Is there any functional difference between the following 2 code snippets?
bool ColorClass::setTo(int inRed, int inGreen, int inBlue)
{
amountRed = inRed;
amountGreen = inGreen;
amountBlue = inBlue;
return clipColor(amountRed, amountGreen, amountBlue);
}
bool ColorClass::setTo(int inRed, int inGreen, int inBlue)
{
amountRed = inRed;
amountGreen = inGreen;
amountBlue = inBlue;
if (clipColor(amountRed, amountGreen, amountBlue))
{
return true;
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
The functions the above code calls are defined below:
bool ColorClass::clipColor(int &checkRed, int &checkGreen, int &checkBlue)
{
int numClips = 0; //numClips is used to counter number of clips made
checkColorBounds(checkRed, numClips);
checkColorBounds(checkGreen, numClips );
checkColorBounds(checkBlue, numClips);
return (numClips != 0);
}
void ColorClass::checkColorBounds(int &color, int &clipCounter)
{
if(color > MAXCOLOR)
{
color = MAXCOLOR;
clipCounter++;
}
else if (color < MINCOLOR)
{
color = MINCOLOR;
clipCounter ++;
}
}
I tested both and gone through both, and I can't seem to notice anything functionally different.
I like the first one better, because it is much more succint and more efficient (avoids the if-else)
There're no any functional differences at all. Then use the 1st one.
KISS
Related
I was wondering what I may have done wrong in writing this simple function which is supposed to return true if the given number is a prime, or false if not a prime.
bool isPrime(int num)
{
if (num <= 1)
{
status = false;
}
else
{
for (int i = 1; i <= num; i++)
{
if (num % i == 0)
{
dividers++;
}
}
if (dividers == 2)
{
status = true;
}
else
{
status = false;
}
}
return status;
}
Obviously, my main looks like this:
bool isPrime(int num);
bool status;
int dividers = 0;
int main() {
isPrime(2);
if (!isPrime)
{
std::cout << "Not prime" << std::endl;
}
else
{
std::cout << "Prime" << std::endl;
}
return 0;
}
I'm a C++ beginner and I'd really appreciate it if someone could help me there and correct my logic.
Have a good day:)
The immediate problem is in this two lines:
isPrime(2);
if (!isPrime)
The first line calls the function and discards the returned value. The second line converts a pointer to the function to bool. The output of your code does not depend on what you actually do in isPrime.
That is not how you call a function and use its result!
Instead you want
if (isPrime(2)) {
or
bool isP = isPrime(2);
if (isP) { ...
As mentioned in comments, there are also problems in the implementation of isPrime, but I hope this is enough to set you back on the right track.
PS: You should get rid of the global variable status. You do not need both, the return value and a global that stores the result, and if you can choose, you should definitely go for the return value.
Given a sequence of integers and a number, the program must say if there's any cobination in that sequence that sums the number. For example:
Input: 1 2 3 4 5 # 6
Output: true (because 1+5 = 6, or 2 + 4 = 6, or 1 + 2 + 3 = 6).
It doesn't matter what solution it finds, only if there's a solution.
For input: 1 2 3 4 5 # 100
Output: false. None of the combination of that numbers sums 100.
Now, for input:
243 5 35 24 412 325 346 24 243 432 # 1000
I'm getting
main: malloc.c:2401: sysmalloc: Assertion `(old_top == initial_top (av) && old_size == 0) || ((unsigned long) (old_size) >= MINSIZE && prev_inuse (old_top) && ((unsigned long) old_end & (pagesize - 1)) == 0)' failed.
When it's suppose to say false.
I must use 3 classes. Solver, solution and candidat.
Solver just calls the backtracking method.
Solution has a possible solution.
Candidat has the indeix of the number of the sequence which is being looked.
I don't understand how to use the integer _lvl of Solution class to move around the different candidates.
Class Solver is correct. The error must be in solution class and candidats.
My question is, how must I use candidats and _lvl to check the possible solutions?
How should I implement the following methods in solution class?:
Acceptable, complet, anotate, desanotate.
Im getting wrong answers and out_of_ranges errors.
class solver
{
public:
solver();
bool solve(const solution &initial);
solucio getSolution() const;
private:
void findASolution();
bool _found;
solution _sol;
};
solver.cpp
bool solver::solve(const solution &initial)
{
_found = false;
_sol = initial;
findASolution();
return (_found);
}
void solver::findASolution()
{
candidat iCan = _sol.inicializateCandidats();
while ((not iCan.isEnd()) and (!_found))
{
if (_sol.acceptable(iCan)) {
_sol.anotate(iCan);
if(not _sol.complet()) {
findASolution();
if (!_found) {
_sol.desanotate(iCan);
}
}
else {
_found = true;
}
}
iCan.next();
}
}
This class is supposed to be correct. Im having trouble with classes solution and candidat. Class solution have 5 important methods: Acceptable, Complet, inicializateCandidates(), anotate and desanotate.
Acceptable is true if a candidate can be part of the solution.
Complet if a solution is found.
Anotate to save the possible candidates.
Desanotate to remove candidates that no long can be part of the solution.
inicializateCandidates invoces the candidats constructor.
solution();
solution(const int sequence[], const int &n, const int &sum) {
_searchedSum = sum;
_n = n;
_sum = 0;
_lvl = 0;
reserve(); // bad_alloc. Makes space for vectors
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
_sequence[i] = sequence[i];
_candidates[i] = - 1;
}
solution(const solution &o);
~solution();
solution & operator=(const solution &o);
candidat inicializateCandidats() const {
return candidat(_n);
}
bool acceptable(const candidat &iCan) const {
return (_sum + _sequence[iCan.actual()] <= _searchedSum);
}
bool complet() const {
return (_sum == _searchedSum);
}
void show() const;
void anotate(const candidat &iCan) {
_niv++;
_candidates[_niv] = iCan.actual();
_sum += _sequence[iCan.actual()];
}
void desanotate(const candidat &iCan) {
_candidates[_niv] = - 1;
_sum -= _sequence[iCan.actual()];
_niv--;
}
private:
// memory gestion methods
void solution::reserve() {
_sequence = new int[_n];
_candidates = new int[_n];
}
int *_sequence; // original sequence
int *_candidates; // possible subsequence part of solution
int _n; // size of the array
int _lvl; // lvl of the tree generated by backtracking
int _searchedSum;
int _sum; // total sum of actual solution
And class candidat, which is just a counter. Nothing else.
candidat::candidat(const int &n) {
_size = n;
_iCan = 0;
}
bool candidat::isEnd() const {
return (_iCan >= _size);
}
int candidat::actual() const {
if (esEnd()) {
throw ("No more candidates");
}
return _iCan;
}
void candidat::next() {
if (esFi()) {
throw ("No more candidates");
}
_iCan++;
}
I've found a possible solution but it does not fit the requirements at all.
In class solver, I create an attribute to save anterior candidate, inicializate at -1.
The constructor of candidat class changes at this way:
candidat::candidat(const int &n, const int &ant) {
_size = n;
_iCan = ant + 1;
}
In solution.h now there is a boolean array to save the candidates that can be part of the solution. _lvl is eliminated.
In solver.cpp, the backtracking changes a little, but it shouldn't be changed.
bool solver::solve(const solution &initial) {
_found = false;
_ant = -1;
_sol = initial;
findASolution();
return (_found);
}
void solver::findASolution() {
**candidat iCan = _sol.inicializateCandidats(_ant);**
while ((not iCan.isEnd()) and (!_found))
{
if (_sol.acceptable(iCan)) {
_sol.anotate(iCan);
if(not _sol.complet()) {
**_ant = iCan.actual();**
findASolution();
if (!_found) {
_sol.desanotate(iCan);
}
}
else {
_found = true;
}
}
iCan.next();
}
}
Differences remarked.
But this is not the best solution. The correct solution should be using _lvl attribute. The solver class shouldn't know aything about the attributes of solution. Just if it's found or not.
Let define a structure parser :
struct parser {
int (*buffer_push_strategy)();
int (*escape_buffer_push_strategy)();
int (*do_callback_strategy)();
};
I have an initialization function :
int parser_init() {
if (some_condition) {
parser->buffer_push_strategy = buffer_push_strategy1;
parser->escape_buffer_push_strategy = escape_buffer_push_strategy1;
parser->do_callback_strategy = do_callback_strategy1;
}
else {
parser->buffer_push_strategy = buffer_push_strategy2;
parser->escape_buffer_push_strategy = escape_buffer_push_strategy2;
parser->do_callback_strategy = do_callback_strategy2;
}
return 0;
}
where the strategy functions are defined somewhere.
Ok, so my interest is to determine which strategy has been used when I write the unit tests. Any idea how to accomplish that?
I saw something on internet about is_pointer function from C++ 11, but I don`t think this would help me.
parser is a variable:
struct parserT {
int (*buffer_push_strategy)();
int (*escape_buffer_push_strategy)();
int (*do_callback_strategy)();
} parser;
If you want to know which the strategy is, you could use:
int strategy= (parser->buffer_push_strategy == buffer_push_strategy1) ? 1 : 2;
Perhaps, you prefer to store the strategy number:
int parser_init() {
if (some_condition) {
parser->buffer_push_strategy = buffer_push_strategy1;
parser->escape_buffer_push_strategy = escape_buffer_push_strategy1;
parser->do_callback_strategy = do_callback_strategy1;
return 1;
}
else {
parser->buffer_push_strategy = buffer_push_strategy2;
parser->escape_buffer_push_strategy = escape_buffer_push_strategy2;
parser->do_callback_strategy = do_callback_strategy2;
return 2;
}
}
Then, you could init the parser as:
const int STRATEGY= parser_init();
You can compare function pointers
if(p.buffer_push_strategy == buffer_push_strategy1)
See https://ideone.com/QQzL1c
There is a initial game difficulty which is
game_difficulty=5 //Initial
Every 3 times if you get it right, your difficulty goes up to infinity but every 3 times you get it wrong, your difficulty goes down but not below 5. So, in this code for ex:
if(user_words==words) win_count+=1;
else() incorrect_count+=1;
if(win_count%3==0) /*increase diff*/;
if(incorrect_count%3==0) /*decrease difficulty*/;
How should I go about doing this?
Simple answer:
if(incorrect_count%3==0) difficulty = max(difficulty-1, 5);
But personally I would wrap it up in a small class then you can contain all the logic and expand it as you go along, something such as:
class Difficulty
{
public:
Difficulty() {};
void AddWin()
{
m_IncorrectCount = 0; // reset because we got one right?
if (++m_WinCount % 3)
{
m_WinCount = 0;
++m_CurrentDifficulty;
}
}
void AddIncorrect()
{
m_WinCount = 0; // reset because we got one wrong?
if (++m_IncorrectCount >= 3 && m_CurrentDifficulty > 5)
{
m_IncorrectCount = 0;
--m_CurrentDifficulty;
}
}
int GetDifficulty()
{
return m_CurrentDifficulty;
}
private:
int m_CurrentDifficulty = 5;
int m_WinCount = 0;
int m_IncorrectCount = 0;
};
You could just add this as a condition:
if (user words==words) {
win_count += 1;
if (win_count %3 == 0) {
++diff;
}
} else {
incorrect_count += 1;
if (incorrect_count % 3 == 0 && diff > 5) {
--diff
}
}
For example:
if(win_count%3==0) difficulty++;
if(incorrect_count%3==0 && difficulty > 5) difficulty--;
This can be turned into a motivating example for custom data types.
Create a class which wraps the difficulty int as a private member variable, and in the public member functions make sure that the so-called contract is met. You will end up with a value which is always guaranteed to meet your specifications. Here is an example:
class Difficulty
{
public:
// initial values for a new Difficulty object:
Difficulty() :
right_answer_count(0),
wrong_answer_count(0),
value(5)
{}
// called when a right answer should be taken into account:
void GotItRight()
{
++right_answer_count;
if (right_answer_count == 3)
{
right_answer_count = 0;
++value;
}
}
// called when a wrong answer should be taken into account:
void GotItWrong()
{
++wrong_answer_count;
if (wrong_answer_count == 3)
{
wrong_answer_count = 0;
--value;
if (value < 5)
{
value = 5;
}
}
}
// returns the value itself
int Value() const
{
return value;
}
private:
int right_answer_count;
int wrong_answer_count;
int value;
};
And here is how you would use the class:
Difficulty game_difficulty;
// six right answers:
for (int count = 0; count < 6; ++count)
{
game_difficulty.GotItRight();
}
// check wrapped value:
std::cout << game_difficulty.Value() << "\n";
// three wrong answers:
for (int count = 0; count < 3; ++count)
{
game_difficulty.GotItWrong();
}
// check wrapped value:
std::cout << game_difficulty.Value() << "\n";
// one hundred wrong answers:
for (int count = 0; count < 100; ++count)
{
game_difficulty.GotItWrong();
}
// check wrapped value:
std::cout << game_difficulty.Value() << "\n";
Output:
7
6
5
Once you have a firm grasp on how such types are created and used, you can start to look into operator overloading so that the type can be used more like a real int, i.e. with +, - and so on.
How should I go about doing this?
You have marked this question as C++. IMHO the c++ way is to create a class encapsulating all your issues.
Perhaps something like:
class GameDifficulty
{
public:
GameDifficulty () :
game_difficulty (5), win_count(0), incorrect_count(0)
{}
~GameDifficulty () {}
void update(const T& words)
{
if(user words==words) win_count+=1;
else incorrect_count+=1;
// modify game_difficulty as you desire
if(win_count%3 == 0)
game_difficulty += 1 ; // increase diff no upper limit
if((incorrect_count%3 == 0) && (game_difficulty > 5))
game_difficulty -= 1; //decrease diff;
}
inline int gameDifficulty() { return (game_difficulty); }
// and any other access per needs of your game
private:
int game_difficulty;
int win_count;
int incorrect_count;
}
// note - not compiled or tested
usage would be:
// instantiate
GameDiffculty gameDifficulty;
// ...
// use update()
gameDifficulty.update(word);
// ...
// use access
gameDifficulty.gameDifficulty();
Advantage: encapsulation
This code is in one place, not polluting elsewhere in your code.
You can change these policies in this one place, with no impact to the rest of your code.
I am writing two functions in a program to check if a string has an assigned numeric code to its structure array or if the given numeric code has an assigned string in the same structure array. Basically, if I only know one of the two, I can get the other. I wrote the following:
int PrimaryIndex::check_title_pos(std::string title) {
bool findPos = true;
if (findPos) {
for (int s = 1; s <= 25; s++) {
if (my_list[s].title == title) {
return s;
}
}
} else {
return -1;
}
}
std::string PrimaryIndex::check_title_at_pos(int pos) {
bool findTitle = true;
if (findTitle) {
for (int p = 1; p <= 25; p++) {
if (my_list[p].tag == pos) {
return my_list[p].title;
}
}
} else {
return "No title retrievable from " + pos;
}
}
However, it says not all control paths have a return value. I thought the else {} statement would handle that but it's not. Likewise, I added default "return -1;" and "return "";" to the appropriate functions handling int and string, respectively. That just caused it to error out.
Any idea on how I can keep this code, as I'd like to think it works but cant test it, while giving my compiler happiness? I realize through other searches that it sees conditions that could otherwise end in no returning values but theoretically, if I am right, it should work fine. :|
Thanks
In the below snippet, if s iterates to 26 without the inner if ever evaluating to true then a return statement is never reached.
if (findPos) {
for (int s = 1; s <= 25; s++) {
if (my_list[s].title == title) {
return s;
}
}
}