I am trying to implement an algorithm in C++.
In the pseudocode, there is this: w ←w[0..e], where w is an array of characters and e is an integer. Basically I want to keep a part of the array and discard the rest.
Just to make the program working, I have used a for loop, where I scan through the original array up to e and I copy the values in a new array.
char newArray[sizeIAlreadyKnow];
for (int i=0;i<e;i++)
newArray[i] = w[i];
I know this is not efficient; is there a way to avoid iterating through the original array?
Also I am not very familiar with vectors. Do they have a functionality for this?
Thank you in advance
You can use std::string::resize. The basic idea is to use std::string instead of raw arrays of char. Correspondingly, things also become much easier and safer by using std::vector<T> instead of raw arrays of T.
You're right, you should really use vectors !
A lot of documentation is available here, there are also a lot of good tutorials on c++ and std containers (ask google for some of those)
Conserning your question, what vectors can do is (create a copy)
std::vector<char> myArray;
// fill your array, do watherver work you want with it
std::vector<char> newArray(&myArray[start], &myArray[end]);
or in you case (resize)
std::vector<char> myArray;
// fill your array, do watherver work you want with it
myArray.resize(e);
Each and every one of the methods on vector listed in here come with exemple. Reading those might help you a lot with the implementation of your algorithm.
If you ever need, more can be done (like sorting) using the algorithm section on vector (or any other std container)
What you're asking is not possible with C++ builtin arrays or std::vector out of the box.
In the D programming language, it's is possible. If you scroll down to the section labelled Introducing Slices in the link below, you'll find an explanation about how it's possible. In short, it can't be done without garbage collection. You can't free an array in C++ by calling delete on a pointer to the middle of it. So if you tried to slice the middle out of an array, then ditched the old pointer, you would have no way to free the memory, and your program would leak.
http://dlang.org/d-array-article.html
Now, while it's not possible using a language construct, it is possible in a number of other ways.
Of course, there is the obvious, as stated by Amxx: You can simply copy the segment of the array you want into a new array or vector. However, if you're concerned about performance, this is not the best way.The vector constructor Amxx is using will still loop over all the elements and copy them, even though you can't see it.
For a more efficient solution, there are C++ iterators. If you have a function that you want to work on a subset of an array, you can make your function accept iterators instead of an array or a vector.
For example:
int sumElements(vector<int>::iterator first, vector<int>::iterator last)
{
int sum = 0;
for( ; first != last; ++first)
sum += *first;
return sum;
}
vector<int> numbers;
for(int i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
numbers.push_back(i);
int sum = sumElements(numbers.begin() + 10, numbers.begin() + 20);
There are also things like a string_view:
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/experimental/basic_string_view
string_view is a non-owning reference to a slice of a string, but instead of having to deal with a pair of iterators, you can just treat it like the object that it is a slice of. Internally, it just stores pointers to the original string. The caveat though, is that since string_view is a non-owning reference, the original string's lifetime must outlast that of any string_view pointing at it.
The same thing could also be done with a vector, but there is nothing in the standard library for this yet(even string_view is still experimental).
I suppose you could do something like this:
template<class T>
class vector_view
{
vector<T>::iterator first;
vector<T>::iterator last;
public:
vector_view(vector<T>::iterator first, vector<T>::iterator last)
: first(first), last(last) { }
const T& operator[](size_t i) const {
assert(first + i < last);
return *(first + i)
}
size_t size() const {
return last - first;
}
};
vector<int> numbers;
// ... init numbers with 100 numbers
vector_view<int> vv(numbers.begin() + 5, numbers.begin() + 32);
int number = vv[10];
I would probably just stick to vectors and iterators to keep things simple, but there you have it.
edit: similar ideas to the one above are discussed in this proposal for C++ ranges:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4128.html
Related
I would like to loop through elements of a vector in C++.
I am very new at this so I don't understand the details very well.
For example:
for (elements in vector) {
if () {
check something
else {
//else add another element to the vector
vectorname.push_back(n)
}
}
Its the for (vector elements) that I am having trouble with.
You'd normally use what's called a range-based for loop for this:
for (auto element : your_vector)
if (condition(element))
// whatever
else
your_vector.push_back(something);
But note: modifying a vector in the middle of iteration is generally a poor idea. And if your basic notion is to add the element if it's not already present, you may want to look up std::set, std::map, std::unordered_set or std::unordered_map instead.
In order to do this properly (and safely), you need to understand how std::vector works.
vector capatity
You may know that a vector works much like an array with "infinite" size. Meaning, it can hold as many elements as you want, as long as you have enough memory to hold them. But how does it do that?
A vector has an internal buffer (think of it like an array allocated with new) that may be the same size as the elements you're storing, but generally it's larger. It uses the extra space in the buffer to insert any new elements that you want to insert when you use push_back().
The amount of elements the vector has is known as its size, and the amount of elements it can hold is known as its capacity. You can query those via the size() and capacity() member functions.
However, this extra space must end at some point. That's when the magic happens: When the vector notices it doesn't have enough memory to hold more elements, it allocates a new buffer, larger1 than the previous one, and copies all elements to it. The important thing to notice here is that the new buffer will have a different address. As we continue with this explanation, keep this in mind.
iterators
Now, we need to talk about iterators. I don't know how much of C++ you have studied yet, but think of an old plain array:
int my_array[5] = {1,2,3,4,5};
you can take the address of the first element by doing:
int* begin = my_array;
and you can take the address of the end of the array (more specifically, one past the last element) by doing:
int* end = begin + sizeof(my_array)/sizeof(int);
if you have these addresses, one way to iterate the array and print all elements would be:
for (int* it = begin; it < end; ++it) {
std::cout << *it;
}
An iterator works much like a pointer. If you increment it (like we do with the pointer using ++it above), it will point to the next element. If you dereference it (again, like we do with the pointer using *it above), it will return the element it is pointing to.
std::vector provides us with two member functions, begin() and end(), that return iterators analogous to our begin and end pointers above. This is what you need to keep in mind from this section: Internally, these iterators have pointers that point to the elements in the vector's internal buffer.
a simpler way to iterate
Theoretically, you can use std::vector::begin() and std::vector::end to iterate a vector like this:
std::vector<int> v{1,2,3,4,5};
for (std::vector<int>::iterator it = v.begin; it != v.end(); ++it) {
std::cout << *it;
}
Note that, apart from the ugly type of it, this is exactly the same as our pointer example. C++ introduced the keyword auto, that lets us get rid of these ugly types, when we don't really need to know them:
std::vector<int> v{1,2,3,4,5};
for (auto it = v.begin; it != v.end(); ++it) {
std::cout << *it;
}
This works exactly the same (in fact, it has the exact same type), but now we don't need to type (or read) that uglyness.
But, there's an even better way. C++ has also introduced range-based for:
std::vector<int> v{1,2,3,4,5};
for (auto it : v) {
std::cout << it;
}
the range-based for construct does several things for you:
It calls v.begin() and v.end()2 to get the upper and lower bounds of the range we're going to iterate;
Keeps an internal iterator (let's call it i), and calls ++i on every step of the loop;
Dereferences the iterator (by calling *i) and stores it in the it variable for us. This means we do not need to dereference it ourselves (note how the std::cout << it line looks different from the other examples)
putting it all together
Let's do a small exercise. We're going to iterate a vector of numbers, and, for each odd number, we are going to insert a new elements equal to 2*n.
This is the naive way that we could probably think at first:
std::vector<int> v{1,2,3,4,5};
for (int i : v) {
if (i%2==1) {
v.push_back(i*2);
}
}
Of course, this is wrong! Vector v will start with a capacity of 5. This means that, when we try using push_back for the first time, it will allocate a new buffer.
If the buffer was reallocated, its address has changed. Then, what happens to the internal pointer that the range-based for is using to iterate the vector? It no longer points to the buffer!
This it what we call a reference invalidation. Look at the reference for std::vector::push_back. At the very beginning, it says:
If the new size() is greater than capacity() then all iterators and references (including the past-the-end iterator) are invalidated. Otherwise only the past-the-end iterator is invalidated.
Once the range-based for tries to increment and dereference the now invalid pointer, bad things will happen.
There are several ways to avoid this. For instance, in this particular algorithm, I know that we can never insert more than n new elements. This means that the size of the vector can never go past 2n after the loop has ended. With this knowledge in hand, I can increase the vector's capacity beforehand:
std::vector<int> v{1,2,3,4,5};
v.reserve(v.size()*2); // Increases the capacity of the vector to at least size*2.
// The code bellow now works properly!
for (int i : v) {
if (i%2==1) {
v.push_back(i*2);
}
}
If for some reason I don't know this information for a particular algorithm, I can use a separate vector to store the new elements, and then add them to our vector at the end:
std::vector<int> v{1,2,3,4,5};
std::vector<int> doubles;
for (int i : v) {
if (i%2==1) {
doubles.push_back(i*2);
}
}
// Reserving space is not necessary because the vector will allocate
// memory if it needs to anyway, but this does makes things faster
v.reserve(v.size() + doubles.size());
// There's a standard algorithm (std::copy), that, when used in conjunction with
// std::back_inserter, does this for us, but I find that the code bellow is more
// readable.
for (int i : doubles) {
v.push_back(i);
}
Finally, there's the old plain for, using an int to iterate. The iterator cannot be invalidated because it holds an index, instead of a pointer to the internal buffer:
std::vector<int> v{1,2,3,4,5};
for (int i = 0; i < v.size(); ++i) {
if (v[i]%2==1) {
doubles.push_back(v[i]*2);
}
}
Hopefully by now, you understand the advantages and drawbacks of each method. Happy studies!
1 How much larger depends on the implementation. Generally, implementations choose to allocate a new buffer of twice the size of the current buffer.
2 This is a small lie. The whole story is a bit more complicated: It actually tries to call begin(v) and end(v). Because vector is in the std namespace, it ends up calling std::begin and std::end, which, in turn, call v.begin() and v.end(). All of this machinery is there to ensure that the range-based for works not only with standard containers, but also with anything with a proper implementation for begin and end. That includes, for instance, regular plain arrays.
Here is the quick code snippet using iterators to iterate the vector-
#include<iostream>
#include<iterator> // for iterators to include
#include<vector> // for vectors to include
using namespace std;
int main()
{
vector<int> ar = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
// Declaring iterator to a vector
vector<int>::iterator ptr;
// Displaying vector elements using begin() and end()
cout << "The vector elements are : ";
for (ptr = ar.begin(); ptr < ar.end(); ptr++)
cout << *ptr << " ";
return 0;
}
Article to read more - Iterate through a C++ Vector using a 'for' loop
.
Hope it will help.
Try this,
#include<iostream>
#include<vector>
int main()
{
std::vector<int> vec(5);
for(int i=0;i<10;i++)
{
if(i<vec.size())
vec[i]=i;
else
vec.push_back(i);
}
for(int i=0;i<vec.size();i++)
std::cout<<vec[i];
return 0;
}
Output:
0123456789
Process returned 0 (0x0) execution time : 0.328 s
Press any key to continue.
I have a 2D array a[][40]. I'm trying to sort it by calling std::sort, and I have written the Compare function. However, C++ wants me to have a std::vector to be sorted, not a simple array and I want the sorted array to be a itself, I don't want to create another array and save the sorting result there. It seems there are a lot of ways to achieve that. I could think of five ways, but none of them seems to be efficient and working.
1)
Directly use std::sort(std::begin(a), std::begin(a) + something, cmp);
It doesn't work, because std::begin doesn't know how to point to the beginning of a 2D array. Furthermore, it'd sort incorrectly even if it compiled, since a 2D array is not an array of references to arrays, but consecutive arrays (unlike Java)
Playground: https://godbolt.org/g/1tu3TF
2)
std::vector<unsigned char[40]> k(a, a + x);
std::sort(k.begin(), k.end(), cmp);
Then copy everything back to a
It doesn't work, because it's a 2D array, and it can't be sorted this way, using std::sort. In contrast to the first trial, this one uses twice as much as memory, and copies everything twice (if it worked)!
Playground: https://godbolt.org/g/TgCT6Z
3)
std::vector<int> k(x);
for (int i = 0; i < x; k[i] = i, i++);
std::sort(k.begin(), k.end(), cmp2);
Then change the order of a to be the same of k;
The idea is simple, create a vector of representative "pointers", sort them (as the cmp2 function secretly accesses a and compares the values), then make a have the same order with k.
In the end, the re-ordering loop will be very complex, will require a large, temporary variable. Besides, for cmp2 to access the values of a, a global variable-pointer that points to a must be created, which is "bad" code.
Playground: https://godbolt.org/g/EjdMo7
4)
For all unsigned char[40], a struct can be created and their values can be copied to structs. Comparison and = operators will need to be declared. After sorted, they can be copied back to a.
It'd be a great solution if the arrays didn't have to be copied to structs to use struct's operators, but they need to be copied, so all values will be copied twice, and twice-as-needed memory will be used.
5)
For all unsigned char[40], a struct that has a pointer to them can be created. They can be sorted by the pointed values, and the result can be saved to a pointer array.
It's probably the best option, although the result is a pointer array instead a. Another reason on why it's good is it doesn't move the arrays, but the pointers.
To sum up, I need to sort the 2D array a[][40] via std::sort, but I haven't decided on the best way. It seems there's a "best way to do that" which I can't think of. Could you please help me?
EDIT: To clarify, I want {{3,2}{1,4}} to become {{1,4}{3,2}}
The problem is not in iterating a 2D array. Provided the columns size is a constexpr value, pointers to arrays are nice iterators.
But all C++ sort (or mutating) algorithms require the underlying type to be move constructible and move assignable and an array is not assignable. But wrapping the underlying arrays can be enough:
template <class T, int sz>
class wrapper {
T* base;
bool own; // a trick to allow temporaries: only them have own == true
public:
// constructor using a existing array
wrapper(T* arr): base(arr), own(false) {}
~wrapper() { // destructor
if (own) {
delete[] base; // destruct array for a temporary wrapper
}
}
// move constructor - in fact copy to a temporary array
wrapper(wrapper<T, sz>&& src): base(new T[sz]), own(true) {
for(int i=0; i<sz; i++) {
base[i] = src.base[i];
}
}
// move assignment operator - in fact also copy
wrapper<T, sz>& operator = (wrapper<T, sz>&& src) {
for(int i=0; i<sz; i++) {
base[i] = src.base[i];
}
return *this;
}
// native ordering based on lexicographic string order
bool operator < (const wrapper<T, sz>& other) const {
return std::char_traits<char>::compare(base, other.base, sz) < 0;
}
const T* value() const { // access to the underlying string for tests
return base;
}
};
Then, you can sort a C compatible 2D array with any C++ sort algo:
std::vector<wrapper<char, 40> > v { &arr[0], &arr[sz] }; // pointer are iterators...
std::sort(v.begin(), v.end()); // and that's all!
for (int i=0; i<sz; i++) { // control
std::cout << arr[i] << std::endl;
}
The overhead is a vector of structures containing a pointer and a bool, but what is sorted is actually the original 2D array.
Of course, as the C library is accessible from C++, qsort would certainly be easier for sorting a C compatible 2D array. But this way allows the use of stable_sort or partial_sort if they are relevant.
Do any of the popular C++ libraries have a class (or classes) that allow the developer to use arrays with arbitrary indices without sacrificing speed ?
To give this question more concrete form, I would like the possibility to write code similar to the below:
//An array with indices in [-5,6)
ArbitraryIndicesArray<int> a = ArbitraryIndicesArray<int>(-5,6);
for(int index = -5;index < 6;++index)
{
a[index] = index;
}
Really you should be using a vector with an offset. Or even an array with an offset. The extra addition or subtraction isn't going to make any difference to the speed of execution of the program.
If you want something with the exact same speed as a default C array, you can apply the offset to the array pointer:
int* a = new int[10];
a = a + 5;
a[-1] = 1;
However, it is not recommended. If you really want to do that you should create a wrapper class with inline functions that hides the horrible code. You maintain the speed of the C code but end up with the ability to add more error checking.
As mentioned in the comments, after altering the array pointer, you cannot then delete using that pointer. You must reset it to the actual start of the array. The alternative is you always keep the pointer to the start but work with another modified pointer.
//resetting the array by adding the offset (of -5)
delete [] (a - 5);
A std::vector<int> would do the trick here.
Random acess to a single element in a vector is only O(1).
If you really need the custom indices you can make your own small class based on a vector to apply an ofset.
Use the map class from the STL:
std::map<int, int> a;
for( int index = -5; index < 6; ++index )
{
a[index] = index;
}
map is implemented internally as a sorted container, which uses a binary search to locate items.
[This is an old thread but for reference sake...]
Boost.MultiArray has an extents system for setting any index range.
The arrays in the ObjexxFCL library have full support for arbitrary index ranges.
These are both multi-dimensional array libraries. For the OP 1D array needs the std::vector wrapper above should suffice.
Answer edited because I'm not very smart.
Wrap an std::vector and an offset into a class and provide an operator[]:
template <class T>
class ArbVector
{
private:
int _offset;
std::vector<T> container;
public:
ArbVector(int offset) : _offset(offset) {}
T& operator[](int n) { return container[n + _offset] }
};
Not sure if this compiles, but you get the idea.
Do NOT derive from std::vector though, see comments.
I have an array of values that is passed to my function from a different part of the program that I need to store for later processing. Since I don't know how many times my function will be called before it is time to process the data, I need a dynamic storage structure, so I chose a std::vector. I don't want to have to do the standard loop to push_back all the values individually, it would be nice if I could just copy it all using something similar to memcpy.
There have been many answers here and just about all of them will get the job done.
However there is some misleading advice!
Here are the options:
vector<int> dataVec;
int dataArray[] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 };
unsigned dataArraySize = sizeof(dataArray) / sizeof(int);
// Method 1: Copy the array to the vector using back_inserter.
{
copy(&dataArray[0], &dataArray[dataArraySize], back_inserter(dataVec));
}
// Method 2: Same as 1 but pre-extend the vector by the size of the array using reserve
{
dataVec.reserve(dataVec.size() + dataArraySize);
copy(&dataArray[0], &dataArray[dataArraySize], back_inserter(dataVec));
}
// Method 3: Memcpy
{
dataVec.resize(dataVec.size() + dataArraySize);
memcpy(&dataVec[dataVec.size() - dataArraySize], &dataArray[0], dataArraySize * sizeof(int));
}
// Method 4: vector::insert
{
dataVec.insert(dataVec.end(), &dataArray[0], &dataArray[dataArraySize]);
}
// Method 5: vector + vector
{
vector<int> dataVec2(&dataArray[0], &dataArray[dataArraySize]);
dataVec.insert(dataVec.end(), dataVec2.begin(), dataVec2.end());
}
To cut a long story short Method 4, using vector::insert, is the best for bsruth's scenario.
Here are some gory details:
Method 1 is probably the easiest to understand. Just copy each element from the array and push it into the back of the vector. Alas, it's slow. Because there's a loop (implied with the copy function), each element must be treated individually; no performance improvements can be made based on the fact that we know the array and vectors are contiguous blocks.
Method 2 is a suggested performance improvement to Method 1; just pre-reserve the size of the array before adding it. For large arrays this might help. However the best advice here is never to use reserve unless profiling suggests you may be able to get an improvement (or you need to ensure your iterators are not going to be invalidated). Bjarne agrees. Incidentally, I found that this method performed the slowest most of the time though I'm struggling to comprehensively explain why it was regularly significantly slower than method 1...
Method 3 is the old school solution - throw some C at the problem! Works fine and fast for POD types. In this case resize is required to be called since memcpy works outside the bounds of vector and there is no way to tell a vector that its size has changed. Apart from being an ugly solution (byte copying!) remember that this can only be used for POD types. I would never use this solution.
Method 4 is the best way to go. It's meaning is clear, it's (usually) the fastest and it works for any objects. There is no downside to using this method for this application.
Method 5 is a tweak on Method 4 - copy the array into a vector and then append it. Good option - generally fast-ish and clear.
Finally, you are aware that you can use vectors in place of arrays, right? Even when a function expects c-style arrays you can use vectors:
vector<char> v(50); // Ensure there's enough space
strcpy(&v[0], "prefer vectors to c arrays");
If you can construct the vector after you've gotten the array and array size, you can just say:
std::vector<ValueType> vec(a, a + n);
...assuming a is your array and n is the number of elements it contains. Otherwise, std::copy() w/resize() will do the trick.
I'd stay away from memcpy() unless you can be sure that the values are plain-old data (POD) types.
Also, worth noting that none of these really avoids the for loop--it's just a question of whether you have to see it in your code or not. O(n) runtime performance is unavoidable for copying the values.
Finally, note that C-style arrays are perfectly valid containers for most STL algorithms--the raw pointer is equivalent to begin(), and (ptr + n) is equivalent to end().
If all you are doing is replacing the existing data, then you can do this
std::vector<int> data; // evil global :)
void CopyData(int *newData, size_t count)
{
data.assign(newData, newData + count);
}
std::copy is what you're looking for.
Since I can only edit my own answer, I'm going to make a composite answer from the other answers to my question. Thanks to all of you who answered.
Using std::copy, this still iterates in the background, but you don't have to type out the code.
int foo(int* data, int size)
{
static std::vector<int> my_data; //normally a class variable
std::copy(data, data + size, std::back_inserter(my_data));
return 0;
}
Using regular memcpy. This is probably best used for basic data types (i.e. int) but not for more complex arrays of structs or classes.
vector<int> x(size);
memcpy(&x[0], source, size*sizeof(int));
int dataArray[] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 };//source
unsigned dataArraySize = sizeof(dataArray) / sizeof(int);
std::vector<int> myvector (dataArraySize );//target
std::copy ( myints, myints+dataArraySize , myvector.begin() );
//myvector now has 1,2,3,...10 :-)
Yet another answer, since the person said "I don't know how many times my function will be called", you could use the vector insert method like so to append arrays of values to the end of the vector:
vector<int> x;
void AddValues(int* values, size_t size)
{
x.insert(x.end(), values, values+size);
}
I like this way because the implementation of the vector should be able to optimize for the best way to insert the values based on the iterator type and the type itself. You are somewhat replying on the implementation of stl.
If you need to guarantee the fastest speed and you know your type is a POD type then I would recommend the resize method in Thomas's answer:
vector<int> x;
void AddValues(int* values, size_t size)
{
size_t old_size(x.size());
x.resize(old_size + size, 0);
memcpy(&x[old_size], values, size * sizeof(int));
}
avoid the memcpy, I say. No reason to mess with pointer operations unless you really have to. Also, it will only work for POD types (like int) but would fail if you're dealing with types that require construction.
In addition to the methods presented above, you need to make sure you use either std::Vector.reserve(), std::Vector.resize(), or construct the vector to size, to make sure your vector has enough elements in it to hold your data. if not, you will corrupt memory. This is true of either std::copy() or memcpy().
This is the reason to use vector.push_back(), you can't write past the end of the vector.
Assuming you know how big the item in the vector are:
std::vector<int> myArray;
myArray.resize (item_count, 0);
memcpy (&myArray.front(), source, item_count * sizeof(int));
http://www.cppreference.com/wiki/stl/vector/start
suppose I declare a dynamic array like
int *dynArray = new int [1];
which is initialized with an unknown amount of int values at some point.
How would I iterate till the end of my array of unknown size?
Also, if it read a blank space would its corresponding position in the array end up junked?
Copying Input From users post below:
Thing is:
a) I'm not allowed to use STL (means: no )
b) I want to decompose a string into its characters and store them. So far I wanted to use a function like this:
string breakLine (string line){
int lineSize = line.size();
const char *aux;
aux=line.data();
int index=0;
while (index<=lineSize){
mySynonyms[index]=aux[index];
index++;
}
I thought that the array aux would end up junked if there was a large blank space between the two numbers to be stored (apparently not). And I was wondering if there was a way to iterate till an undefined end in this type of array. Thanks for you answers.
You don't: wrap the array into a structure that remembers its length: std::vector.
std::vector v(1);
std::for_each( v.begin(), v.end(), ... );
No portable way of doing this. Either pass the size together with the array, or, better, use a standard container such as std::vector
Short answer is that you can't. If you have a pointer to the first element of an array, you can't know what the size of the array is. Why do you want to use a array in the first place. You would be much better off using a std::vector if your array can change size dynamically, or a boost::Array if it will be a fixed size.
I don't understand your second question.
Your code needs to keep to track of the array, so the size would never be unknown. (Or you would have to use some library with code that does this.)
I don't understand the last part of your quesiton. Could you elaborate?
You explained in your post below that you want to look at the guts of a std::string.
If you are expecting your stirng to be like a c-string (aka doesn't contain NULLs), then use line.c_str() instead of line.data(). This will guarantee that aux points to a null terminates c-style string.
After that you can iterate until aux[index] == '\0';
Otherwise, you can use line.data() and string.length/size to get it's size like in your example.
However, "decomposing a string into its characters" is pretty pointless, a string is an array of characters. Just make of copy of the string and store that. You are allowed to do:
char ch = line[index];
Better yet, use iterators on the original string!
for(std::string::const_iterator it = line.begin(); it != line.end(); ++it) {
const char ch = *it;
// do whatever with ch
}
a) I'm not allowed to use STL (means:
no )
What?? Who's moronic idea was that?
std::vector isn't part of the "STL" (which is a copyrighted product of HP), but is (and has been for nearly a decade) part of the C++ Language Standard.
If you're not allowed to use the STL (for whatever reason), the first thing you want to do is actually to implement your own version of it – at least the parts you need, with the level of customizability you need. For example, it's probably overkill to make your own vector class parametrizable with a custom allocator. But nevertheless do implement your own lightweight vector. Everything else will result in a bad, hardly maintainable solution.
This smells like homework, and the teacher's objective is to give you a feeling of what it takes to implement dynamic arrays. So far you're getting an F.
You need to realize that when you allocate memory like this
int *dynArray = new int [1];
you allocate precisely one integer, not an indefinite number of integers to be expanded by some unidentified magic. Most importantly, you can only say
dynArray[0] = 78;
but you cannot say
dynArray[1] = 8973;
The element at index 1 does not exist, you're stepping into memory that was not reserved for you. This particular violation will result in a crash later on, when you deallocate the array, because the memory where you stored 8973 belongs to the heap management data structures, and you corrupted your heap.
As many other responders mention, you must know how many elements you have in the array at all times. So, you have to do something along the lines of
int arraySize = 1;
int *dynArray = new int [arraySize];
arraySize goes together with the array, and is best combined with dynArray in one C++ object.
Now, before you assign to dynarray[1], you have to re-allocate the array:
if (index > arraySize) {
int newSize = index+1;
int *newArray = new int[newSize]
// don't forget to copy the data from old array to new
memcpy(newarray dynArray, sizeof *newArray * arraySize);
arraySize = newSize;
dynArray = newArray;
}
// now you're ready!
dynArray[index] = value;
Now, if you want to make it a bit more efficient, you allocate more than you need, so you don't have to allocate each time you add an element. I'll leave this as an exercise to the reader.
And after doing all this, you get to submit your homework and you get to appreciate the humble std::vector that does all of this for you, plus a lot more.
Use a vector, which has a vector.size() function that returns an integer and a vector.end() function that returns an iterator.
You could create a simple Vector class that has only the methods you need. I actually had to recreate the Vector class for a class that I took this year, it's not very difficult.
If there's a value that cannot be valid, you can use that as a sentinel, and make sure all of your arrays are terminated with that. Of course, it's error-prone and will cause hard-to-find bugs when you happen to miss doing it once, but that's what we used to do while reading files in FORTRAN (back in the all-caps days, and before END= became standard).
Yes, I'm dating myself.