So I'm writing a method where I insert a bunch of numbers into a dynamic array (and increase the size if there's not enough room. I already wrote an insert method that inserts only one value into the array and this method just inserts a bunch of values into the array. It starts out like this:
void dynamic_array::insert(dynamic_array &a, int i) {
Where it takes in a pointer for a dynamic array. The thing is it's easy to figure out how to insert the values but I need to find the range of the numbers that I'm inserting. So given a dynamic array pass by reference, how do I find the range of that array?
Related
Given a 2d array which each row is sorted from left to right, from the smallest to the biggest, I want to sort the entire array into a 1D array from the smallest to the biggest.
the number of rows is N and the number of columns is M.
the complexity I need for it is MNlog(N)
What I had in mind to do, is do some kind of a merge sort on the 2d array and each time send 2 rows for the function and there is the point I got stuck.
the signature I'm given for the function is
void sort_rect(int a[N][M], int b[])
I'm promised the the 1d array of b has enough space for all the element of the 2d array.#C!!!
Using the standard approach (of merging the sorted arrays and then sorting) will give you O(NMLog(NM)).If you want an efficient approach then you should use min Heap data structure.You might want to read about heap data structure.
Create an output array of size N*M.This will hold the output sorted array.
Create a min heap of size N.Insert first element of every sorted array.
Remove the top element(minimum) from heap and put it in the output array.Replace this removed element with the next element from the same array of which this removed element was part.Repeat this until all elements are accounted for.
Complexity will be O(NMLog(N)).
Since all the elements in a[M][N] reside in sequential memory, you can treat that memory as flat. So you sort in place like this:
int *c = (int *)a;
and sort c, given that the size of the array is M*N.
Or you can copy it to b, by defining b like this:
int b[sizeof(a) / sizeof(int)];
memcpy(b, a, sizeof(a));
and now sort b.
Think of a merge sort, but applied to N arrays instead of 2. For each row you could keep an index of currently considered element. Now we need something to compare all the N values (instead of just 2). What you could do is use a heap (priority_queue) with an element structure like this:
struct Element {
int Value;
int Row; //tells you which row in the 2d array the value comes from
}
The algorithm would be as follows:
You add all the values from the column 0 to the priority
queue
Declare an array which will keep your currently considered index for each row. Initialize it to zeros.
In a loop (until you run out of elements)
check the element on the top of the queue (element = queue.top())
add element.Value to the 1d array
increment currently considered index for element.Row
remove the element from the top of the priority queue (queue.pop())
The resulting 1d array is sorted and the complexity is O(MNlog(N)). This is because you considered M*N elements and for each element adding/removing it from the priority_queue took log(N) time, because at any given moment the heap keeps no more than N elements.
I think that treating the 2d array as 1d and sorting would result in MNlog(MN) complexity which is a bit worse.
I want to create a for loop that will fill a bunch of arrays with data in c++. Now to save space and in the future once more arrays are added which they will, I have the for loop. Each array for demonstration purposes is called Array# (# being a number) The point of the for loop would be to set a constant with maximum arrays, then cycle through each array filling by appending i to the end of the Array name.
For example in pseudo code:
for (i = 1; i < numberofarrays; i++)
{ fill (Array & i) with ("Array" & i & "-default.txt")}
It is impossible to generate Variable Names by any type of code.
(Meaning it is impossible to generate dynamic variable names on Runtime or on Compiletime)
The best solution possible would be a array of arrays:
int Arrays[][];
Calling Arrays[0] would give you the first array.
If you want to determine the number of arrays during Runtime you need to use pointers!
That would look like that:
(int[])* Arrays = new (int[])[numberofarrays];
Accessing the arrays in the array would work the same!
An alternative would be using the container vector from std.
The code would the look like this:
#include<vector>
// More includes
// Optional
using namespace std;
// Somewhere in your code
vector<vector<int>> Arrays;
You still would acces the elements by using your standard array method (Arrays[15][78] e.g.)
You don't really need the name. You can use an std::vector of arrays. This will not work out of the box, see Correct way to work with vector of arrays
Another approach would be to have an std::map of arrays. You could have the name as the key, if that is what you really want. You will still have to use the same workaround as before to have an array as a value. See Character Array as a value in C++ map for example.
I'd like to implement a function that selects a random object from an array of objects and returns it to me. It should be something like (in C++ instead of psuedocode):
getRandomObject(objectList) {
return objectList[int(random(length of objectList))];
}
My current code looks like this, but doesn't seem to work:
//definition of random selector
object getRandomObject(Object* objectList) {
return objectList[int(ofRandom(0, sizeof(objectList)))];
};
//create a pointer for the listOfObjects
object* listOfObjects;
//create an empty object to put the randomly selected object in
object randomObject;
//later in the code, populate the array:
object* listOfObjects[] = {
new Object(),
new Object(),
new Object()
};
//select random object
randomObject = getRandomObject(listOfObjects);
But this seems to return a segmentation fault. A few problems I've noticed:
sizeof() returns the size of the pointer in getRandomObject, not the size of the array. is there a good way to get the size of the array? It might involves not using a float* pointer for the array. Is this a good use case for vectors?
I think that much of the problem lies in how I'm creating my arrays, and not so much in how I'm selecting the random object from them. I'm relatively new to C++ (coming from a Java background), so much of pointers / references / memory management in general is new to me.
thanks!
I see one definite problem and one possible one. The definite problem is that sizeof(objectList) returns the size of the objectList pointer, which will be 4 or 8 on most platforms. It does not return the number of elements in the array, objectList. Either pass in the length of the array or use std::vector or std::array.
The second possible problem relates to ofRandom. Make sure that ofRandom(a,b) returns numbers >= a, but strictly < b. If it returns values <= b, then you'll need to us ofRandom(0, objectVector.size() - 1). Typically, functions like this are written to return values strictly < b, but you should check.
C++ has an array template class that you may want to consider using. Check out the documentation here:
http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/array/array/
This type has a method, size(), that will return the length of the array.
When the sizeof operator is applied to an array, it yields the total
number of bytes in that array, not the size of the pointer represented
by the array identifier.
Quote
So you take the space alocated for your whole array and divide by the memory need just for one element: sizeof(objectList) / sizeof(*objectList).
Mr Fooz noticed issues that cause a segfault.
Other compilation issues are:
listOfObjects is declared with 2 different types: object* and object*[3] while getRandomObject expects a type Object*.
listOfObjects[] contains elements of type object* while getRandomObject reads elements of type Object and returns object.
I have an array int *playerNum which stores the list of all the numbers of the players in the team. Each slot e.g playerNum[1]; represents a position on the team, if I wanted to add a new player for a new position on the team. That is, inserting a new element into the array somewhere near the middle, how would I go about doing this?
At the moment, I was thinking you memcpy up to the position you want to insert the player into a new array and then insert the new player and copy over the rest of it?
(I have to use an array)
If you're using C++, I would suggest not using memcpy or memmove but instead using the copy or copy_backward algorithms. These will work on any data type, not just plain old integers, and most implementations are optimized enough that they will compile down to memmove anyway. More importantly, they will work even if you change the underlying type of the elements in the array to something that needs a custom copy constructor or assignment operator.
If you have to use an array, after having made sure you have enough storage (using realloc if necessary), use memmove to shift the items from the insertion point to the end by one position, then save your new player at the desired location.
You can't use memcpy if the source and target areas overlap.
This will fail as soon as the objects in your array have non-trivial copy-constructors, and it's not idiomatic C++. Using one of the container classes is much safer (std::vector or std::list for instance).
Your solution using memcpy is correct (under few assumptions mentionned by other).
However, and since you are programming in C++. It is probably a better choice to use std::vector and its insert method.
vector<int> myvector (3,100);
myvector.insert ( 10 , 42 );
An array takes a contiguous block of memory, there is no function for you to insert an element in the middle. you can create a new one of size larger than the origin's by one then copy the original array into the new one plus the new member
for(int i=0;i<arSize/2;i++)
{
newarray[i]<-ar[i];
}
newarray[i+1]<-newelemant;
for(int j=i+1<newSize;j++,i++)
{
newarray[i]<-ar[i];
}
if you use STL, ting becomes easier, use list.
As you're talking about an array and "insert" I assume that it is a sorted array. You don't necessarily need a second array provided that the capacity N of your existing array is large enough to store more entries (N>n, where n is the number of current entries). You can move the entries from k to n-1 (zero-indexed) to k+1 to n, where k is the desired insert position. Insert the new element at index position k and increase n by one. If the array is not large enough in the beginning, you can follow your proposed approach or just reallocate a new array of larger capacity N' and copy the existing data before applying the actual insert operation described above.
BTW: As you're using C++, you could easily use std::vector.
While it is possible to use arrays for this, C++ has a better solutions to offer. For starters, try std::vector, which is a decent enough general-purpose container, based on a dynamically-allocated array. It behaves exactly like an array in many cases.
Looking at your problem, however, there are two downsides to arrays or vectors:
Indices have to be 0-based and contiguous; you cannot remove elements from the middle without losing key/value associations for everything after the removed element; so if you remove the player on position 4, then the player from position 9 will move to position 8
Random insertion and deletion (that is, anywhere except the end) is expensive - O(n), that is, execution time grows linearly with array size. This is because every time you insert or delete, a part of the array needs to be moved.
If the key/value thing isn't important to you, and insertion/deletion isn't time critical, and your container is never going to be really large, then by all means, use a vector. If you need random insertion/deletion performance, but the key/value thing isn't important, look at std::list (although you won't get random access then, that is, the [] operator isn't defined, as implementing it would be very inefficient for linked lists; linked lists are also very memory hungry, with an overhead of two pointers per element). If you want to maintain key/value associations, std::map is your friend.
Losting the tail:
#include <stdio.h>
#define s 10
int L[s];
void insert(int v, int p, int *a)
{
memmove(a+p+1,a+p,(s-p+1)*4);
*(a+p) = v;
}
int main()
{
for(int i=0;i<s;i++) L[i] = i;
insert(11,6, L);
for(int i=0;i<s;i++) printf("%d %d\n", L[i], &L[i]);
return 0;
}
im storing some settings for objects in an array. the id's of objects are used as the key. the id's start from 100000 and go up. if i was to input data for an object with id 100 000, would cpp automatical create 99999 blank key entries starting from 0?
Array size is determined when you create an array.
To access object at index 100 000 you need to have array of at least that size, which answers your question.
If the array is smaller you will access memory at
array begin address + (index*object
size)
which is not a good thing. E.g. the following will print some data but it is a data that are stored at that point in memory and it's outside of your array (not a good thing):
string arr[3];
cout << arr[5] << endl;
Assuming you are talking about standard array like:
string arr[10];
Array's size is specified when you compile it, for example you can't do:
string arr[]; // this will fail to compile, no size specified
But you do:
string arr[] = {"1","2","3"}; // array size is 3
string arr1[3]; // array size is 3
string arr2[3] = {"1"}; // array size is 3
If you want to map extra parameters for object you are better off using std::map like:
class person {};
std::map<person*,int> PersonScore;
This assumes that the additional parameters are not logically part of the object otherwise you would just add them to the object.
Maybe you want somthing along the lines of:
class ArrayPlus100k {
Item underlyingArray[NUM_ELEMENTS];
public:
Item& operator [] (int i) { return underlyingArray[i-100000]; }
// etc.
}
If you truely mean an array, and by key you mean index, then subtracting 100,000 from your index will provide you with a zero based array index. There will be no unused entries.
There may be a better container than a flat array. Choosing the right data structure depends on what you are trying to do. If you are storing objects using a key, you might want to use a std::map<key, value>.
What happens depends entirely on the data structure you choose to use. If you use a map, only the items you insert will take up space in memory. If you use new to allocate an actual array, then you will want to allocate only enough space for for the items you want to store. In that case, adjust your index by subtracting 100,000.
No, it will not create 0-99999, but rather start from 100000 to your array size.
For example, if you declare the following:
int arr[5];
Starting from arr[2], you can store up to arr[7].
I hope you understand...