I have a working (well, buildable, but WIP nonetheless) game that I coded in C# using XNA a while back, and I'm now converting the game to C++. In converting some of my methods, I'm encountering the error that I cannot really find anything equivalent to some of the Array methods, such as FindAll, Find, and Exists. I'm using vectors and any help on an equivalent method and how to implement it would be very helpful.
For example, in C# I had:
if (Array.Exists(tileList, tile => tile.Position.X == e.Position.X))
Where e was some entity, tileList was an array of all the tiles in the game, and tile was obviously the tile in the array.
How could I create something with a near-identical function in C++?
It looks like you probably want something like:
if (std::any_of(tileList.begin(), tileList.end(),
[](tile e) { return tile.position.X == e.Position.X; }))
// whatever
If you have an older compiler (std::any_of was added in C++11, so older compilers don't have it) you could use std::find or std::find_if instead. As you'd probably guess, these try to find the location of the matching element, not just tell you if one exists, so it'll be a little clumsier to use, but not drastically so (basically, you have to compare the returned position against tileList.end() to see whether you got a match or not).
Related
Context: I'm using Maxima on a platform that also uses KaTeX. For various reasons related to content management, this means that we are regularly using Maxima functions to generate the necessary KaTeX commands.
I'm currently trying to develop a group of functions that will facilitate generating different sets of strings corresponding to KaTeX commands for various symbols related to vectors.
Problem
I have written the following function makeKatexVector(x), which takes a string, list or list-of-lists and returns the same type of object, with each string wrapped in \vec{} (i.e. makeKatexVector(string) returns \vec{string} and makeKatexVector(["a","b"]) returns ["\vec{a}", "\vec{b}"] etc).
/* Flexible Make KaTeX Vector Version of List Items */
makeKatexVector(x):= block([ placeHolderList : x ],
if stringp(x) /* Special Handling if x is Just a String */
then placeHolderList : concat("\vec{", x, "}")
else if listp(x[1]) /* check to see if it is a list of lists */
then for j:1 thru length(x)
do placeHolderList[j] : makelist(concat("\vec{", k ,"}"), k, x[j] )
else if listp(x) /* check to see if it is just a list */
then placeHolderList : makelist(concat("\vec{", k, "}"), k, x)
else placeHolderList : "makeKatexVector error: not a list-of-lists, a list or a string",
return(placeHolderList));
Although I have my doubts about the efficiency or elegance of the above code, it seems to return the desired expressions; however, I would like to modify this function so that it can distinguish between single- and multi-character strings.
In particular, I'd like multi-character strings like x_1 to be returned as \vec{x}_1 and not \vec{x_1}.
In fact, I'd simply like to modify the above code so that \vec{} is wrapped around the first character of the string, regardless of how many characters there may be.
My Attempt
I was ready to tackle this with brute force (e.g. transcribing each character of a string into a list and then reassembling); however, the real programmer on the project suggested I look into "Regular Expressions". After exploring that endless rabbit hole, I found the command regex_subst; however, I can't find any Maxima documentation for it, and am struggling to reproduce the examples in the related documentation here.
Once I can work out the appropriate regex to use, I intend to implement this in the above code using an if statement, such as:
if slength(x) >1
then {regex command}
else {regular treatment}
If anyone knows of helpful resources on any of these fronts, I'd greatly appreciate any pointers at all.
Looks like you got the regex approach working, that's great. My advice about handling subscripted expressions in TeX, however, is to avoid working with names which contain underscores in Maxima, and instead work with Maxima expressions with indices, e.g. foo[k] instead of foo_k. While writing foo_k is a minor convenience in Maxima, you'll run into problems pretty quickly, and in order to straighten it out you might end up piling one complication on another.
E.g. Maxima doesn't know there's any relation between foo, foo_1, and foo_k -- those have no more in common than foo, abc, and xyz. What if there are 2 indices? foo_j_k will become something like foo_{j_k} by the preceding approach -- what if you want foo_{j, k} instead? (Incidentally the two are foo[j[k]] and foo[j, k] when represented by subscripts.) Another problematic expression is something like foo_bar_baz. Does that mean foo_bar[baz], foo[bar_baz] or foo_bar_baz?
The code for tex(x_y) yielding x_y in TeX is pretty old, so it's unlikely to go away, but over the years I've come to increasing feel like it should be avoided. However, the last time it came up and I proposed disabling that, there were enough people who supported it that we ended up keeping it.
Something that might be helpful, there is a function texput which allows you to specify how a symbol should appear in TeX output. For example:
(%i1) texput (v, "\\vec{v}");
(%o1) "\vec{v}"
(%i2) tex ([v, v[1], v[k], v[j[k]], v[j, k]]);
$$\left[ \vec{v} , \vec{v}_{1} , \vec{v}_{k} , \vec{v}_{j_{k}} ,
\vec{v}_{j,k} \right] $$
(%o2) false
texput can modify various aspects of TeX output; you can take a look at the documentation (see ? texput).
While I didn't expect that I'd work this out on my own, after several hours, I made some progress, so figured I'd share here, in case anyone else may benefit from the time I put in.
to load the regex in wxMaxima, at least on the MacOS version, simply type load("sregex");. I didn't have this loaded, and was trying to work through our custom platform, which cost me several hours.
take note that many of the arguments in the linked documentation by Dorai Sitaram occur in the reverse, or a different order than they do in their corresponding Maxima versions.
not all the "pregexp" functions exist in Maxima;
In addition to this, escaping special characters varied in important ways between wxMaxima, the inline Maxima compiler (running within Ace editor) and the actual rendered version on our platform; in particular, the inline compiler often returned false for expressions that compiled properly in wxMaxima and on the platform. Because I didn't have sregex loaded on wxMaxima from the beginning, I lost a lot of time to this.
Finally, the regex expression that achieved the desired substitution, in my case, was:
regex_subst("\vec{\\1}", "([[:alpha:]])", "v_1");
which returns vec{v}_1 in wxMaxima (N.B. none of my attempts to get wxMaxima to return \vec{v}_1 were successful; escaping the backslash just does not seem to work; fortunately, the usual escaped version \\vec{\\1} does return the desired form).
I have yet to adjust the code for the rest of the function, but I doubt that will be of use to anyone else, and wanted to be sure to post an update here, before anyone else took time to assist me.
Always interested in better methods / practices or any other pointers / feedback.
So, I'm trying to write a function that can determine how many strings in a collection are anagrams of other strings in that collection. To do this quickly, I've elected to sort the strings, and then move them into a "
valid" and "invalid" hash set, depending on whether I've found a duplicate. Trouble is, When I try to use the find method for unordered_sets, I get a compile time error that tells me "expression must have class type".
I've looked around the website, but I didn't see any posts with that error that I recognized as being the same problem.
I'm working in visual studio, in c++, and I should mention that the code is not finished; I haven't written anything after the line that's giving me the error. Also, it is specifically the name of the std::unordered_set "valid" that is underlined in red.
It is also worth noting that this code is a work-in-progress, so there are a few things written down that I may not actually need; for example, I probably won't end up using those long longs (because I've realized that trying to use a single, enormous character array rather than strings is probably more effort than it's worth.)
Here is the method I'm working on:
Edit: I removed some of the irrelevant parts of this method due to sensitivities concerning it's origin. I apologize for my lack of foresight.
int Anagram_Locator::filterAnagrams()
{
...
//the valid and invalid hash sets
std::unordered_set<std::string> valid();
std::unordered_set<std::string> invalid();
//pull in the words, and sort them. Then, send them to either the valid or invalid string hash sets
while (std::cin >> transferString)
{
...
//is it in the valid list?
std::unordered_set<std::string>::const_iterator found = valid.find (transferString);
}
}
The last line in this code snippet is the one that is not compliling. This is particularly frustrating to me, because it is written exactly as it was in this c++ guide:
The c++ reference page I was looking at
I would think that this is all the code I would need, but experience has taught me that programming problems often have causes in parts of the code that I think are irrelevant. As such, I have posted the rest of my code below.
Edit: the rest of the code turned out to be irrelevant, so I removed it for clarity.
This appears incorrect:
std::unordered_set<std::string> valid();
std::unordered_set<std::string> invalid();
You are declaring two functions that return sets, not two sets.
Don't you really want:
std::unordered_set<std::string> valid;
std::unordered_set<std::string> invalid;
I'm pretty new to C++ programming but for certain reasons I need to develop a small tool in C++. I've written the same tool in C# already. Right now I'm trying to check if my string contains a value that is stored in a std::vector. In C# this is pretty straight forward, simply using something like this:
if(string.Contains(myarray)) { // do sth. }
In C++ this seems way harder to achieve. I googled quite a bit but so far I found only solutions to check if the WHOLE string exists in an array and not just a certain part of it.
Unfortunately std::string does not have a method that can see if a element of a vector is in a string like C# does. What it does have though is std::string::find which can determine if a string is contained within the string you call find on. You could use that like
std::vector<std::string> words;
// fill words
std::string search_me = "some text";
for (const auto & e : words)
{
if (search_me.find(e) != std::string::npos)
{
// e is contained in search me. do something here
// call break here if you only want to check for one existence
}
}
This is O(N*complexity_of_find).
Use a for loop and the find method.
I would suggest std::find_first_of
Not sure if I understood your exact problem, though. Could you give a small example of what your are trying to find in what?
If you need more effective way to find several substrings in string than straightforward find string-by-string, you can use Aho-Corasick algorithm
It uses trie to hold substrings. First google link to c++ implementation
As the topic indicates, my program needs to read several function expressions and plug-in different variables many times. Parsing the whole expression again every time I need to plug-in a new value is definitely way too ugly, so I need a way to store parsed expression.
The expression may look like 2x + sin(tan(5x)) + x^2. Oh, and the very important point -- I'm using C++.
Currently I have three ideas on it, but all not very elegant:
Storing the S-expression as a tree; evaluate it by recurring. It may
be the old-school way to handle this, but it's ugly, and I would
have to handle with different number of parameters (like + vs. sin).
Composing anonymous functions with boost::lambda. It may work nice,
but personally I don't like boost.
Writing a small python/lisp script, use its native lambda
expression and call it with IPC... Well, this is crazy.
So, any ideas?
UPDATE:
I did not try to implement support for parenthesis and functions with only one parameter, like sin().
I tried the second way first; but I did not use boost::lambda, but a feature of gcc which could be used to create (fake) anonymous functions I found from here. The resulting code has 340 lines, and not working correctly because of scoping and a subtle issue with stack.
Using lambda could not make it better; and I don't know if it could handle with scoping correctly. So sorry for not testing boost::lambda.
Storing the parsed string as S-expressions would definitely work, but the implementation would be even longer -- maybe ~500 lines? My project is not that kind of gigantic projects with tens of thousands lines of code, so devoting so much energy on maintaining that kind of twisted code which would not be used very often seems not a nice idea.
So finally I tried the third method -- it's awesome! The Python script has only 50 lines, pretty neat and easy to read. But, on the other hand, it would also make python a prerequisite of my program. It's not that bad on *nix machines, but on windows... I guess it would be very painful for the non-programmers to install Python. So is lisp.
However, my final solution is opening bc as a subprocess. Maybe it's a bad choice for most situations, however, it fits me well.
On the other hand, for projects work only under *nix or already have python as a prerequisite, personally I recommend the third way if the expression is simple enough to be parsed with hand-written parser. If it's very complicated, like Hurkyl said, you could consider creating a mini-language.
Why not use a scripting language designed for exactly this kind of purpose? There are several such languages floating around, but my experience is with lua.
I use lua to do this kind of thing "all the time". The code to embed and parse an expression like that is very small. It would look something like this (untested):
std::string my_expression = "2*x + math.sin( math.tan( x ) ) + x * x";
//Initialise lua and load the basic math library.
lua_State * L = lua_open();
lua_openmath(L);
//Create your function and load it into lua
std::string fn = "function myfunction(x) return "+my_expression+"end";
luaL_dostring( L, fn.c_str(), fn.size() );
//Use your function
for(int i=0; i<10; ++i)
{
// add the function to the stack
lua_getfield(L, LUA_GLOBALSINDEX, "myfunction");
// add the argument to the stack
lua_pushnumber(L, i);
// Make the call, using one argument and expecting one result.
// stack looks like this : FN ARG
lua_pcall(L,1,1)
// stack looks like this now : RESULT
// so get the result and print it
double result = lua_getnumber(L,-1);
std::cout<<i<<" : "<<result<<std::endl;
// The result is still on the stack, so clean it up.
lua_pop(L,1);
}
I'm wondering if there is a library like Boost Format, but which supports named parameters rather than positional ones. This is a common idiom in e.g. Python, where you have a context to format strings with that may or may not use all available arguments, e.g.
mouse_state = {}
mouse_state['button'] = 0
mouse_state['x'] = 50
mouse_state['y'] = 30
#...
"You clicked %(button)s at %(x)d,%(y)d." % mouse_state
"Targeting %(x)d, %(y)d." % mouse_state
Are there any libraries that offer the functionality of those last two lines? I would expect it to offer a API something like:
PrintFMap(string format, map<string, string> args);
In Googling I have found many libraries offering variations of positional parameters, but none that support named ones. Ideally the library has few dependencies so I can drop it easily into my code. C++ won't be quite as idiomatic for collecting named arguments, but probably someone out there has thought more about it than me.
Performance is important, in particular I'd like to keep memory allocations down (always tricky in C++), since this may be run on devices without virtual memory. But having even a slow one to start from will probably be faster than writing it from scratch myself.
The fmt library supports named arguments:
print("You clicked {button} at {x},{y}.",
arg("button", "b1"), arg("x", 50), arg("y", 30));
And as a syntactic sugar you can even (ab)use user-defined literals to pass arguments:
print("You clicked {button} at {x},{y}.",
"button"_a="b1", "x"_a=50, "y"_a=30);
For brevity the namespace fmt is omitted in the above examples.
Disclaimer: I'm the author of this library.
I've always been critic with C++ I/O (especially formatting) because in my opinion is a step backward in respect to C. Formats needs to be dynamic, and makes perfect sense for example to load them from an external resource as a file or a parameter.
I've never tried before however to actually implement an alternative and your question made me making an attempt investing some weekend hours on this idea.
Sure the problem was more complex than I thought (for example just the integer formatting routine is 200+ lines), but I think that this approach (dynamic format strings) is more usable.
You can download my experiment from this link (it's just a .h file) and a test program from this link (test is probably not the correct term, I used it just to see if I was able to compile).
The following is an example
#include "format.h"
#include <iostream>
using format::FormatString;
using format::FormatDict;
int main()
{
std::cout << FormatString("The answer is %{x}") % FormatDict()("x", 42);
return 0;
}
It is different from boost.format approach because uses named parameters and because
the format string and format dictionary are meant to be built separately (and for
example passed around). Also I think that formatting options should be part of the
string (like printf) and not in the code.
FormatDict uses a trick for keeping the syntax reasonable:
FormatDict fd;
fd("x", 12)
("y", 3.141592654)
("z", "A string");
FormatString is instead just parsed from a const std::string& (I decided to preparse format strings but a slower but probably acceptable approach would be just passing the string and reparsing it each time).
The formatting can be extended for user defined types by specializing a conversion function template; for example
struct P2d
{
int x, y;
P2d(int x, int y)
: x(x), y(y)
{
}
};
namespace format {
template<>
std::string toString<P2d>(const P2d& p, const std::string& parms)
{
return FormatString("P2d(%{x}; %{y})") % FormatDict()
("x", p.x)
("y", p.y);
}
}
after that a P2d instance can be simply placed in a formatting dictionary.
Also it's possible to pass parameters to a formatting function by placing them between % and {.
For now I only implemented an integer formatting specialization that supports
Fixed size with left/right/center alignment
Custom filling char
Generic base (2-36), lower or uppercase
Digit separator (with both custom char and count)
Overflow char
Sign display
I've also added some shortcuts for common cases, for example
"%08x{hexdata}"
is an hex number with 8 digits padded with '0's.
"%026/2,8:{bindata}"
is a 24-bit binary number (as required by "/2") with digit separator ":" every 8 bits (as required by ",8:").
Note that the code is just an idea, and for example for now I just prevented copies when probably it's reasonable to allow storing both format strings and dictionaries (for dictionaries it's however important to give the ability to avoid copying an object just because it needs to be added to a FormatDict, and while IMO this is possible it's also something that raises non-trivial problems about lifetimes).
UPDATE
I've made a few changes to the initial approach:
Format strings can now be copied
Formatting for custom types is done using template classes instead of functions (this allows partial specialization)
I've added a formatter for sequences (two iterators). Syntax is still crude.
I've created a github project for it, with boost licensing.
The answer appears to be, no, there is not a C++ library that does this, and C++ programmers apparently do not even see the need for one, based on the comments I have received. I will have to write my own yet again.
Well I'll add my own answer as well, not that I know (or have coded) such a library, but to answer to the "keep the memory allocation down" bit.
As always I can envision some kind of speed / memory trade-off.
On the one hand, you can parse "Just In Time":
class Formater:
def __init__(self, format): self._string = format
def compute(self):
for k,v in context:
while self.__contains(k):
left, variable, right = self.__extract(k)
self._string = left + self.__replace(variable, v) + right
This way you don't keep a "parsed" structure at hand, and hopefully most of the time you'll just insert the new data in place (unlike Python, C++ strings are not immutable).
However it's far from being efficient...
On the other hand, you can build a fully constructed tree representing the parsed format. You will have several classes like: Constant, String, Integer, Real, etc... and probably some subclasses / decorators as well for the formatting itself.
I think however than the most efficient approach would be to have some kind of a mix of the two.
explode the format string into a list of Constant, Variable
index the variables in another structure (a hash table with open-addressing would do nicely, or something akin to Loki::AssocVector).
There you are: you're done with only 2 dynamically allocated arrays (basically). If you want to allow a same key to be repeated multiple times, simply use a std::vector<size_t> as a value of the index: good implementations should not allocate any memory dynamically for small sized vectors (VC++ 2010 doesn't for less than 16 bytes worth of data).
When evaluating the context itself, look up the instances. You then parse the formatter "just in time", check it agaisnt the current type of the value with which to replace it, and process the format.
Pros and cons:
- Just In Time: you scan the string again and again
- One Parse: requires a lot of dedicated classes, possibly many allocations, but the format is validated on input. Like Boost it may be reused.
- Mix: more efficient, especially if you don't replace some values (allow some kind of "null" value), but delaying the parsing of the format delays the reporting of errors.
Personally I would go for the One Parse scheme, trying to keep the allocations down using boost::variant and the Strategy Pattern as much I could.
Given that Python it's self is written in C and that formatting is such a commonly used feature, you might be able (ignoring copy write issues) to rip the relevant code from the python interpreter and port it to use STL maps rather than Pythons native dicts.
I've writen a library for this puporse, check it out on GitHub.
Contributions are wellcome.