I think I read somewhere that distance() when returning the iterator position can be finicky. And sometimes it doesn't return the right position. I want to know if this is true or if I'm not using it right.
I'm trying to find when a particle in a vector of 21 is hovered. The idea is to switch the state of the others once one gets hovered.
I'm using find() to know when the particle is hovered, hence true.
vector<bool>::iterator it;
it = find(_tmp->isParticleHovered.begin(), _tmp->isParticleHovered.end(), true);
if (it != _tmp->isParticleHovered.end()){// we look if a particle is being hovered.
isHovered = true;// we use this to check internally the first boid
}else{
isHovered = false;
}
Now I also wanted to know not only when it was hovered but which one was hovered so I added this:
vector<bool>::iterator it;
it = find(_tmp->isParticleHovered.begin(), _tmp->isParticleHovered.end(), true);
if (it != _tmp->isParticleHovered.end()){// we look if a particle is being hovered.
l = distance(_tmp->isParticleHovered.begin(), it);
isHovered = true;// we use this to check internally the first boid
}else{
isHovered = false;
l = -1;
}
So knowing the index, I wanted to switch the states of the others so I came up with the following:
if ( l == -1){
if ( boidState5){
resetFamilyBoidState(_tmp);// makes all the particles go back to the same state
boidState2 = true;
boidState5 = false;
}
}else if ( l != -1){
if ( boidState2 ){
makeBoidStateless(_tmp, l);// I pass L, to this function, tell the function to switch all the particles to a different state except the one that is being hovered.
boidState5 = true;
boidState2 = false;
}
}
It will work for a couple of times but when I will hover from particle to particle rapidly it will get confused, and sometimes l will return 21 which will make it crash since the particle vector size is 21 - being 20 the latest container.
I came up with a solution without using neither find() nor distance():
int FamiliesController::returnInfoBoxState(){
for ( int i = 0; i < boidList.size(); i++){
if ( boidList[i]->boidState == 2){
return i;
}
}
return -1;
}
In the controller class I created a function that would return me the index number when that specific state was called, otherwise it would return -1. Using the same if statement it worked fine.
I'm curious to find about find() and distance(). Any clarification is much appreciated.
std::distance is exact. There is no room for doubt.
You are most likely misunderstanding its function, though. You said that it may return the "wrong position". It never returns positions anyway. An iterator is a position.
Also, you may want to check std::bitset<21>. It's more appropriate when the number of bits is fixed, and it has extra helper functions such as .reset()
Related
I am quite green regarding vectors, and this is my first time actually using them for collision checking. This is for my project, and I am stumped on how to implement the collision. The current Collision check and response codes I have seem to be ... bad design.
This is my code:
for(auto it = ArrayofEntities.begin(); it != ArrayofEntities.end(); it++)
{
CEntity * go = (*it);
for(auto i = ArrayofEntities.begin(); i != ArrayofEntities.end();)
{
//Collision for entities. Collision Event returns the iterator after an element is erased.
CEntity * other = (*i);
if (go != other)
{
if (!theCollision.CheckCollision(go, other, false, false, false, false)) //Checks if it has collided go with other
{
i = go->CollisionEvent(*other, ArrayofEntities); //Run collision code, setting i to the iterator which is returned.
//break;
}
else
{
i++;
}
}
else
{
i++;
}
}
}
CEntity is the base class for all the entities.
My CheckCollision just returns a true or false on the collision, and my collision event runs the collision and returns an iterator (because I might have to destroy things in the vector).
My collision event is below
vector<CEntity*>::iterator bullet::CollisionEvent(CEntity &other, vector<CEntity*> & theArray)
{
case ZOMBIE:
{
other.hp -= power * 0.01;//Effect
int Counter, index, bulletindex;
auto it = theArray.begin();
//Find the bullet and the other in the array.
for (it = theArray.begin(), Counter = 0; it != theArray.end();it++, Counter++)
{
CEntity *go = NULL;
go = (*it);
if (go == &other)
{
index = Counter;
}
if(go->ID == BULLET && go->GetX() == GetX() && go->GetY() == GetY())
{
bulletindex = Counter;
}
}
this->~bullet();//Delete the bullet
theArray.erase(theArray.begin() + bulletindex);
if(other.hp <= 0)
{
other.~CEntity();
it = theArray.erase(theArray.begin() + index); //delete from array.
return it;
}
it = theArray.begin() + index;
return it;
}
}
I have basically done this like how I would do an array. Just check it against itself. The error it gives is "Vector Iterator not Incrementable", on the first for loop after the collision event has been run.
So my question: 1) What am I doing wrong?
2) Is my thinking to do this like checking arrays wrong?
This is my school project, so I have full control of the codes.
I would prefer to have a quick fix over a complete rewriting of all the collision codes, but if it really comes down to it, I will rewrite my codes.
If you look at the implementation of std::remove_if, you'll see that they've solved the issue of iterator invalidation in another way. instead of erasing elements, they move them to the end of the array.
This may be the easiest solution for you as well. Keep an iterator which points after the last "live" entirty. It starts out at .end but as bullets hit things, you swap the entities to the back of your range and decrement that last-live iterator.
Then, when you're done looping over your array, you clean up with a single call to .erase.
And yes, you should use either std::unique_ptr<CEntity> or std::shared_ptr<CEntity> in the collection. In that way, .erase won't just erase the pointer but also the object pointed to.
Is there an efficient way to have a single iterator iterate on the concatenation of 2 objects vector, as if they were one?
The two vectors contain the same data type of course.
UPDATE:
I think I should have put more details about my question and my context. This may answer some of the questions:
In fact I am having one attribute that store the last position of that iterator and inside one method I start to iterate from the last position where I stopped in the previous call, which might be in the first vector or in the second one.
What about this solution? It may be not elegant, but I guess it respects the standard. right?
vector<Whatever>::iterator it = vectorA.begin();
bool loopOnVectorA = true;
while(true) {
// My stuff here
if (loopOnVectorA && it == vectorA.end())
{
it = vectorB.begin();
loopOnVectorA = false;
}
else if (it == vectorB.end())
{
break;
}
else
{
varPtrIt++;
}
}
I'm trying to remove 'dead' bullets from my vector of bullets. Every frame, I'm calling the Bullet::update() function which looks like this:
void Bullet::update()
{
for(int i = 0; i != mAmmo.size(); i++)
{
if(mAmmo[i].sprite.getPosition().x > 700)
mAmmo[i].mAlive = false;
if(mAmmo[i].mAlive == false)
{
// I get a Debug Assertion Failed at runtime from this piece of code
mAmmo.erase(mAmmo.begin()+i);
}
if(mAmmo[i].mAlive == true)
{
mAmmo[i].sprite.move(mMovement);
}
}
}
Am I doing this completely incorrectly? This is the first time I've really used vectors more than just following through a tutorial. If I need to post any more code, just tell me. I've been working on this for the past few hours, so I'm a wee bit desperate to get this to work.
Thanks in advance!
You're easily walking into undefined behavior as soon as the ith element is the last element in your list. Use iterators, and pay special attention to the return value of erase(), as it automatically advances the iterator for you so your loop doesn't have to.
void Bullet::update()
{
for (auto it = mAmmo.begin(); it != mAmmo.end();)
{
if(it->sprite.getPosition().x > 700)
it->mAlive = false;
if (!it->mAlive)
{
// erase and get next iterator
it = mAmmo.erase(it);
}
else
{ // move and increment
it->sprite.move(mMovement);
++it;
}
}
}
Okay, I have been set with the task of comparing this list of Photons using one method (IU) and comparing it with another (TSP). I need to take the first IU photon and compare distances with all of the TSP photons, find the smallest distance, and "pair" them (i.e. set them both in arrays with the same index). Then, I need to take the next photon in the IU list, and compare it to all of the TSP photons, minus the one that was chosen already.
I know I need to use a Boolean array of sorts, with keeping a counter. I can't seem to logic it out entirely.
The code below is NOT standard C++ syntax, as it is written to interact with ROOT (CERN data analysis software).
If you have any questions with the syntax to better understand the code, please ask. I'll happily answer.
I have the arrays and variables declared already. The types that you see are called EEmcParticleCandidate and that's a type that reads from a tree of information, and I have a whole set of classes and headers that tell that how to behave.
Thanks.
Bool_t used[2];
if (num[0]==2 && num[1]==2) {
TIter photonIterIU(mPhotonArray[0]);
while(IU_photon=(EEmcParticleCandidate_t*)photonIterIU.Next()){
if (IU_photon->E > thresh2) {
distMin=1000.0;
index = 0;
IU_PhotonArray[index] = IU_photon;
TIter photonIterTSP(mPhotonArray[1]);
while(TSP_photon=(EEmcParticleCandidate_t*)photonIterTSP.Next()) {
if (TSP_photon->E > thresh2) {
Float_t Xpos_IU = IU_photon->position.fX;
Float_t Ypos_IU = IU_photon->position.fY;
Float_t Xpos_TSP = TSP_photon->position.fX;
Float_t Ypos_TSP = TSP_photon->position.fY;
distance_1 = find distance //formula didnt fit here //
if (distance_1 < distMin){
distMin = distance_1;;
for (Int_t i=0;i<2;i++){
used[i] = false;
} //for
used[index] = true;
TSP_PhotonArray[index] = TSP_photon;
index++;
} //if
} //if thresh
} // while TSP
} //if thresh
} // while IU
Thats all I have at the moment... work in progress, I realize all of the braces aren't closed. This is just a simple logic question.
This may take a few iterations.
As a particle physicist, you should understand the importance of breaking things down into their component parts. Let's start with iterating over all TSP photons. It looks as if the relevant code is here:
TIter photonIterTSP(mPhotonArray[1]);
while(TSP_photon=(EEmcParticleCandidate_t*)photonIterTSP.Next()) {
...
if(a certain condition is met)
TSP_PhotonArray[index] = TSP_photon;
}
So TSP_photon is a pointer, you will be copying it into the array TSP_PhotonArray (if the energy of the photon exceeds a fixed threshold), and you go to a lot of trouble keeping track of which pointers have already been so copied. There is a better way, but for now let's just consider the problem of finding the best match:
distMin=1000.0;
while(TSP_photon= ... ) {
distance_1 = compute_distance_somehow();
if (distance_1 < distMin) {
distMin = distance_1;
TSP_PhotonArray[index] = TSP_photon; // <-- BAD
index++; // <-- VERY BAD
}
}
This is wrong. Suppose you find a TSP_photon with the smallest distance yet seen. You haven't yet checked all TSP photons, so this might not be the best, but you store the pointer anyway, and increment the index. Then if you find another match that's even better, you'll store that one too. Conceptually, it should be something like this:
distMin=1000.0;
best_photon_yet = NULL;
while(TSP_photon= ... ) {
distance_1 = compute_distance_somehow();
if (distance_1 < distMin) {
distMin = distance_1;
best_pointer_yet = TSP_photon;
}
}
// We've now finished searching the whole list of TSP photons.
TSP_PhotonArray[index] = best_photon_yet;
index++;
Post a comment to this answer, telling me if this makes sense; if so, we can proceed, if not, I'll try to clarify.
Trying not to lose it here. As you can see below I have assigned intFrontPtr to point to the first cell in the array. And intBackPtr to point to the last cell in the array...:
bool quack::popFront(int& nPopFront)
{
nPopFront = items[top+1].n;
if ( count >= maxSize ) return false;
else
{
items[0].n = nPopFront;
intFrontPtr = &items[0].n;
intBackPtr = &items[count-1].n;
}
for (int temp; intFrontPtr < intBackPtr ;)
{
++intFrontPtr;
temp = *intFrontPtr;
*intFrontPtr = temp;
}
return true;
}
In the else statement I'm simply reassigning to ensure that my ptrs are where I want them. For some reason I'm popping off the back instead of off the front.
Anyone care to explain?
I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're trying to do, but if I;m guessing right you're trying to 'pop' the 1st element of the array (items[0]) into the nPopFront int reference, then move all the subsequent elements of the array over by one so that the 1st element is replaced by the 2nd, the 2nd by the 3rd, and so on. After this operation, the array will contain one less total number of elements.
Not having the full declaration of the quack class makes most of the following guesswork, but here goes:
I'm assuming that item[0] represents the 'front' of your array (so it's the element you want 'popped').
I'm also assuming that 'count` is the number of valid elements (so item[count-1] is the last valid element, or the 'back' of the array).
Given these assumptions, I'm honestly not sure what top is supposed to represent (so I might be entirely wrong on these guesses).
Problem #1: your nPopFront assignment is reversed, it should be:
nPopFront = items[0].n;
Problem #2; your for loop is a big no-op. It walks through the array assigning elements back to their original location. I think you want it to look more like:
for (int i = 1; i < count; ++i)
{
items[i-1].n = items[i].n; // move elements from back to front
}
Finally, you'll want to adjust count (and probably top - if you need it at all) before you return to adjust the new number of elements in the data structure. The whole thing might look like:
bool quack::popFront(int& nPopFront)
{
if ( count >= maxSize ) return false;
if ( count == 0 ) return false; // nothing to pop
nPopFront = items[0].n;
intFrontPtr = &items[0].n; // do we really need to maintain these pointers?
intBackPtr = &items[count-1].n;
for (int i = 1; i < count; ++i)
{
items[i-1].n = items[i].n; // move elements from back to front
}
count -= 1; // one less item in the array
return true;
}
The original question seems to be that you don't understand why the function popFront returns 3 times when there are 3 elements?
If that's the case, I think you are missing the point of recursion.
When you make a recursive call, you are calling the same function again, basically creating a new stack frame and jumping back to the same function. So if there are 3 elements, it will recurse by encountering the first element, encountering the second element, encountering the third element, returning from the third encounter, returning from the second encounter, and returning from the first encounter (assuming you are properly consuming your array, which you don't appear to be).
The current function cannot return until the recursive call has iterated, thus it may appear to return from the last element before the second, and the second before the first.
That is how recursion works.
I wasn't able to make sense of your example, so I whipped one up real fast:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
bool popfront(int* ptr_, int* back_) {
cerr << ptr_[0] << endl;
if(ptr_ != back_) {
popfront(++ptr_, back_);
}
return true;
}
int main() {
int ar[4] = {4,3,2,1};
popfront(ar, ar + 3);
return 0;
}
That's not great, but it should get the point across.
Can't you just use a std::list?
That makes it really to pop from either end using pop_front or pop_back. You can also add to the front and the back. It also has the advantage that after popping from the front (or even removing from the middle of the list) you don't have to shift anything around (The link is simply removed) which makes it much more efficient than what you are, seemingly, proposing.
I'm assuming you're trying to assign the popped value to nPopFront?
bool stack::popFront(int& nPopFront)
{
//items[4] = {4,3,2,1}
if ( intFrontPtr < intBackPtr )
{
nPopFront = *intFrontPtr;
++intFrontPtr;
}
return true;
}
bool quack::popFront(int& nPopFront)
{
if(items.n==0) throw WhateverYouUseToSignalError;
nPopFront = items[0];
for (int =0;i<items.n-1,++i){
items[i]=items[i+1]
}
//update size of items array
}