Guys, I have the following code that is inside a big while loop that iterates over a tree. This is as fast as I can get this routine but I have to use a goto. I am not fundamentally against goto but if I can avoid them I would like to. (I am not trying to start a flame war, please.)
The constraints:
The current=current->child() is expensive (it's a shared_ptr) so I'd like to minimize the use of that operation at all cost.
After the operation current should be the last child it found.
cnt must count each child it encounters.
cnt++ will be replaced by some other operation (or several operations) and should only appear once :)
the code:
insideloopy:
cnt++;
if ( current->hasChild() )
{
current = current->child();
goto insideloopy;
}
Edit: Sorry guys, originally forgot to mention cnt++ should only appear once. It will be some kind of operation on the node, and should thus only be there one time. I'm also trying to avoid making that another function call.
Original answer
Assuming this is C or C++:
while (cnt++, current->hasChild())
{
current = current->child();
}
I'm not a big fan of the comma operator usually, but I don't like repeating myself either :)
Updated 'fun' answer
After learning that cnt++ is actually some multiline operation, this particular syntax would be less than ideal. Something more along the lines of your accepted answer would be better.
If you want to be really funky, this would also work:
do
{
cnt++;
} while (current->hasChild() && (current = current->child()));
Now I feel really dirty though, with my abusing the short circuiting on the && operator :)
Sane answer
Exercises in compactness aside and striving for readable code, I'm forced to conclude that one of the existing answers is best suited (I'm just including this for completeness' sake):
while (true)
{
cnt++;
if (!current->hasChild()) break;
current = current->child();
}
The while (true) will be optimized by the compiler into a regular infinite loop, so there is only one conditional statement (if you care about that).
The only thing going against this solution is if your node operation was a long piece of code. I don't mind infinite loops so much, as long as I can see where they terminate at a glance. Then again, if it were really long, it should be a function anyway.
cnt++;
while(current->hasChild())
{
cnt++;
current = current->child();
}
EDIT:
If you only want cnt++ to be in your code once:
while(true)
{
cnt++;
if(current->hasChild())
current = current->child();
else
break;
}
insideloopy:
cnt++;
if ( current->hasChild() )
{
current = current->child();
goto insideloopy;
}
I love infinite loops.
while (true) {
cnt++;
if (!current->hasChild()) break;
current = current->child();
}
Of course you can do it in many other ways (see other answers). do while, put the check in the while, etc. In my solution, I wanted to map nearly to what you are doing (an infinite goto, unless break)
You can use break to get out of the loop in the middle of the code:
while (true) {
cnt++;
if (!current->hasChild()) break;
current = current->child();
}
while (current->hasChild())
{
cnt++;
current = current->child();
}
Or am I missing something?
for(cnt++ ; current->hasChild() ; cnt++) {
current = current->child();
}
I'd investigate the possibility of making current->child() return NULL when it has no child if it doesn't already -- that seems the best possible result and leaving it undefined in this case seems error prone -- and then use:
for (; current; current = current->child())
{
cnt++;
}
No break statements:
notDone=true;
while(notDone){
cnt++;
if ( current->hasChild() ){
current = current->child();
} else {
notDone=false;
}
}
Related
I have started to use C++ programming language as a complete beginner. With the aim of becoming a better programmer for my STEM degree and with the goal of competitive programming in mind. I have started Functions and Loops in C++ recently and there was a problem I was not sure how to approach.
The probelem: "Write a function to check whether a number is prime"
My Approach:
-> I wanted to implement it on my own so I didn't want to copy paste code online where others have used functions with return type bool.
-> Here is the final version of my code that works:
void prime(int k){
for(int k1=2;k1<k;k++){
if(k%k1==0){
cout<<"int is not prime"<<endl;
break;
}
else{
cout<<"int is prime"<<endl;
break;
}
}
}
->I would then call this in int Main() and get the user to input integers and so on.
-> The above code was due to many trial-and-errors on my part and my thought process was as follows: 1)if i don't include the "break;" statement my code results in an infinite loop 2)I needed a way to stop my code from going toward an infinite loop 3) I remember a topic covered in the functions segment of this website , where we can use it to terminate a loop at will. Thats why i incorporated it into my code to produce the final version
My Question:
Can someone explain how the break; statement is working in the context of my code? I know it produces my desired effect but I still haven't gotten an intuition as to how this would do my work.
Many online resources just cite the break statement as something that does so and so and then gives examples. Without going through the code mechanics. Like how a loop would be going through its conditions and then when it encounters the break; statement what does it do? and as a consequence of that what does it do to help my code?
Any advice would be helpful. I still couldn't wrap my head around this the first time I encountered it.
In your case if k % k1 does not show that the k1 being a factor of the k, the loop is broken after the print statement. If the k % k1 does show that the k1 being a factor of the k, it also breaks out of the loop.
So, either of the break statements leads to the loop termination on the first iteration here. If you test for whether a number is being a prime, it does not work.
In essence, you don't need either of the break statements here. They are mostly forced here. Take a look at the following approach:
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
bool prime(unsigned k){
if (k != 2) { // Direct check, so to remain similar to the OP's structure of the code
unsigned up_to = sqrt(k) + 1; // Calculate the limit up to which to check
for (unsigned i = 2; i < up_to; ++i) {
if (k % i == 0) {
std::cout << "Is not prime" << std::endl;
return false;
}
else std::cout << "Checking..." << std::endl;
}
}
std::cout << "Is prime" << std::endl;
return true;
}
// Note, we can check just up to the square root of a k
A note on the behavior of the break
The fact that it breaks out the the closest loop to it - has crucial nature for nested loops (all of them: for, while, and do while):
while (/* condition 1 */) // Outer loop
while (/* condition 2 */) // Inner loop
if (/* condition 3 */) break;
Here if the condition 3 is satisfied, the break will lead to break out of the Inner loop but the Outer loop will still continue to iterate.
For more, you may be interested in "How to exit nested loops?" thread. It addresses your second question.
Analogy... I found it in the last place I looked... like always!
Looking for your keys is the LOOP you are in... when you find them... you BREAK out and move on to another task... like maybe getting into your car...
SO if you are IN your car and know your car is where you left your keys... then you are in the PROCESS of getting prepared to drive away... BUT that process requires keys... THUS you change modes/focus and begin a cyclic process of looking for keys... when found to BREAK that searching process IMMEDIATLY and resume what your were doing.
MANY people would make use of the RETURN instrucion in your code pattern... in place of the break! Both do the same thing... however the RETURN is more descriptive english... and one should be concerned with the programmer behind him... Also a bit of digging might show how one is more efficient than the other...
Clean coding principles generally include a rule that functions must be small and single-purpose.
From Robert Martin's book, Clean Code: "The first rule of functions is that they should be small. The second rule of functions is that they should be smaller than that."
This is difficult to adhere to if I have a function with a complicated loop that contains branches that can break the loop. For example, this code in a chess variant is meant to allow a unit to attack by leaping over another unit on the board:
for (arow = row, acol = col - 1, found_obstacle = false; acol >= 0; --acol) {
if (!found_obstacle) {
if (cellHasUnit(arow, acol)) found_obstacle = true;
continue;
} else {
if (cellHasUnit(arow, acol)) {
if (!cellHasAlly(arow, acol))
_dangerzones.insert(std::make_pair(arow, acol));
break;
}
}
}
I understand that you cannot break a loop from inside a function, where the function is called inside that loop.
What is a good way to handle complicated break conditions inside loops in order to maintain clean code with short functions? I can imagine using a special function with a return value to indicate if breaks are necessary, but that still means that each break needs its own function. If I have many break conditions that means the function containing the main loop would still be quite big.
Edit: I am asking the general question of whether it is practical and desirable (from a clean coding perspective) to modularize within-loop code that has a number of break conditions.
As a programmer with above 15 years of programming in several programming languages, I can first tell you that the quote you brought is very nice, you should follow it in order to make modular code, but it doesn't mean each function should be 10 lines of code. That's impossible.
Regarding your code, it is OK. Not complicated. You use functions inside the loop and it looks modular. A break is also OK.
I have one comment, though, using continue looks redundant. You could do:
if (cellHasUnit(arow, acol)) {
found_obstacle = true;
else {
...
Some discourage continue altogether because it can confuse. I don't follow this recommendation and sometimes use continue but I do try to avoid both break and continue on the same loop because they have somewhat opposite meanings.
Maybe at the break; statement, set acol = -1 and then continue; so that on the next iteration, you break out of the loop?
You may find this form more expressive. It inverts the tests and therefore avoids 2 call sites for the cellHasUnit test:
#include <map>
std::map<int, int> _dangerzones;
bool cellHasUnit(int, int);
bool cellHasAlly(int, int);
void handleAlly(int arow, int acol)
{
if (!cellHasAlly(arow, acol))
_dangerzones.insert(std::make_pair(arow, acol));
}
void test(int row, int col)
{
int arow = row;
bool found_obstacle = false;
for (int acol = col - 1 ; acol >= 0 ; --acol)
{
if (cellHasUnit(arow, acol))
{
if (found_obstacle)
{
return handleAlly(arow, acol);
}
else // not strictly necessary
found_obstacle = true;
}
}
}
The return statement is used to indicate that in this example, the breaking of the loop is also necessarily the end of the test function.
If the real function is longer, then you could write this instead:
if (found_obstacle)
{
handleAlly(arow, acol);
break;
}
else ...
I was just wondering about something that popped into my mind while writing some code.
for (int i = 0; i < num_bits; i++) {
if (bits.at(i) == 0) {
}
else if (bits.at(i) == 1) {
}
}
In this code, bits is a string and num_bits is the length of the string.
In this case, would the program run string.at(i) at both the if and the `else if``, or would it run it once and then store it somewhere and use it at both of the statements? I don't know if the question was clear enough, but thanks for any answer.
Think about it. How would the engine know that every call to that function would produce the same result?
It wil run the function whenever you call it, so for this example 2 times. You can declare it at the top of the for loop or use a foreach if you need to do more heavy operations.
I am very new to C++.
How I can "redirect" code to certain position?
Basically, what should I put instead of comments lines here:
if ( N>1 ) {
// What should be here to make the code start from the beginning?
}
else {
// What should be here to make the code start from certain point?
}
I understand that C++ is not scripting language, but in case the code is written as script, how I can make redirect it?
Thank you
A goto command will do what you want but it's generally frowned on in polite circles :-)
It has its place but you would be possibly better off learning structured programming techniques since the overuse of goto tends to lead to what we call spaghetti code, hard to understand, follow and debug.
If your mandate is to make minimal changes to code which sounds like it may already be badly written, goto may be the best solution:
try_again:
n = try_something();
if (n > 1)
goto try_again;
With structured programming, you would have something like:
n = try_something();
while (n > 1)
n = try_something();
You may not see much of a difference between those two cases but that's because it's simple. If you end up with your labels and goto statements widely separated, or forty-two different labels, you'll beg for the structured version.
Use functions, loops etc to control the "flow" of your application. Think about code as reusable pieces, anything that is going to be reused should be placed in a function or looped through.
Here is an example:
void main()
{
int i = 0;
SayHello();
if (i < 1)
{
SayHello();
i++;
}
else
{
SayGoodbye();
}
}
void SayHello()
{
cout << "Hello" << endl;
}
void SayGoodbye()
{
cout << "Goodbye" << endl;
}
I'm not entirely certain what you mean by "redirect", but consider the following:
if (N > 1) {
speak();
} else {
do_something_else();
}
as paxdiablo has already stated the goto method isn't good practice. It would be better to use functions that do a specific thing, this way debugging is easier and someone can actually follow what your code is doing (or at least what it is supposed to do).
Im using c++ and is using insertion sort
Where in the insertion sort algoithm should we put a counter to monitor number of item movements and number of item comparison. I have included my setup below
void InsertionSort::insertion_sort()
{
int key,i,count = 0;
for(int j=1;j<10;j++)
{
key=Arr1[j];
i=j-1;
while(Arr1[i]>key && i>=0)
{
Arr1[i+1]=Arr1[i];
i--;
numberOfItemMovements++;
}
Arr1[i+1]=key;
}
}
}
as you can see, i cant seem to figure out where comparison counter should be put, although the item movement counter is good and work as expected. thanks
A way of getting this to work is using numberOfComparisons in the loop.
while(++numberOfComparisons && Arr1[i]>key && i>=0)
{
Arr1[i+1]=Arr1[i];
numberOfItemMovements++;
i--;
}
1) Do you understand why ++numberOfComparisons can be used in the while loop but numberOfComparisons++ would fail?
2) You have a problem where Arr1[-1] could be evaluated. Can you figure out where this is happening and how you can change your code to fix it?
The movement counter is indeed correct.
In order to implement the comparison counter, you need to restructure your code a bit. In particular, you need to be able to distinguish between Arr1[i]>key and i>=0, since one of them entails a comparison while the other doesn't.
Since this looks like homework, I'll leave the rest for you to figure out.