I've written an Rcpp function to call R's which function to check for equality. It compiles fine but it appears that it is only returning values for the first item in a vector: mywhich(samplevector, samplevector[1]) returns a value, mywhich(samplevector, samplevector[2]) returns numeric(0).
The code of the function is below, it only needs to run on Numeric and Integer Vectors
#include <Rcpp.h>
using namespace Rcpp;
//[[Rcpp::export]]
SEXP mywhich(SEXP x, SEXP y) {
//For each supported type, turn it into the 'real' type and
//perform the operation. We can use TYPEOF to check the type.
switch(TYPEOF(x)){
case REALSXP: {
Environment base("package:base");
Function f("which");
NumericVector answer = f(as<NumericVector>(y) == as<NumericVector>(x));
return wrap(answer);
}
case INTSXP: {
Environment base("package:base");
Function f("which");
IntegerVector answer = f(as<IntegerVector>(y) == as<IntegerVector>(x));
return wrap(answer);
}
default: {
stop("Only integer and numeric vectors are supported");
}
}}
any help would be appreciated
When you do <long vector> == <short vector> in R, the short vector gets recycled to match the long vector's length. This does not happen in Rcpp! In your case, you want to do <vector> == <single element vector>, which can be done in Rcpp with <vector> == <double/int/...>. This means you have to select the 0-Element from the single element vector. In your code:
#include <Rcpp.h>
using namespace Rcpp;
//[[Rcpp::export]]
SEXP mywhich(SEXP x, SEXP y) {
//For each supported type, turn it into the 'real' type and
//perform the operation. We can use TYPEOF to check the type.
switch(TYPEOF(x)){
case REALSXP: {
Environment base("package:base");
Function f("which");
NumericVector answer = f(as<NumericVector>(y)(0) == as<NumericVector>(x));
// ^^^
return wrap(answer);
}
case INTSXP: {
Environment base("package:base");
Function f("which");
IntegerVector answer = f(as<IntegerVector>(y)(0) == as<IntegerVector>(x));
// ^^^
return wrap(answer);
}
default: {
stop("Only integer and numeric vectors are supported");
}
}}
BTW, I am not convinced that you need which from R to find the indices in a LogicalVector that are true.
Suppose I have a string S of length N, and I want to perform M of the following operations:
choose 1 <= L,R <= N and reverse the substring S[L..R]
I am interested in what the final string looks like after all M operations. The obvious approach is to do the actual swapping, which leads to O(MN) worst-case behavior. Is there a faster way? I'm trying to just keep track of where an index ends up, but I cannot find a way to reduce the running time (though I have a gut feeling O(M lg N + N) -- for the operations and the final reading -- is possible).
Yeah, it's possible. Make a binary tree structure like
struct node {
struct node *child[2];
struct node *parent;
char label;
bool subtree_flipped;
};
Then you can have a logical getter/setter for left/right child:
struct node *get_child(struct node *u, bool right) {
return u->child[u->subtree_flipped ^ right];
}
void set_child(struct node *u, bool right, struct node *c) {
u->child[u->subtree_flipped ^ right] = c;
if (c != NULL) { c->parent = u; }
}
Rotations have to preserve flipped bits:
struct node *detach(struct node *u, bool right) {
struct node *c = get_child(u, right);
if (c != NULL) { c->subtree_flipped ^= u->subtree_flipped; }
return c;
}
void attach(struct node *u, bool right, struct node *c) {
set_child(u, right, c);
if (c != NULL) { c->subtree_flipped ^= u->subtree_flipped; }
}
// rotates one of |p|'s child up.
// does not fix up the pointer to |p|.
void rotate(struct node *p, bool right) {
struct node *u = detach(p, right);
struct node *c = detach(u, !right);
attach(p, right, c);
attach(u, !right, p);
}
Implement splay with rotations. It should take a "guard" pointer that is treated as a NULL parent for the purpose of splaying, so that you can splay one node to the root and another to its right child. Do this and then you can splay both endpoints of the flipped region and then toggle the flip bits for the root and the two subtrees corresponding to segments left unaffected.
Traversal looks like this.
void traverse(struct node *u, bool flipped) {
if (u == NULL) { return; }
flipped ^= u->subtree_flipped;
traverse(u->child[flipped], flipped);
visit(u);
traverse(u->child[!flipped], flipped);
}
Splay tree may help you, it supports reverse operation in an array, with total complexity O(mlogn)
#F. Ju is right, splay trees are one of the best data structures to achieve your goal.
However, if you don't want to implement them, or a solution in O((N + M) * sqrt(M)) is good enough, you can do the following:
We will perform sqrt(M) consecutive queries and then rebuilt the array from the scratch in O(N) time.
In order to do that, for each query, we will store the information that the queried segment [a, b] is reversed or not (if you reverse some range of elements twice, they become unreversed).
The key here is to maintain the information for disjoint segments here. Notice that since we are performing at most sqrt(M) queries before rebuilding the array, we will have at most sqrt(M) disjoint segments and we can perform query operation on sqrt(M) segments in sqrt(M) time. Let me know if you need a detailed explanation on how to "reverse" these disjoint segments.
This trick is very useful while solving problems like that and it is worth to know it.
UPDATE:
I solved the problem exactly corresponding to yours on HackerRank, during their contest, using the method I described.
Here is the problem
Here is my solution in C++.
Here is the discussion about the problem and a brief description of my method, please check my 3rd message there.
I'm trying to just keep track of where an index ends up
If you're just trying to follow one entry of the starting array, it's easy to do that in O(M) time.
I was going to just write pseudocode, but no hand-waving was needed so I ended up with what's probably valid C++.
// untested C++, but it does compile to code that looks right.
struct swap {
int l, r;
// or make these non-member functions for C
bool covers(int pos) { return l <= pos && pos <= r; }
int apply_if_covering(int pos) {
// startpos - l = r - endpos;
// endpos = l - startpos + r
if(covers(pos))
pos = l - pos + r;
return pos;
}
};
int follow_swaps (int pos, int len, struct swap swaps[], int num_swaps)
{
// pos = starting position of the element we want to track
// return value = where it will be after all the swaps
for (int i = 0 ; i < num_swaps ; i++) {
pos = swaps[i].apply_if_covering(pos);
}
return pos;
}
This compiles to very efficient-looking code.
My question is how can I get values of enum variable?
Please look at the attached screenshot... "hatas" is a flag-enum. And I want to
get "HasError" - "NameOrDisplayNameTooShort" errors to show them.
using System;
namespace CampaignManager.Enums
{
[Flags]
public enum CampaignCreaterUpdaterErrorMessage
{
NoError = 0,
HasError = 1,
NameOrDisplaynameTooShort = 2,
InvalidFirstName = 3,
}
}
I tried simply;
Messagebox.Show(hatas); // it's showing InvalidFirstName somehow...
Thank you very much for any help...
First thing: If you want to use the FlagsAttribute on your enum you need to define the values in powers of two like this:
[Flags]
public enum CampaignCreaterUpdaterErrorMessage
{
NoError = 0,
HasError = 1,
NameOrDisplaynameTooShort = 2,
InvalidFirstName = 4,
}
To get parts of a flagged enum, try something like:
var hatas = CampaignCreaterUpdaterErrorMessage.HasError | CampaignCreaterUpdaterErrorMessage.NameOrDisplaynameTooShort;
var x = (int)hatas;
for (int i=0; i<Enum.GetNames(typeof(CampaignCreaterUpdaterErrorMessage)).Length; i++)
{
int z = 1 << i; // create bit mask
if ((x & z) == z) // test mask against flags enum
{
Console.WriteLine(((CampaignCreaterUpdaterErrorMessage)z).ToString());
}
}
For getting the underlying value try casting:
Messagebox.Show(((int)hatas)ToString());
In your example, ToString is getting called by default against the CampaignCreaterUpdaterErrorMessage enum which return the string representation of the enum.
By casting to an int, the underlying default type for enums, you get ToString on the integer value.
You need to cast/unbox the enum into an int as follows.
(int)CampaignCreaterUpdaterErrorMessage.NoError
(int)CampaignCreaterUpdaterErrorMessage.HasError
Try this:
Messagebox.Show(CampaignCreaterUpdaterErrorMessage.NameOrDisplaynameTooShort);
I try to understand lexical-scoping. In lexical-scoping, I have this code, C like syntax:
main{
f1(){
int y = 8;
}
int y = 1; //*
f1();
}
After the execution of f1() line, will the value of y variable in main (I put * next of it) remain 1 or change to 8?
It will remain 1. You have two completely distinct variables. Changes to one do not affect the other.
Does C# 4.0 allow optional out or ref arguments?
No.
A workaround is to overload with another method that doesn't have out / ref parameters, and which just calls your current method.
public bool SomeMethod(out string input)
{
...
}
// new overload
public bool SomeMethod()
{
string temp;
return SomeMethod(out temp);
}
If you have C# 7.0, you can simplify:
// new overload
public bool SomeMethod()
{
return SomeMethod(out _); // declare out as an inline discard variable
}
(Thanks #Oskar / #Reiner for pointing this out.)
As already mentioned, this is simply not allowed and I think it makes a very good sense.
However, to add some more details, here is a quote from the C# 4.0 Specification, section 21.1:
Formal parameters of constructors, methods, indexers and delegate types can be declared optional:
fixed-parameter:
attributesopt parameter-modifieropt type identifier default-argumentopt
default-argument:
= expression
A fixed-parameter with a default-argument is an optional parameter, whereas a fixed-parameter without a default-argument is a required parameter.
A required parameter cannot appear after an optional parameter in a formal-parameter-list.
A ref or out parameter cannot have a default-argument.
No, but another great alternative is having the method use a generic template class for optional parameters as follows:
public class OptionalOut<Type>
{
public Type Result { get; set; }
}
Then you can use it as follows:
public string foo(string value, OptionalOut<int> outResult = null)
{
// .. do something
if (outResult != null) {
outResult.Result = 100;
}
return value;
}
public void bar ()
{
string str = "bar";
string result;
OptionalOut<int> optional = new OptionalOut<int> ();
// example: call without the optional out parameter
result = foo (str);
Console.WriteLine ("Output was {0} with no optional value used", result);
// example: call it with optional parameter
result = foo (str, optional);
Console.WriteLine ("Output was {0} with optional value of {1}", result, optional.Result);
// example: call it with named optional parameter
foo (str, outResult: optional);
Console.WriteLine ("Output was {0} with optional value of {1}", result, optional.Result);
}
There actually is a way to do this that is allowed by C#. This gets back to C++, and rather violates the nice Object-Oriented structure of C#.
USE THIS METHOD WITH CAUTION!
Here's the way you declare and write your function with an optional parameter:
unsafe public void OptionalOutParameter(int* pOutParam = null)
{
int lInteger = 5;
// If the parameter is NULL, the caller doesn't care about this value.
if (pOutParam != null)
{
// If it isn't null, the caller has provided the address of an integer.
*pOutParam = lInteger; // Dereference the pointer and assign the return value.
}
}
Then call the function like this:
unsafe { OptionalOutParameter(); } // does nothing
int MyInteger = 0;
unsafe { OptionalOutParameter(&MyInteger); } // pass in the address of MyInteger.
In order to get this to compile, you will need to enable unsafe code in the project options. This is a really hacky solution that usually shouldn't be used, but if you for some strange, arcane, mysterious, management-inspired decision, REALLY need an optional out parameter in C#, then this will allow you to do just that.
ICYMI: Included on the new features for C# 7.0 enumerated here, "discards" is now allowed as out parameters in the form of a _, to let you ignore out parameters you don’t care about:
p.GetCoordinates(out var x, out _); // I only care about x
P.S. if you're also confused with the part "out var x", read the new feature about "Out Variables" on the link as well.
No, but you can use a delegate (e.g. Action) as an alternative.
Inspired in part by Robin R's answer when facing a situation where I thought I wanted an optional out parameter, I instead used an Action delegate. I've borrowed his example code to modify for use of Action<int> in order to show the differences and similarities:
public string foo(string value, Action<int> outResult = null)
{
// .. do something
outResult?.Invoke(100);
return value;
}
public void bar ()
{
string str = "bar";
string result;
int optional = 0;
// example: call without the optional out parameter
result = foo (str);
Console.WriteLine ("Output was {0} with no optional value used", result);
// example: call it with optional parameter
result = foo (str, x => optional = x);
Console.WriteLine ("Output was {0} with optional value of {1}", result, optional);
// example: call it with named optional parameter
foo (str, outResult: x => optional = x);
Console.WriteLine ("Output was {0} with optional value of {1}", result, optional);
}
This has the advantage that the optional variable appears in the source as a normal int (the compiler wraps it in a closure class, rather than us wrapping it explicitly in a user-defined class).
The variable needs explicit initialisation because the compiler cannot assume that the Action will be called before the function call exits.
It's not suitable for all use cases, but worked well for my real use case (a function that provides data for a unit test, and where a new unit test needed access to some internal state not present in the return value).
Use an overloaded method without the out parameter to call the one with the out parameter for C# 6.0 and lower. I'm not sure why a C# 7.0 for .NET Core is even the correct answer for this thread when it was specifically asked if C# 4.0 can have an optional out parameter. The answer is NO!
For simple types you can do this using unsafe code, though it's not idiomatic nor recommended. Like so:
// unsafe since remainder can point anywhere
// and we can do arbitrary pointer manipulation
public unsafe int Divide( int x, int y, int* remainder = null ) {
if( null != remainder ) *remainder = x % y;
return x / y;
}
That said, there's no theoretical reason C# couldn't eventually allow something like the above with safe code, such as this below:
// safe because remainder must point to a valid int or to nothing
// and we cannot do arbitrary pointer manipulation
public int Divide( int x, int y, out? int remainder = null ) {
if( null != remainder ) *remainder = x % y;
return x / y;
}
Things could get interesting though:
// remainder is an optional output parameter
// (to a nullable reference type)
public int Divide( int x, int y, out? object? remainder = null ) {
if( null != remainder ) *remainder = 0 != y ? x % y : null;
return x / y;
}
The direct question has been answered in other well-upvoted answers, but sometimes it pays to consider other approaches based on what you're trying to achieve.
If you're wanting an optional parameter to allow the caller to possibly request extra data from your method on which to base some decision, an alternative design is to move that decision logic into your method and allow the caller to optionally pass a value for that decision criteria in. For example, here is a method which determines the compass point of a vector, in which we might want to pass back the magnitude of the vector so that the caller can potentially decide if some minimum threshold should be reached before the compass-point judgement is far enough away from the origin and therefore unequivocally valid:
public enum Quadrant {
North,
East,
South,
West
}
// INVALID CODE WITH MADE-UP USAGE PATTERN OF "OPTIONAL" OUT PARAMETER
public Quadrant GetJoystickQuadrant([optional] out magnitude)
{
Vector2 pos = GetJoystickPositionXY();
float azimuth = Mathf.Atan2(pos.y, pos.x) * 180.0f / Mathf.PI;
Quadrant q;
if (azimuth > -45.0f && azimuth <= 45.0f) q = Quadrant.East;
else if (azimuth > 45.0f && azimuth <= 135.0f) q = Quadrant.North;
else if (azimuth > -135.0f && azimuth <= -45.0f) q = Quadrant.South;
else q = Quadrant.West;
if ([optonal.isPresent(magnitude)]) magnitude = pos.Length();
return q;
}
In this case we could move that "minimum magnitude" logic into the method and end-up with a much cleaner implementation, especially because calculating the magnitude involves a square-root so is computationally inefficient if all we want to do is a comparison of magnitudes, since we can do that with squared values:
public enum Quadrant {
None, // Too close to origin to judge.
North,
East,
South,
West
}
public Quadrant GetJoystickQuadrant(float minimumMagnitude = 0.33f)
{
Vector2 pos = GetJoystickPosition();
if (minimumMagnitude > 0.0f && pos.LengthSquared() < minimumMagnitude * minimumMagnitude)
{
return Quadrant.None;
}
float azimuth = Mathf.Atan2(pos.y, pos.x) * 180.0f / Mathf.PI;
if (azimuth > -45.0f && azimuth <= 45.0f) return Quadrant.East;
else if (azimuth > 45.0f && azimuth <= 135.0f) return Quadrant.North;
else if (azimuth > -135.0f && azimuth <= -45.0f) return Quadrant.South;
return Quadrant.West;
}
Of course, that might not always be viable. Since other answers mention C# 7.0, if instead what you're really doing is returning two values and allowing the caller to optionally ignore one, idiomatic C# would be to return a tuple of the two values, and use C# 7.0's Tuples with positional initializers and the _ "discard" parameter:
public (Quadrant, float) GetJoystickQuadrantAndMagnitude()
{
Vector2 pos = GetJoystickPositionXY();
float azimuth = Mathf.Atan2(pos.y, pos.x) * 180.0f / Mathf.PI;
Quadrant q;
if (azimuth > -45.0f && azimuth <= 45.0f) q = Quadrant.East;
else if (azimuth > 45.0f && azimuth <= 135.0f) q = Quadrant.North;
else if (azimuth > -135.0f && azimuth <= -45.0f) q = Quadrant.South;
else q = Quadrant.West;
return (q, pos.Length());
}
(Quadrant q, _) = GetJoystickQuadrantAndMagnitude();
if (q == Quadrant.South)
{
// Do something.
}
What about like this?
public bool OptionalOutParamMethod([Optional] ref string pOutParam)
{
return true;
}
You still have to pass a value to the parameter from C# but it is an optional ref param.
void foo(ref int? n)
{
return null;
}