Mixing abstract classes and templates, a recipe for disaster? - c++

I'm having problems with the following situation. I have three classes that are involved in this mixup. List, ListNode, City. I have a List<City *>, where the list will be made up of a set of ListNode<City *> (standard wrapper around the list nodes).
City is an abstract class, so there are several classes that inherit from it that could be placed in this list and accessed polymorphically. The List class has a getHead() method which returns a pointer to a ListNode that is the head.
Any city has a population, so to access the populations, I'd expect the following to work. It's not, thus my question. I broke it down into pieces to make it simpler along the way:
ListNode<City *> *head= country->city_list->getHead();
City *headnode = *head->getNode();
cout << "Test: " << headnode->getPopulation() << endl;
getPopulation() returns an integer. country is defined as List<City*> *city; Any help on how I could figure out my problem would be greatly appreciated.
edit adding more code for better idea of what I'm working with. First, ListNode:
template <class T>
class ListNode
{
public:
ListNode() {next = 0;node = 0;};
ListNode(T *t) {node = t; next = 0;};
ListNode(const ListNode &l)
{
//long copy constructor. snip.
};
T *getNode() const { return node; }
ListNode *getNext() const { return next; };
private:
T *node;
ListNode *next;
};
Now, here is what might relevant in the List class..
template <class T>
class List
{
public:
List()
{
head = 0;
size = 0;
};
List(ListNode<T> *t)
{
head = t;
size = 1;
};
List(T *t)
{
head = new ListNode<T>(t);
size = 1;
};
List(const List<T> &t)
{
// long copy constructor. snip.
};
//bunch of irrelevent methods.
ListNode<T> *getHead() const {return head;};
List &operator+=(T &t)
{
this->insert(&t);
size++;
return (*this);
};
private:
List &insert(T *t)
{
ListNode<T> *current = head;
if (current == 0)
{
head = new ListNode<T>(t);
}
else
{
while (current->getNext() != 0)
{
current = current->getNext();
}
current->setNext(new ListNode<T>(t));
}
return (*this);
};
ListNode<T> *head;
int size;
};
I have a hunch that the process of inserting might be the problem. I insert with the List class's += operator, shown in the List implementation above. It calls the private insert method shown above, as well. It looks like this:
City *somecity = new City(x,y,z); //some parameters. integers.
*city_list += somecity; // where city_list is a List.

I think you've got a variable scoping problem.
Your ListNode class contains a pointer to the node value. Your ListNode constructor takes in a pointer to the node value and saves it.
The problem is if that pointer is to a local variable that then goes out of scope. Your ListNode's node pointer is now pointing to an object that doesn't exist. e.g. in this example
addToList(List<int>& myList)
{
int x = 3;
myList += x; // pointer to x is in the list
}
// Out of scope; x no longer exists, but myList has a pointer to it.
// Accessing this node will result in an error.
There are a couple possible remedies:
Have your ListNode contain values rather than pointers. The drawback here is that you will be making copies of the values
Implement ListNode using a reference counted smart pointer which will manager the lifetime of the object.

Well, what you could do is:
ListNode<City *>* head = new ListNode<City*>(country->city_list->getHead());
City* headnode = head->getNode();
cout << "Test: " << headnode->getPopulation() << endl;
It will take the existing City (on the memory) and put it at the head of the List node, and so on.
and if you want to copy them, maybe you could just make this:
ListNode<City *>* head = new ListNode<City*>*(new City(country->city_list->getHead()));
City* headnode = new City(head->getNode());
cout << "Test: " << headnode->getPopulation() << endl;
Hope it will help you.

Related

C++ Constructor behaving strangely in my Linkedlist program

Today I was taught Linked list in class and I wanted to implement it on my own.
Here's the part of the code that I wrote. Note that traverseLL traverses the Linked list and insertAtEnd inserts a new node at the end of the linked list.
I believe I can implement Linked list logic / methods / functions on my own. But my question is, inside insertAtEnd function when I create a newNode with the parameters - my data to be inserted, and nullptr (because inserting at the end), It inserts garbage values (or memory addresses maybe) in my node, ignoring the data passed to the constructor.
using namespace std;
#define NL '\n'
class Node {
public:
int data;
Node* next;
Node (int data, Node* nextPtr=nullptr) {
data = data;
next = nextPtr;
}
};
void insertAtEnd(Node* &head, int data) {
Node* newNode = new Node(data, nullptr); // <---- Issue in this line
// When I do as above, my linkedlist nodes always store garbage values and not the data being passed.
// However, when I un-comment the below line, I get the correct output.
// newNode->data = data;
if (head == nullptr)
head = newNode;
else {
Node* temp = head;
while (temp->next != nullptr)
temp = temp->next;
temp->next = newNode;
}
}
void traverseLL(Node* head) {
if (head == nullptr)
return;
while (head->next) {
cout << head->data << " -> ";
head = head->next;
}
cout << head->data << NL;
}
int main() {
Node* head = nullptr;
insertAtEnd(head, 10);
insertAtEnd(head, 20);
insertAtEnd(head, 30);
traverseLL(head);
return 0;
}
For example, the output for the above code when keeping newNode->data = data line commented, is :
16259544 -> 16258392 -> 16258392
But when I un-comment that line, my output becomes, which is intended:
10 -> 20 -> 30
Why is this happening? Even though I've defined my constructor, why is it not working?
I think the cause for this is the statement data = data in the constructor.
Reason for this:
Before executing the first statement of constructor, the member variables of the class are allocated memory and contain junk/default values, and when the statement data = data is seen the compiler changes the parameter but not the member variable.
As a result, you are seeing junk/garbage values.
To resolve this we can either explicitly specify the member using this or use member initialization syntax.
You can use any of the following workarounds.
Workarounds:
You can change your class constructor code like any of the below formats:
1.
class Node {
public:
int data;
Node* next;
Node (int data, Node* nextPtr=nullptr) {
this->data = data; // we are explicitly specifying which data to use
next = nextPtr;
}
};
class Node {
public:
int data;
Node* next;
Node (int d, Node* nextPtr=nullptr) {
data = d; // as the member variable and local variable are of different names, no conflict
next = nextPtr;
}
};
class Node {
public:
int data;
Node* next;
// use the member initialization syntax
// Here we are initializing the data while allocating memory itself,
// so answer is perfectly right!
Node (int d, Node* nextPtr=nullptr) : data(data), next(nextPtr) {}
};
More on the member initialization and constructor:
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/constructor
How do C++ class members get initialized if I don't do it explicitly?
Hope this helps,
Thanks.

How do you write a function that returns a node which value corresponds to a value stored in a variable?

I stumbled across this question in an old textbook I bought ages ago, whilst strictly speaking it is not too difficult, I could not find a post here that simply answered this one question. As such I thought "Hey perhaps someone starting out might be confused about this", and so I put together the following code:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
// Structures
struct charNode {
char Node;
charNode *next;
};
// Functions
charNode* getCharNode(char c) {
return ; //<----- Return Node Here
}
What this needs is to be put in a class or else you must have a global variable that points to the head of that singly linked list.
An example class could look like this:
#include <iostream>
class singly_linked_list {
struct charNode {
char Node;
charNode *next;
};
public:
// find the charNode with the value `c`:
charNode* getCharNode(char c) {
for(charNode* curr = head; curr != nullptr; curr = curr->next) {
if(curr->Node == c) return curr;
}
return nullptr;
}
// add member functions to add/remove charNode's from the list etc
// and implement one of "the rule of 3" or "the rule of 5"
private:
charNode* head = nullptr;
};
You can implement getCharNode() function like in following code. I used this function for an example of creating singly linked list of chars. Also created extra function print_list() which outputs linked list to console.
Notice that I did only allocation of nodes (new operator), and didn't do deallocation (delete), I left this task for you to do, if you care about memory leaks.
Try it online!
#include <iostream>
// Structures
struct charNode {
charNode(char value, charNode * _next = nullptr)
: Node(value), next(_next) {}
char Node;
charNode *next;
};
// Functions
charNode* getCharNode(char c, charNode * next = nullptr) {
return new charNode(c, next);
}
void print_list(charNode const * node) {
if (!node)
return;
std::cout << node->Node << " ";
print_list(node->next);
}
int main() {
charNode * list = getCharNode('a',
getCharNode('b', getCharNode('c')));
print_list(list);
}
Output:
a b c

Linked Lists Append To Tail

I am trying to create an appendToTail function which will add a node to the end of a singly linked list.
I am having trouble in adding a node if the head is NULL(the linked list is empty)
class Node {
private:
Node* next;
int data;
public:
Node(int d, Node* n = NULL)
: data(d)
, next(n)
{
}
void appendToTail(int);
//other trivial functions(getters and setters etc. ) defined and
//declared
};
void Node::appendToTail(int d)
{
Node* end = new Node(d);
Node* n = this;
if (n == NULL)
n = end;
else {
while (n->next != NULL)
n = n->next;
n->next = end;
n->next->next = NULL;
}
end = NULL;
delete end;
}
int main()
{
Node* n = NULL;
n->appendToTail(5);
std::cout << n->getData(); //getData() is a function which
//retrieves the Data member variable
}
I am expecting to get 5 but I am getting an error which appears to be caused because my node remains null.
Now with modern C++ idioms we use smart pointers instead of raw pointers, it gives you the benefit of RAII (Resource acquisition is initialization) mechanism. In addition if you want an elegant solution to your problem you should introduce a List class with which you can express more clearly the concept of an empty list. It would give something like this:
#include <memory>
#include <iostream>
class List
{
public:
class Node
{
private:
std::shared_ptr<Node> next;
int data;
public:
Node(int d):next(nullptr),data(d){}
inline int getData() const {return data;}
inline std::shared_ptr<Node> getNext() const {return next;}
friend List;
};
List():head(nullptr),tail(nullptr){}
void appendToTail(int );
inline std::shared_ptr<Node> getHead() const {return head;}
inline std::shared_ptr<Node> getTail() const {return tail;}
private:
std::shared_ptr<Node> head;
std::shared_ptr<Node> tail;
};
void List::appendToTail(int d)
{
auto newTail = std::make_shared<Node>(d);
if (head == nullptr)
{
head = tail = newTail;
}
else
{
tail->next = newTail;
tail = newTail;
}
}
int main()
{
List l;
l.appendToTail(5);
std::cout<<l.getHead()->getData();
}
But you should definitely prefer std::list<T> or std::vector<T>.
Unfortunately there several errors with your approach. Semantic errors and a logical error with your interpretation of a linked list. Let's start with your initial misunderstanding. You cannot add a new tail to an empty list. Because it is emtpy. Meaning, not yet existing. Only if some object is existing/instantiated you can add a tail. You cannot add something to not existing stuff. So your idea to start with a Node* n = nullptr cannot work logically.
Additionally you are dereferencing a nullptr (major bug). That is also the main problem of your code. Nothing works. You need an instantiated object, before you can call it's member functions.
So before you can populate the list, you need to create/instantiate it initially. So you need to explicitly create the first node in your main function with
Node* n = new Node (5)
Then the list is existing and from now on you can add new members with calling appendToTail.
There are more semantic errors in your code which have luckily no side effects.
You must not delete the 'end' variable in your function. You want to keep the newly allocated memory for the new tail. But you introduced an additional sematic error by setting 'end' to nullptr and then call delete. Deleting a nullptr is a noOp and will do nothing. So, although you have a semantic error, this will not cause any trouble.
There is more:
For a pointer to Null you should always use nullptr.
And, your
if (n == NULL)
is always false. Before that, you assigned this to n. This is never NULL. You can delete the if else. Keep the statements from the else, except the
n->next->next = NULL;
That's not necessary. The constructor did that already for you. As explained, the next 2 statements should also be elimanted.
Additionally you may want to read a little more on the concept of linked lists.
I hope I could help a little

How to return pointer from linked list (in Class Template)

I've stumbled upon a problem with my linked list class.
I've one abstract class Shape and multiple classes inheriting from it, like Square or Triangle etc.
I'm storing them in my List class but I don't know how to return stored object back to the pointer of Shape.
Since my explanation may seem pretty vague here is some code with expected behaviour explained.
class Shape // abstract class
{
public:
int a;
//some member virtual methods
};
class Square : public Shape
{
//using the virtual methods from Shape
};
In my main file, this is how I want to use it:
int main()
{
List<Shape*> ShapeList;
Shape *ptr;
Square a(2, 1, 1); // size, x, y coordinates
ShapeList.add(ptr);
//up to this point everything works well
// now I want my list to return a pointer to it's member
// so I can modify it
Shape *listptr;
listptr = ShapeList.findInstanceAt(0); // here's my error
listptr->a = 5; // what I want to do next
}
So as you can see I'm havingtroubles with returning proper value from my list and I don't know how to solve this.
Here's my simplified list implementation:
template <class T> class Node
{
T data;
Node *next;
public:
inline T getData()
{
return data;
}
inline Node* getNext()
{
return next;
}
};
template <class T> class List
{
Node<T> *head, *tail;
public:
List() : head(NULL), tail(NULL) { }
T* findInstanceAt(int _k)
{
if (NULL == head)
{
cout << "\nList is empty.";
return NULL;
}
else
{
Node<T> *temp = new Node<T>;
temp = head;
for (size_t k = 0; k < _k; ++k)
{
if (NULL != temp->getNext()) temp = temp->getNext();
else return NULL;
}
return temp->getData;
}
}
}
Thanks in advance for any suggestions on how to make this work.
#EDIT
Ahh I forgot to add compiler errors that I'm getting:
Error 1 error C2440: '=' : cannot convert from 'Shape **' to 'Shape *'
Do you want to store Shapes or pointers to Shapes in the list? And do you want the findInstanceAt to return the node in the list or a pointer to the node in the list? At the moment you are not consistent on these things
You store Shape* nodes in the list but the findInstanceAt returns a pointer to the node - which is a Shape** object. This is what the compiler is complaining about
You probaly need to chang
T* findInstanceAt(int _k)
to
T findInstanceAt(int _k)

Single linked lists C++

Hey guys,
I'm studying for a midterm right now and am working on trying to create a simple program using single linked list. All I want it to do is insert "1", "2", "3", "4" into the list and print it out. Please take a look at the following code:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
class node{
public:
node(int data);
friend class slist;
private:
int data;
node *next;
};
node::node(int data){
data = data;
next = NULL;
}
class slist{
public:
slist(){
head = NULL;
}
void insert(int item);
void output();
private:
node* head;
};
void slist::insert(int item){
node* newnode = new node(item);
if(head == NULL)
{
head = newnode;
}
else
{
newnode->next = head;
head = newnode;
}
}
void slist::output(){
node* p = head;
while (p->next != NULL){
cout << p->data << " ";
p = p->next;
}
cout << p->data << " ";
}
int main(){
slist FINAL;
FINAL.insert(1);
FINAL.insert(2);
FINAL.insert(3);
FINAL.insert(4);
FINAL.output();
return 0;
}
It compiles fine, but it prints out (I'm guessing) pointers instead of the actual numbers. Can anyone tell me why?
Thanks so much!
There is a bug in the node constructor. The argument data conflicts with the memeber variable named data. This should fix it:
node::node(int data){
this->data = data;
next = NULL;
}
The better option is to rename the argument to something else. Also consider using an initialization list:
node::node(int d) : data(d), next(NULL) { }
node::node(int data) {
data = data;
next = NULL;
}
The line data = data is a problem for you. Rename the parameter to be different from the member. This ought to give you a series of garbage values (not pointers) for the member variable data.
Note: this is one of the reasons for naming convention distinguishing members variables, being it traling or leading _, m_ or wherever the balance is b/w info and aesthetics.
Well, I think both instances of data in
data = data;
are local; so the data member of node never gets anything assigned to it. What's getting printed are undefined values, not addresses. That's in any case stylistically terrible; there are many conventions here but a good one is _data for the class member, and data for the function argument. Make that simple change and see if that doesn't clear up your problem.