Re: Solution needed..urgent!!

Ankur Arora wrote:Any rational reason for this?

re: Re: Solution needed..urgent!!

In message <CQZLk.87$yl1.45@read4.inet.fi>, Juha Nieminen
<nospam@thanks.invalidwritesIt motivates homework question 2:

"Why didn't your first design work?
(a) dangling pointers;
(b) uninitialised pointers;
(b) double deletion;
(c) incorrect container insertion/deletion algorithm;
(d) all of the above"

:-/
--
Richard Herring

re: Re: Solution needed..urgent!!

Juha Nieminen wrote:By not allowing you to use STL, they encourage you to write your own
classes to do the same thing - the process of reinventing the wheel will
convey to you (a) a fair amount about the STL, (b) an understanding of
why reinventing the wheel is generally to be avoided and (c) a healthy
appreciation of the hard work put in by the people who have worked on
the STL over the years. In other words, you'll learn a whole lot more by
working around the stupid wording of the question than you ever would
have done by merely solving the question itself...

Cheers,
Stu

P.S. It's also worth noting that the question said "STL" and not
"Standard Library". Should we take this to mean that any portions of the
Standard Library which were not inherited from the STL are usable...?

re: Re: Solution needed..urgent!!

Stuart Golodetz wrote:Well, yeah, it would be hard to be sure the task was done
without using 'std::cout' et.al., wouldn't it?

Schobi

re: Re: Solution needed..urgent!!

On Oct 23, 3:50*pm, Stuart Golodetz
<sgolod...@NdOiSaPlA.pMiPpLeExA.ScEomwrote:I'm not so sure about that. Writing a simple array class which
is usable in one particular context is actually very simple.
Designing the interface so that it can be generally usable in
the widest number of different contexts is another matter, not
to mention implementing it in a manner so that it will have
adequate performance for all possible uses.

It's worth implementing some simple containers and algorithms
yourself, to understand the issues better, but doing so will not
help you better understand the STL.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

re: Re: Solution needed..urgent!!

On 23 Oct, 14:51, Ankur Arora <ankuraror...@gmail.comwrote:This sounds good. I'd recommend the type of linked list where you keep
track of both the first and the last element in the list. This makes
adding to the end much quicker.

Hope that helps.
Paul.

re: Re: Solution needed..urgent!!

On 2008-10-23 16:22:52 -0400, gw7rib@aol.com said:
When you're manipulating a deck of 52 cards, making append fast is not
important. An array is a much more natural data structure for this
purpose, and it's much easier to use.

--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
(www.petebecker.com/tr1book)

re: Re: Solution needed..urgent!!

On Oct 23, 11:04*pm, Pete Becker <p...@versatilecoding.comwrote:Guys..Thanks for the tips!
A circular link list could also be considered..i think.

re: Re: Solution needed..urgent!!

Hendrik Schober wrote::-) I'm not sure it would be hard to be sure that you had or hadn't used
it (the find menu item works wonders here!), but it might be hard to do
the task itself without some sort of output method, yes.

Stu

re: Re: Solution needed..urgent!!

James Kanze wrote:Sorry, I should have said "assuming you write containers with a similar
interface to the existing ones". I actually sat down and did it for
practice at one point (ignoring all the allocator-related stuff) and
found it quite useful.

Obviously the existing implementations have subtleties which I didn't
attempt to mimick, but I still think it's a worthwhile thing to do once
in your life (YMMV of course! :-)).

Regards,
Stu

re: Re: Solution needed..urgent!!

I will really appreciate if anybody could please post the solution ?
Thanks