I tried to write the following code in C++ to reverse a string. For some reason, when the string is of odd-length it gives a wrong output.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
void swapWithOutThirdVar(char &a, char &b) {
a = a + b;
b = a - b;
a = a - b;
}
void reverse(char string[]) {
int length = 0;
while (string[length] != '\0') {
length++;
}
int left = 0, right = length - 1;
while (left <= right) {
swapWithOutThirdVar(string[left], string[right]);
left++;
right--;
}
}
int main() {
char string[25];
cin>>string;
reverse(string);
cout<<string<<endl;
}
For example if I enter lappy to the console, the subsequent output is yp. I am new to programming, so please be kind to me no matter how stupid the underlying mistake is.
There are many ways to resolve the error in your code, but the backbone error in your code lies in the swap function that you have defined on your own.
void swapWithOutThirdVar(char &a, char &b) {
a = a + b;
b = a - b;
a = a - b;
}
I know that this is a very well-known function used to swap two variables without using a third variable. But it has two issues:
For certain values of a and b, the operation a + b can result in an overflow.
(This is the case here) If you run into passing the exact same variables to the function, the swap would end up being erratic. Here's why:
Let's say that you're passing the variable char c to both the arguments of the function. Since in your function the parameters are being passed by reference, the dummy variables a and b are actually the same variables, that is, they're aliases to the same c. In a nutshell, a and b denote the same variable c.
So, now when you do a = a + b, the operation actually results in c = c + c, which means that c's (ASCII) value has been doubled by the end of execution of this statement.
The fun hits when the second statement comes into play. b = a - b results in c = c - c, which assigns 0 to c. That's where you went wrong, kiddo.
The third statement doesn't do anything good to the process. a = a - b results in c = c - c, which still makes c hold 0.
So, your variable gets assigned the value 0, instead of getting swapped with (itself?).
Now, you might be wondering where are you exactly ending up swapping the same variable, right?
When you're having an odd-length string, note that in the last iteration of the second while loop, the values of left and right are the same. In that case, left and right have the same indices for string and hence string[left] and string[right] are the same variables. The same variables are being passed to the swap function in that iteration.
Now, as I had stated earlier: passing the same variables to the swap function will end up handing a 0 to the variable that has been passed to it. For your example case, this is what string looks like at the end of the last iteration:
['y', 'p' '\0', 'a', 'l']
In C/C++, a null (0) marks the end of a string. Therefore, the weird output (yp) is justified.
In even-length strings, left will never be equal to right in any of the iterations of the second while loop. That's why, a same variable is never passed to the swap function, and that's why the reverse function works just as fine as the same variable is never passed to it.
Therefore, firstly you need to take care of the same-variable case. In case a and b are the same variable, you simply return from the function as swapping a variable with itself is techically pointless. Utilise the fact that if two variables are basically references to the same variable, they must be having the same address.
void swapWithOutThirdVar(char &a, char &b) {
if (&a == &b)
return;
a = a + b;
b = a - b;
a = a - b;
}
But this doesn't resolve the overflow issue. So, you need to do something else.
Assuming that this is a programming assignment problem in which you need to implement everything on your own, you can go for the XOR-swap which uses bitwise XOR to swap two variables. Going by the name of your swap function, I think you're aware of the vintage three-variable swapping technique and that using a third variable for swapping is also a restriction in your assignment.
Operating XOR on two numbers doesn't result in overflow, so that problem is fixed. The XOR method although, doesn't independently resolve the same-variable case and ends up handing the variable a 0 in the first statement itself, so you need to retain the address equality checking part:
void swapWithOutThirdVar(char &a, char &b) {
if (&a == &b)
return;
a ^= b;
b ^= a;
a ^= b;
}
Also, you can leave the swap function as it is and slightly modify the second while loop's condition to resolve the error:
For an odd-length string, the middle character's position is left unchanged when reversed. Come to think of it: the left-equals-right case arises when left and right (both) are pointing to the middle character of the string. So, the loop needs to run only as long as left < right holds true. For an even-length string, left never becomes equal to right. The while loop ends right when left and right are indices of the two adjacent middle elements of the string. Therefore, the left < right modification doesn't hurt the even-length case. So, the corresponding fix would be:
void reverse(char string[]) {
int length = 0;
while (string[length] != '\0') {
length++;
}
int left = 0, right = length - 1;
while (left < right) {
swapWithOutThirdVar(string[left], string[right]);
left++;
right--;
}
}
This concludes the bug explanation and rectification part. But in case this isn't for a programming assignment in which you have to implement everything on your own, that is, you don't have restrictions, you should consider the following instead:
Judging by the using namespace std; in your code, it appears that it was meant for C++0x or beyond. So, you should be considering the following things:
From C++0x onwards, you already have a predefined swap function (std :: swap). You can use that instead. Overflows and same-variables being passed to it aren't an issue here. See here.
You're using a C-style string in your program. C-style strings are not recommended anymore. Moreover, you're using C++0x or beyond. So, you should be using std :: string instead. See here.
You can use the reverse function from the algorithm header. See here.
Your swap implementation is incorrect if a and b point to the same memory location.
So you shall fix your loop:
while (left < right) {
swapWithOutThirdVar(string[left], string[right]);
left++;
right--;
}
This is a peculiarity of C++'s call-by-reference semantics. Your swap function will give unexpected (and incorrect) results when both &a and &b are the same memory address. This occurs when left == right.
Consider the following substitution, where I've changed a and b to both be the same variable, middleLetter:
middleLetter = middleLetter + middleLetter;
middleLetter = middleLetter - middleLetter;
middleLetter = middleLetter - middleLetter;
The second line sets middleLetter to zero, and the third line leaves it as zero.
The simple fix is to change your loop condition to while(left < right). There is no need to swap the middle letter with itself anyway.
This question already has answers here:
Declaring and initializing a variable in a Conditional or Control statement in C++
(9 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I want to create an if where a variable is declared, assigned and checked. If the variable's value is acceptable, I want to use it inside if body. Here's an example of how I thought I could do that:
if ((int result = Foo()) != 0) {
// use result
}
I assumed that Foo() returns some value, which is assigned to result, and returned by assignment operator =, and finally checked against 0 in != 0. Unfortunately, it results in a compilation error:
main.cpp:31:10: error: expected primary-expression before ‘int’
if ((int i = Foo()) != 0)
^
main.cpp:31:10: error: expected ‘)’ before ‘int’
Why is this error happening? And what ways could there be to fix it?
The logic is supported, but declaring a variable within an if statement and using it this way is not. The reason is related to the fact that an initializer works differently than a regular assignment, but working around this is easy and trivial.
Just do something like this instead.
int result;
if ((result = Foo()) != 0) {
// use result
}
Your reasoning seems to be based on the assumption that = in
if ((int result = Foo()) != 0)
is an assignment operator and that int result = Foo() is "just an expression" that evaluates to something.
This is not true.
The int result = Foo() part is not an expression in C++. It is a declaration with an initializer. The = in initializer syntax is not an assignment operator at all. It is just a syntactic element that coincidentally uses the same character as assignment operator. The int result = Foo() is not an expression and it does not "evaluate" to any result.
Because if the above, support for something like
if (int result = Foo())
requires special treatment, which severely limits the flexibility of this syntax. What you tried in your code goes outside the bounds of what's allowed by that special treatment.
Bjarne uses this construct as a scope restrictor in 6.3.2.1 The C++ programming language as a recommendation.
Use:
if (int result = Foo()) {
// use non-zero result
}
It is particularly useful with pointers
if (Foo* result = GetFoo()) {
// use valid Foo
}
The !=0 part is redundant as truthiness is !=0.
The extended construct with the comparison is not allowed.
Further discussion of this construct from here
It fails because it's illegal. It's also ugly. #Jonathan Wood suggested declaring the variable outside the if. I suggest calling Foo outside, too:
int result = Foo();
if(result!=0) ...
The (x=f())!=y construct, while legal as an if condition, only makes sense in a loop, where
`while((c=getchar())!='\n)
... do something with c ...
Is the shorter and nicer equivalent of
c = getchar();
while(c!='\n')
{
...
c = getchar(c);
}
It saves writing the call to getchar() twice. It saves nothing when used in an if, so there's no point in using it.
Try this:
if ( int i = (Foo() != 0) ? Foo() : 0 ){
cout << "Hello. Number i = " << i;
}
I tried the following:
if(int i=6+4==10)
cout << "works!" << i;
if(int i=6+4,i==10)
cout << "doesn't even compile" << i;
The first works fine while the second doesn't compile. Why is this?
EDIT: Now I know that the first one may not work as I intend it to. The value of i inside the if scope will be 1, not 10. (as pointed out by one of the comments on this question).
So is there a way to initialize and use a variable inside of an if statement at the same time similar to for(int i=0;i<10;i++)? So that you could produce something like if((int i=6+4)==10) (which will not compile) where the value of I inside the if scope would be 10?
I know you could declare and initialize I before the if statement but is there a way to do this within the statement itself?
To give you an idea why I think this would be usefull.
if(int v1=someObject1.getValue(), int v2=someObject2.getValue(), v1!=v2)
{
//v1 and v2 are visible in this scope
//and can be used for further calculation without the need to call
//someObject1.getValue() und someObject2.getValue() again.
}
//if v1==v2 there is nothing to be done which is why v1 und v2
//only need to be visible in the scope of the if.
The expression used as an initializer expression must be an assignment-expression so if you want to use a comma operator you must parenthesize the initializer.
E.g. (not that what you are attempting makes much sense as 6 + 4 has no side effects and the value is discarded and i == 10 uses the uninitialized value of i in its own initializer.)
if (int i = (6 + 4, i == 10)) // behaviour is undefined
Did you really mean something like this?
int i = 6 + 4;
if (i == 10)
When using the form of if that declares a new variable the condition checked is always the value of the initialized variable converted to bool. If you want the condition to be an expression involving the new variable you must declare the variable before the if statement and use the expression that you want to test as the condition.
E.g.
int i;
if ((i = 6 + 4) == 10)
I doubt seriously either example works to do anything useful. All that it does is evaluate to "true" in a complicated fashions.
But the reason the second one doesn't compile is that it's interpreted as two declarations: int i = 6+4; int i==10 and int i==10 isn't valid because that's an equality operator, not an assignment.
There are different alternatives, because what you want cannot be done (you cannot mix the comma operator with declarations). You could, for example, declare the variable outside of the if condition:
int i = 6+4;
if ( i == 10 ) ...
Or you can change the value of i to be 0 instead of 10 and recalculate i inside the else block:
if ( int i = (6+4)-10 ) ; else {
i += 10;
// ...
}
Much simpler, don't declare the variable at all, since you know the value inside the loop:
if ( (6+4)==10 ) {
int i = 10;
// ...
}
Unless of course you need the value of i in the case where it is not 10, in which case the second option is the most appropriate.
As of C++17 what you were trying to do is finally possible:
if (int i=6+4; i==10)
cout << "works, and i is " << i << endl;
Note the use of ; of instead of , to separate the declaration and the actual condition.
This question already has answers here:
What does the comma operator , do?
(8 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
You see it used in for loop statements, but it's legal syntax anywhere. What uses have you found for it elsewhere, if any?
C language (as well as C++) is historically a mix of two completely different programming styles, which one can refer to as "statement programming" and "expression programming". As you know, every procedural programming language normally supports such fundamental constructs as sequencing and branching (see Structured Programming). These fundamental constructs are present in C/C++ languages in two forms: one for statement programming, another for expression programming.
For example, when you write your program in terms of statements, you might use a sequence of statements separated by ;. When you want to do some branching, you use if statements. You can also use cycles and other kinds of control transfer statements.
In expression programming the same constructs are available to you as well. This is actually where , operator comes into play. Operator , is nothing else than a separator of sequential expressions in C, i.e. operator , in expression programming serves the same role as ; does in statement programming. Branching in expression programming is done through ?: operator and, alternatively, through short-circuit evaluation properties of && and || operators. (Expression programming has no cycles though. And to replace them with recursion you'd have to apply statement programming.)
For example, the following code
a = rand();
++a;
b = rand();
c = a + b / 2;
if (a < c - 5)
d = a;
else
d = b;
which is an example of traditional statement programming, can be re-written in terms of expression programming as
a = rand(), ++a, b = rand(), c = a + b / 2, a < c - 5 ? d = a : d = b;
or as
a = rand(), ++a, b = rand(), c = a + b / 2, d = a < c - 5 ? a : b;
or
d = (a = rand(), ++a, b = rand(), c = a + b / 2, a < c - 5 ? a : b);
or
a = rand(), ++a, b = rand(), c = a + b / 2, (a < c - 5 && (d = a, 1)) || (d = b);
Needless to say, in practice statement programming usually produces much more readable C/C++ code, so we normally use expression programming in very well measured and restricted amounts. But in many cases it comes handy. And the line between what is acceptable and what is not is to a large degree a matter of personal preference and the ability to recognize and read established idioms.
As an additional note: the very design of the language is obviously tailored towards statements. Statements can freely invoke expressions, but expressions can't invoke statements (aside from calling pre-defined functions). This situation is changed in a rather interesting way in GCC compiler, which supports so called "statement expressions" as an extension (symmetrical to "expression statements" in standard C). "Statement expressions" allow user to directly insert statement-based code into expressions, just like they can insert expression-based code into statements in standard C.
As another additional note: in C++ language functor-based programming plays an important role, which can be seen as another form of "expression programming". According to the current trends in C++ design, it might be considered preferable over traditional statement programming in many situations.
I think generally C's comma is not a good style to use simply because it's so very very easy to miss - either by someone else trying to read/understand/fix your code, or you yourself a month down the line. Outside of variable declarations and for loops, of course, where it is idiomatic.
You can use it, for example, to pack multiple statements into a ternary operator (?:), ala:
int x = some_bool ? printf("WTF"), 5 : fprintf(stderr, "No, really, WTF"), 117;
but my gods, why?!? (I've seen it used in this way in real code, but don't have access to it to show unfortunately)
Two killer comma operator features in C++:
a) Read from stream until specific string is encountered (helps to keep the code DRY):
while (cin >> str, str != "STOP") {
//process str
}
b) Write complex code in constructor initializers:
class X : public A {
X() : A( (global_function(), global_result) ) {};
};
I've seen it used in macros where the macro is pretending to be a function and wants to return a value but needs to do some other work first. It's always ugly and often looks like a dangerous hack though.
Simplified example:
#define SomeMacro(A) ( DoWork(A), Permute(A) )
Here B=SomeMacro(A) "returns" the result of Permute(A) and assigns it to "B".
The Boost Assignment library is a good example of overloading the comma operator in a useful, readable way. For example:
using namespace boost::assign;
vector<int> v;
v += 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9;
I had to use a comma to debug mutex locks to put a message before the lock starts to wait.
I could not but the log message in the body of the derived lock constructor, so I had to put it in the arguments of the base class constructor using : baseclass( ( log( "message" ) , actual_arg )) in the initialization list. Note the extra parenthesis.
Here is an extract of the classes :
class NamedMutex : public boost::timed_mutex
{
public:
...
private:
std::string name_ ;
};
void log( NamedMutex & ref__ , std::string const& name__ )
{
LOG( name__ << " waits for " << ref__.name_ );
}
class NamedUniqueLock : public boost::unique_lock< NamedMutex >
{
public:
NamedUniqueLock::NamedUniqueLock(
NamedMutex & ref__ ,
std::string const& name__ ,
size_t const& nbmilliseconds )
:
boost::unique_lock< NamedMutex >( ( log( ref__ , name__ ) , ref__ ) ,
boost::get_system_time() + boost::posix_time::milliseconds( nbmilliseconds ) ),
ref_( ref__ ),
name_( name__ )
{
}
....
};
From the C standard:
The left operand of a comma operator is evaluated as a void expression; there is a sequence point after its evaluation. Then the right operand is evaluated; the result has its type and value. (A comma operator does not yield an lvalue.)) If an attempt is made to modify the result of a comma operator or to access it after the next sequence point, the behavior is undefined.
In short it let you specify more than one expression where C expects only one. But in practice it's mostly used in for loops.
Note that:
int a, b, c;
is NOT the comma operator, it's a list of declarators.
It is sometimes used in macros, such as debug macros like this:
#define malloc(size) (printf("malloc(%d)\n", (int)(size)), malloc((size)))
(But look at this horrible failure, by yours truly, for what can happen when you overdo it.)
But unless you really need it, or you are sure that it makes the code more readable and maintainable, I would recommend against using the comma operator.
You can overload it (as long as this question has a "C++" tag). I have seen some code, where overloaded comma was used for generating matrices. Or vectors, I don't remember exactly. Isn't it pretty (although a little confusing):
MyVector foo = 2, 3, 4, 5, 6;
Outside of a for loop, and even there is has can have an aroma of code smell, the only place I've seen as a good use for the comma operator is as part of a delete:
delete p, p = 0;
The only value over the alternative is you can accidently copy/paste only half of this operation if it is on two lines.
I also like it because if you do it out of habit, you'll never forget the zero assignment. (Of course, why p isn't inside somekind of auto_ptr, smart_ptr, shared_ptr, etc wrapper is a different question.)
Given #Nicolas Goy's citation from the standard, then it sounds like you could write one-liner for loops like:
int a, b, c;
for(a = 0, b = 10; c += 2*a+b, a <= b; a++, b--);
printf("%d", c);
But good God, man, do you really want to make your C code more obscure in this way?
It's very useful in adding some commentary into ASSERT macros:
ASSERT(("This value must be true.", x));
Since most assert style macros will output the entire text of their argument, this adds an extra bit of useful information into the assertion.
In general I avoid using the comma operator because it just makes code less readable. In almost all cases, it would be simpler and clearer to just make two statements. Like:
foo=bar*2, plugh=hoo+7;
offers no clear advantage over:
foo=bar*2;
plugh=hoo+7;
The one place besides loops where I have used it it in if/else constructs, like:
if (a==1)
... do something ...
else if (function_with_side_effects_including_setting_b(), b==2)
... do something that relies on the side effects ...
You could put the function before the IF, but if the function takes a long time to run, you might want to avoid doing it if it's not necessary, and if the function should not be done unless a!=1, then that's not an option. The alternative is to nest the IF's an extra layer. That's actually what I usually do because the above code is a little cryptic. But I've done it the comma way now and then because nesting is also cryptic.
I often use it to run a static initializer function in some cpp files, to avoid lazy initalization problems with classic singletons:
void* s_static_pointer = 0;
void init() {
configureLib();
s_static_pointer = calculateFancyStuff(x,y,z);
regptr(s_static_pointer);
}
bool s_init = init(), true; // just run init() before anything else
Foo::Foo() {
s_static_pointer->doStuff(); // works properly
}
For me the one really useful case with commas in C is using them to perform something conditionally.
if (something) dothis(), dothat(), x++;
this is equivalent to
if (something) { dothis(); dothat(); x++; }
This is not about "typing less", it's just looks very clear sometimes.
Also loops are just like that:
while(true) x++, y += 5;
Of course both can only be useful when the conditional part or executable part of the loop is quite small, two-three operations.
The only time I have ever seen the , operator used outside a for loop was to perform an assingment in a ternary statement. It was a long time ago so I cannot remeber the exact statement but it was something like:
int ans = isRunning() ? total += 10, newAnswer(total) : 0;
Obviously no sane person would write code like this, but the author was an evil genius who construct c statements based on the assembler code they generated, not readability. For instance he sometimes used loops instead of if statements because he preferred the assembler it generated.
His code was very fast but unmaintainable, I am glad I don't have to work with it any more.
I've used it for a macro to "assign a value of any type to an output buffer pointed to by a char*, and then increment the pointer by the required number of bytes", like this:
#define ASSIGN_INCR(p, val, type) ((*((type) *)(p) = (val)), (p) += sizeof(type))
Using the comma operator means the macro can be used in expressions or as statements as desired:
if (need_to_output_short)
ASSIGN_INCR(ptr, short_value, short);
latest_pos = ASSIGN_INCR(ptr, int_value, int);
send_buff(outbuff, (int)(ASSIGN_INCR(ptr, last_value, int) - outbuff));
It reduced some repetitive typing but you do have to be careful it doesn't get too unreadable.
Please see my overly-long version of this answer here.
It can be handy for "code golf":
Code Golf: Playing Cubes
The , in if(i>0)t=i,i=0; saves two characters.
qemu has some code that uses the comma operator within the conditional portion of a for loop (see QTAILQ_FOREACH_SAFE in qemu-queue.h). What they did boils down to the following:
#include <stdio.h>
int main( int argc, char* argv[] ){
int x = 0, y = 0;
for( x = 0; x < 3 && (y = x+1,1); x = y ){
printf( "%d, %d\n", x, y );
}
printf( "\n%d, %d\n\n", x, y );
for( x = 0, y = x+1; x < 3; x = y, y = x+1 ){
printf( "%d, %d\n", x, y );
}
printf( "\n%d, %d\n", x, y );
return 0;
}
... with the following output:
0, 1
1, 2
2, 3
3, 3
0, 1
1, 2
2, 3
3, 4
The first version of this loop has the following effects:
It avoids doing two assignments, so the chances of the code getting out of sync is reduced
Since it uses &&, the assignment is not evaluated after the last iteration
Since the assignment isn't evaluated, it won't try to de-reference the next element in the queue when it's at the end (in qemu's code, not the code above).
Inside the loop, you have access to the current and next element
Found it in array initialization:
In C what exactly happens if i use () to initialize a double dimension array instead of the {}?
When I initialize an array a[][]:
int a[2][5]={(8,9,7,67,11),(7,8,9,199,89)};
and then display the array elements.
I get:
11 89 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0