Passing an Array of Objects into a Function - c++

I have a class that defines object.name as "Ben" and object.favNum as 25.
I also have an array (names) to store 5 objects of this class.
Before I output the attributes of the objects in the array, I change the value of names[0].name to "Jim" and names[0].favNum to 40, using pointer notation.
Here is my code:
#include<iostream>
class Person {
public:
std::string name = "Ben";
int favNum = 25;
};
int main()
{
Person names[5];
Person *ptr = &names[0];
// Changing Values
(ptr + 0)->name = "Jim";
(ptr + 0)->favNum = 40;
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
std::cout << (std::string) (ptr + i)->name << std::endl;
std::cout << (int) (ptr + i)->favNum << std::endl << std::endl;
}
system("pause>0");
}
Output:
Jim
40
Ben
25
Ben
25
Ben
25
Ben
25
Where I have the "Changing Values" comment, I want to replace those 2 lines with a function.
The function will be able to change the values as I am doing with the 2 lines.
This is where I am having a problem.
I'm struggling with figuring out what type to declare the function as, how to pass the pointer in, how to receive the pointer, and how to change the values of the objects in the array in the function.

I would recommend against the use of pointers, unless you really need pointers.
// use references instead
void change(Person &person) {
person.name = "Jim";
person.favNum = 40;
};
int main()
{
Person names[5];
change(names[0]);
// ...
}
The appropriate way to write such a function would be using references. A reference is similar to a pointer, but can never be nullptr. In your case you don't need nullability, you just need to edit a Person without copying it.
You probably want change() to be parametric though:
// use references instead
void change(Person &person, std::string name, int favNum) {
person.name = std::move(name);
person.favNum = favNum;
}
But now you are assigning all members of Person using this function, which makes it pointless. It would be simpler if you assigned Person. Why not use a struct and aggregate initialization:
struct Person {
std::string name = "Ben";
int favNum = 25;
};
int main()
{
Person names[5];
names[0] = {"Jim", 40};
// ...
}
On a side note, what you are doing here is unnecessary complicated:
(ptr + 0)->name = "Jim";
// this is equivalent to
ptr[0].name = "Jim";
// this is equivalent to
ptr->name = "Jim";

This is how your code should look in "real" c++ (the setting of the values will be done in the constructor function or using the setNameAndFavNum() function):
#include <array>
#include <iostream>
struct Person {
public:
Person(const std::string& name_ = "Ben", int favNum_ = 25) : name(name_), favNum(favNum_) {};
void setNameAndFavNum(const std::string& name_, int favNum_) {
name = name_;
favNum = favNum_;
};
std::string name;
int favNum;
};
int main() {
std::array<Person, 5> names;
// Changing Values
names[0].setNameAndFavNum("Jim", 40);
// Alternatively you can use the constructor and implicit copy constructor
// names[0] = {"Jim", 40};
for (int i = 0; i < names.size(); i++) {
std::cout << names[i].name << std::endl;
std::cout << names[i].favNum << std::endl << std::endl;
}
}
You shouldn't mess around with pointers and raw values when writing c++ code.

Related

Why pointer to pointer was used in the code?

Why pointer to pointer has been used rather than single pointer in the code? Also do you think the destructor was written wrong if it is how can i make it correct?
pointer to pointer: employee** _arr;
You can see the code below:
#include<iostream>
class employee {
private:
std::string _name;
std::string _surname;
int _year;
double _salary;
static int numberOfEmployees;
public:
employee() {
_name = "not-set";
_surname = "not-set";
_year = 0;
_salary = 0;
numberOfEmployees++;
}
employee(int year, std::string name, std::string surname) {
_name = name;
_surname = surname;
_year = year;
numberOfEmployees++;
calculateSalary();
}
void calculateSalary() {
//salary = 2310 + 2310 * year * 12/100.0
_salary = 2310 + (2310 * (double)_year) * (12 / 100.0);
}
void printInfo() {
std::cout << _name << " " << _surname << " " << _year << " " << " " << _salary << " TL/month" << std::endl;
}
static int getEmployeeCount() {
return numberOfEmployees;
}
};
class employeeList {
private:
int _size;
int _lenght;
employee** _arr;
public:
employeeList() :_size(1), _lenght(0), _arr(NULL) {}
employeeList(int size) :_size(size) {
_arr = new employee * [_size];
_lenght = 0;
}
int listLength() {
return _lenght;
}
employee retrieve_employeeFromIndex(int index) {
if (index >= 0 && index < _size) {
return *_arr[index];
}
}
void addToList(employee* item) {
_lenght++;
if (_lenght <= _size) {
_arr[_lenght - 1] = item;
}
else {
std::cout << "you cannot add another employee!";
}
}
static void printEmployees(employeeList el) {
for (int i = 0; i < el._lenght; i++) {
el._arr[i]->printInfo();
}
}
~employeeList() {
delete[] _arr;
}
};
int employee::numberOfEmployees = 0;
int main() {
employee a;
employee b(5, "John", " Doe");
employee c(3, "Sue", "Doe");
employeeList empList(employee::getEmployeeCount());
empList.addToList(&a);
empList.addToList(&b);
empList.addToList(&c);
employeeList::printEmployees(empList);
std::cout << empList.listLength() << std::endl;
return 0;
}
you can see the output:
Why pointer to pointer has been used rather than single pointer in the code? Also do you think the destructor was written wrong if it is how can i make it correct?
Why pointer to pointer was used in the code?
This is known only by the author who wrote the code. We can make a reasonable guess that their intention may have been to:
Allocate a dynamic array of objects, using a bare pointer to the first element of that array.
Indirectly point to objects stored elsewhere, hence they wanted to use an array of pointers, thus a pointer to first element of the array is a pointer to a pointer.
Their choice 1. to use an owning bare pointer is unnecessary, and there are better choices available which do not require an owning bare pointer. Most commonly, std::vector would be used to create a dynamic array.
Their choice 2. to indirectly point to objects that aren't owned by the class instance is not quite as safe as having the class instance own the objects, but regardless that may have been a reasonable choice depending on the reasons they chose this design. It is impossible to tell whether the choice was good without documentation of what the program is supposed to do. Based on the generic name of the class, I suspect that it wasn't a good choice.
do you think the destructor was written wrong
It can be considered correct. There are other issues with the class though.
The entire employeeList class seems pointless, and can easily be replaced by a std::vector. printEmployees is the only member function that wouldn't be directly provided by a vector. You can use a non-member function for that instead.
Im not expert but u will bumb your topic :P
I think that question is not precised. You mean that pointer to pointer:?
employee** _arr;
Because is pointing a pointer:
_arr = new employee * [_size];
I think that it have sense because array is a pointer? I can be wrong ofcourse coz I just started do educate.
Why do you think destruktor is wrong? It's deleting a pointer.

Through what to call the method, if I already created constructor with initialization of array of structures?

I'm trying to call the method displayChoices, member of the class MachineManager through the object of the class. But I already have a constructor with initializing of the array of structures. How I understood when we create an object of the class compiler implicitly create a default constructor of the class.
Question: How to call method displayChoices?
#include "MachineManager.h"
using namespace std;
int main()
{
MachineManager mjp;
mjp.displayChoices();
return 0;
}
struct BrewInfo {
string* DrinkName;
double* Cost;
int* Number;
};
class MachineManager {
static const int Num_Drinks = 3; /// why it works only with static?!!!
BrewInfo* BrewArr[Num_Drinks];
public:
MachineManager()
{
*BrewArr[0]->Cost = 1.25;
*BrewArr[0]->Number = 20;
*BrewArr[1]->DrinkName = "pepsi";
*BrewArr[1]->Cost = 1.15;
*BrewArr[1]->Number = 17;
*BrewArr[2]->DrinkName = "Aloe";
*BrewArr[2]->Cost = 2.00;
*BrewArr[2]->Number = 15;
};
int displayChoices();
}
int MachineManager::displayChoices() // (which displays a menu of drink names and prices)
{
cout << 1;
int choice;
cout << "|1." << *BrewArr[0]->DrinkName << " |2." << *BrewArr[1]->DrinkName << " |3." << *BrewArr[2]->DrinkName << " |" << endl;
cin >> choice;
if (!choice || choice == 0) {
system("slc");
displayChoices();
}
else
return choice;
}
displayChoices has to print a menu in console.
You have a majo bug in your source code. You do not yet understand, how pointer work.
You are defining an array of pointer with BrewInfo* BrewArr[Num_Drinks];.
But these pointers are not initialized. They point to somewhere. Then you are dereferencing those pointers (pointing to somewhere) and assigning a value to somewhere in the memory.
This is a major bug.
The array dimensions for C-Sytle arrays must be a compile time constant.
You cannot write
int x=3;
unt array[x];
This is C99 code (called VLA, Variable length array), but not C++.
Solution for you problem:
Do never use C-Style arrays, like int array[5]. Use STL container like std::vector instead.
Do not use pointers.
This is your major problem. Define your array with BrewInfo BrewArr[Num_Drinks];. Please remove also the pointer from
struct BrewInfo {
string* DrinkName;
double* Cost;
int* Number;
};

C++: Setters and Getters for Arrays

I am struggling to find the correct format for initializing a (private) array within a class and getting/setting the values from outside the class.
My code is semi-functional, but feels awkward in incorrectly formatted.
It is returning only the first element of the array, I want it to return all the contents. Read code comments for additional details.
Note: This is (a very small part of) a project I am working on for school -- an array must be used, not a vector or list.
student.h
class Student {
public:
// Upon researching my issue, I read suggestions on passing pointers for arrays:
void SetDaysToCompleteCourse(int* daysToCompleteCourse[3]);
int* GetDaysToCompleteCourse(); // Ditto # above comment.
private:
int daysToCompleteCourse[3];
student.cpp
#include "student.h"
void Student::SetDaysToCompleteCourse(int* daysToCompleteCourse) {
// this->daysToCompleteCourse = daysToCompleteCourse; returns error (expression must be a modifiable lvalue)
// Feels wrong, probably is wrong:
this->daysToCompleteCourse[0] = daysToCompleteCourse[0];
this->daysToCompleteCourse[1] = daysToCompleteCourse[1];
this->daysToCompleteCourse[2] = daysToCompleteCourse[2];
}
int* Student::GetDaysToCompleteCourse() {
return daysToCompleteCourse;
}
ConsoleApplication1.cpp
#include "pch.h"
#include <iostream>
#include "student.h"
int main()
{
Student student;
int daysToCompleteCourse[3] = { 1, 2, 3 };
int* ptr = daysToCompleteCourse;
student.SetDaysToCompleteCourse(ptr);
std::cout << *student.GetDaysToCompleteCourse(); // returns first element of the array (1).
}
I gave this my best shot, but I think I need a nudge in the right direction.
Any tips here would be greatly appreciated.
I would say:
// student.h
class Student
{
public:
// If you can, don't use numbers:
// you have a 3 on the variable,
// a 3 on the function, etc.
// Use a #define on C or a static const on C++
static const int SIZE= 3;
// You can also use it outside the class as Student::SIZE
public:
void SetDaysToCompleteCourse(int* daysToCompleteCourse);
// The consts are for "correctness"
// const int* means "don't modify this data" (you have a setter for that)
// the second const means: this function doesn't modify the student
// whithout the const, student.GetDaysToCompleteCourse()[100]= 1 is
// "legal" C++ to the eyes of the compiler
const int* GetDaysToCompleteCourse() const; // Ditto # above comment.
Student()
{
// Always initialize variables
for (int i= 0; i < SIZE; i++) {
daysToCompleteCourse[i]= 0;
}
}
private:
int daysToCompleteCourse[SIZE];
// On GCC, you can do
//int daysToCompleteCourse[SIZE]{};
// Which will allow you not to specify it on the constructor
};
// student.cpp
void Student::SetDaysToCompleteCourse(int* newDaysToCompleteCourse)
{
// It's not wrong, just that
// this->daysToCompleteCourse[0] = daysToCompleteCourse[0];
// use another name like newDaysToCompleteCourse and then you can suppress this->
// And use a for loop
for (int i= 0; i < SIZE; i++) {
daysToCompleteCourse[i]= newDaysToCompleteCourse[i];
}
}
const int* Student::GetDaysToCompleteCourse() const
{
return daysToCompleteCourse;
}
// main.cpp
#include <iostream>
std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& stream, const Student& student)
{
const int* toShow= student.GetDaysToCompleteCourse();
for (int i= 0; i < Student::SIZE; i++) {
stream << toShow[i] << ' ';
}
return stream;
}
int main()
{
Student student;
int daysToCompleteCourse[3] = { 1, 2, 3 };
// You don't need this
//int* ptr = daysToCompleteCourse;
//student.SetDaysToCompleteCourse(ptr);
//You can just do:
student.SetDaysToCompleteCourse(daysToCompleteCourse);
// On C++ int* is "a pointer to an int"
// It doesn't specify how many of them
// Arrays are represented just by the pointer to the first element
// It's the FASTEST and CHEAPEST way... but you need the SIZE
const int* toShow= student.GetDaysToCompleteCourse();
for (int i= 0; i < Student::SIZE; i++) {
std::cout << toShow[i] << ' ';
// Also works:
//std::cout << student.GetDaysToCompleteCourse()[i] << ' ';
}
std::cout << std::endl;
// Or you can do: (because we defined operator<< for a ostream and a Student)
std::cout << student << std::endl;
}
You can check out it live here: https://ideone.com/DeJ2Nt

Accessor Method to view private variable based on argument in a class in c++?

My problem is that I have many variables in my class and I want them to be accessed via an accessor method. Of course I could have several accessor functions to output my private variables but how can I make it so I can access any of them via an argument. My class:
class Character {
public:
void setAttr(string Sname,int Shealth,int SattackLevel,int SdefenseLevel) {
name = Sname;
health = Shealth;
attackLevel = SattackLevel;
defenseLevel = SdefenseLevel;
}
int outputInt(string whatToOutput) {
return whatToOutput //I want this to either be health, attackLevel or defenseLevel
}
private:
string name;
int health;
int attackLevel;
int defenseLevel;
};
Basically what I want to know is how do I return a private variable in regards to the outputInt function. Most OOP tutorials have one function to return each variable which seems like a very unhealthy thing to do in a large program.
C++ doesn't support what you try to accomplish: reflection or detailed runtime information about objects. There is something called "Run-Time Type Information" in C++, but it can't provide information about your variable name: the reason is because, in the compiled and linked binary this information (names of your variables) will not be necessarily present anymore.
However, you can accomplish something close to that, using i.e. std::unordered_map instead of plain integer variables. So it's possible to access values by their names, as strings.
Please consider the following code:
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
#include <unordered_map>
using namespace std;
class Character {
public:
void setAttr(const string& Sname, int Shealth, int SattackLevel, int SdefenseLevel) {
name = Sname;
values.insert(std::make_pair("health", Shealth));
values.insert(std::make_pair("attackLevel", SattackLevel));
values.insert(std::make_pair("defenseLevel", SdefenseLevel));
}
int outputInt(const string& whatToOutput) {
return values.at(whatToOutput);
}
private:
string name;
std::unordered_map<std::string, int> values;
};
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
Character yourCharacter;
yourCharacter.setAttr("yourName", 10, 100, 1000);
std::cout << "Health: " << yourCharacter.outputInt("health") <<std::endl;
std::cout << "Attack level: " << yourCharacter.outputInt("attackLevel") << std::endl;
std::cout << "Defense level: " << yourCharacter.outputInt("defenseLevel") << std::endl;
return 0;
}
It will output as expected:
Health: 10
Attack level: 100
Defense level: 1000
Another option without dependency on unordered_map would be, to use predefined static strings for your variable names and an array or vector for your values. So we could replace the class Character above with something like:
static std::string variableNames[3] = {
"health",
"attackLevel",
"defenseLevel"
};
class Character {
public:
void setAttr(const string& Sname, int Shealth, int SattackLevel, int SdefenseLevel) {
name = Sname;
variableValues[0] = Shealth;
variableValues[1] = SattackLevel;
variableValues[2] = SdefenseLevel;
}
int outputInt(const string& whatToOutput) {
int retVal = 0;
for (size_t i = 0; i < sizeof(variableNames)/sizeof(std::string); ++i) {
if (!whatToOutput.compare(variableNames[i])) {
retVal = variableValues[i];
}
}
return retVal;
}
private:
string name;
int variableValues[3];
};
And getting still same output. However, here you have to manage a list with all your variable names inside the string array manually - I don't like this solution and would prefer one of the others above personally.
Most common ways in C++ to handle such a design is to have seperate getHealth(), getAttackLevel(), getDefenseLevel() functions instead. However, this will miss one use-case, which is: if you want to let the user input a string, like i.e. "health" and display the corresponding variable then, you would need to write code by yourself to call the corresponding getXXX() function. If this is not a issue in your case, consider the following code which is much cleaner:
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Character {
public:
void setAttr(const string& Sname, int Shealth, int SattackLevel, int SdefenseLevel) {
name = Sname;
health = Shealth;
attackLevel = SattackLevel;
defenseLevel = SdefenseLevel;
}
int getHealth() const { return health; }
int getAttackLevel() const { return attackLevel; }
int getDefenseLevel() const { return defenseLevel; }
private:
string name;
int health, attackLevel, defenseLevel;
};
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
Character yourCharacter;
yourCharacter.setAttr("yourName", 10, 100, 1000);
std::cout << "Health: " << yourCharacter.getHealth() <<std::endl;
std::cout << "Attack level: " << yourCharacter.getAttackLevel() << std::endl;
std::cout << "Defense level: " << yourCharacter.getDefenseLevel() << std::endl;
return 0;
}
One other unrelated advice: Instead of using string as parameter types for your functions, use const string& (const reference to string; see my example code above). This allows easier calling of your functions (they can be called directly with an string literal without the need to create additional variables in the calling code) and they will not make a additional unnecessary copy. The only copy then will take place at: name = Sname; (in your code two copies took place).
I don't know if it can be a good idea for you, but you can use a public typedef struct that you pass by reference and set your value.
class Character {
public:
//...
typedef struct allvalues{
string vname;
int vhealth;
int vattackLevel;
int vdefenseLevel;
}allvalues;
void getValues(allvalues& val){
val.vname = name;
val.vhealth = health;
val.vattackLevel = attackLevel;
val.vdefenseLevel = detenseLevel;
}
//...
};
//...
//somewhere in the code
Character myCarac;
//...
//Here how to use it
Character::allvalues values;
myCarac.getValues(values);

Static variable and object life span in C++

I'm a beginner in C++ and I understand basic concepts of "pass-by-value or reference", object scope and object instantiation with and without use of the keyword "new" in simple examples. The problem is that when the problems that I'm trying to solve become more complicated, I don't know how is this theory I know from simple examples applied in problems that consists of multiple classes.
I have a PaintWidget.cpp which is responsible for painting all the Vehicles.
void PaintWidget::paintEvent(QPaintEvent *) {
if (!Vehicle::GetVehicles()->empty()) {
cout << "not null" << endl;
QPainter painter(this);
QPen pen1(Qt::red);
pen1.setWidth(2);
std::vector<Vehicle>::iterator it;
for (it = Vehicle::GetVehicles()->begin(); it != Vehicle::GetVehicles()->end(); it++) {
cout << "draaaaw" << endl;
QRect rect(it->GetXcord(), it->GetYcord(), it->GetWidth(), it->GetHeight());
cout << std::to_string(it->GetXcord()) + " " + std::to_string(it->GetYcord()) + " " + std::to_string(it->GetWidth()) + " " + std::to_string(it->GetHeight()) + " " << endl;
painter.setPen(pen1);
painter.drawRect(rect);
}
} else {
cout << "is null" << endl;
}
}
And then I have Vehicle.h
#ifndef VEHICLE_H
#define VEHICLE_H
#include <vector>
#include <map>
class Vehicle {
public:
Vehicle();
Vehicle(const Vehicle& orig);
virtual ~Vehicle();
void initVehicles();
Vehicle createVehicle();
static std::map<Road, int> &GetVeh_num() {
return veh_num;
}
static std::vector<Vehicle> *GetVehicles() {
return &vehicles;
}
private:
int xcord;
int ycord;
int height = 20;
int width = 50;
static std::vector<Vehicle> vehicles;
static std::map<Road, int> veh_num;
};
#endif /* VEHICLE_H */
Vehicle.cpp
#include "Vehicle.h"
#include <vector>
std::vector<Vehicle> Vehicle::vehicles;
std::map<Vehicle::Road, int> Vehicle::veh_num = {
{Vehicle::Top, 0},
{Vehicle::Right, 0},
{Vehicle::Bottom, 0},
{Vehicle::Left, 0}
};
Vehicle::Vehicle() {
}
Vehicle::Vehicle(const Vehicle& orig) {
}
Vehicle::~Vehicle() {
}
int Vehicle::GetXcord() const {
return xcord;
}
int Vehicle::GetYcord() const {
return ycord;
}
void Vehicle::SetXcord(int xcord) {
this->xcord = xcord;
}
void Vehicle::SetYcord(int ycord) {
this->ycord = ycord;
}
int Vehicle::GetHeight() const {
return height;
}
int Vehicle::GetWidth() const {
return width;
}
void Vehicle::initVehicles() {
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
Vehicle::vehicles.push_back(this->createVehicle());
}
}
Vehicle Vehicle::createVehicle() {
std::map<Vehicle::Road, int>::iterator it;
Vehicle v;
for (it = Vehicle::veh_num.begin(); it != Vehicle::veh_num.end(); it++) {
int &vehnum = it->second;
if (it->first == Vehicle::Road::Right) {
int xc = 520 + vehnum * this->GetWidth() + vehnum * 5;
int yc = 220;
v.SetXcord(xc);
v.SetYcord(yc);
v.SetRoad(Vehicle::Right);
}
}
return v;
}
As you can see, createVehicle returns copy of a new Vehicle which is then inserted in the static variable Vehicles. GetVehicles returns pointer to vector of inserted vehicles because I don't want to return a copy. When I run this code, nothing gets painted although there are 5 objects in the static variable (paintEvent gets called and string "draaaaw" is printed 5 times). I suspected that I have a problem with object life span, so I changed
static std::vector<Vehicle> vehicles;
to
static std::vector<Vehicle*> vehicles;
and of course instantiation of Vehicle from
Vehicle v;
to
Vehicle *v = new Vehicle();
which creates an object on the heap if I understand correctly. After all required changes in methods, my code works (all objects are painted). What I don't understand is when these objects get destroyed and why, if I'm returning a copy every single time. How come vector vehicles is not empty (I still have 5 "ghost" objects that do not contain any values I set earlier). As far as I understand creating objects with new is not recommended, so the second option are smart pointers?
Thanks :)
Edit
I purposely left out setters and getters in .h and .cpp file so that the code is as short as possible with only relevant information.
I think your main problem is you have defined an empty copy constructor:
Vehicle::Vehicle(const Vehicle& orig)
{
}
This means that when you add a Vehicle to a container, a copy is made that doesn't actually copy anything. You should delete your own constructor and let the compiler do the work for you.
You will never have a problem with object life span if you don't use pointers or references. It simply isn't possible for that to occur. The whole concept of "RAII" is that if the variable is accessible in code, it is valid.
To test this, also print out the coordinates and size of your vehicle. If that prints a valid result, you know that your issue lies in the paint function itself.
So just don't pass a pointer of the object unless you need to modify it, and even then return a reference instead of a pointer. Just make sure not to return a reference of a temporary, as that CAN lead to life span issues.