|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a second example of a user-defined structure, we will define a type called Time, which is used to record the time of day. The various pieces of information that form a time are the hour, minute and second, so these will be the instance variables of the structure.
The first step is to decide what type each instance variable should be. It seems clear that hour and minute should be integers. Just to keep things interesting, let's make second a double, so we can record fractions of a second.
Here's what the structure definition looks like:
struct Time {We can create a Time object in the usual way:
Time time = { 11, 59, 3.14159 };The state diagram for this object looks like this:
The word "instance" is sometimes used when we talk about objects, because every object is an instance (or example) of some type. The reason that instance variables are so-named is that every instance of a type has a copy of the instance variables for that type.
When we define a new type it is a good idea to write function that displays the instance variables in a human-readable form. For example:
void printTime (Time& t) {The output of this function, if we pass time an argument, is 11:59:3.14159.
In the next few sections, I will demonstrate several possible interfaces for functions that operate on objects. For some operations, you will have a choice of several possible interfaces, so you should consider the pros and cons of each of these:
A function is considered a pure function if the result depends only on the arguments, and it has no side effects like modifying an argument or outputting something. The only result of calling a pure function is the return value.
One example is after, which compares two Times and returns a bool that indicates whether the first operand comes after the second:
bool after (Time& time1, Time& time2) {What is the result of this function if the two times are equal? Does that seem like the ppropriate result for this function? If you were writing the documentation for this function, would you mention that case specifically?
A second example is addTime, which calculates the sum of two times. For example, if it is 9:14:30, and your breadmaker takes 3 hours and 35 minutes, you could use addTime to figure out when the bread will be done.
Here is a rough draft of this function that is not quite right:
Time addTime (Time& t1, Time& t2) {Here is an example of how to use this function. If currentTime contains the current time and breadTime contains the amount of time it takes for your breadmaker to make bread, then you could use addTime to figure out when the bread will be done.
Time currentTime = { 9, 14, 30.0 };The output of this program is 12:49:30, which is correct. On the other hand, there are cases where the result is not correct. Can you think of one?
The problem is that this function does not deal with cases where the number of seconds or minutes adds up to more than 60. When that happens we have to "carry" the extra seconds into the minutes column, or extra minutes into the hours column.
Here's a second, corrected version of this function.
Time addTime (Time& t1, Time& t2) {Although it's correct, it's starting to get big. Later, I will suggest an alternate pproach to this problem that will be much shorter.
This code demonstrates two operators we have not seen before, += and -=. These operators provide a concise way to increment and decrement variables. For example, the statement sum.second -= 60.0; is equivalent to sum.second = sum.second - 60;
You might have noticed that the parameters for after and addTime are being passed by reference. Since these are pure functions, they do not modify the parameters they receive, so I could just as well have passed them by value.
The advantage of passing by value is that the calling function and the callee are ppropriately encapsulated---it is not possible for a change in one to affect the other, except by affecting the return value.
On the other hand, passing by reference usually is more efficient, because it avoids copying the argument. Furthermore, there is a nice feature in C++, called const, that can make reference parameters just as safe as value parameters.
If you are writing a function and you do not intend to modify a parameter, you can declare that it is a constant reference parameter. The syntax looks like this:
void printTime (const Time& time) ...I've included only the first line of the functions. If you tell the compiler that you don't intend to change a parameter, it can help remind you. If you try to change one, you should get a compiler error, or at least a warning.
Of course, sometimes you want to modify one of the arguments. Functions that do are called modifiers.
As an example of a modifier, consider increment, which adds a given number of seconds to a Time object. Again, a rough draft of this function looks like:
void increment (Time& time, double secs) {The first line performs the basic operation; the remainder deals with the special cases we saw before.
Is this function correct? What happens if the argument secs is much greater than 60? In that case, it is not enough to subtract 60 once; we have to keep doing it until second is below 60. We can do that by replacing the if statements with while statements:
void increment (Time& time, double secs) {This solution is correct, but not very efficient. Can you think of a solution that does not require iteration?
Occasionally you will see functions like addTime written with a different interface (different arguments and return values). Instead of creating a new object every time addTime is called, we could require the caller to provide an "empty" object where addTime can store the result. Compare the following with the previous version:
void addTimeFill (const Time& t1, const Time& t2, Time& sum) {One advantage of this pproach is that the caller has the option of reusing the same object repeatedly to perform a series of additions. This can be slightly more efficient, although it can be confusing enough to cause subtle errors. For the vast majority of programming, it is worth a spending a little run time to avoid a lot of debugging time.
Notice that the first two parameters can be declared const, but the third cannot.
Anything that can be done with modifiers and fill-in functions can also be done with pure functions. In fact, there are programming languages, called functional programming languages, that only allow pure functions. Some programmers believe that programs that use pure functions are faster to develop and less error-prone than programs that use modifiers. Nevertheless, there are times when modifiers are convenient, and cases where functional programs are less efficient.
In general, I recommend that you write pure functions whenever it is reasonable to do so, and resort to modifiers only if there is a compelling advantage. This pproach might be called a functional programming style.
In this chapter I have demonstrated an pproach to program development I refer to as rapid prototyping with iterative improvement. In each case, I wrote a rough draft (or prototype) that performed the basic calculation, and then tested it on a few cases, correcting flaws as I found them.
Although this pproach can be effective, it can lead to code that is unnecessarily complicated---since it deals with many special cases---and unreliable---since it is hard to know if you have found all the errors.
An alternative is high-level planning, in which a little insight into the problem can make the programming much easier. In this case the insight is that a Time is really a three-digit number in base 60! The second is the "ones column," the minute is the "60's column", and the hour is the "3600's column."
When we wrote addTime and increment, we were effectively doing addition in base 60, which is why we had to "carry" from one column to the next.
Thus an alternate pproach to the whole problem is to convert Times into doubles and take advantage of the fact that the computer already knows how to do arithmetic with doubles. Here is a function that converts a Time into a double:
double convertToSeconds (const Time& t) {Now all we need is a way to convert from a double to a Time object:
Time makeTime (double secs) {You might have to think a bit to convince yourself that the technique I am using to convert from one base to another is correct. Assuming you are convinced, we can use these functions to rewrite addTime:
Time addTime (const Time& t1, const Time& t2) {This is much shorter than the original version, and it is much easier to demonstrate that it is correct (assuming, as usual, that the functions it calls are correct). As an exercise, rewrite increment the same way.
In some ways converting from base 60 to base 10 and back is harder than just dealing with times. Base conversion is more abstract; our intuition for dealing with times is better.
But if we have the insight to treat times as base 60 numbers, and make the investment of writing the conversion functions (convertToSeconds and makeTime), we get a program that is shorter, easier to read and debug, and more reliable.
It is also easier to add more features later. For example, imagine subtracting two Times to find the duration between them. The naive pproach would be to implement subtraction with borrowing. Using the conversion functions would be easier and more likely to be correct.
Ironically, sometimes making a problem harder (more general) makes is easier (fewer special cases, fewer opportunities for error).
When you write a general solution for a class of problems, as opposed to a specific solution to a single problem, you have written an algorithm. I mentioned this word in Chapter 1, but did not define it carefully. It is not easy to define, so I will try a couple of pproaches.
First, consider something that is not an algorithm. When you learned to multiply single-digit numbers, you probably memorized the multiplication table. In effect, you memorized 100 specific solutions. That kind of knowledge is not really algorithmic.
But if you were "lazy," you probably cheated by learning a few tricks. For example, to find the product of n and 9, you can write n-1 as the first digit and 10-n as the second digit. This trick is a general solution for multiplying any single-digit number by 9. That's an algorithm!
Similarly, the techniques you learned for addition with carrying, subtraction with borrowing, and long division are all algorithms. One of the characteristics of algorithms is that they do not require any intelligence to carry out. They are mechanical processes in which each step follows from the last according to a simple set of rules.
In my opinion, it is embarrassing that humans spend so much time in school learning to execute algorithms that, quite literally, require no intelligence.
On the other hand, the process of designing algorithms is interesting, intellectually challenging, and a central part of what we call programming.
Some of the things that people do naturally, without difficulty or conscious thought, are the most difficult to express algorithmically. Understanding natural language is a good example. We all do it, but so far no one has been able to explain how we do it, at least not in the form of an algorithm.
Later in this book, you will have the opportunity to design simple algorithms for a variety of problems. If you take the next class in the Computer Science sequence, Data Structures, you will see some of the most interesting, clever, and useful algorithms computer science has produced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|