I have to implement the CSR matrix data structure in C++ using 3 dynamic arrays (indexing starts at 0) and I've got stuck. So I have to implement 2 functions:
1) modify(int i, int j, TElem e) - modifies the value of (i,j) to e or adds if (if it does not exist) or deletes it if e is null.
2) element(int i, int j) const - returns the value found on (i,j)
I wanted to test my code in the next way:
Matrix m(10, 10);
for (int j = 0; j < m.nrColumns(); j++) {
m.modify(4, j, 3);
}
for (int i = 0; i < m.nrLines(); i++)
for (int j = 0; j < m.nrColumns(); j++)
if (i == 4)
assert(m.element(i, j) == 3);
else
assert(m.element(i, j) == NULL_TELEM);
And I got a surprise to see that m.element(4,j) will be 0 for j in the range (0,8) and only 3 for j=9.
This is my implementation of element(int i, int j) :
int currCol;
for (int pos = this->lines[i]; pos < this->lines[i+1]; pos++) {
currCol = this->columns[pos];
if (currCol == j)
return this->values[pos];
else if (currCol > j)
break;
}
return NULL_TELEM;
The constructor looks like this:
Matrix::Matrix(int nrLines, int nrCols) {
if (nrLines <= 0 || nrCols <= 0)
throw exception();
this->nr_lines = nrLines;
this->nr_columns = nrCols;
this->values = new TElem[1000];
this->values_capacity = 1;
this->values_size = 0;
this->lines = new int[nrLines + 1];
this->columns = new TElem[1000];
this->columns_capacity = 1;
this->columns_size = 0;
for (int i = 0; i <= nrLines; i++)
this->lines[i] = NULL_TELEM;
}
This is the "modify" method:
TElem Matrix::modify(int i, int j, TElem e) {
if (i < 0 || j < 0 || i >= this->nr_lines || j >= nr_columns)
throw exception();
int pos = this->lines[i];
int currCol = 0;
for (; pos < this->lines[i + 1]; i++) {
currCol = this->columns[pos];
if (currCol >= j)
break;
}
if (currCol != j) {
if (!(e == 0))
add(pos, i, j, e);
}
else if (e == 0)
remove(pos, i);
else
this->values[pos] = e;
return NULL_TELEM;
}
And this is the inserting method:
void Matrix::add(int index, int line, int column, TElem value)
{
this->columns_size++;
this->values_size++;
for (int i = this->columns_size; i >= index + 1; i--) {
this->columns[i] = this->columns[i - 1];
this->values[i] = this->values[i - 1];
}
this->columns[index] = column;
this->values[index] = value;
for (int i = line + 1; i <= this->nr_lines; i++)
this->lines[i]++;
}
Can somebody help me, please? I can't figure out why this happens and I really need to finish this implementation these days. It's pretty weird that is sees those positions having the value 0.
So having the next test that starts in the next way, I get a memory acces violation:
Matrix m(200, 300);
for (int i = m.nrLines() / 2; i < m.nrLines(); i++) {
for (int j = 0; j <= m.nrColumns() / 2; j++)
{
int v1 = j;
int v2 = m.nrColumns() - v1 - 1;
if (i % 2 == 0 && v1 % 2 == 0)
m.modify(i, v1, i * v1);
else
if (v1 % 3 == 0)
m.modify(i, v1, i + v1);
if (i % 2 == 0 && v2 % 2 == 0)
m.modify(i, v2, i * v2);
else
if (v2 % 3 == 0)
m.modify(i, v2, i + v2);
}
The error is thrown in the method "modify" at currCol = this->column[pos];
And if I look into the debugger it looks like:i=168, lines[i]=-842150451, lines[i+1]=10180,pos=-842150451.
Does anybody have any ideas why it looks this way?
Your code has two small errors.
When you try to find the insertion position in modify, you loop over the non-empty elements in the row:
int currCol = 0;
for (; pos < this->lines[i + 1]; i++) {
currCol = this->columns[pos];
if (currCol >= j)
break;
}
Here, you must update pos++ in each iteration instead of i++.
The second error occurs when you insert an element into column 0. The currCol will be zero, but your condition for adding a new element is
if (currCol != j) {
if (!(e == 0))
add(pos, i, j, e);
}
But j is zero, too, so nothing will be inserted. You can fix this by starting with a non-existing column:
int currCol = -1;
I have to implement the CSR matrix data structure in C++ using 3 dynamic arrays (indexing starts at 0) and I've got stuck. So I have to implement 2 functions:
1) modify(int i, int j, TElem e) - modifies the value of (i,j) to e or adds if (if it does not exist) or deletes it if e is null.
2) element(int i, int j) const - returns the value found on (i,j)
I wanted to test my code in the next way:
Matrix m(4,4); m.print(); It will print:
Lines: 0 0 0 0 0
Columns:
Values:
(And this is fine)
Now if I want to modify: m.modify(1,1,5); //The element (1,1) will be set to 5
The output of m.print(); will be:
Lines: 0 1 1 1 1
Columns: 1
Values: 5 (which again is fine)
And now if I want to print m.element(1, 1) it will return 0 and m.element(0, 1) will return 5.
This is my implementation of element(int i, int j) :
int currCol;
for (int pos = this->lines[i]; pos < this->lines[i+1]; pos++) {
currCol = this->columns[pos];
if (currCol == j)
return this->values[pos];
else if (currCol > j)
break;
}
return NULL_TELEM;
The constructor looks like this:
Matrix::Matrix(int nrLines, int nrCols) {
if (nrLines <= 0 || nrCols <= 0)
throw exception();
this->nr_lines = nrLines;
this->nr_columns = nrCols;
this->values = new TElem[100];
this->values_capacity = 1;
this->values_size = 0;
this->lines = new int[nrLines + 1];
this->columns = new TElem[100];
this->columns_capacity = 1;
this->columns_size = 0;
for (int i = 0; i <= nrLines; i++)
this->lines[i] = NULL_TELEM;
}
This is the "modify" method:
TElem Matrix::modify(int i, int j, TElem e) {
if (i < 0 || j < 0 || i >= this->nr_lines || j >= nr_columns)
throw exception();
int pos = this->lines[i];
int currCol = 0;
for (; pos < this->lines[i + 1]; i++) {
currCol = this->columns[pos];
if (currCol >= j)
break;
}
if (currCol != j) {
if (!(e == 0))
add(pos, i, j, e);
}
else if (e == 0)
remove(pos, i);
else
this->values[pos] = e;
return NULL_TELEM;
}
And this is the inserting method:
void Matrix::add(int index, int line, int column, TElem value)
{
this->columns_size++;
this->values_size++;
for (int i = this->columns_size; i >= index + 1; i--) {
this->columns[i] = this->columns[i - 1];
this->values[i] = this->values[i - 1];
}
this->columns[index] = column;
this->values[index] = value;
for (int i = line; i <= this->nr_lines; i++) //changed to i = line + 1;
this->lines[i]++;
}
Can somebody help me, please? I can't figure out why this happens and I really need to finish this implementation these days.
It just can't pass the next test. And if I want to print the elements i have (4,0)=0 (4,1)=0 ... (4,8)=0 and (4,9)=3. Now this looks pretty weird why it happens.
void testModify() {
cout << "Test modify" << endl;
Matrix m(10, 10);
for (int j = 0; j < m.nrColumns(); j++)
m.modify(4, j, 3);
for (int i = 0; i < m.nrLines(); i++)
for (int j = 0; j < m.nrColumns(); j++)
if (i == 4)
assert(m.element(i, j) == 3);
//cout << i << " " << j << ":" << m.element(i, j)<<'\n';
else
assert(m.element(i, j) == NULL_TELEM);
}
When you call modify(1, 1, 5) with an empty matrix (all zeros), that results in a call to add(0, 1, 1, 5). That increments columns_size and values_size (both to 1), the for loop body will not execute, you update columns[0] to 1 and values[0] to 5, then increment all the lines values starting at element lines[1], setting them all to 1 (lines[0] will still be 0). But lines[1] should indicate the element we just added, so it should be 0, since the value is found using columns[0].
The for loop at the end of add should start at element line + 1.
This is the Triangle problem from Codility:
A zero-indexed array A consisting of N integers is given.
A triplet (P, Q, R) is triangular if 0 ≤ P < Q < R < N and:
A[P] + A[Q] > A[R],
A[Q] + A[R] > A[P],
A[R] + A[P] > A[Q].
Write a function:
int solution(vector<int> &A);
that, given a zero-indexed array A consisting of N integers, returns 1
if there exists a triangular triplet for this array and returns 0
otherwise.
For example, given array A such that:
A[0] = 10, A[1] = 2, A[2] = 5, A[3] = 1, A[4] = 8, A[5] = 20
Triplet (0, 2, 4) is triangular, the function should return 1.
Given array A such that:
A[0] = 10, A[1] = 50, A[2] = 5, A[3] = 1
function should return 0.
Assume that:
N is an integer within the range [0..100,000];
each element of array A is an integer within the range
[−2,147,483,648..2,147,483,647].
And here is my solution in C++:
int solution(vector<int> &A) {
if(A.size()<3) return 0;
sort(A.begin(), A.end());
for(int i=0; i<A.size()-2; i++){
//if(A[i] = A[i+1] = A[i+2]) return 1;
if(A[i]+A[i+1]>A[i+2] && A[i+1]+A[i+2]>A[i] && A[i+2]+A[i]>A[i+1]){
return 1;
}
}
return 0;
}
I've checked the comments there and all the solutions seems similar to mine.
However, while others claimed to have gotten 100%, I only got a 93% score.
I got all the tests cases correct EXCEPT for one:
extreme_arith_overflow1
overflow test, 3 MAXINTs
I assume this case has some input like this:
[2147483647, 2147483647, 2147483647]
So I add this to the custom test case, and the answer turns out to be 0 when it clearly should be 1.
I also tried [1900000000, 1900000000, 1900000000], and the answer is still 0.
However, [1000000000, 1000000000, 1000000000] is correct with answer of 1.
Can anyone clue me in on why this result occured?
Greatly appreciated.
My solution in Java with 100/100 and time complexity of O(N*log(N))
With comments explaining the logic
// you can also use imports, for example:
// import java.util.*;
// you can write to stdout for debugging purposes, e.g.
// System.out.println("this is a debug message");
import java.util.Arrays;
class Solution {
public int solution(int[] A) {
int N = A.length;
if (N < 3) return 0;
Arrays.sort(A);
for (int i = 0; i < N - 2; i++) {
/**
* Since the array is sorted A[i + 2] is always greater or equal to previous values
* So A[i + 2] + A[i] > A[i + 1] ALWAYS
* As well ass A[i + 2] + A[i + 1] > A[i] ALWAYS
* Therefore no need to check those. We only need to check if A[i] + A[i + 1] > A[i + 2]?
* Since in case of A[i] + A[i + 1] > MAXINT the code would strike an overflow (ie the result will be greater than allowed integer limit)
* We'll modify the formula to an equivalent A[i] > A[i + 2] - A[i + 1]
* And inspect it there
*/
if (A[i] >= 0 && A[i] > A[i + 2] - A[i + 1]) {
return 1;
}
}
return 0;
}
Basically when you check X + Y value of integers, that is greater than integer limit the code will fail on overflow. so instead of checking if X + Y > Z, we can simply check the equivalent statement if X > Z - Y (simple math isn't it?). Alternatively you could always use long but it will be a worse solution memory wise.
Also make sure you skip the negatives as a triangle cannot have a negative side value.
Cheers
Java 100 %:
public int solution(int[] A){
Arrays.sort(A);
for(int i=0;i<A.length-2;i++){
if(
((long)A[i] + (long)A[i+1] > A[i+2]) &&
((long)A[i+1] + (long)A[i+2] > A[i]) &&
((long)A[i] + (long)A[i+2] > A[i+1])
)
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
Here's my clean solution in Python. I got a 100% in Codility.
This logic can be adapted to any other programming language.
Note: If the array is sorted, you only have to check that the sum of two consecutive elements is greater than the next element (A[i] + A[i+1] > A[i+2]), because in that case, the other two conditions (A[i+1]+A[i+2] > A[i], A[i]+A[i+2] > A[i+1]) will always be true.
I hope it helps.
def solution(A):
#edge case check
if len(A) < 3:
return 0
A.sort()
for i in range(len(A)-2):
if A[i]+A[i+1] > A[i+2]:
return 1
return 0
There are couple of issues here
Side of a triangle can't be 0, since it is a length. You have to add that check or you'll fail that corner case. i.e. Wouldn't get 100%.
Since you can have an input array of all INT_MAX or LONG_MAX (see http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/climits/), you need to store the sum in a double or long long.
You don't have to check all three conditions here i.e.
A[P] + A[Q] > A[R],
A[Q] + A[R] > A[P],
A[R] + A[P] > A[Q].
If you have sorted the array than
A[Q] + A[R] > A[P] &&
A[R] + A[P] > A[Q]
are always true because 0 ≤ P < Q < R i.e. R is greater than P and Q.
So you should only check for A[P] + A[Q] > A[R].
You have already placed a check for A.size() < 3 so that is good.
I have added a C implementation at https://github.com/naveedrasheed/Codility-Solutions/blob/master/Lesson6_Sorting/triangle.c.
You can compare it with solution.
I have used 3 for loop here( without sorting the array) to solve this problem.
public static int solution(int[] A) {
for (int p = 0; p < A.length; p++) {
for (int q = p + 1; q < A.length; q++) {
for (int r = q + 1; r < A.length; r++) {
if ((A[p] + A[q] > A[r]) && (A[q] + A[r] > A[p]) && (A[r] + A[p] > A[q])) {
System.out.println(A[p] + " " + A[q] + " " + A[r]);
return 1;
}
}
}
}
return 0;
}
the trick is to find a number on the array that is less the sum of the other two on the array so sorting the array then searching for that number will solve it. casting to long that on sometimes the value of summation wil exceed the allowed integer
public int solution(int[] A) {
int n = A.length;
if(n<3){
return 0;
}
Arrays.sort(A);
for(int i=2; i<n; i++){
if(A[i]<(long)A[i-1]+(long)A[i-2])
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
My solution in C# with 100 score.
using System;
class Solution {
public int solution(int[] A) {
// write your code in C# 6.0 with .NET 4.5 (Mono)
if(A.Length) <3)
return 0;
Array.Sort(A);
int p,q,r;
for(int i=A.Length-1;i>1; i--){
p = A[i];
q = A[i-1];
r = A[i-2];
if(p+q>r && q+r > p && r+p > q)
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
}
Straightforward solution in JavaScript.
Note: I excluded the options where any side could be 0 or less. The rest is the same.
function solution(A) {
if (A.length < 3) return 0;
A.sort((a, b) => (a - b));
for (i = A.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
if (A[i - 2] <= 0) return 0;
if (
A[i] + A[i - 1] > A[i - 2] &&
A[i] + A[i - 2] > A[i - 1] &&
A[i - 1] + A[i - 2] > A[i]
) return 1;
}
return 0;
}
javascript 100% on codility
function solution(a) {
if (a.length < 3) {
return 0;
}
a.sort((a, b) => a - b);
for (let i = 0; i < a.length - 2; i++) {
if (a[i] + a[i + 1] > a[i + 2]) {
return 1;
}
}
return 0;
}
My solution to this problem, written in Swift.
public func Triangle(_ A : inout [Int]) -> Int {
A.sort()
for i in 1..<A.count-1 {
if(A[i] + A[i-1] > A[i+1]) {
print("Triangle has edges: \(A[i-1]), \(A[i]), \(A[i+1])")
return 1
}
}
return 0
}
A = [10,2,5,1,8,20]
print("Triangle: ", Triangle(&A))
Or you can change the if clause, like below
if(A[i]>A[i+2]-A[i+1] && A[i+1]>A[i]-A[i+2] && A[i+2]>A[i+1]-A[i])
using subtraction instead of addition.
Works 100%, tested with different scenario's.
I think all the possibilities are not covered above solution
Combination with
P,Q,R
A[0] = 10, A[1] = 2, A[2] = 5, A[3] = 1, A[4] = 8, A[5] = 20
index combination
0+1>2, 1+2>0, 2+0>1
1+2>3, 2+3>1, 3+1>2
....
These are combinations needed to achieve this problem.
//Triangle
/**
* A[P] + A[Q] > A[R],
A[Q] + A[R] > A[P],
A[R] + A[P] > A[Q]
*/
public int triangleSolution(int[] A) {
int status = 0;
for(int i=0; i<A.length; i++) {
int[] B = removeTheElement(A, i);
for(int j=0; j<B.length; j++) {
int[] C = removeTheElement(B, j);
for(int k=0; k<C.length; k++) {
if((A[i] + B[j] > C[k]) &&
(B[j] + C[k] > A[i]) &&
(C[k] + A[i] > B[j])) {
return 1;
}
}
}
}
return status;
}
// Function to remove the element
public int[] removeTheElement(int[] arr, int index)
{
// Create another array of size one less
int[] anotherArray = new int[arr.length - 1];
// Copy the elements except the index
// from original array to the other array
for (int i = 0, k = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
// if the index is
// the removal element index
if (i == index) {
continue;
}
// if the index is not
// the removal element index
anotherArray[k++] = arr[i];
}
//Java >8
//IntStream.range(0, arr.length).filter(i -> i != index).map(i -> arr[i]).toArray();
return anotherArray;
}
//My solution in C++ it avoid overflow
inline int Triangle(vector<int> &A) {
if(A.size() < 3) return 0;
sort(A.begin(), A.end());
for(int i = 0; i < (int)A.size() - 2; ++i){
int P = A[i], Q = A[i + 1], R =A[i + 2];
if(( R - P - Q < 0) && ( P - Q - R < 0) && (Q - R - P < 0))
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
Ruby 100% solution
def solution(a)
arr = a.select{|x| x >=0 }.sort
arr.each_with_index do |p, pi|
arr[(pi+1)..-1].each_with_index do |q, qi|
arr[(qi+pi+2)..-1].each do |r|
break if p+q <=r
break if p+r <=q
break if r+q <=p
return 1
end
end
end
0
end
It's javascript solution(TC: O(N*log(N)) though, in case you guys want :).
function solution(A) {
if(A.length<3) return 0;
A.sort((a,b)=>b - a);
for(let i = 0,j = i+1;j < A.length-1;j++){
let p = A[j],q = A[j+1],r = A[i]
if(r - p > q) i++;
else if(r - p < q) return 1;
}
return 0;
}
Sorting does not work now, It was a bug it was fixed by Codility. Now, I am using this piece of code to get 93%
You can see the results below:
Codility test Results
0 <= P < Q < R < N
public static int solution(int[] unfilteredArray) {
int[] array = filterLessThanOneElements(unfilteredArray);
for(int i = 0; i <= (array.length - 3) ; i++) {
long p = array[i];
for(int j = i+1; j <= (array.length - 2); j++) {
long q = array[j];
for(int k = j+1; k <= (array.length - 1); k++) {
long r = array[k];
if((p + q > r) && (q + r > p) && (r + p > q)) {
return 1;
}
}
}
}
return 0;
}
// The mose efficient way to remove duplicates
// TIME COMPLEXITY : O(N)
private static int[] filterLessThanOneElements(int[] unfilteredArray) {
int k = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < unfilteredArray.length; i++) {
if(unfilteredArray[i] > 0) {
unfilteredArray[k++] = unfilteredArray[i];
}
}
return Arrays.copyOfRange(unfilteredArray, 0, k);
}
Simple change: First, you observe that negative integers cannot be part of a triangular triplet. That means you can cast all ints to unsigned int, and there can’t be any overflow anymore.
100/100 JavaScript solution
function solution(A) {
let l = A.length;
if (l < 3) {
return 0;
}
A.sort((a, b) => a - b);
for (let i = 0; i < l - 2; i++) {
let [p, q, r] = [A[i], A[i + 1], A[i + 2]];
if (p + q > r && q + r > p && r + p > q) {
return 1;
}
}
return 0;
}
If you don't want to use Array.sort, the following works with 100% correctness and 100% performance with a complexity that codility detects at O(N*log(N)).
class Solution {
public int solution(int[] A) {
int ans = 0;
int p1 = -1;
int p2 = -1;
int p1Pos = 0;
int p2Pos = 1;
int cur = -1;
if(A.length > 2){
p1 = A[0];
p2 = A[1];
for(int i = p2Pos + 1; i < A.length; i++){
if(p1 > p2){
p2 = A[p1Pos];
p1 = A[p2Pos];
A[p2Pos] = p2;
A[p1Pos] = p1;
}
cur = A[i];
//System.out.println(p1 + " " + p2 + " " + cur);
if(p1 > -1 && p2 > -1){
//the test for a triangle
if (cur > -1 &&
((p1 == p2 && p2 == cur) ||
((p1 + p2 > cur) && (p1 + cur > p2) && ( cur + p2 > p1)))){
return 1;
//bubble sort...sort of
}else if (p2 > cur){
A[p2Pos] = cur;
A[i] = p2;
if(p1 < cur){
p1 = cur;
p1Pos = p2Pos;
}
p2Pos = i;
} else if(cur > -1
&&(p1 + p2 <= cur) ){
p2Pos++;
p1Pos++;
p1=p2;
p2=cur;
}
}else{
//find the first two positive numbers
if((p2 < 0 || p1 < 0) && cur > -1){
if(p1 < 0){
p1 = cur;
p1Pos = i;
}else{
p2 = A[i];
p2Pos = i;
}
}
}
}
}
return ans;
}
}
When I was making this I thought that maybe I could solve this while doing a modified Bubble sort. I chose two pivots (p1 and p2), while making sure p2 > p1.
As I iterated through the array, I made sure that p2 would bubble up if p2 > cur and that p1 would additionally bubble up if p1 > cur. I Furthermore, I noticed that any combination of three points that have a negative number cannot be a triangle. So I ignored negatives. I also realized that if the array happened to hold three and only maximal integers that I would have an issue. To solve this I tested for p1 == p2 == cur. Admittingly, it might be better to use BigInteger to solve it.
My 100% JavaScript solution with O(N*log(N)) time complexity:
function solution(A) {
A.sort((a, b) => a - b);
for (let i = 0, len = A.length - 2; i < len; i++) {
const [P, Q, R] = [A[i], A[i + 1], A[i + 2]];
if (P + Q > R && Q + R > P && R + P > Q) {
return 1;
}
}
return 0;
}
One would think that sorting the array first will violate the condition 0<=P<Q<R. But the question is does such a triple exist. For the example we find [10,2,5,1,8,20]. After sorting we still find the values 10, 5, and 8 as the triple, but in a different order.
A Python 3 solution with 100% score at Codility:
def triangle(A):
n = len(A)
if n < 3:
return 0
a = list(A)
if 0 not in a:
a.append(0)
a.sort()
#print(a)
n = len(a)
p_a = a[a.index(0)+1:n]
#print(p_a)
n = len(p_a)
for i in range(n-2):
p = p_a[i]
q = p_a[i+1]
r = p_a[i+2]
if (p+q>r):
return (1)
return 0
Better solutions for C++ is to change a little algorithm. Make subtraction instead of adding, here is an example:
int solution(vector<int> &A) {
if (A.size() < 3)
return 0;
sort(A.begin(), A.end());
for (int i = 0; i < A.size() - 2; i++) {
if (A[i] > 0 && (A[i] > A[i + 2] - A[i + 1]))
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
It's because of integer overflow.
Try out this one:
int a1 = 1900000000;
int a2 = 1900000000;
int sum = a1+a2; // sum will be -494967296
Edit: Use long long int.
long long int sum01 = A[i] + A[i+1];
long long int sum12 = A[i+1] + A[i+2];
long lont int sum02 = A[i] + A[i+2];
if (sum01 > A[i+2] && sum12 > A[i] && sum02 > A[i+1])
return 1;
My java Solution 100/100 Instead of comparing the Addition we compare the subtraction as we can have an Integer.MAX_VALUE an we will be getting corrupted data.
public static int solution(int[] A) {
int isATriangle = 0;
Arrays.sort(A);
if (A.length >= 3) {
for (int i = 0; i < A.length - 2; i++) {
if (A[i] > A[i + 2] - A[i + 1]
&& A[i + 2] > A[i] - A[i + 1]
&& A[i + 2] > A[i + 1] - A[i])
isATriangle = 1;
}
}
return isATriangle;
}
I have 2 very similar programs based on this challenge here. One uses arrays, one uses vectors. But their outputs are different. Even though algorithm is the same. Please explain?
Here is the code.
Array version (output is 2, which is incorrect):
#include <iostream>
#define SIZE 4
int step(int grid[][SIZE], int i, int j)
{
if (i < 0 || j < 0 || i > 3 || j > 3)
return 0;
if (grid[i][j] == 1)
return 0;
if ( i == 3 && j == 3)
return 1;
grid[i][j] = 1;
return step(grid, i - 1, j) + step(grid, i + 1, j) + step(grid, i, j - 1) + step(grid, i, j + 1);
}
int main()
{
int grid[][SIZE] = {{0,0,0,0},{0,0,0,0},{0,0,0,0},{0,0,0,0}};
std::cout<<step(grid, 0, 0)<<std::endl;
return 0;
}
And the vector version (output 184, correct):
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#define SIZE 4
int step(std::vector<std::vector<int> > grid, int i, int j)
{
if (i < 0 || j < 0 || i > 3 || j > 3)
return 0;
if (grid[i][j] == 1)
return 0;
if ( i == 3 && j == 3)
return 1;
grid[i][j] = 1;
return step(grid, i - 1, j) + step(grid, i + 1, j) + step(grid, i, j - 1) + step(grid, i, j + 1);
}
int main()
{
std::vector<std::vector<int> > grid;
std::vector<int> column1(4,0);
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE; ++i)
grid.push_back(column1);
std::cout<<step(grid, 0, 0)<<std::endl;
return 0;
}
The first version passes array by reference because it is equivalent to passing pointer to array. The second version passes vector by value which means that each recursive call vector is created on stack and you change only local copy. This change disappears immediately when you return from function.
You should use the following signature to pass vector by reference:
int step(std::vector<std::vector<int> >& grid, int i, int j)