Thread: Exercise solutions from "Accelerated C++" (Koenig/Moo)

Phew. Well, that's good. What I actually meant here tho:

So someone has now pointed out to you that it is not obvious what you want. But you did not do anything to resolve that.

Yes, I did. I said I was sorry.

Was that you still haven't "mentioned the specific areas that you would like your reviewers to critique". In case it wasn't clear (I would have thought it obvious, lol) the reason people reacted negatively is that you essentially walked up to a buffet table and started shovelling things into a backpack.

Ask one specific question at a time.

But while we're here (and I am not trying to humiliate you )...
WRT 11-6 in post #3:

- "avail", "limit", "data" and "alloc" are not defined, making it hard to say much beyond: it looks the two arg erase() will work (but it might not), and I dunno what shrink() is going to do.

WRT 12-1 in post #5:

- don't post code you have not compiled and tested, unless you are asking explicitly: I can't get this to compile, I get these errors, how do I approach this?

- "copy" is not defined

- You didn't tackle the fundamental issue of storage. That you are "going to deal" with data[] (which, BTW, is an error for me on g++ 4.5.3 and 4.6.2) is kind of like showing someone an engine you are rebuilding with the pistons, rods, and driveshaft missing and asking, "do you think it will run"? Of course it won't run, there's no pistons, rods, or driveshaft. Why not just do this:

Code:

using namespace std;

int main(void) {

//TODO

}

What do you think of my video processing code so far?

In a way, 12-1 is even more ridiculous, because it all depends on how the storage works, which you still haven't worked out. That is a very bad way to write code. By basing one untested part on another untested part, you risk:

a) wasting twice as much time re-writing both parts.
b) repeating the same basic errors over and over when you only need to do so once, then correct it and do it properly after that.

Rather than create three theoretical constructors, write one, make sure the code compiles and tests successfully, then move on to add other methods. Here's another analogy: you don't build a house of cards starting with the second story, figuring you can build the first one later and place the second one on top. What is the first story? The first story is the one that must work before the other ones do.

Originally Posted by tap3ah

copy is a standard algorithm. But don't worry, I'm not mentioning it to humiliate you either.

[...]

See 12-1 corrected.

Whoops, but nb. my criticism of how you wrote 12-1 still applies (of course, you won't pay any attention to that now, right?).

Well, thank you for your detailed dissection of my actions.

You were asking for that ("Post your own solutions, or comment those posted by others").

Honestly, I think you are trying to prolong this argument indefinitely, otherwise I don't see why would you make me to repeat myself, and why would you philosophize so much over a small exercise from a beginner-level book.

I wasn't trying to prolong the argument, I was trying to get past it. And WRT "philosophizing over a small exercise", again, you posted it and asked for comments.

I blame phantomotap's rudeness for that.

Interesting that he was the only one that got you to respond in a productive way though. You two just might have been made for each other, lol.

Originally Posted by tap3ah

copy is a standard algorithm.

You should #include <algorithm> instead of relying on it being included indirectly.