I'm trying to implement a minheap in C++. However the following code keeps eliciting errors such as :
heap.cpp:24:4: error: cannot convert 'complex int' to 'int' in assignment
l=2i;
^
heap.cpp:25:4: error: cannot convert 'complex int' to 'int' in assignment
r=2i+1;
^
heap.cpp: In member function 'int Heap::main()':
heap.cpp:47:16: error: no matching function for call to 'Heap::heapify(int [11], int&)'
heapify(a,i);
^
heap.cpp:47:16: note: candidate is:
heap.cpp:21:5: note: int Heap::heapify(int)
int heapify(int i) //i is the parent index, a[] is the heap array
^
heap.cpp:21:5: note: candidate expects 1 argument, 2 provided
make: * [heap] Error 1
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
#define HEAPSIZE 10
class Heap
{
int a[HEAPSIZE+1];
Heap()
{
for (j=1;j<(HEAPISZE+1);j++)
{
cin>>a[j];
cout<<"\n";
}
}
int heapify(int i) //i is the parent index, a[] is the heap array
{
int l,r,smallest,temp;
l=2i;
r=2i+1;
if (l<11 && a[l]<a[i])
smallest=l;
else
smallest=i;
if (r<11 && a[r]<a[smallest])
smallest=r;
if (smallest != i)
{
temp = a[smallest];
a[smallest] = a[i];
a[i]=temp;
heapify(smallest);
}
}
int main()
{
int i;
for (i=1;i<=HEAPSIZE;i++)
{
heapify(a,i);
}
}
}
Ultimately, the problem with this code is that it was written by someone who skipped chapters 1, 2 and 3 of "C++ for Beginners". Lets start with some basics.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
#define HEAPSIZE 10
Here, we have included the C++ header for I/O (input output). A fine start. Then, we have issued a directive that says "Put everything that is in namespace std into the global namespace". This saves you some typing, but means that all of the thousands of things that were carefully compartmentalized into std:: can now conflict with names you want to use in your code. This is A Bad Thing(TM). Try to avoid doing it.
Then we went ahead and used a C-ism, a #define. There are times when you'll still need to do this in C++, but it's better to avoid it. We'll come back to this.
The next problem, at least in the code you posted, is a misunderstanding of the C++ class.
The 'C' language that C++ is based on has the concept of a struct for describing a collection of data items.
struct
{
int id;
char name[64];
double wage;
};
It's important to notice the syntax - the trailing ';'. This is because you can describe a struct and declare variables of it's type at the same time.
struct { int id; char name[64]; } earner, manager, ceo;
This declares a struct, which has no type name, and variables earner, manager and ceo of that type. The semicolon tells the compiler when we're done with this statement. Learning when you need a semicolon after a '}' takes a little while; usually you don't, but in struct/class definition you do.
C++ added lots of things to C, but one common misunderstanding is that struct and class are somehow radically different.
C++ originally extended the struct concept by allowing you to describe functions in the context of the struct and by allowing you to describe members/functions as private, protected or public, and allowing inheritance.
When you declare a struct, it defaults to public. A class is nothing more than a struct which starts out `private.
struct
{
int id;
char name[64];
double wage;
};
class
{
public:
int id;
char name[64];
double wage;
};
The resulting definitions are both identical.
Your code does not have an access specifier, so everything in your Heap class is private. The first and most problematic issue this causes is: Nobody can call ANY of your functions, because they are private, they can only be called from other class members. That includes the constructor.
class Foo { Foo () {} };
int main()
{
Foo f;
return 0;
}
The above code will fail to compile, because main is not a member of Foo and thus cannot call anything private.
This brings us to another problem. In your code, as posted, main is a member of Foo. The entry point of a C++ program is main, not Foo::main or std::main or Foo::bar::herp::main. Just, good old int main(int argc, const char* argv[]) or int main().
In C, with structs, because C doesn't have member functions, you would never be in a case where you were using struct-members directly without prefixing that with a pointer or member reference, e.g. foo.id or ptr->wage. In C++, in a member function, member variables can be referenced just like local function variables or parameters. This can lead to some confusion:
class Foo
{
int a, b;
public:
void Set(int a, int b)
{
a = a; // Erh,
b = b; // wat???
}
};
There are many ways to work around this, but one of the most common is to prefix member variables with m_.
Your code runs afoul of this, apparently the original in C passed the array to heapify, and the array was in a local variable a. When you made a into a member, leaving the variable name exactly the same allowed you not to miss the fact that you no-longer need to pass it to the object (and indeed, your heapify member function no-longer takes an array as a pointer, leading to one of your compile errors).
The next problem we encounter, not directly part of your problem yet, is your function Heap(). Firstly, it is private - you used class and haven't said public yet. But secondly, you have missed the significance of this function.
In C++ every struct/class has an implied function of the same name as the definition. For class Heap that would be Heap(). This is the 'default constructor'. This is the function that will be executed any time someone creates an instance of Heap without any parameters.
That means it's going to be invoked when the compiler creates a short-term temporary Heap, or when you create a vector of Heap()s and allocate a new temporary.
These functions have one purpose: To prepare the storage the object occupies for usage. You should try and avoid as much other work as possible until later. Using std::cin to populate members in a constructor is one of the most awful things you can do.
We now have a basis to begin to write the outer-shell of the code in a fashion that will work.
The last change is the replacement of "HEAPSIZE" with a class enum. This is part of encapsulation. You could leave HEAPSIZE as a #define but you should expose it within your class so that external code doesn't have to rely on it but can instead say things like Heap::Size or heapInstance.size() etc.
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdint> // for size_t etc
#include <array> // C++11 encapsulation for arrays.
struct Heap // Because we want to start 'public' not 'private'.
{
enum { Size = 10 };
private:
std::array<int, Size> m_array; // meaningful names ftw.
public:
Heap() // default constructor, do as little as possible.
: m_array() // says 'call m_array()s default ctor'
{}
// Function to load values from an istream into this heap.
void read(std::istream& in)
{
for (size_t i = 0; i < Size; ++i)
{
in >> m_array[i];
}
return in;
}
void write(std::ostream& out)
{
for (size_t i = 0; i < Size; ++i)
{
if (i > 0)
out << ','; // separator
out << m_array[i];
}
}
int heapify(size_t index)
{
// implement your code here.
}
}; // <-- important.
int main(int argc, const char* argv[])
{
Heap myHeap; // << constructed but not populated.
myHeap.load(std::cin); // read from cin
for (size_t i = 1; i < myHeap.Size; ++i)
{
myHeap.heapify(i);
}
myHead.write(std::cout);
return 0;
}
Lastly, we run into a simple, fundamental problem with your code. C++ does not have implicit multiplication. 2i is the number 2 with a suffix. It is not the same as 2 * i.
int l = 2 * i;
There is also a peculiarity with your code that suggests you are mixing between 0-based and 1-based implementation. Pick one and stick with it.
--- EDIT ---
Technically, this:
myHeap.load(std::cin); // read from cin
for (size_t i = 1; i < myHeap.Size; ++i)
{
myHeap.heapify(i);
}
is poor encapsulation. I wrote it this way to draw on the original code layout, but I want to point out that one reason for separating construction and initialization is that it allows initialization to be assured that everything is ready to go.
So, it would be more correct to move the heapify calls into the load function. After all, what better time to heapify than as we add new values, keeping the list in order the entire time.
for (size_t i = 0; i < Size; ++i)
{
in >> m_array[i];
heapify(i);
}
Now you've simplified your classes api, and users don't have to be aware of the internal machinery.
Heap myHeap;
myHeap.load(std::cin);
myHeap.write(std::cout);
Related
#include<iostream>
#include <list>
using namespace std;
class Euler {
private:
int korifes = 0;
int akmes = 0;
int* pinakas[];
public:
void print() { cout << *pinakas[0]; return; }
Euler(int korifess, int akmess);
~Euler() { delete[] *pinakas; }
void addAkmes(int kor1, int kor2);
};
Euler::Euler(int korifess, int akmess) : akmes(akmess), korifes(korifess) {
*pinakas = new int(korifes);
*pinakas[0] = 89;
}
int main() {
Euler e(2, 1);
e.print();
}
Run-Time Check Failure #2 - Stack around the variable 'e' was corrupted. occurred...i can not find where i am wrong in my code.
There are a number of errors in your code, all related to the nature of the pinakas member variable. As it stands, you are declaring this as an array of pointers (to int), and, furthermore, you are using a non-standard syntax for 'flexible' arrays (the empty []).
I don't normally just paste 'fixed' code as an answer but, in this case, that code (with the added \\\ comments where I've made changes) is likely to be the most succinct way to help you.
Although, as many here will no doubt point out, it is far better to avoid the use of 'raw' pointers and the new and delete operators, and use the std::vector container, instead.
#include <iostream>
#include <list>
//using namespace std;/// This is considered 'bad practice' by many programmers
using std::cout;/// Just use the aspect of the STL that you need!
class Euler {
private:
int korifes = 0;
int akmes = 0;
int* pinakas;/// This will point an 'array' of integers
public:
void print() {
cout << pinakas[0]; return;/// No longer any need for the dereference (*)
}
Euler(int korifess, int akmess);
~Euler() {
delete[] pinakas;/// No need for the dereference (*)
}
// void addAkmes(int kor1, int kor2);/// You haven't provided an actual definition for this, but your never use it!
};
Euler::Euler(int korifess, int akmess) : akmes(akmess), korifes(korifess)/// NOTE: Members are initialized in DECLARATION order!
{
pinakas = new int[korifes];/// Use "[]" (not "()") to allocate an array!
pinakas[0] = 89;/// No need for the dereference (*)
}
Feel free to ask for any further clarification and/or explanation.
I was trying a random code to accept values using dynamic size. Surprisingly the for loop in the Accept function does not execute. Instead, the control directly leaves the function. Please explain what is the mistake here?
using namespace std;
#include<iostream>
class consequtive
{
public : int *ptr;
int size;
public :
consequtive(int size);
void Accept();
};
consequtive::consequtive(int size)
{
ptr = new int[size];
}
void consequtive :: Accept()
{
cout<<"Enter elements :: "<<endl;
for(int i = 0 ; i < size ; i++)
{
cin>>ptr[i];
}
}
int main()
{
int size = 0;
cout<<"Enter size ::";
cin>>size;
consequtive obj(size);
obj.Accept();
}
A few problems here.
You have a class parameter that has the same name as a member, which isn't really a problem, but is a source of confusion (As in your case).
You never set the member size to anything inside the constructor.
For number one, I would recommend renaming the class member size to size_ or something similar, since this creates a separation and makes the variables easier to distinguish from each other. As for as the second problem, I would change your constructor to the following:
consequtive::consequtive(int size) : size_(size) // Assuming the member is called `size_`
{
ptr = new int[size];
}
The code should work now, and uses a concept called member initializer lists. Not setting the variable size results in undefined behavior.
You forgot to initialize the size member variable.
You could do something like this:
consequtive::consequtive(int size)
: size(size),
ptr(new int[size])
{
}
You should also add a destructor to your class, to avoid a memory leak:
consequtive::~consequtive()
{
delete[] ptr;
}
This size in the class definition
public : int *ptr;
int size;
this size in the constructor implementation
consequtive::consequtive(int size)
and this size in the main function
int size = 0;
are all different variables. The latter two will both have the same value because of the way they are used, but one size can be changed to a different value without the other being aware. The bug in the asker's code is because the first size is never given a value and is used uninitialized.
Solution:
consequtive::consequtive(int size): ptr(new int [size]), size(size)
{
}
Here we are using the Member Initializer List. We don't gain much from its use in this case, but it is a very useful tool. More on that here: Why should I prefer to use member initialization list?
Be cautious when using a parameter or local variable with the same name as a member. The inner most identifier always wins so inside
consequtive::consequtive(int size): ptr(new int [size]), size(size)
{
// in here
}
the size variable is the parameter and not the member. You can this->size to explicitly state you want the member, but it is a better idea to not reuse the identifier at all. You could forget to prepend this-> and the compiler is unlikely to warn you of the mistake.
I am not sure why my function is not working. It should be printing out something out (an error message after the user goes out of bounds)I have set the array index at 3 index slots. I'm also getting an error "unused variable 'yourArray' I am not sure where to go from here. Still trying to learn c++ so and advice or help will be greatly appreciated.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class safeArray{
public:
void outofBounds(int,int);
int yourArray[3];
int i;
};
void outofBounds(int,int);
int yourArray[3];
int i;
void outofBounds(int yourArray[],int sizeofArray) {
for (i=0;i<sizeofArray;i++){
cout<<"Please enter integer";
cin >>yourArray[i];
yourArray[i]++;
for (i=0;i>sizeofArray;){
cout<<"safeArray yourArray (" <<yourArray[0]<<","<<yourArray[3]<<")"
<<endl;
}}}
int main() {
void outofBounds(int,int);
int yourArray[3]; //Error: Used variable "yourArray"
};
Your Program is running fine. Unless you added the "-Werror" flag to the compiler, which would treat the "unused variable"-Warning as an Error.
The code compiles fine as seen on here: http://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/d648b94f205b51dc
Though your Program does not do what you want it to do, because of the following reasons:
1.) You have 3 redefinitions of outofBounds inside different namespaces:
one inside the classes namespace SafeArray which is a member function
of it
then inside the global space
and then inside the main-function (the entry point)
But the one being actually defined is the one in the global space (2nd one)
2.) You are not passing anything to the function inside main.
define your Array there first then call the function by doing:
int yourArray[3];
outofBounds(yourArray, 3);
3.) You probably wanted to define the member method "outofBounds" inside SafeArray-class. This can be done by writing the scope operator:: which specifies the class to which the member function belongs to:
class SafeArray { // is a class, can also be struct since everything is public anyways
public:
void outofBounds(int,int); // a member of the class SafeArray
// private:
int yourArray[3];
int i;
};
void SafeArray::outofBounds(int yourArray[],int sizeofArray) {
// do something...
}
but then again you need some constructor that initializes the members of your class. Some work needs to be done to make it work, like you want. Good Luck :)
Can you tell why does this generate segmentation error? Problem seems to occur when operator[] is called and when I don't call it, goes fine. operator[] is supposed to return a reference to the element with index i.. any help would be great..
//dynamic_array.cpp file
#include <iostream>
#include "dynamic_array.h"
using namespace std;
dynamic_array::dynamic_array() {
int *array;
array=new int[4];
array[0]=3;
size = 4;
allocated_size = 5;
}
dynamic_array::~dynamic_array() {
delete [] array;
}
int dynamic_array::get_size(void) const {
return size;
}
int dynamic_array::get_allocated_size(void) const {
return allocated_size;
}
int& dynamic_array::operator[](unsigned int i) {
return array[i];
}
//test.cpp file
#include <iostream>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include "dynamic_array.h"
using namespace std;
int main() {
dynamic_array a;
cout << a[0];
}
//dynamic_array.h file
using namespace std;
class dynamic_array {
public:
enum {
BLOCK_SIZE = 5,
SUBSCRIPT_RANGE_EXCEPTION = 1,
MEMORY_EXCEPTION = 2,
};
dynamic_array();
~dynamic_array();
int get_size(void) const;
int get_allocated_size() const;
int& operator[](unsigned int i);
class exception {
public:
exception(int n0) { n = n0; };
int n;
};
private:
int *array; // pointer to dynamically allocated memory
int allocated_size; // total number of elements in allocated memory
int size; // number of active elements
};
The local declaration
int *array;
shadows the member array. So the following code uses the local variable, not the member. Hence the member is uninitialized.
Instead of creating your own dynamic array, use std::vector.
That's safer and more convenient.
In other news:
The get prefix in e.g. get_size is a Java-ism.
In C++ a get prefix has no advantage, and it makes the code less readable. For example, standard library containers have a size method, not a get_size.
Using void as a formal argument declaration, as in get_size(void), is a C-ism.
In C it has the important effect of telling the compiler that there really are no arguments, as opposed to any arguments. In C++ () indicates that.
Not having also a const version of operator[] is inconsistent with earlier use of const.
Consistency is very important in programming. Our expectation, e.g. when maintaining code, is that it's consistent. Code that's inconsistent adds costly man-hours to maintenance.
The ALL UPPERCASE identifiers for constants are a Java-ism.
Java lacks a preprocessor, and inherited the all uppercase convention from early C, which lacked const. C++ has both const and a preprocessor. Having const there's generally no need to use #define for constants (as in early C), and having a preprocessor there's a good tecnical reason to not use all uppercase (it conflicts with the convention for macro names). In addition many/most programmers see all uppercase as shouting. It hurts.
The class exception should better be derived from std::exception.
Instead of inventing one's own exception class that can carry an error code, just use std::system_error. That's what it's for. Alternatively, derive a class from std::runtime_error, or use std::runtime_error directly.
The problem is in your constructor
Go like this for the constructor:
dynamic_array::dynamic_array() {
array = new int[4];
array[0] = 3;
size = 4;
allocated_size = 5;
}
the problem is this additinal line of code in the constructor:
int *array;
In your constructor definition, you declared a new local pointer variable named array and you allocated memory for that.
But this variable is local to the constructor and it is not the one declared in your class as may be you believed.
I am beginner c++ programmer, It's my first program even (For those who are very keen to give negatives). I had written the same code in c but now trying to do in c++.
Where I get the following error.
error: ‘length’ was not declared in this scope
My code is as below.
#include <iostream>
#include <fstream>
#include <assert.h>
using namespace std;
class Huffman
{
public:
int data_size, length; //THis length variable is not accessible in main function below in main function.
Huffman(char *filename);
~Huffman();
struct Huffman1
{
int value;
unsigned char sym; /* symbol */
struct Huffman1 *left,*right; /* left and right subtrees */
}; typedef struct Huffman1 Node;
};
Huffman::Huffman(char * file_name)
{
//I will do something here soon
}
Huffman::~Huffman()
{
}
int main(int argc, char * * argv)
{
length=10; //Not accessible here.
if (argc < 2)
{
cout<<"Ohh.. Sorry , you forgot to provide the Input File please" <<endl;
return(0);
}
Huffman Object1(argv[1]);
return(0);
}
I am not sure that it's c++ programming error because it may be because i am compiling it g++ Filename.c -o filename. Could someone please correct if it's a programming error or it's due to the way i compile ?
thanks.
length is a member of the class, so it does not exist outside the class.
You can access lenth after creating an object of class Huffman as follows
Huffman Object(argv[1]);
Object.length = 10;
length belongs to Huffman class. So you should use it for Object1 after it's definition:
Huffman Object1(argv[1]);
Object1.length = 10;
You know, public: doesn't mean that anything put inside under that branch in the class tree, will be accessible everywhere it just means that you access the instance variables of the class through "dot notation" like so Object.length.
However if you truly wanted length to be accessible everywhere, you should declare it as a global variable:
short int length;
class Huffman{
...
};
...
It's a compile error and your code is responsible. You defined length inside your Huffman class. It's a member of that class, not a global variable.
Imagine your class as a C Struct. You'd need to create a struct first in order to access the variable. Same thing applies to C++ classes.
Try Object1.length = 10; after you create the instance of your class.
EDIT
For your purposes, use C++ classes as you would use C structs. That will do the trick.
I would actually put the Node struct declaration outside of the Huffman class. I think it's easier to understand. Also, using a typedef to a struct is not really that useful in C++ for these cases, the name of the struct is usable by just declaring the struct.
The pointers do not allocate memory for the struct themselves. Only after you allocate memory they will be usable, and even then they're members of Object1, so you need that too.
#include <iostream>
#include <fstream>
#include <assert.h>
using namespace std;
struct Node
{
int value;
unsigned char sym; /* symbol */
};
class Huffman
{
public:
int data_size, length; //THis length variable is not accessible in main function below in main function.
Huffman(char *filename);
~Huffman();
Node *left,*right; /* left and right subtrees */
};
Huffman::Huffman(char * file_name)
{
//I will do something here soon
}
Huffman::~Huffman()
{
}
int main(int argc, char * * argv)
{
length=10; //Not accessible here.
if (argc < 2)
{
cout<<"Ohh.. Sorry , you forgot to provide the Input File please" <<endl;
return(0);
}
Huffman Object1(argv[1]);
Object1.left = new Node;
Object1.right = new Node;
//Do your stuff here...
Object1.left->sym;
return(0);
}
This should get you started, it is by no means a perfect implementation. It's not even very C++ oriented, but I already went ahead of myself with the answer. This is a topic for a very different question, which you're welcome to ask in SO, but try not to make questions inside questions.
Good luck!
length is part of your class, not main, thus the compiler is right.
Members belong to an object and are accessed liek this:
Huffman huffmannObj(...);
std::cout << huffmannObj.length << std::endl;
length is a publicly accessible member of your class, but you'll need an instance of that class first before you can do anything with the member
Huffman h(whatever_constructor_params);
h.length = 10;
...is ok