I have class XOBoard that present an array that is size n*n,each cell of the array is an Object called Cell.
Each Cell object is defined by
class Cell {
private:
char ch;
public:
Cell(char ch = '.');
char getCellValue();
void setCellValue(char nch);
};
Board is defined this way:
class XOBoard {
private:
int n;
Cell **Board;
};
XOBoard::XOBoard(int n) { //constructor
this->n = (n >= 3) ? n : 3;
Board = new Cell*[n];
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
Board[i] = new Cell[n];
}
}
I wanted to get to a specific Cell value by using this method: board1[{1,2}], but I want to check if the values that sent to me is withing the range(n), but unfortantly I was unable to get to the Board array, and to n variable.
Here is the code:
XOBoard& operator[](list<int> list){
int x = list.front(), y = list.back();
return Board[x][y].getCellValue();
}
Thanks a head!
As mentioned in the comments, using operator[] for multidimensional subscripting is unconventional, but if you want that, you should make sure you get the correct amount of values (2 in this case) and that you return the correct type (a Cell& in this case).
Also be aware of shadowing. If you try to construct a Board with a value less than 3, you'll set this->n to 3 but go on with the construction using the erroneous n (that may even be a negative value).
More comments inline:
#include <iostream>
#include <stdexcept>
#include <tuple>
class Cell {
private:
char ch;
public:
Cell(char nch = '.') : // after the colon comes the member initializer list
ch(nch) // which is usually good to use
{
// if(ch is not valid) throw ...
}
char getCellValue() const { return ch; }
// a convenient conversion operator to automatically
// convert a Cell to a char where a char is needed
// (like when streaming a Cell to std::cout)
operator char() const { return ch; }
// void setCellValue(char nch); // replaced by operator=
Cell& operator=(char nch) {
// if(nch is not valid) throw ...
ch = nch;
return *this;
}
};
class XOBoard {
private:
size_t n; // use an unsigned type for sizes/indices
Cell** Board;
public:
// constructor
XOBoard(size_t xy_size) : // a member initializer list again
n(xy_size >= 3 ? xy_size : 3), // assign to "n" here
Board(new Cell*[n]) // the correct n is now used
{
// if the below construction fails, a bad_alloc will be thrown.
// you need to add code to clean up what you've already allocated to take
// care of that situation.
for(size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) {
Board[i] = new Cell[n];
}
}
// Copying or moving need careful handling of the pointers.
// Read "The rule of three/five/zero". Until then, disable it.
XOBoard(const XOBoard&) = delete;
XOBoard& operator=(const XOBoard&) = delete;
// destructor
~XOBoard() {
for(size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) delete[] Board[i];
delete[] Board;
}
// added for convenience
size_t size() const { return n; }
// return a Cell& and use a std::pair since you
// expect exactly 2 values
Cell& operator[](std::pair<size_t, size_t> pos) {
auto& [x, y] = pos;
if(x>=n || y>=n)
throw std::out_of_range("{"+std::to_string(x)+","+std::to_string(y)+"}");
return Board[x][y];
}
};
int main() {
try {
XOBoard a{2}; // trying an invalid size
std::cout << a.size() << '\n';
a[{2, 2}] = 'a';
std::cout << a[{2, 2}] << '\n';
Cell x = 'b';
a[{2, 2}] = x;
std::cout << a[{2, 2}] << '\n';
a[{2, 3}] = 'c'; // index out of bounds
} catch(const std::out_of_range& ex) {
std::cerr << "out_of_range exception: " << ex.what() << '\n';
}
}
Output:
3
a
b
out_of_range exception: {2,3}
You should try to avoid raw pointers and actual multidimensional arrays. It's often better to emulate dimensionality by allocating a 1d array and provide an interface to the user that calculates the correct element to work on.
Related
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
I've read many posts with the same error, unfortunately all of those deal with indexing off the end of an array. In my case I get the error when I assign the array to a variable in my constructor.
Here is my code:
Heap.cpp
#include "./Heap.h"
#include <iostream>
#include <sstream>
// Provides floor, ceil, etc.
#include <cmath>
using namespace std;
Heap::Heap() {
arraySize = 0;
n = 0;
A = NULL;
}
// This assumes that every element of the array is an
// element of the heap.
Heap::Heap(int* inArray, int inArraySize, int inHeapSize) {
// TODO: initialize your class data members. An array dynamically allocated
// as follows:
// A = new int[size];
// If you allocate an array like this you MUST deallocate it in your
// destructor. This is done for you in the destructor below.
arraySize = inArraySize;
n = inHeapSize;
A = new int[arraySize];
A = inArray;
}
// Destructor. Cleans up memory.
Heap::~Heap() {
delete [] A;
}
// Note: the function name is prefixed by Heap:: (the class
// name followed by two colons). Any function defined in
// the .cpp file must have this prefix.
int Heap::at(int i) const {
return A[i];
}
int Heap::parent(int i) const{
return (int) (i - 1) / 2;
}
int Heap::left(int i) const {
return (i + 1)* 2 - 1;
}
int Heap::right(int i) const {
return (i + 1) * 2;
}
bool Heap::hasLeft(int i) const {
int leftIndex = left(i);
std::cout << "left index = " << leftIndex<< std::endl;
return false;
}
bool Heap::hasRight(int i) const{
return false;
}
void Heap::maxHeapify(int i){
}
//
void Heap::buildMaxHeap(){
}
bool Heap::operator==(const Heap& rhs) {
if (n != rhs.n) return false;
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
if (A[i] != rhs.A[i]) return false;
}
return true;
}
bool Heap::operator==(const int* rhs) {
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
if (A[i] != rhs[i]) return false;
}
return true;
}
std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& out, const Heap& h) {
out << "[";
for (int i = 0; i < h.n; ++i) {
out << h.A[i];
if (i < h.n-1) {
out << ", ";
}
}
out << "]";
return out;
}
string toDotImpl(const Heap& h, int i) {
using namespace std;
stringstream ss;
if (h.hasLeft(i)) {
ss << toDotImpl(h, h.left(i));
ss << "\"" << h.at(i) << "\" -> \""
<< h.at(h.left(i)) << "\"\n";
}
if (h.hasRight(i)) {
ss << toDotImpl(h, h.right(i));
ss << "\"" << h.at(i) << "\" -> \""
<< h.at(h.right(i)) << "\"\n";
}
return ss.str();
}
string toDot(const Heap& h) {
using namespace std;
stringstream ss;
ss << "digraph G {\n";
ss << "graph [ordering=\"out\"]\n";
ss << "\"" << h.at(0) << "\"\n";
ss << toDotImpl(h, 0);
ss << "}\n";
return ss.str();
}
and
Heap.h
#pragma once
// Provides I/O
#include <iostream>
// Provides size_t
#include <cstdlib>
// Provides INT_MAX and INT_MIN
// You can consider INT_MIN to be negative infinity
// and INT_MAX to be infinity
#include <climits>
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Heap class
//------------------------------------------------------------
class Heap {
public:
// Constructor
Heap();
// This constructor assumes that every element of the array is an
// element of the heap.
Heap(int* inArray, int inArraySize, int inHeapSize);
// Destructor
~Heap();
// Accesses an element of the array.
int at(int i) const;
// Gets parent index of element at i
int parent(int i) const;
// Return element to the left of i
int left(int i) const;
// Return element to the right of i
int right(int i) const;
// Checks if an element has a left child
bool hasLeft(int i) const;
// Checks if an elemnt has a right child
bool hasRight(int i) const;
// "Max heapifies" an array
void maxHeapify(int i);
// builds a max heap
void buildMaxHeap();
// Allows comparison between results
bool operator==(const Heap& rhs);
bool operator==(const int* rhs);
// Useful for debugging. To use:
// Heap h;
// cout << h << endl;
friend std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& out, const Heap& h);
private:
// The array
int* A;
// Size of the array
int arraySize;
// The number of elements in the heap
int n;
};
// Useful for debugging. To use:
// Heap h;
// cout << h << endl;
std::string toDot(const Heap& h);
The code is called with I can include the entire main.cpp if needed but it has several hundred lines of just test cases that are commented out.
int A[] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 };
Heap h(A, 8, 8);
if I comment out A = inArray; the program runs so I'm pretty confident that is where the issue is.
A is defined in Heap.h as `int* A;
Here is the full error:
*** Error in `./project': free(): invalid size: 0x00007ffd84786660 ***
Aborted (core dumped)
this is probably quite a simple issue, but I can't figure out what is causing this since I believe this should allocate an array of size inArraySize of type int and then assign the given array inArray to A.
Full disclosure: this is part of an assignment so feel free to just point me in the right direction, but my professor is fine with us using stackoverflow as long as we site it.
You're trying to copy an array, but assigning pointers like that is not how to do it. There are various ways.
Standard C++:
#include <algorithm>
std::copy(inArray, inArray + inArraySize, A);
Using standard containers:
#include <vector>
std::vector<int> A(inArray, inArray + inArraySize);
Old style C way
memcpy(A, inArray, sizeof(int) * inArraySize);
Doing:
A = new int[arraySize];
A = inArray;
Is like doing:
i = 5;
i = 6;
The second assignment overrides the first one.
Hence as a result, the member variable A is pointing to the same memory block pointed by the input argument inArray.
If you haven't dynamically allocated this memory block (with new), then you cannot dynamically deallocate it (with delete).
The lines
A = new int[arraySize];
A = inArray;
are cause of two problems.
There is a memory leak. The value returned by new int[arraySize] is lost and cannot be deallocated.
If you are calling delete [] A in the destructor, that would be cause of the second problem.
If inArray was dynamically allocated and deallocated in the calling function, you will be calling delete on the same pointer twice.
If inArray was an array created in the stack, calling delete on it is also a problem. delete can be called only on memory that was returned by call to new.
A = inArray; is not doing what you think it is doing. This line does not copy inArray into the memory you allocated for A. Instead it changes A to point to a new location (the address of inArray), causing the previously allocated memory to leak. Later on when you call delete on A you'll be trying to free memory at inArray's address.
If you just want to copy an array, you could do something like
A = new int[inArraySize];
for (i = 0; i < inArraySize; ++i)
A[i] = inArray[i];
Or better yet, with std::copy:
std::copy(inArray, inArray + inArraySize, A);
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];
};
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.,
I have a vec_A that stores instances of class A as: vec_A.push_back(A());
I want to remove some elements in the vector at a later stage and have two questions: a) The element is deleted as: vec_A.erase(iterator) Is there any additional code I need to add to make sure that there is no memory leak? .
b) Assume that condition if(num <5) is if num is among a specific numberList. Given this, is there a better way to delete the elements of a vector than what I am illustrating below?
#include<vector>
#include<stdio.h>
#include<iostream>
class A {
public:
int getNumber();
A(int val);
~A(){};
private:
int num;
};
A::A(int val){
num = val;
};
int A::getNumber(){
return num;
};
int main(){
int i =0;
int num;
std::vector<A> vec_A;
std::vector<A>::iterator iter;
for ( i = 0; i < 10; i++){
vec_A.push_back(A(i));
}
iter = vec_A.begin();
while(iter != vec_A.end()){
std::cout << "\n --------------------------";
std::cout << "\n Size before erase =" << vec_A.size();
num = iter->getNumber() ;
std::cout << "\n num = "<<num;
if (num < 5){
vec_A.erase(iter);
}
else{
iter++;
}
std::cout << "\n size after erase =" << vec_A.size();
}
std::cout << "\nPress RETURN to continue...";
std::cin.get();
return 0;
}
a) The element is deleted as:
vec_A.erase(iterator) Is there any
additional code I need to add to make
sure that there is no memory leak? .
Yes, that's all you need to do. There will be no memory leak. Since you didn't allocate yoour object on heap, when you did vec_A.push_back(A()) a new object is copied into the vector. When you do erase, vector will take care of deleting the elements.
Assume that condition if(num <5) is if
num is among a specific numberList.
Given this, is there a better way to
delete the elements of a vector than
what I am illustrating below?
Yes, you can remove/erase idiom. This is an example:
class A
{
public:
A(int n) : m_n(n)
{
}
int get() const
{
return m_n;
}
private:
int m_n;
};
bool lessThan9(const A& a)
{
return a.get() < 9;
}
//Or if you want for a generic number
struct Remover : public std::binary_function<A,int,bool>
{
public:
bool operator()(const A& a, int n)const
{
return a.get() < n;
}
};
int main()
{
std::vector<A> a;
a.push_back(A(10));
a.push_back(A(8));
a.push_back(A(11));
a.push_back(A(3));
a.erase(std::remove_if(a.begin(), a.end(), lessThan9), a.end());
//Using the user-defined functor
a.erase(std::remove_if(a.begin(), a.end(), std::bind2nd(Remover(), 9)), a.end());
return 0;
}
1) Resource handling is done by the class itself. The destructor of a class is responsible to ensure that there is no memory leak.
2) Removing elements from a vector is best done back-to-front:
for (std::vector<A>::reverse_iterator it = vec_A.rend(); it != vec_A.rbegin(); --it)
{
if (it->getNumber() < 5) {vec_A.erase(it.base());}
}