what is the best way to call a function with the following declaration
string Extract(const char* pattern,const char* input);
i use
string str=Extract("something","input text");
is there a problem with this usage
should i use the following
char pattern[]="something";
char input[]="input";
//or use pointers with new operator and copy then free?
the both works but i like the first one but i want to know the best practice.
A literal string (e.g. "something") works just fine as a const char* argument to a function call.
The first method, i.e. passing them literally in, is usually preferable.
There are occasions though where you don't want your strings hard-coded into the text. In some ways you can say that, a bit like magic numbers, they are magic words / phrases. So you prefer to use constant identifier to store the values and pass those in instead.
This would happen often when:
1. a word has a special meaning, and is passed in many times in the code to have that meaning.
or
2. the word may be cryptic in some way and a constant identifier may be more descriptive
Unless you plain to have duplicates of the same strings, or alter those strings, I'm a fan of the first way (passing the literals directly), it means less dotting about code to find what the parameters actually are, it also means less work in passing parameters.
Seeing as this is tagged for C++, passing the literals directly allows you to easily switch the function parameters to std::string with little effort.
Related
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
C++ char* vs std::string
I'm new to C++ coming from C# but I really do like C++ much better.
I have an abstract class that defines two constant strings (not static). And I wondered if a const char* would be a better choice. I'm still getting the hang of the C++ standards, but I just figured that there really isn't any reason why I would need to use std::string in this particular case (no appending or editing the string, just writing to the console via printf).
Should I stick to std::string in every case?
Should I stick to std::string in every case?
Yes.
Except perhaps for a few edge cases where you writing a high performance multi-threaded logging lib and you really need to know when a memory allocation is going to take place, or perhaps in fiddling with individual bits in a packet header in some low level protocol/driver.
The problem is that you start with a simple char and then you need to print it, so you use printf(), then perhaps a sprintf() to parse it because std::stream would be a pain for just one int to string. And you end up with an unsafe and unmaintainable mix oc c/c++
I would stick to using std::string instead of const char*, simply because most of the built-in C++ libraries work with strings and not character arrays. std::string has a lot of built-in methods and facilities that give the programmer a lot of power when manipulating strings.
Should I stick to std::string in every case?
There are cases where std::string isn't needed and just a plain char const* will do. However you do get other functionality besides manipulation, you also get to do comparison with other strings and char arrays, and all the standard algorithms to operate on them.
I would say go with std::string by default (for members and variables), and then only change if you happen to see that is the cause of a performance drop (which it won't).
Use std::string when you need to store a value.
Use const char * when you want maximum flexibility, as almost everything can be easily converted to or from one.
This like comparing Apples to Oranges. std::string is a container class while char* is just a pointer to a character sequence.
It really all depends on what you want to do with the string.
Std::string on the other hand can give you a quick access for simple string calculation and manipulation function. Most of those are simple string manipulation functions, nothing fancy really.
So it basically depends on your needs and how your functions are declared. The only advantage for std::string over a char pointer is that it doesnt require a specific lenghth decleration.
I have an external_jpeg_func() that takes jpeg data in a char array to do stuff with it. I am unable to modify this function. In order to provide it the char array, I do something like the following:
//what the funcs take as inputs
std::string my_get_jpeg();
void external_jpeg_func(const char* buf, unsigned int size);
int main ()
{
std::string myString = my_get_jpeg();
external_jpeg_func(myString.data(), myString.length() );
}
My question is: Is it safe to use a string to transport the char array around? Does jpeg (or perhaps any binary file format) be at risk of running into characters like '\0' and cause data loss?
My recommendation would be to use std::vector<char>, instead of std::string, in this case; the danger with std::string is that it provides a c_str() function and most developers assume that the contents of a std::string are NUL-terminated, even though std::string provides a size() function that can return a different value than what you would get by stopping at NUL. That said, as long as you are careful to always use the constructor that takes a size parameter, and you are careful not to pass the .c_str() to anything, then there is no problem with using a string here.
While there is no technical advantage to using a std::vector<char> over a std::string, I feel that it does a better job of communicating to other developers that the content is to be interpreted as an arbitrary byte sequence rather than NUL-terminated textual content. Therefore, I would choose the former for this added readability. That said, I have worked with plenty of code that uses std::string for storing arbitrary bytes. In fact, the C++ proto compiler generates such code (though, I should add, that I don't think this was a good choice for the readability reasons that I mentioned).
std::string does not treat null characters specially, unless you don't give it an explicit string length. So your code will work fine.
Although, in C++03, strings are technically not required to be stored in contiguous memory. Just about every std::string implementation you will find will in fact store them that way, but it is not technically required. C++11 rectifies this.
So, I would suggest you use a std::vector<char> in this case. std::string doesn't buy you anything over a std::vector<char>, and it's more explicit that this is an array of characters and not a possibly printable string.
I think it is better to use char array char[] or std::vector<char>. This is standard way to keep images. Of course, binary file may contain 0 characters.
I am having a mental block and I know I should know this but I need a little help.
If I declare a string variable like this:
string word = "Hello";
How do I find the memory address of "Hello"?
Edit: This is what I am trying to do...
Write a function that takes one argument, the address of a string, and prints that string once. (Note: you will need to use a pointer to complete this part.)
However, if a second argument, type int, is provided and is nonzero, the function should print the string a number of times equal to the number of times that function has been called at that point. (Note that the number of times the string is printed is not equal to the value of the second argument; it is equal to the number of times the function has been called so far.)
Use either:
std::string::data() if your data isn't null-terminated c-string like.
or
std::string::c_str() if you want the data and be guaranteed to get the null-termination.
Note that the pointer returned by either of these calls doesn't have to be the underlying data the std::string object is manipulating.
Take the address of the first character is the usual way to do it. &word[0]. However, needing to do this if you're not operating with legacy code is usually a sign that you're doing something wrong.
I guess you want a pointer to a plain old C-string? Then use word.c_str(). Note that this is not guaranteed to point to the internal storage of the string, it's just a (constant) C-string version you can work with.
You can use the c_str() function to get a pointer to the C string (const char *); however note that the pointer is invalidated whenever you modify the string; you have to invoke c_str() again as the old string may have been deallocated.
OK, so, I know this question is old but I feel like the obvious answer here is actually:
std::string your_string{"Hello"};
//Take the address of the beginning
auto start_address = &(*your_string.begin())
//Take the address at the end
auto end_address = &(*your_string.end())
In essence this will accomplish the same thing as using:
auto start_address = your_string.c_str();
auto end_address = your_string.c_str() + strlen(your_string.c_str());
However I would prefer the first approach (taking the address of the dereferenced iterator) because:
a) Guaranteed to work with begin/end compatible containers which might not have the c_str method. So for example, if you decided you wanted a QString (the string QT uses) or AWS::String or std::vector to hold your characters, the c_str() approach wouldn't work but the one above would.
b) Possibly not as costly as c_str()... which generally speaking should be implemented similarly to the call I made in the second line of code to get the address but isn't guaranteed to be implemented that way (E.g. if the string you are using is not null terminated it might require the reallocation and mutation of your whole string in order to add the null terminator... which will suddenly make it thread unsafe and very costly, this is not the case for std::string but might be for other types of strings)
c) It communicates intent better, in the end what you want is an address and the first bunch of code expresses exactly that.
So I'd say this approach is better for:
Clarity, compatibility and efficiency.
Edit:
Note that with either approach, if you change your initial string after taking the address the address will be invalidated (since the string might be rellocated). The compiler will not warn you against this and it could cause some very nasty bugs :/
Declare a pointer to the variable and then view it how you would.
I'm using transform algorithm and std::toupper to achieve this, but can this be done in one line, like this ?
transform(s.begin(), s.end(), ostream_iterator<string>(cout, "\n"),std::toupper);
I get error on this, so do I have to make a unary function for this and call it with transform or I can use some adaptors ?
Use ostream_iterator<char> instead of ostream_iterator<string>:
transform(s.begin(),s.end(),ostream_iterator<char>(cout,"\n"),std::toupper);
std::transform transforms each character and pass it to the output iterator. That is why the type argument of the output iterator should be char instead of std::string.
By the way, each character will be printed on a newline. Is that what you want? If not, don't pass "\n".
--
Note : You may have to use ::toupper instead of std::toupper.
See these
http://www.ideone.com/x6FB5 (each character on a newline)
http://www.ideone.com/RcEKn (all characters on the same line)
First, if you want to output chars (and all of the chars), you'll
need to use ostreambuf_iterator<char>, and not
ostream_iterator<string>. And ostreambuf_iterator<char> expresses
better what you want than ostream_iterator<char>; you're
outputting chars directly, not formatting anything.
(ostream_iterator uses the << operator, which formats.)
Second, be aware that there is not always a one to one translation of
lower to upper (e.g. 'ß' maps to the two character sequence "SS" in
upper case), so std::transform can't really be used to do the job
correctly. (And of course, it doesn't handle multibyte encodings like
UTF-8 correctly.) For all but the simplest uses, you need something
more complicated. But even for the simplest cases:
std::toupper is overloaded: one of the overloads is a template, which
takes two arguments, and the other is a function which takes a single
int; neither will work directly here, and the fact that transform is
also a template means that overload resolution and template type
deduction won't work even if they did. So basically, you have to add
something. It's possible to use the 2 argument template function if you
add enough qualifiers and use boost::bind or something similar to bind
the second argument, but it's almost as much text as writing a simple
toupper functional argument your self. And you can't use the single
argument form (which can be unambiguously accessed if you include
<ctype.h> and use ::toupper) because it has undefined behavior if
you use a char as the argument when you call it: you have to convert
the char to unsigned char first (unless, of course, plain char is
unsigned in the implementation you are using—and in all
implementations to which your code will ever be ported).
Is it possible to overload a method on default parameters?
For example, if I have a method split() to split a string, but the string has two delimiters, say '_' and "delimit". Can I have two methods something like:
split(const char *str, char delim = ' ')
and
split(const char *str, const char* delim = "delimit");
Or, is there a better way of achieving this? Somehow, my brain isn't working now and am unable to think of any other solution.
Edit: The problem in detail:
I have a string with two delimiters, say for example, nativeProbableCause_Complete|Alarm|Text. I need to separate nativeProbableCause and Complete|Alarm|Text and then further, I need to separate Complete|Alarm|Text into individual words and join them back with space as a separator sometime later (for which I already have written a utility and isn't a big deal). It is only the separation of the delimited string that is troubling me.
No, you cant - if you think about it, the notion of a default means 'use this unless I say otherwise'. If the compiler has 2 options for a default, which one will it choose?
How about implementing as 2 different methods like
split_with_default_delimiter_space
split_with_default_delimiter_delimit
Personally I'd prefer using something like this (more readable.. intent conveying) over the type of overloading that you mentioned... even if it was somehow possible for the compiler to do that.
Why not just call split() twice and explicitly pass the delimiter the second time? Will delimiters always be single characters?
Do you perform any other processing on the 2nd set of words before joining them? If not, then for the second task what you really want to do is replace substrings. This is most easily done with std::string::find and std::string::replace. If you must use c-strings, you could use strstr/strchr/strpbrk, strcpy and strcat, or use just strstr/strchr/strpbrk and join them in place.
You could use a version of split that accepts a variable number of delimiters (split(const char*,vector<string>), if you want to split(const char*, const char**)) or just use Boost Tokenizer.