As shown in the pictures, the two pieces of code are almost the same with only slight differences. Each duplicate might create some trouble, so if you encounter such situations, how are you supposed to solve them?
Example 1
Example 2
It depends on the case.
In general you would add a function which knows both ways and return the value you need in every case.
So in your case you could do something like
bool myFuction(bool condition, int i, int k)
{
if(condition == true)
{
return (i + MIN_SIZE + k < CK_SIZE);
}
else
{
return (i - MIN_SIZE - k >= CK_SIZE);
}
}
Now you can call myFunction(..)
The bool condition would be the condition wether you decide to use the first or the second way.
Related
Clean coding principles generally include a rule that functions must be small and single-purpose.
From Robert Martin's book, Clean Code: "The first rule of functions is that they should be small. The second rule of functions is that they should be smaller than that."
This is difficult to adhere to if I have a function with a complicated loop that contains branches that can break the loop. For example, this code in a chess variant is meant to allow a unit to attack by leaping over another unit on the board:
for (arow = row, acol = col - 1, found_obstacle = false; acol >= 0; --acol) {
if (!found_obstacle) {
if (cellHasUnit(arow, acol)) found_obstacle = true;
continue;
} else {
if (cellHasUnit(arow, acol)) {
if (!cellHasAlly(arow, acol))
_dangerzones.insert(std::make_pair(arow, acol));
break;
}
}
}
I understand that you cannot break a loop from inside a function, where the function is called inside that loop.
What is a good way to handle complicated break conditions inside loops in order to maintain clean code with short functions? I can imagine using a special function with a return value to indicate if breaks are necessary, but that still means that each break needs its own function. If I have many break conditions that means the function containing the main loop would still be quite big.
Edit: I am asking the general question of whether it is practical and desirable (from a clean coding perspective) to modularize within-loop code that has a number of break conditions.
As a programmer with above 15 years of programming in several programming languages, I can first tell you that the quote you brought is very nice, you should follow it in order to make modular code, but it doesn't mean each function should be 10 lines of code. That's impossible.
Regarding your code, it is OK. Not complicated. You use functions inside the loop and it looks modular. A break is also OK.
I have one comment, though, using continue looks redundant. You could do:
if (cellHasUnit(arow, acol)) {
found_obstacle = true;
else {
...
Some discourage continue altogether because it can confuse. I don't follow this recommendation and sometimes use continue but I do try to avoid both break and continue on the same loop because they have somewhat opposite meanings.
Maybe at the break; statement, set acol = -1 and then continue; so that on the next iteration, you break out of the loop?
You may find this form more expressive. It inverts the tests and therefore avoids 2 call sites for the cellHasUnit test:
#include <map>
std::map<int, int> _dangerzones;
bool cellHasUnit(int, int);
bool cellHasAlly(int, int);
void handleAlly(int arow, int acol)
{
if (!cellHasAlly(arow, acol))
_dangerzones.insert(std::make_pair(arow, acol));
}
void test(int row, int col)
{
int arow = row;
bool found_obstacle = false;
for (int acol = col - 1 ; acol >= 0 ; --acol)
{
if (cellHasUnit(arow, acol))
{
if (found_obstacle)
{
return handleAlly(arow, acol);
}
else // not strictly necessary
found_obstacle = true;
}
}
}
The return statement is used to indicate that in this example, the breaking of the loop is also necessarily the end of the test function.
If the real function is longer, then you could write this instead:
if (found_obstacle)
{
handleAlly(arow, acol);
break;
}
else ...
newbie here. Even newer to recursion. I'm writing a function for my C++ program, and as you'll be able to tell, I'm a bit clueless when it comes to recursive algorithms. I'd appreciate it greatly if someone could fix my function so I can get it working and perhaps have a better idea how to handle recursion afterward.
My function takes a two-dimensional square array of booleans, and integer i, and an integer array_size as parameters. The function returns a boolean value.
The array is an adjacency matrix that I use to represent a set of conditionals. For example, if the value at [0][3] is true, then 0 -> 3 (if 0, then 3). If [3][7] is true, then 3 -> 7 (if 3, then 7). By the transitive property, 0 -> 7 (if 0, then 7).
The integer i is a particular element in the set of conditionals. The function will return true if this element is transitively connected to the last element in the array. The last element in the array is the integer (array_size - 1),
The integer array_size is the size of each dimension of the square array. If array_size is 20, then the array is 20x20.
The idea of this function is to determine if there is any logical "path" from the first integer element to the last integer element by the transitive property. When the path exists, the function returns true, otherwise, it returns false. The recursive call should allow it to traverse all possible paths, returning true once it finally reaches the last element and false if all paths fail.
For example, if i = 0 and array_size = 10, then the function will return whether or not 0 -> 9 is valid according to the conditionals provided by the matrix and the transitive property.
This is my code so far:
bool checkTransitivity(bool **relations, int i, int array_size){
bool isTransitive = false;
if (i == array_size - 1)
{
isTransitive = true;
}
else
{
for (int j = i; j < array_size; j++){
if (relations[i][j])
{
isTransitive = checkTransitivity(relations, j, array_size);
}
}
}
return isTransitive;
Currently, the function returns true for all input.
Any help at all is appreciated. Thanks in advance!
EDIT: This first part is unnecessary because of your if-else statement. Move on to END OF EDIT.
Let's start with what a base case in a recursive function is:
if (i == array_size - 1)
{
isTransitive = true;
}
Well you do have a base case, but nothing is being returned. You are just setting a flag to true. What you want to do is:
if (i == array_size - 1) {
return true;
}
Now the function will work its way up the recursive stack to return true. END OF EDIT.
But we still need to fix the recursive case:
else {
for (int j = i; j < array_size; j++) {
if (relations[i][j]) {
isTransitive = isTransitive || checkTransitivity(relations, j, array_size);
}
}
}
return isTransitive;
The || means binary OR. So you have the logic right. You want to check each possible path to see if it can get there, but by setting isTransitive to the result of each check, isTransitive is only going to be set to the last call. By doing isTransitive = isTransitive || recursive call, isTransitive will be true as long as one of the calls results in a true value.
The last thing I want to say is a caution: if relations[i][j] == true and relations[j][i] == true, your code will still be in an infinite loop. You must find a way to eliminate the potential backtracking. One way to do this is to create another array that stores which paths you have already checked so you do not infinitely loop.
More information can be found here: Depth First Search
I think all you need is a break condition to stop continuing the loop when you encounter a non-transitive item. See below (haven't tested)
bool checkTransitivity(bool **relations, int i, int array_size){
bool isTransitive = false;
if (i == array_size - 1)
{
isTransitive = true;
}
else
{
for (int j = i; j < array_size; j++){
isTransitive = relations[i][j] && checkTransitivity(relations, j, array_size);
if (!isTransitive)
break;
}
}
return isTransitive;
}
First a little code:
int counter = 0;
int get_counter() { return counter++; }
#define EVEN_OR_ZERO(cc) ( (cc) % 2 == 0 ? (cc) : 0 )
int next_even_or_zero = EVEN_OR_ZERO(get_counter());
This code might seem OK, but... Let's expand the macro:
int next_even_or_zero = get_counter() % 2 == 0 ? get_counter() : 0;
As you can see the macro will only return odd numbers - which is the opposite of what was expected (or desired).
The question: Is there any way to get this work as intended with a macro? Or is a regular function the only way to go?
//This works as wanted
int even_or_zero(int value) { return value % 2 == 0 ? value : 0; }
#define EVEN_OR_ZERO(cc) even_or_zero(cc)
This may be the perfect answer or a bad joke, depending on why you need a macro, which you haven't told us.
The answer is simple: Don't use a macro, unless there's a good reason for it. This case isn't one of them:
int even_or_zero(int i) {
if (i % 2) {
return 0;
} else {
return i;
}
}
Make two functions.
int getCurrentCounter() { ... } // just return here
int getNextCounter() { ... } // increment here
This is how - in example - sequences is PSQL works.
Also, this seems like very bad code design.
don't use macros in C++, there are more better ways to achieve what you want (usally) without using them
functions with sideeffects on global variables are not that good. Think if it would not be better to create struct/class with it's counter and add methods to it. Or better yet, could hide methods as prive at set methods/class as their friends to limit who can affect counter.
I am coding a Sudoku program. I found the number in the array determine whether duplicate each other is hard.
Now I have an array: int streamNum[SIZE]
if SIZE=3,I can handle this problem like:if(streamNum[0]!=streamNum[1])...
if SIZE=100,I think that I need a better solution, is there any standard practice?
There are a couple of different ways to do this, I suppose the easiest is to write two loops
bool has_duplicate = false;
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE && !has_duplicate; ++i)
for (int j = i + 1; j < SIZE && !has_duplicate; ++j)
if (streamNum[i] == streamNum[j])
has_duplicate = true;
if (has_duplicate)
{
...
}
else
{
...
}
The first loop goes through each element in the array, the second loop checks if there is a duplicate in the remaining elements of the array (that's why it starts at i + 1). Both loops quit as soon as you find a duplicate (that's what && !has_duplicate does).
This is not the most efficient way, more efficient would be to sort the array before looking for duplicates but that would modify the contents of the array at the same time.
I hope I've understand your requirements well enough.
for(int i=0;i<size;i++){
for(int j=i+1;j<size;j++){
if(streamNUM[i]==streamNUM[j]){
...........
}
}
}
I assume that u need whether there is duplication or not this may be helpful
If not comment
It's a little unclear what exactly you're looking to do here but I'm assuming as it's sudoku you're only interested in storing numbers 1-9?
If so to test for a duplicate you could iterate through the source array and use a second array (with 9 elements - I've called it flag) to hold a flag showing whether each number has been used or not.
So.. something like:
for (loop=0;loop<size;loop++) {
if (flag[streamNum[loop]]==true) {
//duplicate - do something & break this loop
break;
}
else {
flag[streamNum[loop]=true;
}
}
Here's how I'd test against Sudoku rules - it checks horizontal, vertical and 3x3 block using the idea above but here 3 different flag arrays for the 3 rules. This assumes your standard grid is held in an 81-element array. You can easily adapt this to cater for partially-completed grids..
for (loop=0;loop<9;loop++) {
flagH=[];
flagV=[];
flagS=[];
for (loop2=0;loop2<9;loop2++) {
//horizontal
if(flagH[streamNum[(loop*9)+loop2]]==true) {
duplicate
else {
flagH[streamNum[(loop*9)+loop2]]=true);
}
//column test
if(flagV[streamNum[loop+(loop2*9)]]==true) {
..same idea as above
//3x3 sub section test
basecell = (loop%3)*3+Math.floor(loop/3)*27; //topleft corner of 3x3 square
cell = basecell+(loop2%3+(Math.floor(loop2/3)*9));
if(flagS[streamNum[cell]]==true) {
..same idea as before..
}
}
Premise
This problem has a known solution (shown below actually), I'm just wondering if anyone has a more elegant algorithm or any other ideas/suggestions on how to make this more readable, efficient, or robust.
Background
I have a list of sports competitions that I need to sort in an array. Due to the nature of this array's population, 95% of the time the list will be pre sorted, so I use an improved bubble sort algorithm to sort it (since it approaches O(n) with nearly sorted lists).
The bubble sort has a helper function called CompareCompetitions that compares two competitions and returns >0 if comp1 is greater, <0 if comp2 is greater, 0 if the two are equal. The competitions are compared first by a priority field, then by game start time, and then by Home Team Name.
The priority field is the trick to this problem. It is an int that holds a positve value or 0. They are sorted with 1 being first, 2 being second, and so on with the exception that 0 or invalid values are always last.
e.g. the list of priorities
0, 0, 0, 2, 3, 1, 3, 0
would be sorted as
1, 2, 3, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0
The other little quirk, and this is important to the question, is that 95% of the time, priority will be it's default 0, because it is only changed if the user wants to manually change the sort order, which is rarely. So the most frequent case in the compare function is that priorities are equal and 0.
The Code
This is my existing compare algorithm.
int CompareCompetitions(const SWI_COMPETITION &comp1,const SWI_COMPETITION &comp2)
{
if(comp1.nPriority == comp2.nPriority)
{
//Priorities equal
//Compare start time
int ret = comp1.sStartTime24Hrs.CompareNoCase(comp2.sStartTime24Hrs);
if(ret != 0)
{
return ret; //return compare result
}else
{
//Equal so far
//Compare Home team Name
ret = comp1.sHLongName.CompareNoCase(comp2.sHLongName);
return ret;//Home team name is last field to sort by, return that value
}
}
else if(comp1.nPriority > comp2.nPriority)
{
if(comp2.nPriority <= 0)
return -1;
else
return 1;//comp1 has lower priority
}else /*(comp1.nPriority < comp2.nPriority)*/
{
if(comp1.nPriority <= 0)
return 1;
else
return -1;//comp1 one has higher priority
}
}
Question
How can this algorithm be improved?
And more importantly...
Is there a better way to force 0 to the back of the sort order?
I want to emphasize that this code seems to work just fine, but I am wondering if there is a more elegant or efficient algorithm that anyone can suggest. Remember that nPriority will almost always be 0, and the competitions will usually sort by start time or home team name, but priority must always override the other two.
Isn't it just this?
if (a==b) return other_data_compare(a, b);
if (a==0) return 1;
if (b==0) return -1;
return a - b;
You can also reduce some of the code verbosity using the trinary operator like this:
int CompareCompetitions(const SWI_COMPETITION &comp1,const SWI_COMPETITION &comp2)
{
if(comp1.nPriority == comp2.nPriority)
{
//Priorities equal
//Compare start time
int ret = comp1.sStartTime24Hrs.CompareNoCase(comp2.sStartTime24Hrs);
return ret != 0 ? ret : comp1.sHLongName.CompareNoCase(comp2.sHLongName);
}
else if(comp1.nPriority > comp2.nPriority)
return comp2.nPriority <= 0 ? -1 : 1;
else /*(comp1.nPriority < comp2.nPriority)*/
return comp1.nPriority <= 0 ? 1 : -1;
}
See?
This is much shorter and in my opinion easily read.
I know it's not what you asked for but it's also important.
Is it intended that if the case nPriority1 < 0 and nPriority2 < 0 but nPriority1 != nPriority2 the other data aren't compared?
If it isn't, I'd use something like
int nPriority1 = comp1.nPriority <= 0 ? INT_MAX : comp1.nPriority;
int nPriority2 = comp2.nPriority <= 0 ? INT_MAX : comp2.nPriority;
if (nPriority1 == nPriority2) {
// current code
} else {
return nPriority1 - nPriority2;
}
which will consider values less or equal to 0 the same as the maximum possible value.
(Note that optimizing for performance is probably not worthwhile if you consider that there are insensitive comparisons in the most common path.)
If you can, it seems like modifying the priority scheme would be the most elegant, so that you could just sort normally. For example, instead of storing a default priority as 0, store it as 999, and cap user defined priorities at 998. Then you won't have to deal with the special case anymore, and your compare function can have a more straightforward structure, with no nesting of if's:
(pseudocode)
if (priority1 < priority2) return -1;
if (priority1 > priority2) return 1;
if (startTime1 < startTime2) return -1;
if (startTime1 > startTime2) return 1;
if (teamName1 < teamName2) return -1;
if (teamName1 > teamName2) return -1;
return 0; // exact match!
I think the inelegance you feel about your solution comes from duplicate code for the zero priority exception. The Pragmatic Programmer explains that each piece of information in your source should be defined in "one true" place. To the naive programmer reading your function, you want the exception to stand-out, separate from the other logic, in one place, so that it is readily understandable. How about this?
if(comp1.nPriority == comp2.nPriority)
{
// unchanged
}
else
{
int result, lowerPriority;
if(comp1.nPriority > comp2.nPriority)
{
result = 1;
lowerPriority = comp2.nPriority;
}
else
{
result = -1;
lowerPriority = comp1.nPriority;
}
// zero is an exception: always goes last
if(lowerPriority == 0)
result = -result;
return result;
}
I Java-ized it, but the approach will work fine in C++:
int CompareCompetitions(Competition comp1, Competition comp2) {
int n = comparePriorities(comp1.nPriority, comp2.nPriority);
if (n != 0)
return n;
n = comp1.sStartTime24Hrs.compareToIgnoreCase(comp2.sStartTime24Hrs);
if (n != 0)
return n;
n = comp1.sHLongName.compareToIgnoreCase(comp2.sHLongName);
return n;
}
private int comparePriorities(Integer a, Integer b) {
if (a == b)
return 0;
if (a <= 0)
return -1;
if (b <= 0)
return 1;
return a - b;
}
Basically, just extract the special-handling-for-zero behavior into its own function, and iterate along the fields in sort-priority order, returning as soon as you have a nonzero.
As long as the highest priority is not larger than INT_MAX/2, you could do
#include <climits>
const int bound = INT_MAX/2;
int pri1 = (comp1.nPriority + bound) % (bound + 1);
int pri2 = (comp2.nPriority + bound) % (bound + 1);
This will turn priority 0 into bound and shift all other priorities down by 1. The advantage is that you avoid comparisons and make the remainder of the code look more natural.
In response to your comment, here is a complete solution that avoids the translation in the 95% case where priorities are equal. Note, however, that your concern over this is misplaced since this tiny overhead is negligible with respect to the overall complexity of this case, since the equal-priorities case involves at the very least a function call to the time comparison method and at worst an additional call to the name comparator, which is surely at least an order of magnitude slower than whatever you do to compare the priorities. If you are really concerned about efficiency, go ahead and experiment. I predict that the difference between the worst-performing and best-performing suggestions made in this thread won't be more than 2%.
#include <climits>
int CompareCompetitions(const SWI_COMPETITION &comp1,const SWI_COMPETITION &comp2)
{
if(comp1.nPriority == comp2.nPriority)
if(int ret = comp1.sStartTime24Hrs.CompareNoCase(comp2.sStartTime24Hrs))
return ret;
else
return comp1.sHLongName.CompareNoCase(comp2.sHLongName);
const int bound = INT_MAX/2;
int pri1 = (comp1.nPriority + bound) % (bound + 1);
int pri2 = (comp2.nPriority + bound) % (bound + 1);
return pri1 > pri2 ? 1 : -1;
}
Depending on your compiler/hardware, you might be able to squeeze out a few more cycles by replacing the last line with
return (pri1 > pri2) * 2 - 1;
or
return (pri1-pri2 > 0) * 2 - 1;
or (assuming 2's complement)
return ((pri1-pri2) >> (CHAR_BIT*sizeof(int) - 1)) | 1;
Final comment: Do you really want CompareCompetitions to return 1,-1,0 ? If all you need it for is bubble sort, you would be better off with a function returning a bool (true if comp1 is ">=" comp2 and false otherwise). This would simplify (albeit slightly) the code of CompareCompetitions as well as the code of the bubble sorter. On the other hand, it would make CompareCompetitions less general-purpose.