By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
455,906 Members | 1,416 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 455,906 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Sorting a string aray in order of string length

P: n/a
Given an array of strings (i.e char *strings[10]), write C code to sort the
list in increasing order of string length. Run time efficiency is a primary
concern.

Thanks a lot!
Nov 13 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
9 Replies


P: n/a
C.K. wrote:
Given an array of strings (i.e char *strings[10]), write C code to sort the
list in increasing order of string length. Run time efficiency is a primary
concern.

Thanks a lot!


Do your own homework?

Tom

Nov 13 '05 #2

P: n/a
No, I am now enjoying my summer vacation.

This is a question that I find from 'C Challenge' of a website. I am just
curious on how to solve it in an elegant way.

Thanks in advance!
"Tom St Denis" <to********@iahu.ca> ?????
news:_y********************@news01.bloor.is.net.ca ble.rogers.com...
C.K. wrote:
Given an array of strings (i.e char *strings[10]), write C code to sort the list in increasing order of string length. Run time efficiency is a primary concern.

Thanks a lot!


Do your own homework?

Tom

Nov 13 '05 #3

P: n/a
C.K. wrote:

Given an array of strings (i.e char *strings[10]),
write C code to sort the list in increasing order of string length.
Run time efficiency is a primary concern.


#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int compare(const void *arg1, const void *arg2)
{
size_t L1, L2;

L1 = strlen(arg1);
L2 = strlen(arg2);
return L2 > L1 ? -1 : L1 > L2;
}

qsort
(strings, sizeof strings/sizeof *strings, sizeof *strings, compare);
Nov 13 '05 #4

P: n/a
"C.K." wrote:

Given an array of strings (i.e char *strings[10]), write C code to sort the
list in increasing order of string length. Run time efficiency is a primary
concern.


Why is run time efficiency a primary concern when sorting
an array of just ten elements? With such a short array, how
do you even hope to measure the run time to find out what kind
of efficiency you've achieved?

--
Er*********@sun.com
Nov 13 '05 #5

P: n/a
C.K. wrote:
No, I am now enjoying my summer vacation.

This is a question that I find from 'C Challenge' of a website. I am just
curious on how to solve it in an elegant way.


The best way is to *try it yourself*, *then* ask for suggestions.

--
Chris "electric hedgehog" Dollin
C FAQs at: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgrou...mp.lang.c.html
C welcome: http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambl...me_to_clc.html
Nov 13 '05 #6

P: n/a


"C.K." wrote:

No, I am now enjoying my summer vacation.

This is a question that I find from 'C Challenge' of a website. I am just
curious on how to solve it in an elegant way.

Don't top-post. Your replies belong following properly trimmed quotes.

The point of a C challenge is for YOU to work on it. Do your best and
post it here for critique. We don't do programming for random people to
admire.


Brian Rodenborn
Nov 13 '05 #7

P: n/a
pete <pf*****@mindspring.com> wrote:
C.K. wrote:

Given an array of strings (i.e char *strings[10]),
write C code to sort the list in increasing order of string length.
Run time efficiency is a primary concern.


#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int compare(const void *arg1, const void *arg2)
{
size_t L1, L2;

L1 = strlen(arg1);
L2 = strlen(arg2);
return L2 > L1 ? -1 : L1 > L2;
}

qsort
(strings, sizeof strings/sizeof *strings, sizeof *strings, compare);


You obviously didn't test this, because that won't work at all. The
const void * arguments qsort passes to the compare function are pointers
to the array elements - not the array elements themselves. In this
case, they're pointer-to-pointer-to-char, converted to void *. In this
case, the correct comparison function would be:

int lencomp(const void *a, const void *b)
{
char * const *sa = a;
char * const *sb = b;
size_t alen = strlen(*sa);
size_t blen = strlen(*sb);

return (alen > blen) - (alen < blen);
}

- Kevin.

Nov 13 '05 #8

P: n/a
Kevin Easton wrote:

pete <pf*****@mindspring.com> wrote:
C.K. wrote:

Given an array of strings (i.e char *strings[10]),
write C code to sort the list in increasing order of string length.
Run time efficiency is a primary concern.


#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int compare(const void *arg1, const void *arg2)
{
size_t L1, L2;

L1 = strlen(arg1);
L2 = strlen(arg2);
return L2 > L1 ? -1 : L1 > L2;
}

qsort
(strings, sizeof strings/sizeof *strings, sizeof *strings, compare);


You obviously didn't test this, because that won't work at all.
The const void * arguments qsort passes to the compare function
are pointers to the array elements
- not the array elements themselves.
In this case, they're pointer-to-pointer-to-char,
converted to void *.
In this case, the correct comparison function would be:

int lencomp(const void *a, const void *b)
{
char * const *sa = a;
char * const *sb = b;
size_t alen = strlen(*sa);
size_t blen = strlen(*sb);

return (alen > blen) - (alen < blen);
}


Thank you.
I make a mistake about that bad,
almost every single time that I post untested code.

My compiler likes it better this way:

char const **sa = a;
char const **sb = b;

--
pete
Nov 13 '05 #9

P: n/a
pete <pf*****@mindspring.com> wrote:
Kevin Easton wrote: [...]
int lencomp(const void *a, const void *b)
{
char * const *sa = a;
char * const *sb = b;

[...] My compiler likes it better this way:

char const **sa = a;
char const **sb = b;


Then your compiler is broken :). const void *a; and char * const *sa;
are equivalently-qualified pointers, but char const **sa; is not. The
first points to a const-qualified void, the second to a const-qualified
pointer to char, but the third points to a non-qualified pointer to a
pointer to const-qualified char.

- Kevin.

Nov 13 '05 #10

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.