Why does the following program give me an declaration error?
Aren't I declaring it at that specific line?
#include <iostream>
#define MILLION 1000000
using namespace std;
class BitInt
{
public:
BigInt();
private:
int digit_array[MILLION];
int length;
};
BigInt::BigInt()
{
int length=0;
for(int i=0; i<MILLION; i++)
digit_array[i]=0;
}
int main()
{
BigInt();
return 0;
}
bigint.cpp:11: error: ISO C++ forbids declaration of ‘BigInt’ with no type
bigint.cpp:18: error: ‘BigInt’ has not been declared
bigint.cpp:18: error: ISO C++ forbids declaration of ‘BigInt’ with no type
bigint.cpp: In function ‘int BigInt()’:
bigint.cpp:22: error: ‘digit_array’ was not declared in this scope
You misspelled "BigInt" for "BitInt":
class BitInt
The class is named "BitInt" when I presume it should be "BigInt". Just a typo.
This is your problem:
int main()
{
BigInt(); // <--- makes no sense
return 0;
}
It should be:
int main()
{
BigInt bigint; // create object of a class
return 0;
}
And you are declaring class BitInt and in main using BigInt - there's typo one is Bit the other Big
On an unrelated note, defining MILLION as 1000000 is pointless. The reason to use named constants is to make the purpose of the number clear and allow you to change it easily, not just to let you type a number out in words instead of numerals.
It'd be better to call the constant BIGINT_DIGITS or something.
Related
I am trying to implement bigint class in c++, it's not completed yet, i have encountered some errors that i am unable understand.
I have erased all other functions (as they are unnecessary in this case)
and karatsuba is not yet completed (but that should't pose a problem in this case).
In the multiply function (overloaded * ) my compiler gives an error:
passing 'const BigInt' as 'this' argument discards qualifiers [-fpermissive]
at line
ans.a = karatsuba(n,m);
I understand that this would occur when i am trying to change a constant object or object passed to a constant function, in my case i am merely creating a new vector and passing it to karatsuba function.
Removing const from overloded * gets rid of this error.
So,does this mean that a constant function can't change anything at all? (including local variables?)
class BigInt {
typedef long long int ll;
typedef vector<int> vi;
#define p10 1000000000;
#define range 9
vi a;
bool sign;
public:
BigInt operator * (const BigInt &num) const
{
vi n(a.begin(),a.end()),m(num.a.begin(),num.a.end());
BigInt ans;
ans.sign = !(sign ^ num.sign);
while(n.size()<m.size()) n.push_back(0);
while(n.size()>m.size()) m.push_back(0);
ans.a = karatsuba(n,m);
return ans;
}
vi karatsuba(vi a,vi b)
{
int n = a.size();
if(n <= 16)
{
// some code
}
// some code
return a;
}
};
Ok so after googling a bit more, i realized that this pointer is implicitly passed to the oveloaded * and then on to karatsuba (as it is a member function of the class), and as karatsuba is not a constant function, there is no guarantee that it won't change the object contents, hence this error is triggered.
One solution is to declare karatsuba as static, as static member functions don't receive this pointer (they can even be called with out a class object simply using :: operator) , read more about them from here Static data members and member functions.
All that is needed to be changed is :-
static vi karatsuba(vi a,vi b)
{
int n = a.size();
if(n <= 16)
{
// some code
}
// some code
return a;
}
I'm trying to defined an external constructor when porting a class to python, by using make_constructor absolutely fails. When I try:
#include <boost/python/numpy.hpp>
using boost::python;
class foo
{
int i;
public:
foo(int i) : i(i){}
};
foo foo_create(int i){return foo(i);}
BOOST_PYTHON_MODULE(bar)
{
class_<foo>("foo")
.def("__init__", make_constructor(&foo_create));
}
I get the following error
error: no type named ‘element_type’ in ‘class foo’
I tried using noinit and init() with the same result. What am I doing wrong?
Awe found the problem, part of it being the really sparse documentation on make_construction. I needed to return a ptr to a new instance like so (in this case I made them shared pointers):
#include <boost/python/numpy.hpp>
#include <memory>
using boost::python;
class foo
{
int i;
public:
foo(int i) : i(i){}
};
std::shared_ptr<foo> foo_create(int i){return std::shared_ptr<foo>(foo(i));}
BOOST_PYTHON_MODULE(bar)
{
class_<foo, std::shared_ptr<foo>>("foo")
.def("__init__", make_constructor(&foo_create));
}
The documentation on make_constructor is really sparse, but there is some discussion here: https://wiki.python.org/moin/boost.python/HowTo under point "9".
Hi I am using a class that has an integer and array and creating a vector of the classes objects but I cannot sort it also don't know to store in it.
I am a BEGINNER on c++ so i just wanted to know if I am wrong and how to
do that thing
here n = no of times the program has to execute
num = to store the no. of elements in vector a
but problem loop for(j=0;j<arr[i].a.end();j++)
and also pushback is not working
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
class subcont
{
public:
int num;
vector<int> a;
};
int main()
{
vector<subcont> arr(100);
int i,j,k,l,n,num1,num2;
cin>>n;
for(i=0;i<n;i++)
{
cin>>arr[i].num;
for(j=0;j<arr[i].num;j++)
{
cin>>num2;
cin>>arr[i].a.pushback(num2);
}
}
for(i=0;i<n;i++)
{
sort(arr[i].a.begin(),arr[i].a.end());
}
for(i=0;i<n;i++)
{
cout<<arr[i].num;
for(j=0;j<arr[i].a.end();j++)
cout<<arr[i].a[j];
}
return 0;
}
The problems you describe sound as if you could at least compile your code, which I can't. In fact, the compiler error messages (if one first ignores the large amount of error noise generated by unhappy templates) should hint to most important problems.
Logical problems on first sight: In for(j=0;j<k;j++) the value of k is undefined. In for(j=0;j<arr[i].a.end();a++) the a++ does not make sense.
In cin>>arr[i].a.pushback[num]; the num should probably be num2. Please check your code for more such typoes.
Your sort fails because a is a C array and not a C++ container, so a.begin() and a.end() are not defined.
Stylistic problem: While it makes life a lot easier, mayn people strictly recommend to not use using namespace std;
Additional remark: Why not use std::vector<int> in place of subcont?
I am trying to create a simple class in C++, but I keep getting the compilation errors:
main:2: error: variable or field 'doSomething' declared void
main:2: error: 'person' was not declared in this scope
main:
class person {
public:
int a;
};
void doSomething(person joe) {
return;
}
main() and stuff would go here, but even if I include main(){}, the errors still occur. I also tried adding 2 closed parentheses after joe, but then that creates the error:
main: In function 'void doSomething(person (*)())':
main:8: error: request for member 'a' in 'joe', which is of non-class type 'person (*)()'
Any help is greatly appreciated. (I hope this isn't something really stupid I'm missing, because I've been researching for hours).
Edit: I found out this is an Arduino-specific error. This post answers it.
I found out after reading this post that a way to work around this is:
typedef struct person{
public:
int a;
};
void doSomething(void *ptr)
{
person *x;
joe = (person *)ptr;
joe->a = 3; //To set a to 3
//Everything else is normal, except changing any value of person uses "->" rather than "."
return;
}
main()
{
person larry;
doSomething(&larry);
}
So essentially it is:
-Change class to typedef struct
-in the parameter, replace newtype with void *something
-add person *x; and x = (person *)ptr; to the beginning of the function
-whenever accessing type property, use -> rather than .
I'm not a expert but when I try to do what you want to do, I do it this way:
//create an instance of my class
MyAwesomeClass myObject;
void myFunction(MyAwesomeClass& object){
//do what you want here using "object"
object.doSomething();
object.doSomethingElse();
}
void setup() {
//setup stuff here
myObject.init();
}
void loop() {
//call myFunction this way
myFunction(myObject);
}
As I said, I'm not a C++ expert but it does the job.
Hope it helps!
My guess is, you have an invalid syntax error somewhere in the declarations above "class person...". Can you copy and paste the whole file?
I'm currently start using boost::program_options for parsing command line options as well as configuration files.
Is it possible to use own template classes as option arguments? That means, something like
#include <iostream>
#include "boost/program_options.hpp"
namespace po = boost::program_options;
template <typename T>
class MyClass
{
private:
T* m_data;
size_t m_size;
public:
MyClass( size_t size) : m_size(size) { m_data = new T[size]; }
~MyClass() { delete[] m_data; }
T get( size_t i ) { return m_data[i]; }
void set( size_t i, T value ) { m_data[i] = value; }
};
int main (int argc, const char * argv[])
{
po::options_description generic("General options");
generic.add_options() ("myclass", po::value< MyClass<int>(2) >(),
"Read MyClass");
return 0;
}
Trying to compile this I get an Semantic Issue (No matching function for call to 'value'). I guess I need to provide some casting to an generalized type but I have no real idea.
Can anybody help?
Thanks
Aeon512
I wouldn't know if boost::program_options allows the use-case you are trying, but the error you are getting is because your are trying to pass an object as a template type to po::value<>. If the size is known at compile-time, you could have the size be passed in as a template parameter.
template< typename T, size_t size >
class MyClass {
T m_data[size];
public:
// ...
};
And then use it like so:
po::value< MyClass<int, 2> >()
You should also look into using Boost.Array instead that I guess fulfills what you are trying to implement.
I would write it like this:
MyClass<int> mine(2);
generic.add_options() ("myclass", po::value(&mine), "Read MyClass");
Then all that needs to be done is to define an input stream operator like this:
std::istream& operator >>(std::istream& source, MyClass& target);
Then Boost Program Options will invoke this stream operator when the myclass option is used, and your object will be automatically populated according to that operator's implementation, rather than having to later call one of the Program Options functions to extract the value.
If you don't prefer the above syntax, something like should work too:
generic.add_options() ("myclass", po::value<MyClass<int> >()->default_value(MyClass<int>(2)), "Read MyClass");
This way you would be creating the instance of your class directly with your desired constructor argument outside of the template part where runtime behavior isn't allowed. I do not prefer this way because it's verbose and you end up needing to call more functions later to convert the value.