I'm trying to learn Nim by converting different pieces of code, and I've stumbled upon something which I've never seen before.
#include<bits/stdc++.h>
...
for(int t=q&1?u+x:u+x>>1;t>1;)t/=p[++cnt]=sieve[t];
...
sort(p+1,p+cnt+1);
I understand what the ternary operator is and how it works, what I don't quite get is what's going on with the variables "t" and "cnt" (both integers) and the array "p" (an array of integers). How does using an increment as the index of "p" work?
Then there's the sort function, in which I completely gave up because I couldn't find any documentation on what it does (the fact that it's taking an integer added to an array obviously doesn't help).
Lets first start of by making the code a little more readable. A little bit of whitespace never hurt anybody.
for(int t = (q & 1? u + x: u + x >> 1); t > 1;)
{
t /= p[++cnt] = sieve[t];
}
what's going on with the variables "t" and "cnt" (both integers) and the array "p" (an array of integers)
So t is being set to either u + x or u + x >> 1 depending on what q & 1 is. Then inside the loop we are dividing t by whatever the value of sieve at the index of t is. We are also assign that value to the p array at the position of ++cnt. ++cnt is using the pre increment operator to increase the value of cnt by 1 and then using that value for the index of p.
Then there's the sort function, in which I completely gave up because I couldn't find any documentation on what it does
For this I am assuming they are using the std::sort() function. When dealing with arrays the name of the array is treated as a pointer to the first element of the array. So when we see sort(p+1,p+cnt+1); you can translate it to sort(one from the begining of the array, cnt + 1 elements from the begining of the array);. So this is going to sort all of the elements in the array from one from the begining of the array to one less than cnt + 1 elements from the begining of the array.
Are you trying to learn Nim as you said, or trying to learn C? Both things you asked about are pretty basic c:
++cnt has the side effect (cnt=cnt+1) combined with the value that cnt ends up with. That value is used as the index. The side effect is a side effect.
p+1 and p+cnt are each pointers. The name of an array is treated as a constant pointer to the first element of that array in most uses within C. A pointer plus an integer is another pointer, pointing that number of elements past the original.
Related
I've been working on a program where I need to be able to sum rows in a two-dimensional array whose number of columns are variables. I should also add that the rows are "split" into two parts (part A, and part B) whose sizes depend on user input.
I can obviously sum a row just using a for loop, but I wanted a more elegant solution that would also be easier to set up across the whole program. I stumbled across the accumulate function out of the numeric library, but all examples that I was able to find were exclusively for one-dimensional arrays.
Here's a sample of my problem code:
total = partNum[PART_A] + partNum[PART_B];
partStart[PART_A] = 0;
partEnd[FUNC_A] = partNum[PART_A];
partStart[PART_B] = partNum[PART_A];
partEnd[FUNC_B] = total;
double stat[5][total];
double mass_sum = 0.0
func = PART_A;
accumulate(stat[MASS][partStart[func]], stat[MASS][partStart[func]], mass_sum);
However, I get a buildtime error which states that:
Indirection requires pointer operand ('double' invalid')
I assume this is a syntax error, but changing how I defined the array's start and end did nothing to fix the error.
The two first argument of accumulate are iterators that the function will use to iterate over the range, but you are passing actual element of the array
Iterator in C++ is a concept that requires certain operations to be valid on your object, as defined per the standard. For instance, pointer types usually match the LegacyRandomAccessIterator, meaning that you can basically use them to as array-like object (you can increment them with ++, you can indirect them with *, you can access an element at position i with [], etc.). I won't go into full details about what are iterators in C++ because it's a whole topic and you can find plenty of references, in particular on the two links I provided.
Back to your problem, what you want is to give accumulate iterator to the beginning and the end of your row, or the beginning and the end of your subranges. There are two ways to do this:
Take the address of the element stat[MASS][partStart[func]], i.e., &stat[MASS][partStart[func]], which will give you the beginning of the range, and then &stat[MASS][partEnd[func]] will give you the end of the range. This works because stat is as double stat[5][total] and the access operator ([]) gives you a reference (a double&), that you can take the address of, and the element on the row are contiguous in memory (that would not work for a column).
Use stat[MASS] + partStart[func] and stat[MASS] + partEnd[func]. In this case, you take the beginning of the row (stat[MASS]), which is (or is implicitly convertible to) a pointer to double (double*) and you increment that pointer by partStart[func] or partEnd[func], giving you the addresses of the elements you want in the row.
So basically:
std::accumulate(&stat[MASS][partStart[func]], &stat[MASS][partEndfunc]], mass_sum);
// or
std::accumulate(stat[MASS] + partStart[func], stat[MASS] + partEnd[func], mass_sum);
DISCLAIMER: I'm very new to C++ so I'm sorry if this is a stupid question!
I'm trying to read in data to an 1000 element array (double) and then if there are less than 1000 data points to read in ignore the excess elements for the rest of my program.
I've defined a 1000 element array and read in the data and now want to carry out a function on each element which has been defined by the read in data point. How do I test if an element is defined yet? I would use a Boolean algebra test i.e. if(array[i]) {\\function} but the data points can be any natural number including zero, so I don't know if this would work. How would I solve this problem?
The most typical approach to the problem of "the number of things in my array is not fixed ahead of time" is to have a variable that keeps track of how many things are actually in the array. Then, you just loop over that many things.
Since you add the C++ tag, you can (and should) use the vector class to manage everything for you — and you even get the added benefit that it can grow beyond 1000 elements should you happen to have more than that.
(aside: if you insist on sticking with a 1000-long array, you really should make sure you do something appropriate should you actually get more than 1000 data points)
You could initialize your array with a sentinel value like NAN (i.e., not a number):
double array[1000];
std::fill(std::begin(array), std::end(array), NAN);
Then fill sequentially your array:
array[0] = 1.2;
array[1] = 2.3;
array[2] = 3.4;
And then break the loop as soon as this value is met:
for(int i(0); i < 1000; ++i) {
if(isnan(array[i])) break;
function(array[i]);
}
LIVE DEMO
I am working on a magic square problem that uses a dynamic matrix of size n*n. It fills the matrix with numbers 1-n^2, and the sum of each row, column, and diagonal must be the same. One of the conditions of the algorithm is to check if an element in the matrix already had a number input in it during one of the loops. I am having problems checking if one of the elements in the matrix already had a number inputed in it, so I am wondering how to check if an element is empty.
Here is my code for that portion of the algorithm:
else if(matrix[row][col] != 0)
{
row = row + 2;
col--;
}
For some reason it triggers this if statement on the 5th iteration of the encompasing loop. I have worked it out on paper using the algorithm for a magic square, and the 5th iteration of the loop brings it to an empty element in the matrix. I thought that if an element is empty it holds the value 0? I appreciate any help as I am very confused. Thank you.
Array's in C and C++ are not empty by default. You need to explicitly set the elements to 0 or create the array in such a way that they are initialized to 0.
What you are facing is Undefined Behavior. The uninitialized array has some random(read garbage) values and accessing those results in a Undefined behavior.
Array's created at global scope or with a static qualifier will be initialized to 0 or you can use initialization provided built in by the language or you can explicitly set each element to 0.
There are multiple ways of doing so, the best one depends on what behavior you want to extract from the array.
While learning how to write quick sort I came across a certain implementation that is very unclear for me. Here is the beginning of it:
void quick_sort_iterative(int start, int end)
{
range stack[32]; // 1. why 32? why not 2? why not 1024? what is it?
range * s = stack; // 2. just a simple pointer = an array?
s->start = start; // 3. are these two values currently on top of the stack?
s->end = end;
s++; // 4. how does it work? it's pushing something on the stack?
// sort as long as there are any ranges [start, end] to sort left
while (s > stack) // 5. comparing a pointer and an array and it works?
Could someone please explain me those 5 things? :) Thank you.
Here is the entire code (the last one on the page, with the descriptions):
code
So. Presumably range is some object with two integer parameters start and end. I can't tell much more than that.
For whatever reason, the designers of the algorithm believe that they won't need more than 32 fake stack frames.
The array decays to a pointer. You can think of this as &stack[0].
s->start is currently the same as s[0].start.
s now points to &stack[1].
The array decays to a pointer. So that is true as long as s doesn't point to &stack[0].
Maybe just a number picked from their nether region, or perhaps arrived at through careful examination of the maximum stack depth of the algorithm. I'm guessing the former.
Any array variable will naturally decay to a pointer when used in a context that requires a pointer.
If you consider the first element of the "stack" array to be the top, then yes.
Given the assumption in 3 then incrementing the pointer would indeed be moving to the next element down on the stack.
See 2. Presumably the loop is decrementing s and they want to stop when it reaches the top of the stack again.
I have to implement my own sort on a dynamic string array, e.g. of such array is:
string * sortArray;
I then read in the size of the array from a text file and make the array as long as needed and fill it. So, I have...
sortArray = new string[_numberOfNames];
for(int i = 0; i < _numberOfNames; ++i){
sin >> _data[i];
}
Now I need to create my own sorting method and I thought I'd go with quicksort. My problem is, I'm not sure how to go about it.
When I choose a pivot, how can I then go about setting up two more dynamic string arrays to put the lower values and highers values in to, then recurse on? There is no way of knowing before hand how big each array needs to be before I start putting values into them.
I thought I could do something like define the size of each array as being the same as the array being sorted, and then some how remove any unwanted empty spaces from the end, but I'm not sure this is possible?
Any help would be much appreciated.
P.S. I know about the std::sort, I already have this in the program, I'm just trying to implement a sort myself.
Two options as from the comments above:
1.) Use std::vector. There you can have variable size arrays.
2.) Use an "in place" version of quicksort that does the sorting in your original array. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicksort#In-place_version
Lets say you have array size N
and you pivot value is x
what you should do is like that, have two pointers one to the beginning(0) and one to the end (N-1). they should both move to the middle. when ever the beginning pointer value is greater than x and the end pointer value is lower than x switch their values. after you finished and placed x in his new location (where the two pointers met) continue recursionally for the part left to x and right to x.