I have a matrix class and wish to do this operation:
matrix m1(2,4); //creates matrix of size 2,4 full of 1's
m1[1][2]=4; //I wish the value in place m1- row 1 col 2 will be 4
this is example to how my code is writen (found on this site ty Seth Carnegie!!)
class matrix{
public:
matrix() {
_arrayofarrays = new int*[10];
for(int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
_arrayofarrays[i] = new int[10];
}
class Proxy {
public:
Proxy(int* _array) : _array(_array) { }
int operator[](int index) {
return _array[index];
}
private:
int* _array;
};
Proxy operator[](int index) {
return Proxy(_arrayofarrays[index]);
}
private:
int** _arrayofarrays;
};
the problem is : m1[2][4] returns a int and offcorce if i chage the returned value it does not change the m1 value
how can I do it so the value will be changed? (maybe return int& or something?)
return int& instead of int
Related
Suppose I have a simple vector class where elements are accessed through a proxy class.
Vector class:
class vec {
public:
vec(int len) {
length = len;
data = new double [len];
}
proxy operator[](int i) {
if (i >= 0 && i < length) {
return proxy(i, data);
}
else {
std::cerr << "AHHHH!\n";
exit(1);
}
}
private:
int length;
double * data;
};
Proxy class:
class proxy {
public:
proxy(int i, double * d) {
index = i;
data = d;
}
void operator=(double rhs) {
data[index] = rhs;
}
private:
int index;
double * data;
};
How can I assign elements from the vector (or rather, from the proxy) to a variable of type double? In other words, how do I accomplish the following:
int main() {
vec a(2);
double x = 3.14;
a[0] = x; // Works!
x = a[0]; // How to make work?
return 0;
}
Unfortunately, I can't write something like:
friend double operator=(double & lhs, const proxy & p) { ... }
since operator= must be a member.
Add a conversion function to your proxy class:
class proxy
{
public:
operator double() const { return data[index]; }
// ...
};
I decided to train myself in classes and build a vecofint class, that would resemble a vector container with several methods.
My program works great, but I have found that I do not entirely understand some principles.
1. Default values:
Here is my class:
class vecofint {
public:
vecofint() : vec(new int[size1]) { zeros(); }
~vecofint() { delete vec; }
vecofint(const int size) { set(size); vec = new int[size1]; zeros(); }
vecofint& operator = (const vecofint& other) { vec = other.vec; size1 = other.size1; vec1 = other.vec1; }
vecofint(const vecofint& other) : vec(other.vec), size1(other.size1), vec1(other.vec1) {}
int getin(const int a) { return vec[a]; }
int get() { return size1; }
void set(const int a) { size1 = a; }
void setin(const int a, const int val) { vec[a] = val; }
int* pushback(const int val);
int* pushfront(const int val);
int* it;
void resize();
void resize1();
void zeros() {int * i = vec; fill(i, i + size1, 0);}
void print() { copy(vec, vec + size1, ostream_iterator<int>(cout, "\n")); }
private:
int size1 = 32;
int* vec;
int* vec1;
};
As you can see I assign all values of my created vector to 0. I do this for 2 reasons:
a) I have found that
vector <int> a(10);
copy(a.begin(), a.end(), ostream_iterator<int>(cout, " "));
prints 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
b) I need some default values to implement my pushback method:
int* vecofint::pushback(const int val) {
int k = 0;
int* it = vec;
while (*it!=0) {
if (k == size1) {
resize();
it = vec+size1/2;
}
++k;
++it;
}
vec[k] = val;
return vec;
}
And I use zeros. But I do not like that, because it means that I cannot use 0 as not-default values.
First question:
How can I basically avoid these assignments to zeros, but still have basic values to iterate through the vector? Or maybe there are other methods on how to iterate through newly created space?
2) Negative indexes
Suppose I am trying, by mistake, access a negative index.
Second question:
What my program should write in this case? Some error?
I have found that in real vector nothing happens, at least until a destructor is called.
I'm trying to implement a row-major array, which is basically a single dimension representation of a 2D array.
This is my class definition
class RMA{
public:
RMA(){
size_=0;
row_=0;
column_=0;
arr_ = new double[size_];
}
RMA(int n, int m){
size_ = n*m;
column_ = m;
row_ = n;
if(size_== 0) arr_ = 0;
else arr_ = new double[size_];
}
RMA(const RMA& arr) {
size_ = arr.size_;
if(this != &arr){
delete [] arr_;
arr_ = new double[size_];
for(int i=0; i<size_; i++){
arr_[i] = arr.arr_[i];
}
}
return *this;
}
const double& operator() (int n, int m) const{
return arr_[n*column_+m];
}
double& operator()(int n, int m){
return arr_[n*column_+m];
}
~RMA(){delete[] arr_ ;}
private:
int size_;
int column_;
int row_;
double* arr_;
}
I've a calling function which creates the array.
RMA create_array() {
RMA arr;
arr = RMA(N, M);
std::cout<<"success";
return arr;
}
And this is my client
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
RMA arr = create_array();
return 0;
}
I end up getting segmentation fault. What am I doing wrong.
You use operations, that instead of cloning array, take a shallow copy of an object, and when destructors are used, they try to release the same memory block.
Implement the following operations:
RMA::RMA(const RMA&); // copy constructor - clone buffer
RMA& operator=(const &RMA); // assignment - clone buffer, release old
Also instead of:
RMA rma;
rma = RMA(a,b);
Use:
RMA rma = RMA(a,b) or RMA rma(a,b);
Edit: constructor code:
RMA::RMA(const RMA &rma) : size_(0), row_(0), column_(0), buffer_(0)
{
*this = rma;
}
RMA &operator=(const RMA&rma)
{
double *old = buffer_;
size_ = rma.size_;
row_ = rma.row_;
column_ = rma.column_;
buffer_ = new double[size_];
memcpy(buffer_, rma.buffer_, sizeof(buffer_[0]) * size_);
delete []old;
return *this;
}
The best solution is to get rid of all the new/delete, copy-constructors, and fluff. Use a private member variable to manage the memory, and follow the Rule of Zero. Like this:
struct RMA
{
RMA(size_t r = 0, size_t c = 0)
: row(r), column(c), arr(r * c) {}
const double& operator() (int n, int m) const
{ return arr[n * column + m]; }
double& operator() (int n, int m)
{ return arr[n * column + m]; }
private:
std::vector<double> arr;
size_t row, column;
};
That's it. You should not write any copy-constructor, assignment operator, move whatever, because the default-generated ones already do the right thing.
NB. row is actually redundant in my example too, you could remove it and calculate it when needed as arr.size() / column.
You could use .at( ) instead of [ ] on vector in order to throw an exception for out-of-bounds access, instead of causing undefined behaviour.
Hi I'm implementing a matrix class in c++
I know that there are great libraries that do that like opencv but I need to do that myself.
For example if I implement the sum I can do like this
class Mat{
public:
double* data;
int rows,cols;
Mat(int r,int c):rows(r),cols(c){
data = new double[r*c];
}
};
void Sum(Mat& A,Mat& B,Mat& C){
for (int i = 0; i < A.rows*A.cols; ++i){
C.data[i] = A.data[i]+B.data[i];
}
}
int main(){
//Allocate Matrices
Mat A(300,300);
Mat B(300,300);
Mat C(300,300);
//do the sum
sum(A,B,C);
}
I would like to get something more readable like this but without losing efficiency
C = A + B
This way C is reallocated every time and I don't want that
Thank you for your time
Delay the calculation.
class MatAccess {
friend class Mat;
friend class MatOpAdd;
virtual double operator[](int index) const = 0;
};
class MatOpAdd: public MatAccess {
friend class Mat;
private:
const MatAccess& left;
const MatAccess& right;
MatOpAdd(const MatAccess& left, const MatAccess& right):
left(left), right(right) {}
double operator[](int index) const {
return left[index] + right[index];
}
};
class Mat: public MatAccess{
public:
double* data;
int rows,cols;
Mat(int r,int c):rows(r),cols(c){
data = new double[r*c];
}
MatOpAdd operator +(const MatAccess& other) {
return MatOpAdd(*this, other);
}
const Mat& operator = (const MatAccess& other) {
for(int i = 0; i < rows*cols; ++i) {
data[i] = other[i];
}
return *this;
}
private:
double operator[](int index) const {
return data[index];
}
double& operator[](int index) {
return data[index];
}
};
int main(){
//Allocate Matrices
Mat A(300,300);
Mat B(300,300);
Mat C(300,300);
//do the sum
C = A + B;
}
Now the '+' calculation will be done in the "operator="
Things I would change:
MatAccess should include the dimensions (rows,cols).
Mat adding constructors and operator= or make it not copyable
Mat::operator+ and Mat::operator= check for equal rows,col
delete memory when not used anymore or
use std::vector for simpler memory managment.
Created a bigger example here: https://gist.github.com/KoKuToru/1d23af4bbf0b2bc89893
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];
};