I've been having a hell of a time trying to solve this. What I am trying to do is use operator overloading so that my objects behave more like a multi dimensional array. I've found solutions to several of the smaller problems involved in making this happen but whenever I try to put it all together there is one issue or another, either lvalue assignment error or invalid initialization from rvalue or just straight up seg fault. I would appreciate any advice TY.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <string>
class Matrix {
std::string **m;
public:
Matrix(int x, int y) {
m = new std::string*[x];
for (int i = 0; i < x; i++)
m[x] = new std::string[y];
}
class Proxy {
std::string *mm;
int lastIndex = 0;
public:
Proxy(std::string *s) : mm(s) {}
std::string &operator[](int index) {
lastIndex = index;
return mm[index];
}
std::string &operator=(std::string s) {
mm[lastIndex] = s;
return mm[lastIndex];
}
};
Proxy operator[](int index) {
return Proxy(m[index]);
}
};
int main()
{
Matrix *m = new Matrix(5, 5);
m[2][2] = std::string("It Works");
std::cout << m[2][2] << std::endl;
return 0;
In main(), m is a pointer to a Matrix object, so you need to dereference the pointer in order to access the Matrix object so you can invoke your Matrix::operator[] on it, eg:
int main()
{
Matrix *m = new Matrix(5, 5);
(*m)[2][2] = "It Works";
std::cout << (*m)[2][2] << std::endl;
delete m;
return 0;
}
Online Demo
Otherwise, the pointer is not really needed in your example to begin with, eg:
int main()
{
Matrix m(5, 5);
m[2][2] = "It Works";
std::cout << m[2][2] << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Online Demo
Either way, your Proxy does not need to implement operator= at all, eg:
class Proxy {
std::string *mm;
public:
Proxy(std::string *s) : mm(s) {}
std::string& operator[](int index) {
return mm[index];
}
};
A statement like m[2][2] = "..."; will not invoke your Proxy::operator=, it will invoke only Proxy::operator[]. A statement like m[2] = "..."; would be needed to invoke Proxy::operator=, which doesn't make sense to do in a multi-dimensional scenario.
Also, your Matrix constructor has a bug - writing to m[x] is going out of bounds of the m[] array, so the array is not actually filled at all, and you are corrupting surrounding memory, and leaking memory. You need to write to m[i] instead:
//m[x] = new std::string[y];
m[i] = new std::string[y];
After fixing that, Matrix is still leaking memory, as it does not implement a destructor to free the std::strings. You must delete[] anything you new[] (same with delete and new).
And then, you should finish off implementing support for the Rule of 3/5/0, by implementing a copy constructor and a copy assignment operator (your example code does not need them, but production code should always have them), eg:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <utility>
class Matrix {
std::string **m;
int m_x, m_y;
public:
Matrix(int x = 0, int y = 0) : m_x(x), m_y(y) {
m = new std::string*[x];
for (int i = 0; i < x; ++i)
m[i] = new std::string[y];
}
Matrix(const Matrix &src) : m_x(src.m_x), m_y(src.m_y) {
m = new std::string*[m_x];
for (int i = 0; i < m_x; ++i) {
m[i] = new std::string[m_y];
for (int j = 0; j < m_y; ++j) {
m[i][j] = src.m[i][j];
}
}
}
~Matrix() {
for (int i = 0; i < m_x; ++i)
delete[] m[i];
delete[] m;
}
Matrix& operator=(const Matrix &rhs) {
if (&rhs != this) {
Matrix temp(rhs);
std::swap(m, temp.m);
std::swap(m_x, temp.m_x);
std::swap(m_y, temp.m_y);
}
return *this;
}
class Proxy {
std::string *mm;
public:
Proxy(std::string *s) : mm(s) {}
std::string& operator[](int index) {
return mm[index];
}
};
Proxy operator[](int index) {
return Proxy(m[index]);
}
};
int main()
{
Matrix m(5, 5);
m[2][2] = "It Works";
std::cout << m[2][2] << std::endl;
Matrix m2(m);
std::cout << m2[2][2] << std::endl;
Matrix m3;
m3 = m2;
std::cout << m3[2][2] << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Online Demo
However, rather than using new[] manually, consider using std::vector instead (which you are already aware of, since you have #include <vector> in your code). This way, the Rule of 3/5/0 can be handled entirely by the compiler for you. std::vector and std::string are both fully compliant with the Rule, and so any compiler-generated destructor, copy constructor, and copy-assignment operator in Matrix will suffice, eg:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <string>
class Matrix {
std::vector<std::vector<std::string>> m;
public:
Matrix(int x = 0, int y = 0) {
m.resize(x);
for (int i = 0; i < x; ++i)
m[i].resize(y);
}
class Proxy {
std::vector<std::string> &mm;
public:
Proxy(std::vector<std::string> &s) : mm(s) {}
std::string& operator[](int index) {
return mm[index];
}
};
Proxy operator[](int index) {
return Proxy(m[index]);
}
};
Online Demo
Related
I have a class and i keep getting some error from the destructor.
This is the clas:
#pragma once
class Number
{
int bas;
char* val;
public:
Number(const char* value, int base);
Number(const Number& x);
~Number();
void SwitchBase(int newBase);
void Print();
int GetDigitsCount();
int GetBase();
};
This is the cpp file:
#include "Number.h"
#include <iostream>
Number::Number(const char* value, int base)
{
int a = -1;
do
{
a++;
} while (value[a] != '\0');
val = new char[a + 1];
for (int i = 0; i <= a; i++)
val[i] = value[i];
bas = base;
}
Number::Number(const Number& x)
{
int a = -1;
bas = x.bas;
do
{
a++;
} while (x.val[a] != '\0');
delete[]val;
val = new char[a + 1];
int i;
for (i = 0; i <= a; i++)
val[i] = x.val[i];
}
Number::~Number()
{
delete[]val;
}
void Number::Print()
{
std::cout << "Numarul este: " << val<< std::endl << "Baza este: " << bas<<std::endl;
}
int Number:: GetDigitsCount()
{
int l = 0;
do
{
l++;
} while (val[l] != '\0');
return l;
}
This is the main:
int main()
{
Number x("123", 10),y("111",10),z("0",10);
z = y;
z.Print();
}
I keep getting this error:
Invalid address specified to RtlValidateHeap( 010C0000, 010C8DD8 )
If i do this change in main it works properly but it is not really what I want...
int main()
{
Number x("123", 10),y("111",10);
Number z = y;
z.Print();
}
How can I solve this? I can't figure it out...
Your Number class is missing an assignment operator. Since you use the assignment operator in main the default assignment operator will cause a double delete when you exit main and this explains the error.
It also explains why the error goes away when you change main to use the copy constructor instead of the assignment operator.
You should look at the copy and swap idiom to show how to easily and efficiently implement copy constructors and assignment operators.
Alternatively you could also use std::string instead of manually allocating memory. This would eliminate the need to write a destructor, copy constructor and assignment operator. That's the best solution.
This is an example of how code may look like using std::string:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
class Number
{
int bas;
std::string val;
public:
Number(std::string, int base);
Number(const Number& number);
Number& operator= (const Number& number);
~Number()=default;
void Print();
int GetDigitsCount();
};
Number::Number(std::string value, int base)
{
val=value;
bas=base;
}
Number::Number(const Number& number)
{
val=number.val;
bas=number.bas;
}
Number& Number::operator= (const Number& number)
{
val=number.val;
bas=number.bas;
return *this;
}
void Number::Print()
{
std::cout << "Numarul este: " << val<< std::endl << "Baza este: " << bas<<std::endl;
}
int Number:: GetDigitsCount()
{
return val.size();
}
int main()
{
Number x("123", 10),y("111",10),z("0",10);
Number k(y);
k.Print();
}
In the class constructor, I am initializing other objects and pushing these objects to my class vector member. From what I understand, the vector create a copy of the object and stores it so that it doesn't go out of scope. However, when verifying the objects in another class function, they are not initialized anymore. Here's a example code to explain the behaviour:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
class Square {
private:
int size_ = 0;
int colour_ = 0;
public:
Square(){
size_ = 0;
colour_ = 0;
}
void init(int size, int colour) {
size_ = size;
colour_ = colour;
}
int get_size() { return size_; }
};
class SetSquares {
private:
std::vector<Square> squares_;
int number_;
public:
SetSquares(): number_(0) {}
void init(int num) {
number_ = num;
squares_.clear();
squares_.resize(num);
for (int i=0; i < num; i++) {
Square square;
square.init(i, i);
squares_.push_back(square);
}
}
void sample(int i) {
if (i >= number_) { return; }
std::cout << "Square size is: " << squares_[i].get_size() << std::endl;
}
};
int main()
{
SetSquares set_of_squares;
set_of_squares.init(7);
set_of_squares.sample(4);
return 0;
}
resize(n) will create n default constructed elements in a vector and push_back will append new elements after those n elements. Use reserve and push_back or resize and index operator as suggested in comment.
Say I have a simple vector class, vec:
#include <iostream>
#include <stdlib.h>
class vec {
public:
vec() {}
// Constructor.
vec(int n) {
len = n;
data = new double[len];
}
// Destructor.
~vec() { delete [] data; }
// Accessor.
double & operator[](int i) const {
check_index(i);
return data[i];
}
// Other methods...
// ....
protected:
int len;
double * data;
void check_index(int i) const {
if(i < 0 || i >= len) {
std::cerr << "Bad access.\n";
exit(1);
}
}
};
Now suppose I have a special type of vector with sparse structure, e.g., where every even-index is zero. Call this oddvec. Instances of oddvec should be declared just as with the vec class, but underneath, the memory use should be efficient since only half the data is non-zero.
The accessor for the oddvec class should return 0 if the index is even, and return the odd-index element (stored sequentially) otherwise. There a couple problems with this:
The double & return type is violated if the index is even, since the constant value, 0, is returned.
It's not clear to me how to handle the situation when an even index element is used as an lvalue. E.g., v[0] = 3.0 should not be allowed in the oddvec class, but is perfectly acceptable in the vector class. We can't simply throw an error when even indexes are used, because even indexes are fine as long as the intention is as an rvalue.
How do I design the accessor function for the oddvec class, while both keeping the memory storage efficient and inheriting all the methods from the parent?
Non-working example of oddvec:
class oddvec : public vec {
public:
// Constructor.
oddvec(int n) {
len = n;
data = new double[len/2];
}
// Accessor (doesn't work!)
double & operator[](int i) const {
check_index(i);
if (i%2 == 0)
return 0;
else
return data[(i-1)/2];
}
};
Upon compilation:
main.cpp: In member function ‘double& oddvec::operator[](int) const’:
main.cpp:49:20: error: invalid initialization of non-const reference of type ‘double&’ from an rvalue of type ‘double’
return 0;
Working example using proxy classes:
I have implemented a proxy class as suggested in the answer below.
proxies.h
#ifndef PROXIES_H
#define PROXIES_H
#include <iostream>
#include <stdlib.h>
class proxy {
public:
proxy(int i, double v, double * d) {
index = i;
value = v;
data = d;
}
void operator=(double rhs) {
data[index] = rhs;
}
friend std::ostream & operator<<(std::ostream & outs, const proxy & p) {
outs << p.value;
return outs;
}
protected:
int index;
double value;
double * data;
};
class oddproxy : public proxy {
public:
oddproxy(int i, int v, double * d) : proxy(i, v, d) {}
void operator=(double rhs) {
if (index%2 == 0) {
std::cerr << "Even entries of oddvec are not assignable.\n";
exit(1);
}
data[index/2] = rhs;
}
};
#endif
vectors.h
#ifndef VECTORS_H
#define VECTORS_H
#include "proxies.h"
class vec {
public:
vec() {}
// Constructor.
vec(int n) {
len = n;
data = new double[len];
}
// Destructor.
~vec() { delete [] data; }
// Accessor.
proxy operator[](int i) const {
check_index(i);
return proxy(i, data[i], data);
}
inline int length() const { return len; }
// Other methods...
// ....
protected:
int len;
double * data;
void check_index(int i) const {
if(i < 0 || i >= len) {
std::cerr << "Bad access.\n";
exit(1);
}
}
};
class oddvec : public vec {
public:
// Constructor.
oddvec(int n) {
len = n;
data = new double[len/2];
}
// Accessor.
oddproxy operator[](int i) const {
check_index(i);
return oddproxy(i, (i%2 == 0) ? 0 : data[i/2], data);
}
};
#endif
main.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include "vectors.h"
int main () {
int N = 5;
vec V(N);
oddvec O(N);
for(int i=0; i < V.length(); i++) {
V[i] = i;
if(i%2 != 0) {
O[i] = i;
}
}
for(int i=0; i < O.length(); i++) {
std::cout << "V[" << i << "]=" << V[i] << ", "
<< "O[" << i << "]=" << O[i] << "\n";
}
O[0] = 13;
return 0;
}
output
V[0]=0, O[0]=0
V[1]=1, O[1]=1
V[2]=2, O[2]=0
V[3]=3, O[3]=3
V[4]=4, O[4]=0
Even entries of oddvec are not assignable.
You can use proxy object to do this.
simple sample code:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
class very_odd_vector{
public:
class only_odd_proxy;
friend class only_odd_proxy;
only_odd_proxy operator [](int index);
int operator [](int index)const{return index%2==0?0:content[index/2];}
unsigned int size()const{return content.size()*2;}
private:
vector<int> content{1,3,5,7,9};
};
class very_odd_vector::only_odd_proxy{
public:
only_odd_proxy(very_odd_vector& vec,int index):vec(vec),index(index){}
operator int(){return index%2==0 ? 0 : vec.content[index/2];}
only_odd_proxy& operator =(int value){
if(index%2==0)
cout << "BAD OPERATION";//any error you want
else
vec.content[index/2] = value;
return *this;
}
private:
very_odd_vector& vec;
int index;
};
auto very_odd_vector::operator [](int index)->only_odd_proxy{return only_odd_proxy(*this,index);}
int main(){
very_odd_vector v;
cout << "reading value\n";
for(int i=0;i<v.size();++i)
cout << v[i] <<'\n';
cout << "writting value\n";
for(int i=0;i<v.size();++i){
cout << i << ':';
v[i]=10;
cout << '\n';
}
cout << "reading value\n";
for(int i=0;i<v.size();++i)
cout << v[i] <<'\n';
}
Edit for updated part of question :
I think this class will fit your need more.
//Both base and inherit class return this class
class maybe_readonly_proxy {
public:
maybe_readonly_proxy(double* data, bool readonly):readonly(readonly),data(data){}
maybe_readonly_proxy& operator=(double rhs) {
if(readonly){/*whatever error*/}
else {*data = rhs;}
return *this;
}
operator double()const{return *data;}
private:
bool readonly;
double * data;
};
You may need a variable to contain readonly (0 in this case) value, or modify the operator double() the check readonly state
Or just implement get and set method separately and do not use this proxy may be another choice.
I have a problem with the operator = in my class. This is the semplified code:
class:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Mat{
private:
int *m1;
int *m2;
unsigned rows;
unsigned cols;
void write(unsigned r_max, unsigned c_max){
m1 = new int [r_max*c_max];
for(unsigned i = 0; i < r_max*c_max; i++){
m1[i] = i;
}
}
public:
Mat():
rows(1), cols(1){
m1 = new int [1];
m1[0] = 0;
m2 = new int [1];
m2[0] = 0;
}
Mat(unsigned r, unsigned c):
rows(r), cols(c){
write(rows, cols);
m2 = new int [rows*cols];
for(unsigned i = 0; i < rows*cols; i++)
m2[i] = 0;
}
Mat &operator=(const Mat &w){
int *new_ptr1 = NULL;
new_ptr1 = new int [w.rows*w.cols];
int *new_ptr2 = NULL;
new_ptr2 = new int [w.rows*w.cols];
for(unsigned i = 0; i < w.rows*w.cols; i++){
new_ptr1[i] = w.say_m1(i);
new_ptr2[i] = w.say_m2(i);
}
delete[] w.m1;
delete[] w.m2;
m1 = new_ptr1;
m2 = new_ptr2;
rows = w.rows;
cols = w.cols;
return *this;
}
int say_m1(unsigned i) const{ return m1[i]; }
int say_m2(unsigned i) const{ return m2[i]; }
~Mat(){
delete[] m1;
delete[] m2;
}
};
Here is what I need to do in the main:
#include "Mat.cpp"
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib>
using namespace std;
int main(int argc, char **argv){
Mat a;
Mat b(20, 20);
a = b;
return 0;
}
I think the problem is in the class where I overload the operator =
I don't know how to copy the right object data into the left object data, I'm not sure also if I delete correctly...
I think the problem is in the class where I overload the operator = I don't know how to copy the right object data into the left object data, I'm not sure also if I delete correctly...
You do not (delete correctly).
Operator = should alter the values of *this. Instead, you delete w.m1 and w.m2 (where w is your parameter).
Corrected code:
Mat &operator=(const Mat &w){
int *new_ptr1 = NULL;
new_ptr1 = new int [w.rows*w.cols];
int *new_ptr2 = NULL;
new_ptr2 = new int [w.rows*w.cols];
for(unsigned i = 0; i < w.rows*w.cols; i++){
new_ptr1[i] = w.say_m1(i);
new_ptr2[i] = w.say_m2(i);
}
delete[] m1; // <<< HERE
delete[] m2; // <<< HERE
m1 = new_ptr1;
m2 = new_ptr2;
rows = w.rows;
cols = w.cols;
return *this;
}
That said, there's a host of other problems with your code:
Assuming you wrote this code to learn how to manipulate dynamic arrays within a class:
you're using a class that manages two different allocated resources directly. You should consider using a smart pointer on m1 and m2 (for exception safety).
Implement the rule of three: constructor (you already have this), copy constructor (you don't have this) and assignment operator (you already have this).
Add a destructor to your class.
** Assuming this is code you will use and did not write for learning arrays:**
[] use std::vectors for m1 and m2 instead. This will save you from having to implement the rule of three and destructor.
You use using namespace std; globally. Don't do that as it creates many many problems.
Edit:
Better code:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
class Mat{
std::vector<int> life;
std::vector<int> neighborhood;
public:
// this is unnecessary
// void write(unsigned r_max, unsigned c_max); {
Mat() : life(1), meighborhood(1) // fill each with 1 int with default value (0)
{
}
Mat(unsigned r, unsigned c)
: life(r), meighborhood(c) // fill each with r(and c) ints with default value (0)
{
}
// ~Mat() became unnecessary: destructors of std::vector will deallocate fine
Mat &operator=(const Mat &w) {
// create replacements before doing changing any value
// this way, if you get an exception while creating the data
// the value in the obhect does not change
std::vector<int> new_life(w.life);
std::vector<int> new_neighborhood(w.neighborhood);
life.swap(new_life);
neighborhood.swap(new_neighborhood);
return *this;
}
// use std::vector<int>::at which throws an exception if the index is invalid
// if you are not interested in the validation of the index
// return life[i] and neighborhood[i]
int say_m1(unsigned i) const{ return life.at(i); }
int say_m2(unsigned i) const{ return neighborhood.at(i); }
};
Hey i'm new to c++ and still working out its perticularities. I'm having the darnedest time trying to figure out whats going wrong with this code. I've stepped through it and everything is calculating correctly. The issue is that value_array in the base class doesn't seem to be retaining the values once the derived class Calculate function ends. I think i've declared and allocated the array properly. I'm stumped...
#include <iostream>
class Indicator
{
protected:
double * value_array;
double * input_array;
int input_size;
public:
Indicator(double input[], int size)
{
input_array = input;
input_size = size;
value_array = new double[size]; // issue with value_array
}
double operator[] (int index) { return value_array[index]; }
void virtual Calculate() {}
~Indicator() { delete[] value_array; }
};
class SMA : public Indicator
{
private:
int nperiod;
double sum;
public:
SMA(double input[], int size, int period) : Indicator(input, size)
{
nperiod = period;
sum = 0;
Calculate();
}
void Calculate();
};
void SMA::Calculate()
{
for (int i=0; i<input_size; i++)
{
if (i > nperiod - 1)
{
sum += input_array[i] - input_array[i-nperiod];
value_array[i] = sum / nperiod;
}
else
{
sum += input_array[i];
value_array[i] = sum / (i+1);
}
}
}
int main(int argc, const char *argv[]) {
double input[] = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10};
Indicator indicator = SMA(input,10,5);
double value = indicator[0];
std::cout << "value: " << value << std::endl;
std::cin.get();
exit(0);
}
Update:
Here is the code implemented with vectors. I wanted to leave the input as double[] to be consistent with other libraries, any other potential issues I should be aware of?
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
class Indicator
{
protected:
std::vector<double> value_vector;
double * input_array;
int input_size;
public:
Indicator(double input[], int size)
{
input_array = input;
input_size = size;
value_vector.reserve(size);
}
double operator[] (int index) { return value_vector[index]; }
void virtual Calculate() {}
};
class SMA : public Indicator
{
private:
int nperiod;
double sum;
public:
SMA(double input[], int size, int period) : Indicator(input, size)
{
nperiod = period;
sum = 0;
Calculate();
}
void Calculate();
};
void SMA::Calculate()
{
for (int i=0; i<input_size; i++)
{
if (i > nperiod - 1)
{
sum += input_array[i] - input_array[i-nperiod];
value_vector.push_back(sum / nperiod);
}
else
{
sum += input_array[i];
value_vector.push_back(sum / (i+1));
}
std::cout << "sma: " << value_vector[i] << std::endl;
}
}
int main(int argc, const char *argv[]) {
double input[] = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10};
Indicator indicator = SMA(input,10,5);
for (int i=0; i<10; i++)
{
std::cout << "main: " << indicator[i] << std::endl;
}
std::cin.get();
exit(0);
}
That's because you're violating the Rule of Three. Since your class manages a resource, it needs a copy constructor and an assignment operator. I strongly suggest replacing any T* data member with a std::vector<T> data member. Then you don't need to write those special member functions manually.
Hia,
a few things are wrong.
As FredOverflow says you need a copy constructor and assignment, something like:
Indicator::Indicator(const Indicator& other)
{
input_size = other.input_size;
//direct copy of reference as indicator doesn't own this data
//Note a shared pointer (such as boost::shared_ptr) would be better than a naked reference
input_array = other.input_array;
//construct a new set of data
value_array = new double[input_size];
//do you want to copy the data too? maybe a memcpy follows?
memcpy(value_array, other.value_array, input_size*sizeof(double));
}
Then you need an assignment
Indicator&
Indicator::operator=(const Indicator& other)
{
//make sure you are not assigning itself
if(this != &other)
{
input_size = other.input_size;
//direct copy of reference as indicator doesn't own this data
//Note a shared pointer (such as boost::shared_ptr) would be better than a naked reference
input_array = other.input_array;
//destroy old data and construct a new set of data
delete[] value_array;
value_array = new double[input_size];
//do you want to copy the data too? maybe a memcpy follows?
memcpy(value_array, other.value_array, input_size*sizeof(double));
}
return *this;
}
You probably also want to make the destructor virtual - see here for why -
it helps prevent memory leaks in the destructor of SMA
virtual ~Indicator() { delete[] value_array; }
Use std::vector instead of raw arrays.
std::vector handles all the memory management and copying and so forth.
Cheers & hth.,