I'm have a bit problem with operator overloading. I have two classes.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Meter; //Forward declaration
class Inch{
private:
double inches;
public:
Inch() : inches(0) {}
Inch(double i) { inches=i; }
friend Inch operator+ (const Meter& m, const Inch& i);
void out(){ cout << "Inch:" << inches << "\n"; }
double getInches() const { return inches; }
};
and
class Meter{
private:
double meter;
public:
Meter() : meter(0) {}
Meter(double m) { meter=m; }
Meter operator+ (const Inch& i) { return Meter(meter + i.getInches() * 0.0254); }
void out(){ cout << "Meter:" << meter; }
double getMeter() const { return meter; }
};
Inch operator+ (const Meter& m, const Inch& i)
{ return Inch(m.getMeter()/0.0254 + i.getInches()); }
In main I have one of each of these classes. I need to add them together with the order : m + i; So m must be the first object. In order to do that, I used friend function in order to use two objects as a parameter.
Inch i(6.4), resultInch;
Meter m(14), resultMeter;
i.out();
m.out();
resultMeter = m + i;
resultMeter.out();
resultInch = m + i;
resultInch.out();
With the above, resultMeter holds the correct value, but when I put resultInch compiler gives the "error no match for bla bla bla".
What am I missing?
The problem is that both these two operators are overloads for the exact same + in code. You can either use one or another, but not both in the same program.
Inch operator+ (const Meter& m, const Inch& i);
class Meter{
Meter operator+ (const Inch& i);
};
Consider what would happen if you had one Meter m; and Inch i; and you try to add them with m + i, which operator implementation should be called?
C++ cannot overload on return value. So when you want to be able to say:
meters = meters + inches;
and
inches = meters + inches;
both meters + inches are the same function. I second the recommendation to write one length class with a units attribute and conversion functions. But lacking that, I recommend you write conversion operators between your two length classes. Then only one addition function is needed (you should still write two: meters + meters and inches + inches) and the types can be converted back and forth.
Remove operator+ from both classes. Create proxy class which will be used as the result of addition:
class ProxyMeterInch
{
private:
double op1, op2;
public:
friend ProxyMeterInch operator+(Meter m, Inch i)
{
ProxyMeterInch r;
r.op1 = m.getMeter();
r.op2 = i.getInch() * 0.0254; // I tend to keep it in meters as I am European
return(r);
}
operator Meter() const
{
return(op1 + op2);
}
operator Inch() const
{
return((op1 + op2) / 0.0254);
}
};
You get the idea. Depending on the type you are trying to assign to correct conversion operator will be selected.
Ok, so I assume it's
Inch resultInch = m + i; // not Meter resultInch (...)
It is equivalent to:
Inch resultInch = (Meter)m.operator+(i);
and you have no way of converting between Meter and Inch.
Try changing it to Inch resultInch = i + m;.
Related
I was trying to take float + objected class and have the result return as float, however, my code just does not work. I am pretty confused. I have added that overload function as a friend to the class. could anyone explain it to me?
With the best regards
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdint>
using namespace std;
#define MAX_NUM_SENSORS 5
enum { INVALID, TEMPERATURE, HUMIDTY };
// The 'Sensors' structure describes a single sensor, it's type and current value.
// type - describes the type of sensor 0 (INVALID), 1 (TEMPERATURE), 2 (HUMIDITY)
// value - the current value of the sensor.
// valid - set to TRUE if the sensor is valid, should default to FALSE until set up.
class Sensors
{
public:
friend ostream& operator <<(ostream&, const Sensors&);
friend float operator+ (float,const Sensors&);
private:
int type;
float value;
bool valid = false;
};
ostream& operator<<(ostream& OutStream, const Sensors& OutComp)
{
OutStream << " Type: " << (OutComp.type == TEMPERATURE ? "Temperature" : "Humidity");
OutStream << " Value: " << OutComp.value << endl;
return OutStream;
}
float operator+ (float adding, const Sensors& added)
{
float sum;
sum = added.value + adding;
return sum;
}
int main()
{
Sensors tested();
float m = 1.2 + tested;
cout << m;
return 1;
}
I ran your code in godbolt
There is some kind of simple fixes.
int main()
{
Sensors tested();
// ^--- remove this parenthesis (or use braces, it's ambigious)
float m = 1.2 + tested;
// ^----- This is a double, change this to "1.2f"
cout << m;
return 1;
}
Decimal values in code is double by default, you need to add the postfix f to specify that it is a float. Or you could add a definition of operator + with double as a parameter.
Here is a compiling version of your code
So, I have the following class:
typedef double decimal;
class Ratio {
int num, den;
decimal val;
public:
Ratio() { num = 1, den = 1, val = (decimal)num / den; }
Ratio update(int a, int b) {
num *= a, den *= b;
val = (decimal)num / den;
return *this;
}
decimal v(void) { return val; }
friend ostream &operator<<(ostream &out, const Ratio &R) {
return (out << R.num << ':' << R.den);
}
};
When I use the member functions in the output stream as:
cout<<"R = "<<R.update(2,1)<<"\tvalue = "<<R.v();
where R is of type Ratio, the function to the right end is called first so it displays the updated ratio but the non-updated value:
R = 2:1 value = 1
I overcame this by splitting the stream in two:
cout<<"R = "<<R.update(2,1), cout<<"\tvalue = "<<R.v();
so that I "force" .update() to be called first. Is there another way to achieve this, using only one stream for output?
As there is no guaranteed evaluation order in c++, it won't work without splitting it into separate parts, as you did in your fix.
Quoting from cppreference
There is no concept of left-to-right or right-to-left evaluation in C++. This is not to be confused with left-to-right and right-to-left associativity of operators: the expression a() + b() + c() is parsed as (a() + b()) + c() due to left-to-right associativity of operator+, but the function call to c may be evaluated first, last, or between a() or b() at run time
As user #super pointed out, starting from c++17 the evaluation order of shift operators is now defined. It's hidden in bullet 19) of the rules on the page I linked above. So if you can c++17, you're done.
Put value also in << overloaded function like
friend ostream& operator<<(ostream &out,const Ratio &R){return (out<<"R = "<<R.num<<':'<<R.den<<"\tvalue = "<<R.val);}
Now
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
typedef double decimal;
class Ratio{
int num,den;
decimal val;
public:
Ratio(){num=1,den=1,val=(decimal)num/den;}
Ratio update(int a,int b){
num*=a,den*=b;
val=(decimal)num/den;
return *this;
}
friend ostream& operator<<(ostream &out,const Ratio &R){return (out<<"R = "<<R.num<<':'<<R.den<<"\tvalue = "<<R.val);}
};
int main()
{
Ratio R;
cout<<R.update(2,1)<<endl;
}
Output:
R = 2:1 value = 2
Process returned 0 (0x0) execution time : 0.382 s
Press any key to continue.
In an interview I was asked to create two classes. The first abstract class is called Number, which supports one operation “+”. And the other one fraction which implements the "Number" abstract class.
Further: For a Fraction once added, it needs to be displayed in its original form. That is, 2/4 has to be displayed as “2/4”, not “1/2” or “0.5”.
No Other detail was provided to me.
Below is what I had tried (Incomplete).
My main.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include "Fraction.h"
using namespace std;
int main()
{
Fraction sumFraction;
Fraction n11(1,2);
Fraction n21(1,2);
cout << n11.getValuenum() << "/";
cout << n11.getValueden() << endl;
cout << n21.getValuenum() << "/";
cout << n21.getValueden() << endl;
sumFraction = n11 + n21;
cout << sumFraction.getValuenum() << endl;
cout << sumFraction.getValueden() << endl;
return 0;
}
My Numbers.h // ABSTRACT CLASS
#pragma once
template<class T>
class Number
{
virtual T& operator= (const T &) = 0; // first parameter is implicitly passed
virtual const T operator+ (const T &) = 0;
virtual void display() = 0;
};
My Fraction.cpp
#include "Fraction.h"
int Fraction::getValuenum()
{
return this->a1;
}
int Fraction::getValueden()
{
return this->a2;
}
Fraction::Fraction()
{
a1 = 0;
a2 = 0;
}
Fraction::Fraction(int num, int den)
{
a1 = num;
a2 = den;
}
void Fraction::display()
{
// will display the number in its original form
}
Fraction& Fraction::operator=(const Fraction &num)
{
a1 = num.a1;
a2 = num.a2;
return *this;
}
const Fraction Fraction::operator+(const Fraction &numberTwo)
{
Fraction n1;
n1.a1 = this->a1*numberTwo.a2 + this->a2*numberTwo.a1;
n1.a2 = this->a2*numberTwo.a2;
return n1;
}
My Fraction.h
#pragma once
#include "Number.h"
class Fraction : public Number<Fraction>
{
private:
int a1;
int a2;
public:
void display();
Fraction();
Fraction(int num, int den);
int getValuenum();
int getValueden();
Fraction& operator= (const Fraction &); // first parameter is implicitly passed
const Fraction operator+ (const Fraction &); // first parameter is implicitly passed
};
Below are my question:
Do I really need to pass numerator and denominator separately from my Main function for each fraction. Currently, I am passing it as separately to keep track of numerator and denominator which might be helpful while adding and returning the result in terms for fraction.
With my operator + logic if I add 1/4+1/4 I get 8/16, what is expected is I guess 2/4 which we get if we add normally. So how to add using numerator and denominator and to keep the fraction in such a way, so that if output is 2/4 then 2/4 and not 1/2 or 0.5.
Please help me.
Some remarks:
you should not allow the denominator to be 0 because it gives an inexistent number (infinity or undeterminated)
you should definitely not initialize the denominator to 0 for same reason (1 seems a more reasonable value)
the correct (mathematical) addition of fractions is (*):
a/b + c/d = (ad +bc)/bd
Instead of (or in addition to) the display method, I would advise you to write a ostream& operator << (ostream&, const Fraction&) overload. That would allow you to just write in you main
std::cout << n11 << " + " << n21 << " = " << sumFraction << std::endl;
I did not really understand you first question, but I would add a conversion from an int:
Fraction(int n): a1(n), a2(1) {};
to allow to write directly Fraction(1, 2) + 1 or Fraction(1) + Fraction(1/2) (the first element of the addition must be a Fraction)
(*) this is the simple and general way. You could also use the least common multiple to get cleaner results:
den = lcm(b,d)
a/b + c/d = (a * den/b) + c * den/d) / den
That way you would get 1/4 + 2/4 = 3/4 instead of 12/16
But computing the LCM is far beyond this answer...
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Distance
{
private:
int feet; // 0 to infinite
int inches; // 0 to 12
public:
// required constructors
Distance(){
feet = 0;
inches = 0;
}
Distance(int f, int i){
feet = f;
inches = i;
}
// method to display distance
void displayDistance()
{
cout << "F: " << feet << " I:" << inches <<endl;
}
// overloaded minus (-) operator
Distance operator- ()
{
feet = -feet;
inches = -inches;
return Distance(feet, inches);
}
};
int main()
{
Distance D1(11, 10), D2(-5, 11);
-D1; // apply negation
D1.displayDistance(); // display D1
-D2; // apply negation
D2.displayDistance(); // display D2
return 0;
}
if a instance of Distance is to be returned in operator-() function shouldn't it be returned like new Distance(feet,inches).
how this line of code is working here? //return Distance(feet,inches);
if a instance of Distance is to be returned in operator-() function shouldn't it be returned like new Distance(feet,inches)
No, new isn't necessary here. Just return a copy.
Actually the implementation of the negation operator should look like
Distance operator- () const
{
return Distance(-feet, -inches);
}
without touching the current instances member variables (const guarantees that).
...
// overloaded minus (-) operator
Distance &operator- ()
{
feet = -feet;
inches = -inches;
return (*this);
}
};
int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {
Distance D1(11, 10), D2(-5, 11);
D1.displayDistance();
-D1;
D1.displayDistance(); // apply negation and display D1
D2.displayDistance();
(-D2).displayDistance(); // apply negation and display D2
(-D2).displayDistance(); // apply negation again and display D2
return 0;
}
It appears to work due to the following reasons:
Internally the variables feet and inches being negated i.e., mutable values.
Then printing the value of D1 or D2 as the case may be.
Ignoring the objects being returned from the operator, which is wrong.
The unary operator overloading should have been:
Distance & operator- ()
{
feet = -feet;
inches = -inches;
return *this;
}
I am struggling with adding operations of classes Natural, Rational, Complex that represent appropriate math objects. I need that to calculate polynomial in x.
All classes inherit abstract class Number. Having all coefficients in an array of Numbers I want to calculate the polynomial. To do so I need operation of multiplying by double (x is double). x gets transformed into Rational and multiplied. This works fine. My problem is how to add classes of abstract type Number?
I can't make it work. All I get is never ending recursion in Number::add(Number) (it invokes itself instead of invoking others methods for types Natural, Rational, Complex).
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
using namespace std;
class Natural;class Rational;class Complex;
class Number {
public:
virtual string toString() const = 0;
virtual Number *operator*(const Rational) const = 0;
virtual Number *add(const Natural*) const = 0;
virtual Number *add(const Rational*) const = 0;
virtual Number *add(const Complex*) const = 0;
virtual Number *add(const Number *n) const {
n->add(this);
}
};
class Natural : public Number {
friend class Complex;
int n;
public:
Natural(const Natural &s) {
n = s.n;
}
Natural(int number) : n(number) {}
string toString() const {
stringstream ss;
ss << n;
return ss.str();
}
operator Rational() const;
operator Complex() const;
operator int() const {
return n;
}
Number *operator*(const Rational r) const;
Number *add(const Natural* number) const {
return new Natural(n + number->n);
}
Number *add(const Rational*) const;
Number *add(const Complex*) const;
};
class Rational : public Number {
friend class Natural;
int numerator, denominator;
void divideByGCD() {
int a = numerator, b = denominator;
//cout << a << ' ' << b << ' ';
if(a < b) {
int temp = a;
a = b;
b = temp;
}
while (b > 0) {
int r = a % b;
a = b; b = r;
//cout << r << endl;
}
numerator /= a;
denominator /= a;
//cout << a << endl;
}
public:
Rational() {}
Rational(const Rational &s) {
numerator = s.numerator;
denominator = s.denominator;
}
Rational(int n, int d) {
if(d == 0) throw new runtime_error("denominator equals 0");
if(d < 0) {
numerator = -n;
denominator = -d;
} else {
numerator = n;
denominator = d;
}
divideByGCD();
}
Rational(double d) {
int i = 0, mul = 1;
int r = d-floor(d);;
while(r!=0) {
i++; mul *= 10;
r = 10*r-floor(10*r);
}
numerator = (int)mul*d;
denominator = mul;
divideByGCD();
}
string toString() const {
stringstream ss;
ss << numerator;
if(denominator > 1) ss << '/' << denominator;
return ss.str();
}
operator const Complex() const;
operator const double() const {
return (double)numerator/denominator;
}
Number *operator*(const Rational r) const {
return new Rational(numerator*r.numerator, denominator*r.denominator);
}
Number *add(const Rational* r) const {
return new Rational(numerator*r->denominator+r->numerator*denominator, denominator*r->denominator);
}
Number *add(const Natural*) const;
Number *add(const Complex*) const;
};
class Complex : public Number {
friend class Rational;
double real, imaginary;
static const double radius = 10;
public:
Complex() {}
Complex(const Complex &s) {
real = s.real;
imaginary = s.imaginary;
}
Complex(const double r, const double im) : real(r), imaginary(im) {}
string toString() const {
stringstream ss;
ss << real;
if(imaginary != 0) ss << '+' << imaginary << 'i';
return ss.str();
}
Number *operator*(const Rational r) const;
Number *add(const Complex* c) const {
return new Complex(real + c->real, imaginary + c->imaginary);
}
Number *add(const Natural*) const;
Number *add(const Rational*) const;
};
Natural::operator Rational() const {
return Rational(n,1);
}
Natural::operator Complex() const {
return Complex(n, 0);
}
Rational::operator const Complex() const {
return Complex((double)numerator/denominator, 0);
}
Number *Natural::operator*(const Rational r) const {
return new Rational(n*r.numerator, r.denominator);
}
Number *Complex::operator*(const Rational r) const {
return new Complex(real*(double)r, imaginary*(double)r);
}
Number *Natural::add(const Rational *r) const {
if(r->denominator == 1) return new Natural(n+r->numerator);
else return new Rational(n*r->denominator,r->denominator);
}
Number *Natural::add(const Complex *c) const {
return c->add(this);
}
Number *Rational::add(const Natural *n) const {
return n->add(this);
}
Number *Rational::add(const Complex *c) const {
return new Complex(c->real+(double)*this, c->imaginary);
}
Number *Complex::add(const Natural *number) const {
return new Complex(real+number->n, imaginary);
}
Number *Complex::add(const Rational *r) const {
return r->add(this);
}
Number *poly(double x, Number *a[], unsigned int size) {
if(size == 1) return a[0];
else return a[0]->add((*poly(x, a+1, size-1))*Rational(x));
}
int main() {
cout << (Natural(5)*(Rational)2.0)->toString() << endl;
Number *coefs[] = {new Natural(5), new Natural(6)};
cout << poly(2, coefs, 2) << endl;
}
How should I fix Number::add(Number) so that while invoking add on object of type Number program itself figure out which of virtual method add to choose?
This is known as multi-dispatch. Here are some links to look at
Multiple_dispatch
best multimethods implementation
I think the problem is:
virtual Number *add(const Number *n) const {
n->add(this);
}
If you multiply a Rational by a Natural that is stored in a Number *, it can't polymorphicly upcast the Number * to a Natural *. I agree w/g-makulik in that references/values make a lot more sense here, as you are leaking memory all over the place. Remove support for Number + Number. Also, if I add a Natural and a Rational together, I get a Number * back, but what kind of number is it? I think the architecture needs a bit more thought; I might get rid of the base class pure virtual methods entirely (except maybe toString). For example:
class Number
{
public:
virtual string toString() = 0;
};
class Rational : public Number
{
string toString() {...}
// forget 'add', use operators
Rational operator+(const Rational & _rhs) const {Rational ret; ...; return ret;}
Rational & operator+=(const Rational & _rhs) const {...; return *this;}
...
}
Edit
For a quick fix, I think you just need to get rid of virtual Number *operator*(const Rational) const = 0;, and replace it with a version for each sub-class (e.x., Rational * operator*(const Natural) const)
Or, add an enumerated member variable to Number to keep track of the type:
enum Type { NATURAL, RATIONAL, ...}
Type mType;
or use RTTI, such that you can selectively choose the right add method in Number::add:
Number * add(Number * _rhs)
{
if(_rhs->mType == RATIONAL)
return this->add((Rational *)_rhs);
...
}
it looks kinda sloppy, but it will work
it looks like Visitor pattern is what I've been looking for. I wanted to have functions accept and visit in the same class. I believe my mistake was to give them the same name.