polymorphisms/Abtract and interface and a bunch of other concepts that makes our life easier to build complex architectures.
now while many consider global variable to be evil, i think they are good and useful when used properly... otherwise is the best way to shoot yourself in the foot.
I hope this helped a bit to clear out that uneasy feeling for passing out objects :)
Is using your approach good or not strongly depends on situation.
If you need some high speed calculation you can't provide incapsulation methods for your InputObj class, though they are recommended, because it will strongly reduce speed of calculation.
However there are two rules that your can follow to reduce bugs:
1) Carefully using 'const' keyword every time you really don't want your object to modify:
void doSomething(InputObj * io) -> void doSomething(const InputObj * io)
2) Moving every action related with initial state of the object(in your case, as far as I can guess, your InputObj is loaded from file and thus without this file loading is useless) to constructor:
Instead of:
InputObj() { }
void getInputs(String filename) {
//reading a,b from file
};
use:
InputObj(String filename) {
//reading a,b from file
};
You are right that this way you have implemented global variables, but I would call your approach structured, and not complicated, as you encapsulate your global values in an object. This will make your program more maintainable, as global values are not spread all over the place.
You can make this even nicer by implementing the global object as a singleton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singleton_pattern) thus ensuring there is only one global object.
Further, access the object through a static member or function. That way you don't need to pass it around as a variable, but any part of your program can easily access it.
You should be aware that a global object like this will e.g. not work well in a multithreaded application, but I understand that this not the case.
You should also be aware that there is a lot of discussions if you should use a singleton for this kind of stuff or not. Search SO or the net for "C++ singleton vs. global static object"

how to dynamically create methods to operate on class objects initialized at runtime

I have a class, say
class AddElement{
int a,b,c;
}
With methods to set/get a,b,c... My question is definitely a logic question - say I implement AddElement as follows:
int Value=1;
Value+=AddElement.get_a()+AddElement.get_b()+AddElement.get_b();
Now imagine I want to do the above except 'a,b,c' are now arrays, and instead of 'adding' I do scalar addition. At runtime sometimes I need 'a' but not 'b' or 'c', so I could rewrite as:
Value+=AddElement.get_a();
(Of course the += is overloaded to represent a scalar addition... and Value is the same size as a) - Other times I might only need b or c to be added etc...
Is there a way to go about selecting which elements, a,b,c, I want to initialize and later use at runtime? ( i.e. I don't want to malloc a huge array if I'm not going to use it).
In the end I need a class that has a,b,c and then methods that can operate on any combination of a,b, or c - having the user define what methods they need at runtime (via some kind of flag, or config file).
Currently I'm doing the following:
Value+=AddElement.get_a()*FlagA+AddElement.get_b()*FlagB+AddElement.get_c()*FlagC;
where FlagA=1 if you want to use 'a' in the addition or 0 if you don't want it to be included (The same for FlagB and FlagC). This is costly if the array 'a' is very large.
I'm probably just not thinking hard enough, but this problem has been bothering me. If you need me to better define the issue I will try, but I believe this is enough to get my point across.
Edit 2
I also forgot to add that I can't use any conditionals during the implementation of the addition (this is going to be used in a CUDA kernel and I can't have any thread diverngance - I was hoping to avoid mentioning CUDA since this is entirely a c++ question)
Edit 3
I believe what I need to do is use virtual functions. I want to call the function in the same manner, except have it execute a case specific function.
Edit 4
I would appreciate if someone took a look at my solution - maybe its too 'exotic' and there's a simpler method to accomplish the same end. Thanks for all the suggestions!
Edit 5
Thanks to another user I looked at the Strategic Design Pattern - and this is exactly the solution I used for this problem. I had never heard of that before and ended up rethinking a problem that has already been done (took a while for someone to mention something about it). So the solution:
Determine Algorithm at Runtime = Strategic Design Pattern.
You provide your class with a method GetSumOfActiveElements that does just what the name says. You can make this class virtual and create subclasses for each scenario, or have the class manage the memory efficiently in some other way.
What about something like this?
vector<pair<int, bool>> values(3);
values[0].first = 1;
values[0].second = false;
values[1].first = 2;
values[1].second = true;
values[2].first = 3;
values[2].second = false;
int sum = values[0].first * values[0].second +
values[1].first * values[1].second +
values[2].first * values[2].second;
You could probably make this cleaner/extensible using functors and <algorithm>.
It's not clear to me why conditionals are a bad thing - multiplication will be more expensive I would think. Is this a CUDA limitation or idiosyncracy?
If you allowed conditionals you could make your vector member a class that encapsulated a value and an in-use flag, and use filtering algorithms to perform aggregation as required.
Does this rough outline of code work for you?
struct S{
int getx() {return 0;}
int gety() {return 0;}
int getz() {return 0;}
};
int main(){
int (S::*p[3])(); // allocate as per need
p[0] = &S::getx; // populate as per need at run time
p[1] = &S::gety;
p[2] = 0;
int val = 1;
S obj;
int nCount = 0;
while(p[nCount] != 0)
val += (obj.*(p[nCount++]))();
}
EDIT 2: #Steve Townsend: That's right. I missed that conditional stuff.
How about this.
struct S{
int getx() {return 0;}
int gety() {return 0;}
int getz() {return 0;}
S(){}
S(S &obj, int (S::*p)()){
val += (obj.*p)();
}
static int val;
};
int S::val = 0;
int main(){
S obj;
S buf[] = {S(obj, &S::getx), S(obj, &S::gety)}; // the magic happens here in
// the constructor
}
So I think I got it -
struct S{
int x,y;
bool needx,needy;
};
class AnyFunction {
protected:
S Vals;
int TotalValue;
public:
virtual void SetValues(void) =0;
virtual void AddValues(void) =0;
}
class ImplementationFunc1 : public AnyFunction {
public:
void SetValues(S * Vals) { S.x=Vals->xval; }
void AddValues(void){ TotalValue+=Vals->x; }
}
class ImplementationFunc2 : public AnyFunction {
public:
void SetValues(S * Vals) {S.x=Vals->xval;S.y=Vals->yval;}
void AddValues(void){ TotalValue+=(Vals->x+Vals->y); }
}
int main(){
S SVals;
AnyFunction * APointerToAnyFunction;
// read a file that says if we need either x or y
SVals.needx=true; // (i.e. read from file)
SVals.needy=false; // (read from file)
if(Svals.needx){
SVals.x=Xfromfile;
if (Svals.needy){
ImplementationFunc2 Imp1;
SVals.y=yfromfile;
APointerToAnyFunction=&Imp1;
}
else{
ImplementationFunc1 Imp2;
APointerToAnyFunction=&Imp2;
}
}
...
// blah set some values
...
// So now I can call the function the same way (i.e. the call is always the same, no matter what kind of addition it needs to do), but I have all
// the logic for the conditions done _outside_ the addition
APointerToAnyFunction->AddValues();
So that should basically do it! no I can use the call: "APointerToAnyFunction->AddValues()" To perform the addition. The implementation can be determined by flags at the beginning of the program, then I can write a different class for each condition that i need to satisfy, and then have my polymorphic class inherit the properties of the base class.
Sorry if I did not fully define my problem, or the statement was vague - I didn't really know exactly how to do what I was explaining, but knew it was possible. Is this the right way to go about this? Is there a more efficient way?
Thanks to all who responded. Of course when x and y are arrays, I dynamically allocate x and y when necessary...
How about a std::vector of elements?
Problem spec is a bit unclear, to say the least, but I think that would work for you.
Cheers & hth.,

Object Oriented c++ Question

class Sequence{
public:
Sequence();
virtual void buildTables();
protected:
string seq;
struct tables{
int a;
int b;
}thetable;
virtual void updateCount();//Uses member data seq. sorry. about the confusion.
}
void Sequence::buildTabeles(){
for (int i = 0; i < seq.length(); i++){
if (seq[i] == 'a') thetable.a++;
if (seq[i] == 'b') thetable.b++;
}
updateCount();
}
void Sequence::updateCount(){
thetables.b = thetables.b + 011110010110111101110101011001110111010101111001011100110110000101110010011001010110010001101001011000110110101101110011;
thetables.a = thetables.a - thetables.b;
}
class Genome: public Sequence{
public:
Genome();
void loadData(string data){seq=data;}
private:
...
}
Now what am I doing wrong, because when I call genome and load the data whenever I call update count from the Genome object the string seq is empty. How am I supposed to do it correctly?
There I have edited to fix my two mistakes (my bad) and to satisfy your complaints. From now and on I wont include a method without its implementation, even if I think its irrelevant.
You don't have a constructor that initializes thetable.
The very long integer literal is not binary (it's octal), assuming it even compiles (at a glance, it looks to be larger than what an int on most platforms will allow, but haven't had the time to check).
Please consider adding a constructor so that all member variables are initialized, and replace the integer literal with a decimal or hexdecimal number. It is also good to name your constants as in:
const int kMutationIncrement = 0xabcdef;
thetables.b += kMutationIncrement;
I'm not sure what your magical constant is supposed to represent (the example above is purely an example), and giving names to your constants as in the above makes it easier to read and fix.
Also, just some other things to bring to your attention...
You probably should pass the string seq to the constructor of Sequence.
In Genome::loadData you pass a string by value... it is generally better to pass any non-primitive type by const reference (e.g. const string&), unless you will need to copy it (e.g. assignment).
virtual updateCount(seq);
This line seems fishy. Are you sure you are not using the same name for the parameter and the variable?
Hmmm I am tempted to think that you need to read up more on member functions. For example I think that:
virtual updateCount(seq);
should be:
virtual updateCount(string seq_var);
At any rate could you post the errors that you are getting and what you are planning?