How can I change work of method Get2 using count_if()? How can I fix this variant of Get2's body?
return count_if(tck_.begin(), tck_.end(), [name](int n){return name == tck_[n].name;});
The Get1 method counts the number of all tickets at the moment. The second(Get2) method counts the number of tickets of a certain type.
struct Ts {
int id;
string name;
};
class Tc {
public:
void Push(const string& name) {
tck_.push_back({id_, name});
++id_;
}
int Get1() const {
return tck_.size();
}
int Get2(const string& name) const {
//return count_if(tickets_.begin(), tickets_.end(), [name](int n){return name == tickets_[n].name;});
int counter = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < id_; ++i) {
if (name == tck_[i].name) {
counter++;
}
}
return counter;
}
void Invalidate(int minimum) {
for (int i = 0; i < minimum; ++i){
tck_.erase({tck_.begin() + i});
}
}
private:
int id_ = 0;
deque<Ts> tck_;
};
Invalidate is used to revoke expired tickets — the parameter of this method specifies the number of the first current ticket. All tickets with a smaller number should be cancelled. It is assumed that the administration does not call this method if there are no necessary tickets, so the method must delete at least one ticket.
You call count_if with the begin() and end() iterators of the deque and provide a functor, like a lambda, to do the actual comparison.
The problem you have in your lambda is that you assume it's going to be called with the index of the current element in the deque, but the lambda will actually get called with a reference to the actual element.
Example with that fixed:
#include <algorithm>
class Tc {
public:
auto Get2(const std::string& name) const {
return std::count_if(tck_.begin(), tck_.end(),
[&name](const Ts& ts) { return ts.name == name; });
// ^ ^^^^^^^^^
// | Ts&
// |
// don't copy name, take it by reference
};
Related
I'm a complete newbie at C++. I want to create my own predicate. But the part with bool operator seems to be wrong (at least in my humble opinion). Could someone give me a hint? I don't want to change the overall structure of this idea, I'm just sure I don't understand some details about operator () implementation or something related to classes in c++.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
class Predicate
{
private:
int number = 0;
public:
Predicate() = default;
Predicate(const int number)
{
this->number = number;
}
bool operator()(int value) const
{
Predicate *pred = new Predicate();
bool result = pred->operator()(value);
return result;
}
};
class Even : public Predicate
{
bool operator()(int value) const
{
return value % 2 == 0;
}
};
class Negative : public Predicate
{
bool operator()(int value) const
{
return value < 0;
}
};
int count(const std::vector<int> &elements, const Predicate &predicate)
{
int count = 0;
for (int index = 0; index < elements.size(); ++index)
{
if (predicate(elements[index]))
{
++count;
}
}
return count;
}
int main()
{
const std::vector<int> elements{-7, 12, -11, 2, 9, -4, -6, 5, 23, -1};
std::cout << count(elements, Even()) << " " << count(elements, Negative()) << std::endl;
}
What you need is:
define Predicate as an abstract type,
implements different versions of it.
Predicate as an abstract type:
class Predicate {
public:
virtual bool operator(int v) const = 0;
};
Implementing (realising) a given Predicate:
class IsNegative : public Predicate { // means IsNegatives are Predicates
public:
virtual bool operator(int v) const { return v<0; } // realisation of the operator
};
I have a assignment where I'm suppose to build template using these specifications.
ISet is a container that holds values of a certain where order doesn't matter and
which does not allow duplicates (or multiples).
A dynamically allocated array of type T should be used as an internal data structure for the Set.
The Set should inherit from the ISet interface below - this must not be modified:
template <typename T>
class ISet
{
public:
virtual bool insert (T element) = 0;
virtual bool remove (T element) = 0;
virtual int size () const = 0;
};
• insert (T element): adds elements to the set and returns true provided that
the element is not already present in the quantity (in which case the element is not added and false is returned).
• remove (T element): removes elements from the set and returns true.
If the element is missing in the quantity, false returns.
• size (): returns the number of elements in the set.
In addition to the member functions, you must implement constructor, destructor, copy constructor
and assignment operator.
And so far have I come up with this code:
#pragma once
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
template <class T>
class ISet
{
public:
virtual bool insert(T element) = 0;
virtual bool remove(T element) = 0;
virtual int size() const = 0;
};
#pragma once
#include "ISet.h"
template <class T>
class Set : public ISet<T>
{
public:
Set(string name);
~Set();
Set(const Set &origin);
//Set& operator=(const Set &origin);
bool insert(T element);
bool remove(T element);
int size()const;
private:
string name;
T *arr;
int cap, nrOfElement;
};
template<class T>
Set<T>::Set(string name)
{
this->name = name;
this->cap = 10;
this->nrOfElement = 0;
this->arr = new T[this->cap];
}
template<class T>
Set<T>::~Set()
{
delete[] arr;
}
template<class T>
Set<T>::Set(const Set & origin)
{
this->nrOfElement = origin.nrOfElement;
this->cap = origin.cap;
arr = new T*[cap];
for (int i = 0; i < nrOfElement; i++)
{
arr[i] = origin.arr[i];
}
}
template<class T>
bool Set<T>::insert(T element)
{
bool found = false;
if (nrOfElement == 0)
{
this->arr[0] = element;
this->nrOfElement++;
}
else
{
for (int i = 0; i < this->nrOfElement; i++)
{
if (this->arr[i] == element)
{
i = this->nrOfElement;
found = true;
}
}
if (found == false)
{
this->arr[nrOfElement++] = element;
}
}
return found;
}
template<class T>
bool Set<T>::remove(T element)
{
bool removed = false;
for (int i = 0; i < this->nrOfElement; i++)
{
if (this->arr[i] == element)
{
this->arr[i] = this->arr[nrOfElement];
nrOfElement--;
removed = true;
}
}
return removed;
}
template<class T>
int Set<T>::size() const
{
return this->nrOfElement;
}
And my problems starts when I start to test this code by adding the different data-type we are suppose to test the template against.
#include "Set.h"
#include "ISet.h"
#include "Runner.h"
int main()
{
_CrtSetDbgFlag(_CRTDBG_ALLOC_MEM_DF | _CRTDBG_LEAK_CHECK_DF);
Set<string> test("test");
test.insert("lol");
cout << test.size();
test.remove("lol");
cout << test.size();
Set<Runner> test2("test");
getchar();
return 0;
}
Getting the error saying that "No operator found which takes a left-hand operand type of 'Runner'. So I have to create a operator== that handles this but don't know?
Runner class looks like this:
#pragma once
#include "Competitor.h"
#include <string>
using namespace std;
class Runner : public Competitor
{
public:
Runner();
Runner(string firstName, string lastName, int startNr);
~Runner();
void addResult(int resultTime);
int getResult() const;
string toString() const;
Runner *clone() const;
private:
int resultTime;
};
#include "Runner.h"
Runner::Runner()
{
this->resultTime = 0;
}
Runner::Runner(string firstName, string lastName, int startNr) : Competitor(firstName, lastName, startNr)
{
this->resultTime = 0;
}
Runner::~Runner()
{
}
void Runner::addResult(int resultTime)
{
this->resultTime = resultTime;
}
int Runner::getResult() const
{
return this->resultTime;
}
string Runner::toString() const
{
return (to_string(this->resultTime) + " sec");
}
Runner * Runner::clone() const
{
return new Runner(*this);
}
How do I build a operator== that will work for this?
You need to add operator== to the Runner class:
bool operator==(const Runner& other) const;
I have a struct of slotAndId struct, which is declared like so
typedef struct {
int slot;
int id;
} slotAndId;
Then I have a vector which holds many objects of type slotAndId...
slotAndId object;
vector<slotAndId> ids;
for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++) {
object.slot = i;
object.id = i + 2000; //random id as example, this will be generated by something else in reality.
ids.push_back(object);
}
If I then wanted to find, for example, if there's a slotAndId object which has slot equal to 20 within the vector, how would I do that in C++98? How would I then be able to delete that specific slotAndId object from the vector?
This is what std::find_if is for.
bool HasSlot20(const slotAndId& item)
{
return item.slot == 20;
}
int main()
{
std::vector<slotAndId> ids = {..};
std::vector<slotAndId>::const_iterator it = std::find_if(
ids.begin(),
ids.end(),
HasSlot20
);
}
We need the extra function because C++98 doesn't have lambdas, but we can make it more flexible by using a functor instead:
struct HasSlot
{
HasSlot(const int id) : m_id(id) {}
bool operator()(const slotAndId& item)
{
return item.slot == m_id;
}
private:
const int m_id;
};
int main()
{
std::vector<slotAndId> ids = {..};
std::vector<slotAndId>::const_iterator it = std::find_if(
ids.begin(),
ids.end(),
HasSlot(20)
);
}
or:
int main()
{
HasSlot finder(20);
std::vector<slotAndId> ids = {..};
std::vector<slotAndId>::const_iterator it = std::find_if(
ids.begin(),
ids.end(),
finder
);
}
Now this logic is re-usable with different parameters.
Alternatively just have a loop!
If your container is very large, you might consider a different (or additional) data structure that can do this in better than linear time.
I find myself writing a lot of functions that begin with many preconditions, and then I have to figure out how to handle all the invalid inputs and write tests for them.
Note that the codebase I work in does not allow throwing exceptions, in case that becomes relevant in this question.
I am wondering if there is any C++ design pattern where instead of having preconditions, input arguments are passed via wrapper classes that guarantee invariants. For example suppose I want a function to return the max value in a vector of ints. Normally I would do something like this:
// Return value indicates failure.
int MaxValue(const std::vector<int>& vec, int* max_value) {
if (vec.empty()) {
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
*max_value = vec[0];
for (int element : vec) {
if (element > *max_value) {
*max_value = element;
}
}
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
But I am wondering if there is a design pattern to do something like this:
template <class T>
class NonEmptyVectorWrapper {
public:
static std::unique_ptr<NonEmptyVectorWrapper>
Create(const std::vector<T>& non_empty_vector) {
if (non_empty_vector.empty()) {
return std::unique_ptr<NonEmptyVectorWrapper>(nullptr);
}
return std::unique_ptr<NonEmptyVectorWrapper>(
new NonEmptyVectorWrapper(non_empty_vector));
}
const std::vector<T>& vector() const {
return non_empty_vector_;
}
private:
// Could implement move constructor/factory for efficiency.
NonEmptyVectorWrapper(const std::vector<T>& non_empty_vector)
: non_empty_vector_(non_empty_vector) {}
const std::vector<T> non_empty_vector_;
};
int MaxValue(const NonEmptyVectorWrapper<int>& vec_wrapper) {
const std::vector<int>& non_empty_vec = vec_wrapper.vector();
int max_value = non_empty_vec[0];
for (int element : non_empty_vec) {
if (element > max_value) {
max_value = element;
}
}
return max_value;
}
The main pro here is that you avoid unnecessary error handling in the function. A more complicated example where this could be useful:
// Finds the value in maybe_empty_vec which is closest to integer n.
// Return value indicates failure.
int GetValueClosestToInt(
const std::vector<int>& maybe_empty_vec,
int n,
int* closest_val);
std::vector<int> vector = GetRandomNonEmptyVector();
for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
int closest_val;
int success = GetValueClosestToInt(vector, i, &closest_val);
if (success) {
std::cout << closest_val;
} else {
// This never happens but we should handle it.
}
}
which wastefully checks that the vector is non-empty each time and checks for failure, versus
// Returns the value in the wrapped vector closest to n.
int GetValueClosestToInt(
const NonEmptyVectorWrapper& non_empty_vector_wrapper,
int n);
std::unique_ptr<NonEmptyVectorWrapper> non_empty_vector_wrapper =
NonEmptyVectorWrapper::Create(GetRandomNonEmptyVector());
for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
std::cout << GetValueClosestToInt(*non_empty_vector_wrapper, i);
}
which can't fail and gets rid of the needless input checking.
Is this design pattern a good idea, is there a better way to do it, and is there a name for it?
I am trying to create custom array indexed from 1 using subscript operator. Getting value works fine, but I have no clue, why assign using subscript operator doesn't work.
class CEntry {
public:
CKey key;
CValue val;
CEntry(const CKey& key, const CValue& val) {
this->key = key;
this->val = val;
}
CEntry& operator= (const CEntry& b) {
*this = b;
return *this;
};
};
...
class EntriesArray {
public:
CEntry **entries;
int length;
EntriesArray(int length) {
this->length = length;
entries = new CEntry*[length];
int i;
for (i = 0; i < length + 1; i++) {
entries[i] = NULL;
}
};
CEntry& operator[] (const int index) {
if (index < 1 || index > length) {
throw ArrayOutOfBounds();
}
return *entries[index - 1];
};
};
Constructs array this way
EntriesArray a(5);
This works
a.entries[0] = new CEntry(CKey(1), CValue(1));
cout << a[1].val.value << endl;
This doesn't work
a[1] = new CEntry(CKey(1), CValue(1));
EDIT:
Using
CEntry *operator=( CEntry *orig)
it compiles okey, but gdb stops at
No memory available to program now: unsafe to call malloc warning: Unable to restore previously selected frame
with backtrace
Program received signal EXC_BAD_ACCESS, Could not access memory.
Reason: KERN_PROTECTION_FAILURE at address: 0x00007fff5f3ffff8
0x00000001000013c8 in CEntry::operator= (this=0x0, orig=0x1001008d0) at /Users/seal/Desktop/efa du2_pokus2/efa du2_pokus2/main.cpp:20
20 /Users/seal/Desktop/efa du2_pokus2/efa du2_pokus2/main.cpp: No such file or directory.
in /Users/seal/Desktop/efa du2_pokus2/efa du2_pokus2/main.cpp
At first... This:
CEntry& operator= (const CEntry& b) {
*this = b;
return *this;
};
Shouldn't work (this should result in recursive call of operator=).
The second thing is that you're trying to assign CEntry * to CEntry, this would work if you had CEntry *operator=( CEntry *orig), but I think this is bad coding practice.
This question may be related to this one.
I tried to fix your code; I believe that this is what you were trying to do:
(tested this code on g++ 5.3.0)
#include <iostream>
#include <stdexcept>
#include <string>
// Some implementation for CKey and CValue:
typedef int CKey;
struct CValue {
int value;
CValue(int value=0) : value(value) {}
};
class CEntry {
public:
CKey key;
CValue val;
CEntry(): key(0), val(0) {}
CEntry(const CKey& key, const CValue& val): key(key), val(val) {}
CEntry& operator= (const CEntry& b) {
this->key = b.key;
this->val = b.val;
return *this;
};
};
class EntriesArray {
public:
CEntry *entries;
int length;
EntriesArray(int length) {
this->length = length;
entries = new CEntry[length];
};
CEntry& operator[] (const int index) {
if (index < 1 || index > length) {
throw std::domain_error("out of bounds!");
}
return entries[index - 1];
};
};
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
using namespace std;
EntriesArray a(5);
// This works
a.entries[0] = CEntry(CKey(1), CValue(1));
cout << a[1].val.value << endl;
// This doesn't work
a[1] = CEntry(CKey(2), CValue(2));
cout << a[1].val.value << endl;
}
Also you might want to use a[1] as a[1].val.value e.g.:
cout << a[1] << endl;
To do this just add to this line to cEntry:
operator int() { return val.value; }
I hope it helps.
You could try replacing
CEntry& operator[] (const int index) {
if (index < 1 || index > length) {
throw ArrayOutOfBounds();
}
return *entries[index - 1];
};
with
void Add(const int index, CEntry *pEntry) {
if (index < 1 || index > length) {
throw ArrayOutOfBounds();
}
entries[index - 1] = pEntry;
};
but since you are now storing references to objects allocated on the heap (with new) you will need a destructor ~EntriesArray() to delete them all.
Because EntriesArray::operator[] returns a CEntry &, but new CEntry returns a CEntry *.
Perhaps you want a[1] = CEntry(CKey(1), CValue(1))? (no new.)
By the way, your current definition of CEntry::operator= will lead to a stack overflow.
This
return *entries[index - 1];
dereferences a NULL pointer.
You want the pointer itself to be overwritten by a[1] = new CEntry(CKey(1), CValue(1));, not the pointed-to-value.
Try this:
class EntriesArray
{
public:
int length;
CEntry **entries;
EntriesArray( int length ) : length(length), entries(new CEntry*[length]())
{
}
// defaulted special member functions are inappropriate for this class
EntriesArray( const EntriesArray& ); // need custom copy-constructor
~EntriesArray(); // need custom destructor
EntriesArray& operator=(const EntriesArray&); // need custom assignment-operator
CEntry*& operator[] (const int index) {
if (index < 1 || index > length) {
throw ArrayOutOfBounds();
}
return entries[index - 1];
}
};
Further to my comment above:
To make it work with writing new values, you probably need something like this
(I haven't double checked for off by one or ptr vs reference stuff)
CEntry& operator[] (const int index) {
if (index < 1) {
throw ArrayOutOfBounds();
}
// Add default elements between the current end of the list and the
// non existent entry we just selected.
//
for(int i = length; i < index; i++)
{
// BUG is here.
// We don't actually know how "entries" was allocated, so we can't
// assume we can just add to it.
// We'd need to try to resize entries before coming into this loop.
// (anyone remember realloc()? ;-)
entries[i] = new CEntry();
}
return *entries[index - 1];
};