This is a question on what people think the best way to lay out my class structure for my problem. I am doing some numerical analysis and require certain "elements" to be integrated. So I have created a class called "BoundaryElement" like so
class BoundaryElement
{
/* private members */
public:
integrate(Point& pt);
};
The key function is 'integrate' which I need to evaluate for a whole variety of different points. What happens is that, depending on the point, I need to use a different number of integration points and weights, which are basically vectors of numbers. To find these, I have a class like so:
class GaussPtsWts
{
int numPts;
double* gaussPts;
double* gaussWts;
public:
GaussPtsWts(const int n);
GaussPtsWts(const GaussPtsWts& rhs);
~GaussPtsWts();
GaussPtsWts& operator=(const GaussPtsWts& rhs);
inline double gwt(const unsigned int i)
{
return gaussWts[i];
}
inline double gpt(const unsigned int i)
{
return gaussPts[i];
}
inline int numberGPs()
{
return numGPs;
}
};
Using this, I could theoretically create a GaussPtsWts instance for every call to the integrate function. But I know that I maybe using the same number of gauss points many times , and so I would like to cache this data. I'm not very confident on how this might be done - potentially a std::map which is a static member of the BoundaryElement class? If people could shed any light on this I would be very grateful. Thanks!
I had a similar issue once and used a map (as you suggested). What I would do is change the GaussPtsWts to contain the map:
typedef std::map<int, std::vector<std::pair<double, double>>> map_type;
Here I've taken your two arrays of the points and weights and put them into a single vector of pairs - which should apply if I remember my quadrature correctly. Feel free to make a small structure of the point and weight to make it more readable.
Then I'd create a single instance of the GaussPtsWts and store a reference to it in each BoundaryElement. Or perhaps a shared_ptr depending on how you like it. You'd also need to record how many points you are using.
When you ask for a weight, you might have something like this:
double gwt(const unsigned int numGPs, const unsigned int i)
{
map_type::const_iterator found = themap.find(numGPs);
if(found == themap.end())
calculatePoints(numGPs);
return themap[numGPs][i].first;
}
Alternatively you could mess around with templates with an integer parameter:
template <int N>
class GaussPtsWts...
Related
I'm writing a matrix class, which will have some methods which revolve around matrices like multiplication and inverses and the things of the sort. I understand it's C++ convention to make as much things as you can (especially member functions) constant, and I would like to know whether or not it's reasonable to make my rows an columns constant. This is my structure for the class:
#pragma once
#include <vector>
#include <string>
namespace Math {
class Matrix
{
private:
//Variable initialization
using data_type = double;
const std::vector<std::vector<data_type>> m_rows;
//I know this part isn't required but I'm doing it as a sort of code-shortener
const int m_m, m_n;
public:
//Constructors
Matrix(int rows, int cols) : m_m(rows), m_n(cols), m_rows(std::vector<std::vector<data_type>>(rows, std::vector<data_type>(cols, 0))) {};
Matrix(std::vector<std::vector<data_type>> vect) : m_m(size(vect)), m_n(size(vect.at(0))), m_rows(std::move(vect)) {};
//Non-static methods
std::string asString() const;
//Static methods
static Matrix Identity(int dim);
static Matrix Multiply(Matrix& a, Matrix& b);
};
}
Again, with the standards I'm trying to avoid making m_rows not constant, but I'm tempted to make it mutable with the sole reason being concerns of if the matrix needs to be changed using a for loop or something of the sort.
Thanks!
As it happens I am also currently writing a Matrix class with its own iterators but from scratch. Anyway, ask yourself: Will the size of my matrix change at any point? Well, if you intend to assign to a matrix with another size, then the size will have to change. If you want to have a operator*=, that will change its size. But if you're ok with not having such functionality, const it! However, I won't in my project, for the reasons give.
Maybe I'm being to picky, but I would like to have your opinion on how to best code something like this (my problem is much more complicated but it can be simplified like this):
class A
{
public:
A ();
A (const size_t dim0, const size_t dim1);
void set_is_x_allocated (const bool);
void set_is_y_allocated (const bool);
void set_is_z_allocated (const bool);
private:
void allocate (vector<vector<double>> &) const; ??
size_t dim0;
size_t dim1;
bool is_x_allocated;
bool is_y_allocated;
bool is_z_allocated;
vector<vector<double>> x;
vector<vector<double>> y;
vector<vector<double>> z;
};
When the dimensions are given, I would like to allocate x, y, z the same way (depending on how the booleans is_x/y/z_allocated are set). The solutions I have are those at the moment:
Solution 1: Create an allocate function like above, and call if (is_x_allocated) allocate (x); etc.
Pros: x, y, z will be allocated the same way -> easier to spot errors, to modify the code if a third dimension comes in in the future.
Cons: as allocate can be used for any other vector<vector<double>>, should it be const or not?
Solution 2: Create an allocate_x (), allocate_y (), allocate_z (), call if (is_x_allocated) allocate_x();
Pros: It's adapted to the situation and allocate_x/y/z are definitely non-constant.
Cons: I have to copy the allocation code 3 times. I might make some mistakes + the code will be more complicated to modify if a 3rd dimension comes in for example.
How would you code this in an effective way? Maybe a lambda function inside a void allocate () function, but I feel like this would be making a too big deal of what it really is...
I'm currently trying to do a complicated variable correction to a bunch of variables (based on normalizing in various phase spaces) for some data that I'm reading in. Since each correction follows the same process, I was wondering if there would be anyway to do this iteratively rather than handle each variable by itself (since I need to this for about 18-20 variables). Can C++ handle this? I was told by someone to try this in python but I feel like it could be done in C++ in some way... I'm just hitting a wall!
To give you an idea, given something like:
class VariableClass{
public :
//each object of this class represents an event for this particlular data set
//containing the following variables
double x;
double y;
double z;
}
I want to do something along the lines of:
for (int i=0; i < num_variables; i++)
{
for (int j=0; j < num_events; j++)
{
//iterate through events
}
//correct variable here, then move on to next one
}
Thanks in advance for any advice!!!
I'm assuming your member variables will not all have the same type. Otherwise you can just throw them into a container. If you have C++11, one way you could solve this problem is a tuple. With some template metaprogramming you can simulate a loop over all elements of the tuple. The function std::tie will build a tuple with references to all of your members that you can "iterate" like this:
struct DoCorrection
{
template<typename T>
void operator()(T& t) const { /* code goes here */ }
};
for_each(std::tie(x, y, z), DoCorrection());
// see linked SO answer for the detailed code to make this special for_each work.
Then, you can specialize operator() for each member variable type. That will let you do the appropriate math automatically without manually keeping track of the types.
taken from glm (detail vec3.incl)
template <typename T>
GLM_FUNC_QUALIFIER typename tvec3<T>::value_type &
tvec3<T>::operator[]
(
size_type i
)
{
assert(i < this->length());
return (&x)[i];
}
this would translate to your example:
class VariableClass{
public :
//each object of this class represents an event for this particlular data
double x;
double y;
double z;
double & operator[](int i) {
assert(i < 3);
return (&x)[i];
}
}
VariableClass foo();
foo.x = 2.0;
std::cout << foo[0] << std::endl; // => 2.0
Althought i would recomment glm, if it is just about vector math.
Yes, just put all your variables into a container, like std::vector, for example.
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/vector
I recommend spending some time reading about all the std classes. There are many containers and many uses.
In general you cannot iterate over members without relying on implementation defined things like padding or reordering of sections with different access qualifiers (literally no compiler does the later - it is allowed though).
However, you can use a the generalization of a record type: a std::tuple. Iterating a tuple isn't straight-forward but you will find plenty of code that does it. The worst here is the loss of named variables, which you can mimic with members.
If you use Boost, you can use Boost.Fusion's helper-macro BOOST_FUSION_ADAPT_STRUCT to turn a struct into a Fusion sequence and then you can use it with Fusion algorithms.
OK, I've been googling around for too long, I'm just not sure what to call this technique, so I figured it's better to just ask here on SO. Please point me in the right direction if this has an obvious name and/or solution I've overlooked.
For the laymen: a tensor is the logical extension of the matrix, in the same way a matrix is the logical extension of the vector. A vector is a rank-1 tensor (in programming terms, a 1D array of numbers), a matrix is a rank-2 tensor (a 2D array of numbers), and a rank-N tensor is then simply an N-D array of numbers.
Now, suppose I have something like this Tensor class:
template<typename T = double> // possibly also with size parameters
class Tensor
{
private:
T *M; // Tensor data (C-array)
// alternatively, std::vector<T> *M
// or std::array<T> *M
// etc., or possibly their constant-sized versions
// using Tensor<>'s template parameters
public:
... // insert trivial fluffy stuff here
// read elements
const T & operator() (size_t a, size_t b) const {
... // error checks etc.
return M[a + rows*b];
}
// write elements
T & operator() (size_t a, size_t b) {
... // error checks etc.
return M[a + rows*b];
}
...
};
With these definitions of operator()(...), indexing/assign individual elements then has the same call signature:
Tensor<> B(5,5);
double a = B(3,4); // operator() (size_t,size_t) used to both GET elements
B(3,4) = 5.5; // and SET elements
It is fairly trivial to extend this up to arbitrary tensor rank. But what I'd like to be able to implement is a more high-level way of indexing/assigning elements:
Tensor<> B(5,5);
Tensor<> C = B( Slice(0,4,2), 2 ); // operator() (Slice(),size_t) used to GET elements
B( Slice(0,4,2), 2 ) = C; // and SET elements
// (C is another tensor of the correct dimensions)
I am aware that std::valarray (and many others for that matter) does a very similar thing already, but it's not my objective to just accomplish the behavior; my objective here is to learn how to elegantly, efficiently and safely add the following functionality to my Tensor<> class:
// Indexing/assigning with Tensor<bool>
B( B>0 ) += 1.0;
// Indexing/assigning arbitrary amount of dimensions, each dimension indexed
// with either Tensor<bool>, size_t, Tensor<size_t>, or Slice()
B( Slice(0,2,FINAL), 3, Slice(0,3,FINAL), 4 ) = C;
// double indexing/assignment operation
B(3, Slice(0,4,FINAL))(mask) = C; // [mask] == Tensor<bool>
.. etc.
Note that it's my intention to use operator[] for non-checked versions of operator(). Alternatively, I'll stick more to the std::vector<> approach of using .at() methods for checked versions of operator[]. Anyway, this is a design choice and besides the issue right now.
I've conjured up the following incomplete "solution". This method is only really manageable for vectors/matrices (rank-1 or rank-2 tensors), and has many undesirable side-effects:
// define a simple slice class
Slice ()
{
private:
size_t
start, stride, end;
public:
Slice(size_t s, size_t e) : start(s), stride(1), end(e) {}
Slice(size_t s, size_t S, size_t e) : start(s), stride(S), end(e) {}
...
};
template<typename T = double>
class Tensor
{
... // same as before
public:
// define two operators() for use with slices:
// version for retrieving data
const Tensor<T> & operator() (Slice r, size_t c) const {
// use slicing logic to construct return tensor
...
return M;
{
// version for assigning data
Sass operator() (Slice r, size_t c) {
// returns Sass object, defined below
return Sass(*this, r,c);
}
protected:
class Sass
{
friend class Tensor<T>;
private:
Tensor<T>& M;
const Slice &R;
const size_t c;
public:
Sass(Tensor<T> &M, const Slice &R, const size_t c)
: M(M)
, R(R)
, c(c)
{}
operator Tensor<T>() const { return M; }
Tensor<T> & operator= (const Tensor<T> &M2) {
// use R/c to copy contents of M2 into M using the same
// Slice-logic as in "Tensor<T>::operator()(...) const" above
...
return M;
}
};
But this just feels wrong...
For each of the indexing/assignment methods outlined above, I'd have to define a separate Tensor<T>::Sass::Sass(...) constructor, a new Tensor<T>::Sass::operator=(...), and a new Tensor<T>::operator()(...) for each and every such operation. Moreover, the Tensor<T>::Sass::operators=(...) would need to contain much of the same stuff that's already in the corresponding Tensor<T>::operator()(...), and making everything suitable for a Tensor<> of arbitrary rank makes this approach quite ugly, way too verbose and more importantly, completely unmanageable.
So, I'm under the impression there is a much more effective approach to all this.
Any suggestions?
First of all I'd like to point out some design issues:
T & operator() (size_t a, size_t b) const;
suggests you can't alter the matrix through this method, because it's const. But you are giving back a nonconst reference to a matrix element, so in fact you can alter it. This only compiles because of the raw pointer you are using. I suggest to use std::vector instead, which does the memory management for you and will give you an error because vector's const version of operator[] gives a const reference like it should.
Regarding your actual question, I am not sure what the parameters of the Slice constructor should do, nor what a Sass object is meant to be (I am no native speaker, and "Sass" gives me only one translation in the dictionary, meaning sth. like "impudence", "impertinence").
However, I suppose with a slice you want to create an object that gives access to a subset of a matrix, defined by the slice's parameters.
I would advice against using operator() for every way to access the matrix. op() with two indices to access a given element seems natural. Using a similar operator to get a whole matrix to me seems less intuitive.
Here's an idea: make a Slice class that holds a reference to a Matrix and the necessary parameters that define which part of the Matrix is represented by the Slice. That way a Slice would be something like a proxy to the Matrix subset it defines, similar to a pair of iterators which can be seen as a proxy to a subrange of the container they are pointing to. Give your Matrix a pair of slice() methods (const and nonconst) that give back a Slice/ConstSlice, referencing the Matrix you call the method on. That way, you can even put checks into the method to see if the Slice's parameters make sense for the Matrix it refers to. If it makes sense and is necessary, you can also add a conversion operator, to convert a Slice into a Matrix of its own.
Overloading operator() again and again and using the parameters as a mask, as linear indices and other stuff is more confusing than helping imo. operator() is slick if it does something natural which everybody expects from it. It only obfuscates the code if it is used everywhere. Use named methods instead.
Not an answer, just a note to follow up my comment:
Tensor<bool> T(false);
// T (whatever its rank) contains all false
auto lazy = T(Slice(0,4,2));
// if I use lazy here, it will be all false
T = true;
// now T contains all true
// if I use lazy here, it will be all true
This may be what you want, or it might be unexpected.
In general, this can work cleanly with immutable tensors, but allowing mutation gives the same class of problem as COW strings.
If you allow for your Tensor to implicitly be a double you can return only Tensors from your operator() overload.
operator double() {
return M.size() == 1 ? M[0] : std::numeric_limits<double>::quiet_NaN();
};
That should allow for
double a = B(3,4);
Tensor<> a = B(Slice(1,2,3),4);
To get the operator() to work with multiple overloads with Slice and integer is another issue. I'd probably just use Slice and create another implicit conversion so integers can be Slice's, then maybe using the variable argument elipses.
const Tensor<T> & operator() (int numOfDimensions, ...)
Although the variable argument route is kind of a kludge best to just have 8 specializations for 1-8 parameters of Slice.
I want to create an adjacency matrix for a graph. Since I read it is not safe to use arrays of the form matrix[x][y] because they don't check for range, I decided to use the vector template class of the stl. All I need to store in the matrix are boolean values. So my question is, if using std::vector<std::vector<bool>* >* produces too much overhead or if there is a more simple way for a matrix and how I can properly initialize it.
EDIT: Thanks a lot for the quick answers. I just realized, that of course I don't need any pointers. The size of the matrix will be initialized right in the beginning and won't change until the end of the program. It is for a school project, so it would be good if I write "nice" code, although technically performance isn't too important. Using the STL is fine. Using something like boost, is probably not appreciated.
Note that also you can use boost.ublas for matrix creation and manipulation and also boost.graph to represent and manipulate graphs in a number of ways, as well as using algorithms on them, etc.
Edit: Anyway, doing a range-check version of a vector for your purposes is not a hard thing:
template <typename T>
class BoundsMatrix
{
std::vector<T> inner_;
unsigned int dimx_, dimy_;
public:
BoundsMatrix (unsigned int dimx, unsigned int dimy)
: dimx_ (dimx), dimy_ (dimy)
{
inner_.resize (dimx_*dimy_);
}
T& operator()(unsigned int x, unsigned int y)
{
if (x >= dimx_ || y>= dimy_)
throw std::out_of_range("matrix indices out of range"); // ouch
return inner_[dimx_*y + x];
}
};
Note that you would also need to add the const version of the operators, and/or iterators, and the strange use of exceptions, but you get the idea.
Best way:
Make your own matrix class, that way you control every last aspect of it, including range checking.
eg. If you like the "[x][y]" notation, do this:
class my_matrix {
std::vector<std::vector<bool> >m;
public:
my_matrix(unsigned int x, unsigned int y) {
m.resize(x, std::vector<bool>(y,false));
}
class matrix_row {
std::vector<bool>& row;
public:
matrix_row(std::vector<bool>& r) : row(r) {
}
bool& operator[](unsigned int y) {
return row.at(y);
}
};
matrix_row& operator[](unsigned int x) {
return matrix_row(m.at(x));
}
};
// Example usage
my_matrix mm(100,100);
mm[10][10] = true;
nb. If you program like this then C++ is just as safe as all those other "safe" languages.
The standard vector does NOT do range checking by default.
i.e. The operator[] does not do a range check.
The method at() is similar to [] but does do a range check.
It will throw an exception on out of range.
std::vector::at()
std::vector::operator[]()
Other notes:
Why a vector<Pointers> ?
You can quite easily have a vector<Object>. Now there is no need to worry about memory management (i.e. leaks).
std::vector<std::vector<bool> > m;
Note: vector<bool> is overloaded and not very efficient (i.e. this structure was optimized for size not speed) (It is something that is now recognized as probably a mistake by the standards committee).
If you know the size of the matrix at compile time you could use std::bitset?
std::vector<std::bitset<5> > m;
or if it is runtime defined use boost::dynamic_bitset
std::vector<boost::dynamic_bitset> m;
All of the above will allow you to do:
m[6][3] = true;
If you want 'C' array performance, but with added safety and STL-like semantics (iterators, begin() & end() etc), use boost::array.
Basically it's a templated wrapper for 'C'-arrays with some NDEBUG-disable-able range checking asserts (and also some std::range_error exception-throwing accessors).
I use stuff like
boost::array<boost::array<float,4>,4> m;
instead of
float m[4][4];
all the time and it works great (with appropriate typedefs to keep the verbosity down, anyway).
UPDATE: Following some discussion in the comments here of the relative performance of boost::array vs boost::multi_array, I'd point out that this code, compiled with g++ -O3 -DNDEBUG on Debian/Lenny amd64 on a Q9450 with 1333MHz DDR3 RAM takes 3.3s for boost::multi_array vs 0.6s for boost::array.
#include <iostream>
#include <time.h>
#include "boost/array.hpp"
#include "boost/multi_array.hpp"
using namespace boost;
enum {N=1024};
typedef multi_array<char,3> M;
typedef array<array<array<char,N>,N>,N> C;
// Forward declare to avoid being optimised away
static void clear(M& m);
static void clear(C& c);
int main(int,char**)
{
const clock_t t0=clock();
{
M m(extents[N][N][N]);
clear(m);
}
const clock_t t1=clock();
{
std::auto_ptr<C> c(new C);
clear(*c);
}
const clock_t t2=clock();
std::cout
<< "multi_array: " << (t1-t0)/static_cast<float>(CLOCKS_PER_SEC) << "s\n"
<< "array : " << (t2-t1)/static_cast<float>(CLOCKS_PER_SEC) << "s\n";
return 0;
}
void clear(M& m)
{
for (M::index i=0;i<N;i++)
for (M::index j=0;j<N;j++)
for (M::index k=0;k<N;k++)
m[i][j][k]=1;
}
void clear(C& c)
{
for (int i=0;i<N;i++)
for (int j=0;j<N;j++)
for (int k=0;k<N;k++)
c[i][j][k]=1;
}
What I would do is create my own class for dealing with matrices (probably as an array[x*y] because I'm more used to C (and I'd have my own bounds checking), but you could use vectors or any other sub-structure in that class).
Get your stuff functional first then worry about how fast it runs. If you design the class properly, you can pull out your array[x*y] implementation and replace it with vectors or bitmasks or whatever you want without changing the rest of the code.
I'm not totally sure, but I thing that's what classes were meant for, the ability to abstract the implementation well out of sight and provide only the interface :-)
In addition to all the answers that have been posted so far, you might do well to check out the C++ FAQ Lite. Questions 13.10 - 13.12 and 16.16 - 16.19 cover several topics related to rolling your own matrix class. You'll see a couple of different ways to store the data and suggestions on how to best write the subscript operators.
Also, if your graph is sufficiently sparse, you may not need a matrix at all. You could use std::multimap to map each vertex to those it connects.
my favourite way to store a graph is vector<set<int>>; n elements in vector (nodes 0..n-1), >=0 elements in each set (edges). Just do not forget adding a reverse copy of every bi-directional edge.
Consider also how big is your graph/matrix, does performance matter a lot? Is the graph static, or can it grow over time, e.g. by adding new edges?
Probably, not relevant as this is an old question, but you can use the Armadillo library, which provides many linear algebra oriented data types and functions.
Below is an example for your specific problem:
// In C++11
Mat<bool> matrix = {
{ true, true},
{ false, false},
};
// In C++98
Mat<bool> matrix;
matrix << true << true << endr
<< false << false << endr;
Mind you std::vector doesn't do range checking either.