It would be ok to define a class like this (ignore its implmentation):
class MyEngine {
private:
int* params;
int param_len;
public:
void set_params(int* _params, int _len);
float get_result(); // relies on `distance` member
float distance; // people can modify this
};
However, if using vector, assume it implicitly includes <iterator> which contains std::distance, how do compiler distinguish std::distance and distance member? (Or will it cause un-expected crash when run?). Say, the function get_result() relies distance member value.
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
class MyEngine {
private:
vector<int> params;
public:
void set_params(int* _params, int _len);
float get_result(); // relies on `distance` member
float distance; // people can modify this
};
update
As people mentioned, using namespace std is bad practice; however, there are still people writing code with using namespace std, and if we are collaborate with them, using their code, is there any concreate example that demonstrate the badness of using namespace std, expecially severe run error? This, would be my real purpose.
There is an answer, saying distinguish the two distance by type. Let's just try this snippet:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <vector>
#include <iterator>
using namespace std;
class MyEngine {
private:
vector<int> params;
float* distance; // people can modify this
int len;
public:
void setup();
};
void MyEngine::setup()
{
len = 100;
distance = (float*)malloc(sizeof(float)*len);
for(int i=0; i<len; i++) {
distance[0] = len - i;
params.push_back(len-i);
}
int num = distance(params.begin(), params.end());
printf("distance is: %d\n", num);
}
int main(){
MyEngine engine;
int len = 10;
engine.setup();
return 0;
}
Which, would cause compile error saying:
main.cpp:25:23: error: called object type 'float *' is not a function or function pointer
int num = distance(params.begin(), params.end());
~~~~~~~~^
1 error generated.
Demonstrates that it can't distinguish the two distance from their types.
Well, one is MyEngine::distance, and the other is std::distance. They're different names. This is the whole point of scopes.
There is only a problem if you use the unqualified name distance and leave the compiler to figure it out, but if that's not going to work then it'll be because the type of the one chosen doesn't match your usage, so your program won't compile.
If you ever did put things in std then the name can clash in potentially undiagnosable ways, which can cause crashes, and has undefined behaviour per the standard.
The function distance has a different type than the member distance, so the compiler figures that out by the type.
You can even have a function distance(...). As long as parameters are different, they have different type and the compiler figures that out.
Also note that you should not use using namespace std because that also irritates the human reader.
In your updated example, the compiler is indeed confused. You can specify that you want to use the distance function in this case by changing it to int num = std::distance(...);
Related
#include<iostream>
#include <list>
using namespace std;
class Euler {
private:
int korifes = 0;
int akmes = 0;
int* pinakas[];
public:
void print() { cout << *pinakas[0]; return; }
Euler(int korifess, int akmess);
~Euler() { delete[] *pinakas; }
void addAkmes(int kor1, int kor2);
};
Euler::Euler(int korifess, int akmess) : akmes(akmess), korifes(korifess) {
*pinakas = new int(korifes);
*pinakas[0] = 89;
}
int main() {
Euler e(2, 1);
e.print();
}
Run-Time Check Failure #2 - Stack around the variable 'e' was corrupted. occurred...i can not find where i am wrong in my code.
There are a number of errors in your code, all related to the nature of the pinakas member variable. As it stands, you are declaring this as an array of pointers (to int), and, furthermore, you are using a non-standard syntax for 'flexible' arrays (the empty []).
I don't normally just paste 'fixed' code as an answer but, in this case, that code (with the added \\\ comments where I've made changes) is likely to be the most succinct way to help you.
Although, as many here will no doubt point out, it is far better to avoid the use of 'raw' pointers and the new and delete operators, and use the std::vector container, instead.
#include <iostream>
#include <list>
//using namespace std;/// This is considered 'bad practice' by many programmers
using std::cout;/// Just use the aspect of the STL that you need!
class Euler {
private:
int korifes = 0;
int akmes = 0;
int* pinakas;/// This will point an 'array' of integers
public:
void print() {
cout << pinakas[0]; return;/// No longer any need for the dereference (*)
}
Euler(int korifess, int akmess);
~Euler() {
delete[] pinakas;/// No need for the dereference (*)
}
// void addAkmes(int kor1, int kor2);/// You haven't provided an actual definition for this, but your never use it!
};
Euler::Euler(int korifess, int akmess) : akmes(akmess), korifes(korifess)/// NOTE: Members are initialized in DECLARATION order!
{
pinakas = new int[korifes];/// Use "[]" (not "()") to allocate an array!
pinakas[0] = 89;/// No need for the dereference (*)
}
Feel free to ask for any further clarification and/or explanation.
First of all, let me say I have read similar threads on how to initialize a global variable or how to properly implement global constants. Nevertheless, these questions did not really help me with my concrete problem, as also haven't any other ressources I've consulted. The problem is the following.
I (have to) declare in a header file header.h a variable that must be constant and used by the main function in main.cpp as well as other functions defined in a another file functions.cpp (that are previously declared in header.h). The problem is this constant is a runtime constant, whose value is given by the user. How should I proceed?
I think my best shot was to do as follows. In header.h
// Header guard
namespace n
{
// Some forward declarations
extern const double mu; // The constant that should be initialized by the user.
// Some other declarations
}
then in functions.cpp
#include "header.h"
namespace n
{
// Some definitions here
double function_that_uses_mu(double a, double b)
{
// Some code using mu
return somedouble;
}
// Some other definitions
}
finally main.cpp
#include "header.h"
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
// Some code
double value_of_mu{};
std::cin >> value_of_mu;
// Validity check
extern const double n::mu{ value_of_mu };
// More code
return 0;
}
The problem is that compilation fails due to the fact that error: ‘mu’ has both ‘extern’ and initializer. However, if I tried mu = value_of_mu I would obviously get an error because I would be assigning to a const value (not initialising it). So I don't know how to proceed, or what's wrong with my code. There are two mandatory facts I must respect:
Functions/global-consts definitions, functions/global-consts declarations and main must be split in the three aforementioned files.
mu is to be defined as a constant shared by all three files.
Is this possible? How?
EDIT:
I think my problem is that an exten variable can't be initialised inside a function, but if this is so, I don't see how I do what I'm trying to.
Think about it: If a value needs to be set during the lifetime of a program, it's not really a constant. So, you shouldn't try to pretend it's a constant by declaring it as const. If you don't want the program to accidentally change its value, you have to protect it in some other way, such as making it a private member variable of a class. That way, you can restrict access to only return the value of mu as a const.
// muholder.h
class muholder
{
private:
double m_value;
public:
muholder (double ivalue): m_value(ivalue) {}
double const &value() const { return m_value; }
};
// workflow_envelope.h
class workflow_envelope
{
private:
muholder m_mu;
public:
workflow_envelope (double imu): m_mu(imu) {}
bool validity_check();
double method_that_uses_mu (double a, double b) const { return a*m_mu.value()/ b; }
void run(); // any "more code" goes in here.
};
// main
#include "workflow_envelope.h"
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
// Some code
double value_of_mu;
if (std::cin >> value_of_mu)
{
// Validity check
workflow_envelope workflow(value_of_mu);
if (workflow.validity_check())
{
workflow.run();
return 0;
}
}
return 1;
}
When you initialize a variable, you can't specify extern. This should work instead:
int main()
{
// Some code
double value_of_mu{};
std::cin >> value_of_mu;
// Validity check
using namespace n;
const double mu = value_of_mu; // no extern specifier
// More code
return 0;
}
Can you tell why does this generate segmentation error? Problem seems to occur when operator[] is called and when I don't call it, goes fine. operator[] is supposed to return a reference to the element with index i.. any help would be great..
//dynamic_array.cpp file
#include <iostream>
#include "dynamic_array.h"
using namespace std;
dynamic_array::dynamic_array() {
int *array;
array=new int[4];
array[0]=3;
size = 4;
allocated_size = 5;
}
dynamic_array::~dynamic_array() {
delete [] array;
}
int dynamic_array::get_size(void) const {
return size;
}
int dynamic_array::get_allocated_size(void) const {
return allocated_size;
}
int& dynamic_array::operator[](unsigned int i) {
return array[i];
}
//test.cpp file
#include <iostream>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include "dynamic_array.h"
using namespace std;
int main() {
dynamic_array a;
cout << a[0];
}
//dynamic_array.h file
using namespace std;
class dynamic_array {
public:
enum {
BLOCK_SIZE = 5,
SUBSCRIPT_RANGE_EXCEPTION = 1,
MEMORY_EXCEPTION = 2,
};
dynamic_array();
~dynamic_array();
int get_size(void) const;
int get_allocated_size() const;
int& operator[](unsigned int i);
class exception {
public:
exception(int n0) { n = n0; };
int n;
};
private:
int *array; // pointer to dynamically allocated memory
int allocated_size; // total number of elements in allocated memory
int size; // number of active elements
};
The local declaration
int *array;
shadows the member array. So the following code uses the local variable, not the member. Hence the member is uninitialized.
Instead of creating your own dynamic array, use std::vector.
That's safer and more convenient.
In other news:
The get prefix in e.g. get_size is a Java-ism.
In C++ a get prefix has no advantage, and it makes the code less readable. For example, standard library containers have a size method, not a get_size.
Using void as a formal argument declaration, as in get_size(void), is a C-ism.
In C it has the important effect of telling the compiler that there really are no arguments, as opposed to any arguments. In C++ () indicates that.
Not having also a const version of operator[] is inconsistent with earlier use of const.
Consistency is very important in programming. Our expectation, e.g. when maintaining code, is that it's consistent. Code that's inconsistent adds costly man-hours to maintenance.
The ALL UPPERCASE identifiers for constants are a Java-ism.
Java lacks a preprocessor, and inherited the all uppercase convention from early C, which lacked const. C++ has both const and a preprocessor. Having const there's generally no need to use #define for constants (as in early C), and having a preprocessor there's a good tecnical reason to not use all uppercase (it conflicts with the convention for macro names). In addition many/most programmers see all uppercase as shouting. It hurts.
The class exception should better be derived from std::exception.
Instead of inventing one's own exception class that can carry an error code, just use std::system_error. That's what it's for. Alternatively, derive a class from std::runtime_error, or use std::runtime_error directly.
The problem is in your constructor
Go like this for the constructor:
dynamic_array::dynamic_array() {
array = new int[4];
array[0] = 3;
size = 4;
allocated_size = 5;
}
the problem is this additinal line of code in the constructor:
int *array;
In your constructor definition, you declared a new local pointer variable named array and you allocated memory for that.
But this variable is local to the constructor and it is not the one declared in your class as may be you believed.
I'm trying to implement a minheap in C++. However the following code keeps eliciting errors such as :
heap.cpp:24:4: error: cannot convert 'complex int' to 'int' in assignment
l=2i;
^
heap.cpp:25:4: error: cannot convert 'complex int' to 'int' in assignment
r=2i+1;
^
heap.cpp: In member function 'int Heap::main()':
heap.cpp:47:16: error: no matching function for call to 'Heap::heapify(int [11], int&)'
heapify(a,i);
^
heap.cpp:47:16: note: candidate is:
heap.cpp:21:5: note: int Heap::heapify(int)
int heapify(int i) //i is the parent index, a[] is the heap array
^
heap.cpp:21:5: note: candidate expects 1 argument, 2 provided
make: * [heap] Error 1
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
#define HEAPSIZE 10
class Heap
{
int a[HEAPSIZE+1];
Heap()
{
for (j=1;j<(HEAPISZE+1);j++)
{
cin>>a[j];
cout<<"\n";
}
}
int heapify(int i) //i is the parent index, a[] is the heap array
{
int l,r,smallest,temp;
l=2i;
r=2i+1;
if (l<11 && a[l]<a[i])
smallest=l;
else
smallest=i;
if (r<11 && a[r]<a[smallest])
smallest=r;
if (smallest != i)
{
temp = a[smallest];
a[smallest] = a[i];
a[i]=temp;
heapify(smallest);
}
}
int main()
{
int i;
for (i=1;i<=HEAPSIZE;i++)
{
heapify(a,i);
}
}
}
Ultimately, the problem with this code is that it was written by someone who skipped chapters 1, 2 and 3 of "C++ for Beginners". Lets start with some basics.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
#define HEAPSIZE 10
Here, we have included the C++ header for I/O (input output). A fine start. Then, we have issued a directive that says "Put everything that is in namespace std into the global namespace". This saves you some typing, but means that all of the thousands of things that were carefully compartmentalized into std:: can now conflict with names you want to use in your code. This is A Bad Thing(TM). Try to avoid doing it.
Then we went ahead and used a C-ism, a #define. There are times when you'll still need to do this in C++, but it's better to avoid it. We'll come back to this.
The next problem, at least in the code you posted, is a misunderstanding of the C++ class.
The 'C' language that C++ is based on has the concept of a struct for describing a collection of data items.
struct
{
int id;
char name[64];
double wage;
};
It's important to notice the syntax - the trailing ';'. This is because you can describe a struct and declare variables of it's type at the same time.
struct { int id; char name[64]; } earner, manager, ceo;
This declares a struct, which has no type name, and variables earner, manager and ceo of that type. The semicolon tells the compiler when we're done with this statement. Learning when you need a semicolon after a '}' takes a little while; usually you don't, but in struct/class definition you do.
C++ added lots of things to C, but one common misunderstanding is that struct and class are somehow radically different.
C++ originally extended the struct concept by allowing you to describe functions in the context of the struct and by allowing you to describe members/functions as private, protected or public, and allowing inheritance.
When you declare a struct, it defaults to public. A class is nothing more than a struct which starts out `private.
struct
{
int id;
char name[64];
double wage;
};
class
{
public:
int id;
char name[64];
double wage;
};
The resulting definitions are both identical.
Your code does not have an access specifier, so everything in your Heap class is private. The first and most problematic issue this causes is: Nobody can call ANY of your functions, because they are private, they can only be called from other class members. That includes the constructor.
class Foo { Foo () {} };
int main()
{
Foo f;
return 0;
}
The above code will fail to compile, because main is not a member of Foo and thus cannot call anything private.
This brings us to another problem. In your code, as posted, main is a member of Foo. The entry point of a C++ program is main, not Foo::main or std::main or Foo::bar::herp::main. Just, good old int main(int argc, const char* argv[]) or int main().
In C, with structs, because C doesn't have member functions, you would never be in a case where you were using struct-members directly without prefixing that with a pointer or member reference, e.g. foo.id or ptr->wage. In C++, in a member function, member variables can be referenced just like local function variables or parameters. This can lead to some confusion:
class Foo
{
int a, b;
public:
void Set(int a, int b)
{
a = a; // Erh,
b = b; // wat???
}
};
There are many ways to work around this, but one of the most common is to prefix member variables with m_.
Your code runs afoul of this, apparently the original in C passed the array to heapify, and the array was in a local variable a. When you made a into a member, leaving the variable name exactly the same allowed you not to miss the fact that you no-longer need to pass it to the object (and indeed, your heapify member function no-longer takes an array as a pointer, leading to one of your compile errors).
The next problem we encounter, not directly part of your problem yet, is your function Heap(). Firstly, it is private - you used class and haven't said public yet. But secondly, you have missed the significance of this function.
In C++ every struct/class has an implied function of the same name as the definition. For class Heap that would be Heap(). This is the 'default constructor'. This is the function that will be executed any time someone creates an instance of Heap without any parameters.
That means it's going to be invoked when the compiler creates a short-term temporary Heap, or when you create a vector of Heap()s and allocate a new temporary.
These functions have one purpose: To prepare the storage the object occupies for usage. You should try and avoid as much other work as possible until later. Using std::cin to populate members in a constructor is one of the most awful things you can do.
We now have a basis to begin to write the outer-shell of the code in a fashion that will work.
The last change is the replacement of "HEAPSIZE" with a class enum. This is part of encapsulation. You could leave HEAPSIZE as a #define but you should expose it within your class so that external code doesn't have to rely on it but can instead say things like Heap::Size or heapInstance.size() etc.
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdint> // for size_t etc
#include <array> // C++11 encapsulation for arrays.
struct Heap // Because we want to start 'public' not 'private'.
{
enum { Size = 10 };
private:
std::array<int, Size> m_array; // meaningful names ftw.
public:
Heap() // default constructor, do as little as possible.
: m_array() // says 'call m_array()s default ctor'
{}
// Function to load values from an istream into this heap.
void read(std::istream& in)
{
for (size_t i = 0; i < Size; ++i)
{
in >> m_array[i];
}
return in;
}
void write(std::ostream& out)
{
for (size_t i = 0; i < Size; ++i)
{
if (i > 0)
out << ','; // separator
out << m_array[i];
}
}
int heapify(size_t index)
{
// implement your code here.
}
}; // <-- important.
int main(int argc, const char* argv[])
{
Heap myHeap; // << constructed but not populated.
myHeap.load(std::cin); // read from cin
for (size_t i = 1; i < myHeap.Size; ++i)
{
myHeap.heapify(i);
}
myHead.write(std::cout);
return 0;
}
Lastly, we run into a simple, fundamental problem with your code. C++ does not have implicit multiplication. 2i is the number 2 with a suffix. It is not the same as 2 * i.
int l = 2 * i;
There is also a peculiarity with your code that suggests you are mixing between 0-based and 1-based implementation. Pick one and stick with it.
--- EDIT ---
Technically, this:
myHeap.load(std::cin); // read from cin
for (size_t i = 1; i < myHeap.Size; ++i)
{
myHeap.heapify(i);
}
is poor encapsulation. I wrote it this way to draw on the original code layout, but I want to point out that one reason for separating construction and initialization is that it allows initialization to be assured that everything is ready to go.
So, it would be more correct to move the heapify calls into the load function. After all, what better time to heapify than as we add new values, keeping the list in order the entire time.
for (size_t i = 0; i < Size; ++i)
{
in >> m_array[i];
heapify(i);
}
Now you've simplified your classes api, and users don't have to be aware of the internal machinery.
Heap myHeap;
myHeap.load(std::cin);
myHeap.write(std::cout);
I am attempting to change a value in a vector which is a variable in a class using a function of a class. When I compile, i get the following errors pointing to the "check[c] = cval;" line:
error C3867: 'acc::check': function call missing argument list; use '&acc::check' to create a pointer to member
error C2109: subscript requires array or pointer type
Note: I have already initialized C to be 0 elsewhere in the program. It might be throwing an error because I am giving the address a variable instead of an integer, but when I substitute the variable with an integer, I still get the same errors.
#include <iostream>
#include <fstream>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
#include <cstring>
using namespace std;
class acc
{
public:
void add_Cval(double cval);
private:
vector<double> check(); //vector of all checks
int c; //loop marker for cvals
};
void acc::add_Cval(double cval)
{
check[c] = cval;
c++;
}
vector<double> check(); isn't what you think it is. You just declared a function named check that returns a vector<double>. Get rid of the parenthesis like so vector<double> check;.
Also, your vector<double> is empty, you need to give it some space if you want to do check[c] = cval; (or use check.push_back(cval); instead), allocate the space in the constructor (use "initialization lists" as that is what they are for):
Example:
acc(int vecsize) : check(vecsize), c(0) {}
You might also want to make sure check[c] is a valid position in the vector before assigning anything to it.
check is a method, not a data member, so you need to invoke it - check().
void acc::add_Cval(double cval)
{
check()[c] = cval;
c++;
}
or make it a data member:
class acc
{
public:
void add_Cval(double cval);
private:
vector<double> check; //vector of all checks
int c; //loop marker for cvals
};
The compiler is looking for a function called check() that returns a vector of type double.
private:
vector<double> check(); // A private function that returns a vector of type <double>
Needs to be:
private:
vector<double> check; // A private data member