I want to have a function that returns the sum of different (non duplicate) values from an array: if I have {3, 3, 1, 5}, I want to have sum of 3 + 1 + 5 = 9.
My attempt was:
int sumdiff(int* t, int size){
int sum=0;
for (int i=0; i<=size;i++){
for(int j=i; j<=size;j++){
if(t[i]!=t[j])
sum=sum+t[i];
}
}
return sum;
}
int main()
{
int t[4]={3, 3, 1, 5};
cout << sumdiff(t, 4);
}
It returns 25 and I think I know why, but I do not know how to improve it. What should I change?
Put all the items in a set, then count them.
Sets are data structures that hold only one element of each value (i.e., each of their elements is unique; if you try to add the same value more than once, only one instance will be count).
You can take a look in this interesting question about the most elegant way of doing that for ints.
First of all, your loop should be for (int i=0; i<size;i++). Your actual code is accessing out of the bounds of the array.
Then, if you don't want to use STL containers and algorithms (but you should), you can modify your code as follows:
int sumdiff(int* t, int size){
int sum=0;
for (int i=0; i<size;i++){
// check if the value was previously added
bool should_sum = true;
for(int j=0; should_sum && j<i;j++){
if(t[i]==t[j])
should_sum = false;
}
if(should_sum)
sum=sum+t[i];
}
return sum;
}
int main()
{
int t[4]={3, 3, 1, 5};
cout << sumdiff(t, 4);
}
You could:
Store your array contents into an std::unordered_set first. By doing so, you'd essentially get rid of the duplicates automatically.
Then call std::accumulate to compute the sum
**wasthishelpful's answer was exactly what i was talking about. I saw his post after i posted mine.
So, you're trying to check the duplicate number using your inner loop.
However, your outer loop will loop 4 times no matter what which gives you wrong result.
Try,
Do only checking in inner loop. (use a flag to record if false)
Do your sum outside of inner loop. (do the sum when flag is true)
Here is another solution using std::accumulate, but it iterates over the original elements in the call to std::accumulate, and builds the set and keeps a running total as each number in the array is encountered:
#include <iostream>
#include <numeric>
#include <set>
int main()
{
int t[4] = { 3, 3, 1, 5 };
std::set<int> mySet;
int mySum = std::accumulate(std::begin(t), std::end(t), 0,
[&](int n, int n2){return n += mySet.insert(n2).second?n2:0;});
std::cout << "The sum is: " << mySum << std::endl;
return 0;
}
The way it works is that std::insert() will return a pair tbat determines if the item was inserted. The second of the pair is a bool that denotes whether the item was inserted in the set. We only add onto the total if the insertion is successful, otherwise we add 0.
Live Example
Insert array elements into a set and use the std::accumulate function:
#include <iostream>
#include <numeric>
#include <set>
int main()
{
int t[4] = { 3, 3, 1, 5 };
std::set<int> mySet(std::begin(t), std::end(t));
int mySum = std::accumulate(mySet.begin(), mySet.end(), 0);
std::cout << "The sum is: " << mySum << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Related
I am trying to get the size of an array, using that for the expression in my for loop, and getting a random sum when I compile.
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
int prime[5];
prime[0] = 2;
prime[1] = 3;
prime[2] = 5;
prime[3] = 7;
prime[4] = 11;
int holder = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < sizeof(prime); i++)
{
holder += prime[i];
}
std::cout << "The sum of the 5 prime numbers in the array is " << holder << std::endl;
}
The sum I get is 1947761361. Why is this? Shouldn't using the sizeof() function work here?
The sizeof operator returns the size in memory of its operand - in the case of arrays this is thus the number of element multiplied by the size in memory of each one - NOT the number of elements in the array. For that you want sizeof(array)/sizeof(prime[0])
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
int prime[5];
prime[0] = 2;
prime[1] = 3;
prime[2] = 5;
prime[3] = 7;
prime[4] = 11;
int holder = 0;
int arraySize = sizeof(prime)/sizeof(prime[0]);
for (int i = 0; i < arraySize; i++)
{
holder += prime[i];
}
std::cout << "The sum of the 5 prime numbers in the array is " << holder << std::endl;
}
The error is in your use of sizeof(). It returns the total size of what is passed in. You passed in an array of 5 integers. An int is typically 4 bytes, so your sizeof() should return 20.
The bare minimum fix is to change your for loop Boolean Expression:
i < sizeof(prime) becomes i < sizeof(prime) / sizeof(*prime)
It takes the total size of your array (20) and divides it by the size of the first element (*prime) to give you the number of elements in your array.
To explain a bit more about *prime, you need to understand that C-arrays decay to pointers to the first element if you look at them funny. The syntax here de-references the pointer and gives us the actual first element, an int. And so we get the size of an int.
All the stuff below is tangential to your actual question, but I like to put it out there.
Here's your code, squashing your array initialization and using a range-based for loop.
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
int prime[]{2, 3, 5, 7, 11}; // CHANGED: Declare and initialize
int holder = 0;
// CHANGED: Range-based for loop
for (auto i : prime) {
holder += i; // CHANGED: in a range-based for loop, i is the value of each
// element
}
std::cout << "The sum of the 5 prime numbers in the array is " << holder
<< std::endl;
}
The range-based for loop works here because the array is in the same scope as the array. If you were passing the C-array to a function, it wouldn't work.
Here's your code using a Standard Library function:
#include <iostream>
#include <iterator> // std::begin and std::end because C-array
#include <numeric> // std::reduce OR std::accumulate
int main() {
int prime[]{2, 3, 5, 7, 11};
std::cout << "The sum of the 5 prime numbers in the array is "
<< std::reduce(std::begin(prime), std::end(prime)) << std::endl;
}
The need for <iterator> is due to the fact that you are using a C-array. If we instead use a std::array or [better yet] std::vector, we can lose that requirement.
#include <iostream>
#include <numeric> // std::reduce
#include <vector>
int main() {
std::vector<int> prime{2, 3, 5, 7, 11};
std::cout << "The sum of the 5 prime numbers in the array is "
<< std::reduce(prime.begin(), prime.end()) << std::endl;
}
We got rid of the #include <iterator> requirement because std::arrays and std::vectors come with their own iterators. I also got rid of the holder variable completely, as there was no demonstrated need to actually store the value; so we print it directly.
NOTES: std::reduce() requires C++17, which any fairly recent compiler should provide. You could also use std::accumulate() if you wish.
You can specify that you're compiling C++17 code by passing -std=c++17 to the compiler. It's always a good idea to specify what C++ standard you expect your code to run against. And while we're talking about compiler flags, it's in your best interest to enable warnings with -Wall -Wextra at a minimum.
You expect sizeof(prime) == 5,
which will not be.
And int prime[5]; will always should
be known size, so
to avoid problems
use int const sizeOfArray = 5; which then
you can use for the loop.
And for better understanding of what is happening
monitor holder inside the loop with cout/cerr.
I need a function int countDifferentNumbers(int v[], int n) which counts how many different values the array v with n entries contains.
Example:
It should return the result 3 for the array v = {1, 5, 5, 8, 1, 1} because the array contains only 3 different values.
This is how the code looks like so far:
int countDifferentNumbers(int v[], int n)
{
int counter = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
for(int j = i; j < n; ++j)
{
if(v[i] == v[j + 1])
{
cout << "match" << endl;
counter++;
cout << v[i] << endl;
}
}
}
return counter;
}
I would appreciate an explanation of what is wrong in my function and how I need to redesign it.
Note: Unfortunately, I have not found a suitable thread for this either. All threads with my problems were solved in Java and Python languages.
Recently I see more and more answers here on SO that lead users in the wrong direction by giving bad answers.
Also, for C++, the question has already been answered in the comment by Igor Tandetnik, and that should finally be used.
But let me answer the question of the OP as asked. What is wrong with my function? OK, there are several aspects. Let us first look at the style.
You have 0 lines of comments, so the code quality is 0. If you would write comments, then you would already find most bugs by yourself, because then, you need to explain your own wrong statements.
Then please see your source code with my amendments. I added the problems as comment.
// This is just a dumped function and not a minimum reproducible example
// All header files are messing
// Obviously "using namespace std;" was used that should NEVER be done
// The function should retrun an unsigned value, best size_t, because a count can never be negative
// Same for n, that is the size of an array. Can also never be negative
// C-sytle arrays should NEVER be used in C++. NEVER. Use std::vector or std::array instead
int countDifferentNumbers(int v[], int n)
{
int counter = 0; // Now in C++ we can use braced initialzation instead of assignement
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
for (int j = i; j < n; ++j)
{
if (v[i] == v[j + 1]) // Accessing out of bounds element
{
cout << "match" << endl; // Now endl needed here. Can all be done in one cout statement in one line
counter++; // Always counting up the same counter for all kind of double numbers.
cout << v[i] << endl;
}
}
}
return counter;
That was one point of the answer. But now the second point. Evene more important. The algorithm or the design is wrong. And finding the correct solution, this thinking before codingt, you need to do, before you write any line of code.
You obviously want to find the count of unique numbers in an array.
Then you could look what is already there on Stackoverflow. You would probaly find 20 answers already that coud give you a hint.
You could use std::unique. Please see here for a description. This function sounds like it does what you want, right? Some example implementation:
#include <iostream>
#include <unordered_map>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
// If you want to keep the original data, remove the reference-specifier &
size_t countDifferentNumbers(std::vector<int>& v) {
std::sort(v.begin(), v.end()); // Sorting is precondition for std::unique
v.erase(std::unique(v.begin(), v.end()), v.end()); // Erase all non-unique elements
return v.size(); // Return the result
}
int main() {
std::vector test{ 1, 5, 5, 8, 1, 1 }; // Some test data
std::cout << countDifferentNumbers(test) << '\n'; // SHow result to user
return 0;
}
Then, we could count the occurence of each number in a std::map or std::unordered_map. And the number of counters will be the result. Example:
#include <iostream>
#include <unordered_map>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
// If you want to keep the original data, remove the reference-specifier &
size_t countDifferentNumbers(std::vector<int>& v) {
std::unordered_map<int, size_t> counter{}; // Here we will count all occurences of different numbers
for (const int i : v) counter[i]++; // Iterate over vector and count different numbers
return counter.size(); // Count of different numbers
}
int main() {
std::vector test{ 1, 5, 5, 8, 1, 1 }; // Some test data
std::cout << countDifferentNumbers(test) << '\n'; // Show result to user
return 0;
}
But, then, thinking further, about what conatiners we could use, we will find out the answer from Igor Tandetnik. There are 2 containers that can hold unique values only. No double values. And these are: std::set and std::unordered_set., So, we can simply copy the data into one of those containers, and, only unique values will be stored there.
There are many ways to get the data into a set. But the simplest one is to use its range constructor. Then, we have unique elements, and, the containers size function will give the result:
See here: Constructor Number 2.
The result will be a function with one line like this
#include <iostream>
#include <unordered_set>
#include <vector>
// If you want to keep the original data, remove the reference-specifier &
size_t countDifferentNumbers(std::vector<int>& v) {
return std::unordered_set<int>(v.begin(), v.end()).size();
}
int main() {
std::vector test{ 1, 5, 5, 8, 1, 1 }; // Some test data
std::cout << countDifferentNumbers(test) << '\n'; // Show result to user
return 0;
}
And since functions with one line are often not so usefull, we can also write the final solution:
#include <iostream>
#include <unordered_set>
#include <vector>
int main() {
std::vector test{ 1, 5, 5, 8, 1, 1 }; // Some test data
std::cout << std::unordered_set<int>(test.begin(), test.end()).size() << '\n'; // Show result to user
return 0;
}
So, by analyzing the problem and choosing the right algorithm and container and using C++, we come to the most easy solution.
Please enable C++17 for your compiler.
first sort the array v. if n >0 then initially there must be one number which is unique so just increment the value of counter once. then with loop check if the two consecutive number are same or not. if same do nothing else increment the value of counter.
if you are writing code in c then use qsort. #include <stdlib.h> add this in header and. use qsort() func
here is the code:
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
int countDifferentNumbers(int v[] , int n)
{
int counter = 0;
sort(v, v+ n); // if you are writing code in c then just write a decent sort algorithm.
if (n>0 ){
printf("%d\n", v[0]);
counter ++;
}
for(int i = 0; i < n-1; ++i)
{
if(v[i] == v[i+1]){
continue;
} else {
printf("%d\n", v[i+1]);
counter++;
}
}
return counter;
}
int main()
{
int v[] = {1, 5, 5, 8, 1, 1};
int result = countDifferentNumbers(v,6);
printf("unique number %d", result );
return 0;
}
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
int main() {
unordered_map<int,int>h;
int T;
int n,i;
cin>>T;
while(T--)
{ int flag=0;
cin>>n;
int arr[n];
for( i=0;i<n;i++)
{
cin>>arr[i];
}
for(i=0;i<n;i++)
{
h[i]=count(arr,arr+n,arr[i]);
}
for(auto x: h)
{
if(x.second>1)
{ flag=1;
cout<<x.first<<endl;
break;
}
}
if(flag==0)
{ cout<<-1<<endl;
}
}
}
Given an integer array. The task is to find the first repeating element in the array i.e., an element that occurs more than once and whose index of first occurrence is smallest.
I am getting infinite result. what am I don't wrong. the test cases are below
Input:
test case :1
array size:7
array(1 5 3 4 2 4 5 )
Output:
2
Since you're using an std::unordered_map, the approach should be very simple:
Set the minimum position to a large value.
Loop on the number data from first item to last.
If the number does not exist in the map, then
Add the item and position to the map
else
Set the minimum position to min(minimum position, position found in map)
There is no need for flag variables (which will almost always cause issues somewhere, and most likely the reason for your error), or a recount over and over again of the items in the original array like this:
for(i=0;i<n;i++)
{
h[i]=count(arr,arr+n,arr[i]);
}
If you had 1000 numbers, you would be calling this count loop 1000 times. That is very inefficient.
As to your implementation, where do you store the index of the first duplicate? I don't see it, unless it is hidden behind all of the manipulations you're doing with this flag variable. Whatever you're doing, it is wrong.
Here is an implementation, using your test data and using the outline I presented earlier:
#include <unordered_map>
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
#include <climits>
int main()
{
std::unordered_map<int, int> numbers;
int test[] = {1, 5, 3, 4, 2, 4, 5};
// Set minimum index to a large value
int minIndex = std::numeric_limits<int>::max();
for (size_t i = 0; i < std::size(test); ++i )
{
// check if item is found
auto iter = numbers.find(test[i]);
if ( iter == numbers.end())
// not found, so add item and position
numbers.insert({test[i], i});
else
// set the minimum index to the found position and exit the loop
minIndex = std::min(minIndex, iter->second);
}
if ( minIndex == std::numeric_limits<int>::max())
std::cout << -1;
else
std::cout << minIndex;
}
Output:
1
This is effectively has O(n) runtime, as opposed to what you wrote, which was O(n^2) due to the inefficient counting loop.
despite the question, this line of code
int arr[n];
is not allowed in C++ even if your local IDE didn't give any errors I think your online judge will give a runtime error.
As the arrays in C++ must be statically allocated which means you need to know the number of elements of the array before you run the code.
To find the number of distinct numbers in an array from the lth to the rth index, I wrote a code block like:
int a[1000000];
//statements to input n number of terms from user in a.. along with l and r
int count=r-l+1; //assuming all numbers to be distinct
for(; l<=r; l++){
for(int i=l+1; i<=r; i++){
if(a[l]==a[i]){
count--;
break;
}
}
}
cout<<count<<'\n';
Explanation
For an array say, a=5 6 1 1 3 2 5 7 1 2 of ten elements. If we wish to check the number of distinct numbers between a[1] and a[8] that is the second and the 9th elements (including both), The logic I tried to implement would first take count=8 (no. of elements to be considered) and then it starts from a[1] that is 6 and checks for any other 6 after it, if it does find, it decreases the count by one and goes on for the next number in the row. So that if there are any more occurrence of 6 after that one, it would not be included twice.
Problem I tried small test cases and it works. But when I tried with bigger data, it did not work, so I wanted to know where would my logic fail?
Bigger data, as in integrated with other parts of the program and then used. Which gave incorrect output
You can try to use std::set
Basic idea is to add all the elements into your new set, and just output the size of your set.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <set>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int l = 1, r = 6;
int arr[] = {1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5};
set<int> s(&arr[l], &arr[r + 1]);
cout << s.size() << endl;
return 0;
}
Here is an answer that does not use std::set, although that solution is probably simpler.
#include <algorithm>
#include <vector>
int main()
{
int input[10]{5, 6, 1, 1, 3, 2, 5, 7, 1, 2}; //because you like raw arrays, I guess?
std::vector<int> result(std::cbegin(input), std::cend(input)); //result now contains all of input
std::sort(std::begin(result), std::end(result)); //result now holds 1 1 1 2 2 3 5 5 6 7
result.erase(std::unique(std::begin(result), std::end(result)), std::end(result)); //result now holds 1 2 3 5 6 7
result.size(); //gives the count of distinct integers in the given array
}
Here it is live on Coliru if you're into that.
--
EDIT: Here, have a short version of the set solution, too.
#include <set>
int main()
{
int input[10]{5, 6, 1, 1, 3, 2, 5, 7, 1, 2}; //because you like raw arrays, I guess?
std::set<int> result(std::cbegin(input), std::cend(input));
result.size();
}
The first question to ask with this type of problem is what is the possible range of the values. if the range of numbers N is "reasonably small", then you can use a boolean array of size N to indicate whether the number corresponding to the index is present. You iterate from l to r, setting the flag, and if the flag was not already set increment a counter.
count = 0;
for(int i=l; i<=r; i++) {
if (! isthere[arr[i]]) {
count++;
isthere[arr[i]] = TRUE;
}
}
In terms of complexity, both this approach and the one based on set are O(n), but this one is faster as there is no hashing involved. For small N, for example for numbers between 0-255, most likely this is also likely to be less memory intensive. For larger N, for example if any 32-bit integers is allowed, the set based approach is more suitable.
You said you didn't mind another solution. So here it is. It uses set - a structure that stores only unique elements. By the way, on the bigger data - it will much faster than solution with two cycles.
set<int> a1;
for (int i = l; i <= r; i++)
{
a1.insert(a[i]);
}
cout << a1.size();
In the below process I'm giving process of counting unique numbers. In this technique you just get unique elements in an array. this process will update your array with garbage value. So in this process you can't use this array (that we will use) further anymore. This array will automatically resize with distinct elements.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm> // for using unique (library function)
int main(){
int arr[] = {1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3};
int len = sizeof(arr)/sizeof(*arr); // finding size of arr (array)
int unique_sz = std:: unique(arr, arr + len)-arr; // Counting unique elements in arr (Array).
std:: cout << unique_sz << '\n'; // Printing number of unique elements in this array.
return 0;
}
If you want to handle that problem (That I told before), you can follow this process. You can handle this by coping your array in another array.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm> // for using copy & unique (library functions)
#include <string.h> // for using memcpy (library function)
int main(){
int arr[] = {1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3};
int brr[100]; // we will copy arr (Array) to brr (Array)
int len = sizeof(arr)/sizeof(*arr); // finding size of arr (array)
std:: copy(arr, arr+len, brr); // which will work on C++ only (you have to use #include <algorithm>
memcpy(brr, arr, len*(sizeof(int))); // which will work on C only
int unique_sz = std:: unique(arr, arr+len)-arr; // Counting unique elements in arr (Array).
std:: cout << unique_sz << '\n'; // Printing number of unique elements in this array.
for(int i=0; i<len; i++){ // Here is your old array, that we store to brr (Array) from arr (Array).
std:: cout << brr[i] << " ";
}
return 0;
}
Personally, I'd just use standard algorithms
#include<algorithm>
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
int arr[] = {1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5};
int *end = arr + sizeof(arr)/sizeof(*arr);
std::sort(arr, end);
int *p = std::unique(arr, end);
std::cout << (int)(p - arr) << '\n';
}
This obviously relies on being allowed to modify the array (any duplicates are moved to the end of arr). But it is easy to create a copy of an array if needed and work on the copy.
TL;DR: Use this:
template<typename InputIt>
std::size_t countUniqueElements(InputIt first, InputIt last) {
using value_t = typename std::iterator_traits<InputIt>::value_type;
return std::unordered_set<value_t>(first, last).size();
}
There are two approaches:
Insert everything into a set, count the set. Because you don't care about the order you can use a std::unordered_set which will be faster than std::set. std::set is implemented as a tree which does a lot of allocations so it can be slow.
Use std::sort. If you want to preserve the original array you'll need to make a copy of it.
Here is a complete example.
#include <algorithm>
#include <cstdint>
#include <vector>
#include <unordered_set>
#include <iostream>
template<typename RandomIt>
std::size_t countUniqueElementsSort(RandomIt first, RandomIt last) {
if (first == last)
return 0;
std::sort(first, last);
std::size_t count = 1;
auto val = *first;
while (++first != last) {
if (*first != val) {
++count;
}
val = *first;
}
return count;
}
template<typename InputIt>
std::size_t countUniqueElementsSet(InputIt first, InputIt last) {
using value_t = typename std::iterator_traits<InputIt>::value_type;
return std::unordered_set<value_t>(first, last).size();
}
int main() {
std::vector<int> v = {1, 3, 4, 4, 3, 6};
std::cout << countUniqueElementsSet(v.begin(), v.end()) << "\n";
std::cout << countUniqueElementsSort(v.begin(), v.end()) << "\n";
int v2[] = {1, 3, 4, 4, 3, 6};
std::cout << countUniqueElementsSet(v2, v2 + 6) << "\n";
std::cout << countUniqueElementsSort(v2, v2 + 6) << "\n";
}
Using that loop in the sort version should be faster than std::unique.
The complexity of 2. is worse than 1. - the average case is O(N) vs O(N log N). But it avoids allocation so may end up being faster for small arrays or ones that are already sorted or mostly already sorted.
You should definitely not use std::set, and probably not use std::unique (though it does lead to fewer lines of code, and won't make that much difference to performance so up to you).
In any case, in most cases you should go with the set version - it's a lot simpler simpler and should be faster in almost all cases.
As other people have mentioned, if you know your input domain is small you can use a bool array instead of an unordered_set.
How do I iterate through a list of numbers, and how many different ways are there to do it?
What I thought would work:
#include <cstdlib>
#include <iostream>
#include <list>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int numbers[] = {2, 4, 6, 8};
int i = 0;
for(i=0; i< numbers.size();i++)
cout << "the current number is " << numbers[i];
system("pause");
return 0;
}
I get an error on the for loop line:
request for member 'size' in 'numbers', which is of non-class type 'int[4]'
Unlike a lot of modern languages plain C++ arrays don't have a .size() function. You have a number of options to iterate through a list depending on the storage type.
Some common options for storage include:
// used for fixed size storage. Requires #include <array>
std::array<type, size> collection;
// used for dynamic sized storage. Requires #include <vector>
std::vector<type> collection;
// Dynamic storage. In general: slower iteration, faster insert
// Requires #include <list>
std::list<type> collection;
// Old style C arrays
int myarray[size];
Your options for iteration will depend on the type you're using. If you're using a plain old C array you can either store the size somewhere else or calculate the size of the array based on the size of it's types. Calculating the size of an array has a number of drawbacks outlined in this answer by DevSolar
// Store the value as a constant
int oldschool[10];
for(int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
oldschool[i]; // Get
oldschool[i] = 5; // Set
}
// Calculate the size of the array
int size = sizeof(oldschool)/sizeof(int);
for(int i = 0; i < size; ++i) {
oldschool[i]; // Get
oldschool[i] = 5; // Set
}
If you're using any type that provides a .begin() and .end() function you can use those to get an iterator which is considered good style in C++ compared to index based iteration:
// Could also be an array, list, or anything with begin()/end()
std::vector<int> newschool;
// Regular iterator, non-C++11
for(std::vector<int>::iterator num = newschool.begin(); num != newschool.end(); ++num) {
int current = *num; // * gets the number out of the iterator
*num = 5; // Sets the number.
}
// Better syntax, use auto! automatically gets the right iterator type (C++11)
for(auto num = newschool.begin(); num != newschool.end(); ++num) {
int current = *num; // As above
*num = 5;
}
// std::for_each also available
std::for_each(newschool.begin(), newschool.end(), function_taking_int);
// std::for_each with lambdas (C++11)
std::for_each(newschool.begin(), newschool.end(), [](int i) {
// Just use i, can't modify though.
});
Vectors are also special because they are designed to be drop-in replacements for arrays. You can iterate over a vector exactly how you would over an array with a .size() function. However this is considered bad practice in C++ and you should prefer to use iterators where possible:
std::vector<int> badpractice;
for(int i = 0; i < badpractice.size(); ++i) {
badpractice[i]; // Get
badpractice[i] = 5; // Set
}
C++11 (the new standard) also brings the new and fancy range based for that should work on any type that provides a .begin() and .end(). However: Compiler support can vary for this feature. You can also use begin(type) and end(type) as an alternative.
std::array<int, 10> fancy;
for(int i : fancy) {
// Just use i, can't modify though.
}
// begin/end requires #include <iterator> also included in most container headers.
for(auto num = std::begin(fancy); num != std::end(fancy); ++num) {
int current = *num; // Get
*num = 131; // Set
}
std::begin also has another interesting property: it works on raw arrays. This means you can use the same iteration semantics between arrays and non-arrays (you should still prefer standard types over raw arrays):
int raw[10];
for(auto num = std::begin(raw); num != std::end(raw); ++num) {
int current = *num; // Get
*num = 131; // Set
}
You also need to be careful if you want to delete items from a collection while in a loop because calling container.erase() makes all existing iterators invalid:
std::vector<int> numbers;
for(auto num = numbers.begin(); num != numbers.end(); /* Intentionally empty */) {
...
if(someDeleteCondition) {
num = numbers.erase(num);
} else {
// No deletition, no problem
++num;
}
}
This list is far from comprehensive but as you can see there's a lot of ways of iterating over a collection. In general prefer iterators unless you have a good reason to do otherwise.
Change you for loop to
for(i=0; i< sizeof(numbers)/sizeof(int);i++){
In simple words,
sizeof(numbers) mean number of elements in your array * size of primitive type int, so you divide by sizeof(int) to get the number of elements
If you fix it so that it's list<int> numbers = {1,2,3,4}:
Iterating through using iterators:
#include <iterator>
for(auto it = std::begin(numbers); it != std::end(numbers); ++it) { ... }
Iterating through using std::for_each:
#include <algorithm>
#include <iterator>
std::for_each(numbers.begin(), numbers.end(), some_func);
Utilizing a for-each loop (C++11):
for(int i : numbers) { ... }
I didn't see it among the answers but this is imo the best way to do it: Range-based for loop
It is safe, and in fact, preferable in generic code, to use deduction to forwarding reference:
for (auto&& var : sequence).
Minimalist and working example :
#include <list>
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
std::list<int> numbers = {2, 4, 6, 8};
for (const int & num : numbers)
std::cout << num << " ";
std::cout << '\n';
return 0;
}
If your list of numbers is fixed be aware that you can simply write:
#include <iostream>
#include <initializer_list>
int main()
{
for (int i : {2, 4, 6, 8})
std::cout << i << std::endl;
return 0;
}
There is no size function on "plain" C-style arrays. You need to use std::vector if you want to use size, or calculate size through sizeof.
In C++11 you can use array initialization syntax to initialize your vectors, like this:
vector<int> numbers = {2, 4, 6, 8};
Everything else stays the same (see demo here).
You can also use the plain old C containers and use the iterator syntax for the loop:
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
int numbers[] = {2, 4, 6, 8};
int *numbers_end = numbers + sizeof(numbers)/sizeof(numbers[0]);
for (int *it = numbers; it != numbers_end; ++it)
std::cout << "the current number is " << *it << std::endl;
return 0;
}
There is no member function "size" because "numbers" isn't a class. You can not get the array's size this way, you must either know it (or compute it) or use some class to store your numbers.
The easiest way to do it, in my opinion, would be to use a span.
#include <cstdlib>
#include <iostream>
#include <gsl/span>
int main() {
int numbers[] = {2, 4, 6, 8};
for(auto& num : gsl::span(numbers)) {
cout << "the current number is " << num;
}
system("pause");
}
Notes:
Spans are part of the GSL library. To use them, download the library from here, and add the download path to the compilation command, e.g. g++ -o foo foo.cpp -I/path/to/gsl
In C++20, span will be part of the standard, so you would just use std::span and #include <span>.