The program's purpose was to teach me how to create a character list, and practice using toString and booleanequals(object other).
public class CharList {
private char[] Array = new char[100];
private int numElements = 0;
public CharList() {
}
public CharList(String startStr){
Array=startStr.toCharArray();
}
public CharList(CharList other){
other.Array=new char[100];
}
public void add(char next) {
Array[numElements++] = next;
}
public char get(int index) {
return Array[index];
}
private int size() {
return numElements;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
String str = new String(Array);
return str;
}
public boolean equals(Object other) {
if(other == null) {
return false;
}
if(other instanceof CharList == false) {
return false;
}
else {
CharList that = (CharList) other;
return this.Array == that.Array ;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("uncomment the code to use the charListDriver");
CharList a = new CharList();
CharList b = new CharList("Batman");
CharList c = new CharList(b);
a.add('k');
a.add('a');
a.add('t');
a.add('n');
a.add('i');
a.add('s');
System.out.println("a is :"+a.toString() +" and has " + a.size() + " chars");
System.out.println("b is :"+b.toString() +" and has " + b.size() + " chars");
System.out.println("c is :"+c.toString() +" and has " + c.size() + " chars")
System.out.println("B and A are equal : " + b.equals(a));
System.out.println("B and C are equal : " + b.equals(c));
}
}
my output is:
a is: katnis and has 6 chars
b is: and has 0 chars
c is: and has 0 chars
The main function was provided for me by my instructor. I don't understand why it is not printing out "batman".
The issue is with your constructor that takes a CharList
public CharList(CharList other){
other.Array=new char[100];
}
You see that it is setting other.Array equal to a new array of size 100.
So when you do this
CharList c = new CharList(b);
You are setting the Array of b to be a new array wiping out the array that contained the characters from "Batman".
If you fix the constructor in question to be
Array = other.Array.clone()
it'll fix the problem. I cloned the other array so that b and c aren't pointing to the exact same array. If they were then when you added chars to one, it would add chars to the other as well.
Next you'll see an issue with your size() method. It returns numElements but numElements isn't set in your constructors that take a String or a CharList so it's always 0. So be sure to set numElements in those constructors. You'll see that because of this error that when you call add on a CharList that was initialized form a String it changes the first char instead of adding it to the end.
I've only really answered the question about Batman and then size. But there are several other issues with this code as well.
What happens if someone calls add more than 100 times on a CharList initialized with default constructor
equals method is doing a reference equality check rather than making sure the chars in the arrays are identical
What happens when you call add to a CharList instantiated with String or CharList? As I noted it currently changes the char at index 0. But even if you fix that and set numElements correctly what will happen? It'll try to write past the end of the Array.
2 Things to go over (plus a 0th thing):
0)
You need to have a getArray() function. Because Array is marked private, there is no way to access it from the outside. You can write other.Array, but because Array is private, it is better practice to use a getArray function. Adding a getArray() is the way to go. (it would be simple, and look like: getArray() {return this.Array;})
1)
Your constructors that you wrote that looks like:
public CharList() {
}
public CharList(CharList other){
other.Array=new char[100];
}
is wrong.
You should change these like so:
public CharList() {
this.Array=new char[100];
}
public CharList(CharList other){
this.Array=other.Array;
}
Here, we made the empty constructor initialize to a set char length of 100. For the other, we made it so that this.Array = other.Array by using other.getArray().
Now, if you try this, it should work.
2)
Lets say you had this:
CharList batman1 = new CharList("batman");
CharList batman2 = new CharList("batman");
Then, java batman1.equals(batman2) would return false. This is because of pointers in java, and the way variable assignment works. for batman1.Array to equal batman2.array, it is not enough for their values to be equal. They also have to have to be pointing to the same thing. See Shallow copy for arrays, why can't simply do newArr = oldArr? for more info.
To fix this, we need a getArray(). Assuming we have it:
public boolean equals(Object other) {
if(other == null) {
return false;
}
if(!(other instanceof CharList)) {
return false;
}
if(other.size()!=this.size()) {
return false;
}
CharList that = (CharList) other;
for (int i=0; i<other.size(); i++) {
if (that.get(i)!=other.get(i)) return false;
}
return true;
}
I did a lot of things here. First, we cleaned up the if statements. You don't need that else at the end. Then, I implemented what is known as a shallow check. It checks if the two Arrays have the same values. If everything is the same, then return true.
If you have followed all of these steps, then it should work.
Related
I've got array. I've got an isFull method, which checks if the array is full, but I don't know how to use this to check if it's full, then if it's not full add to the array, otherwise disregard the add call.
The array should take 10 elements and then not accept any more. After 10 elements, it should 'be full' and disregard any addSpy calls.
How would you implement this?
public class ConcreteSubject extends AbstractSubject {
public int arySize;
private int i = 0;
private static AbstractSpy[] spies;
public ConcreteSubject(int a) {
arySize = a;
spies = new AbstractSpy[a];
}
#Override
public void addSpy(AbstractSpy spy) {
if (spies.length < 10) {
spies[i] = spy;
System.out.println("spy added at index " + i);
i++;
}
}
public void isFull() {
//1
boolean b = false;
for (int i = 0; i < spies.length; i++) {
if (spies[i] == null) {
b = true;
}
}
if (!b) {
System.out.println("Array is full");
} else {
System.out.println("Array not full");
}
}
public class TestSpies {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ConcreteSubject cs = new ConcreteSubject(10);
AbstractSpy spy = new ConcreteSpy();
AbstractSpy[] spies = new AbstractSpy[10];
cs.addSpy(spy);
cs.addSpy(spy);
cs.addSpy(spy);
cs.isFull();
}
}
spies.length < 10 isn't correct. It should be spies.length > 0 && i < spies.length to make sure that the following assignment spies[i] = spy; is always valid.
void isFull() should be boolean isFull(). Your implementation looks OK, just return b. full is a tricky word because technically an array is always "full". A better adjective would be populated, filled.
Since addSpy isn't filling null gaps but simply adds a spy to the end, isFull could be rewritten to return spies.length == i;.
The simplest way of doing it would be like that:
#Override
public void addSpy(AbstractSpy spy) {
if (!isFull())
{
spies[i] = spy;
System.out.println("spy added at index " + i);
i++;
}
}
To use that, you should change your isFull method to:
public boolean isFull() {
for (int i = 0; i < spies.length; i++) {
if (spies[i] == null) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
Keep a track of the number of filled cells of the array using a variable. And before inserting anything into it, check if the filled cells count strictly less than the size of the array (obviously you want to keep track of the array total size as well).
I have the following code for displaying the sum of two consecutive element of ArrayList until the element left is one.for example:-
if i entered
1 2 3 4 5
output
3 7 5 //adding the two consecutive last one is as it is
10 5//doing the same thing
15
code
import java.util.*;
import java.lang.Integer;
class Substan{
ArrayList <Integer> list = new ArrayList <Integer> ();
ArrayList <Integer> newList = new ArrayList <Integer> ();// this will be the list containing the next sequence.
int index=0;
int sum=0;
Substan(){
Scanner read = new Scanner(System.in);
String choice;
System.out.println("Enter the elements of the array");
do{
int element = read.nextInt();
list.add(element);
System.out.println("More?");
choice = read.next();
}while(choice.equals("y") || choice.equals("Y"));
}
/* precondition- we have the raw list that user has enterd.
postcondition - we have displayed all the sublists,by adding two consecutives numbers and the last one is having one element.
*/
void sublist(){
while(noofElementsIsNotOneInList()){
index =0;
while(newListIsNotComplete()){
if(nextElementIsThere()){
sum = addTheConsecutive();
}
else{
sum = getLastNumber();
}
storeSumInNewList();
}
displayTheNewList();
System.out.println("");
updateTheLists();
}
displayTheNewList(); //as we have danger of Off By One Bug (OBOB)
System.out.println("");
}
private boolean noofElementsIsNotOneInList(){
boolean isnotone = true;
int size = list.size();
if ( size == 1){
isnotone = false;
}
return isnotone;
}
private boolean newListIsNotComplete(){
boolean isNotComplete = true;
int listSize = list.size();
int newListSize = newList.size();
if (listSizeIsEven()){
if ( newListSize == listSize/2){
isNotComplete = false;
}
}
else{
if( newListSize == (listSize/2) +1){
isNotComplete = false;
}
}
return isNotComplete;
}
private boolean listSizeIsEven(){
if ( list.size()%2 == 0 ){
return true;
}
else{
return false;
}
}
/*
we are at some index.
returns true if we have an element at (index+1) index.
*/
private boolean nextElementIsThere(){
if ( list.size() == index+1 ){
return false;
}
else{
return true;
}
}
/* precondition-we are at index i
postcondition - we will be at index i+2 and we return sum of elements at index i and i+1.
*/
private int addTheConsecutive(){
int sum = list.get(index)+list.get(index+1);
index += 2;
return sum;
}
/* we are at last element and we have to return that element.
*/
private int getLastNumber(){
return list.get(index);
}
private void storeSumInNewList(){
newList.add(sum);
}
private void displayTheNewList(){
int size = newList.size();
for ( int i=0;i<size;i++){
System.out.print(newList.get(i)+" ");
}
}
/*precondition - we have processed all the elements in the list and added the result in newList.
postcondition - Now my list will be the newList,as we are processing in terms of list and newList reference will have a new object.
*/
private void updateTheLists(){
list = newList;
newList = new ArrayList <Integer>();// changing the newList
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Substan s = new Substan();
s.sublist();
}
}
So i have done a lot of refinement of my code but having a problem of sharing the local variables with the other methods.for example i have used index instance for storing the index and initially i thought that i will put this as not an instance but a local variable in method sublist() but as it cannot be viewed from other methods which needed to use the index like addTheConsecutive().So considering that i put the index at class level.So is it wright approach that put the variables that are shared at class level rather than looking at only the state of the object initially before coding and stick to that and never change it?
Consider this:
An object can communicate with other(s) only by sharing its attributes. So, if you need an object to read the state of another, the only way it can be done is by giving it "permission" to read the other object attributes.
You have two ways to do that:
Declaring the object attributes public, or
Creating getXXX() methods (makes sense for private attributes)
I personally prefer option two, because the getXXX() method returns the value ("state") of a particular attribute without the risk of being modified. Of course, if you need to modify a private attribute, you should also write a setXXX() method.
Example:
public class MyClass {
private int foo;
private String bar;
/*
* Code
*/
public int getFoo() {
return foo;
}
public String getBar() {
return bar;
}
public void setFoo(int foo) {
this.foo = foo;
}
public void setBar(String bar) {
this.bar = bar;
}
/*
* More code
*/
}
This way all the object attributes are encapsulated, and:
they cannot be read by any other object, unless you specifically call the appropriate getXXX() function, and
cannot be altered by other objects, unless you specifically call the appropriate setXXX() function.
Compare it with the non-abstracted version.
for (int index = 0; index < list.size(); index += 2) {
int sum = list.get(index);
if (index + 1 < list.size() {
sum += list.get(index + 1);
}
newList.add(sum);
}
Now, top-down refining the algorithm using names is a sound methodology, which helps in further creative programming.
As can seen, when abstracting the above again:
while (stillNumbersToProcess()) {
int sum = sumUpto2Numbers();
storeSumInNewList(sum);
}
One may keep many variables like sum as local variables, simplifying state.
One kind of helpful abstraction is the usage of conditions, in a more immediate form:
private boolean listSizeIsEven() {
return list.size() % 2 == 0;
}
private boolean nextElementIsThere() {
return index + 1 < list.size();
}
There's no point in declaring index at Class level since you dont want it to be a member or an instance of that class. Instead make it local to the method and pass it to other methods as argument where you want to access it.
I think you are asking the wrong question.
Your class variables make very little sense, as do many of the methods. This is mostly because:
Your class is doing too much
Your algorithm is a little odd
The class variables that you do have make much more sense passed as method parameters. Some methods need to see them, and some don't.
Your class is also a little odd, in that calling subList twice on the same class will not produce the same answer.
The code is littered with methods I don't quite see the point in, such as:
private boolean noofElementsIsNotOneInList(){
boolean isnotone = true;
int size = list.size();
if ( size == 1){
isnotone = false;
}
return isnotone;
}
Shouldn't this be:
private boolean noofElementsIsNotOneInList(){
return list.size() == 1;
}
And it makes no sense for it to use some arbitrary List, pass one in so that you know which List you are checking:
private boolean noofElementsIsNotOneInList(final Collection<?> toCheck){
return toCheck.size() == 1;
}
The same logic can be applied to almost all of your methods.
This will remove the instance variables and make your code much more readable.
TL;DR: Using lots of short appropriately named methods: good. Having those methods do things that one wouldn't expect: bad. Having lots of redundant code that makes things very hard to read: bad.
In fact, just to prove a point, the whole class (apart from the logic to read from stdin, which shouldn't be there anyway) can transformed into one short, recursive, method that requires no instance variables at all:
public static int sumPairs(final List<Integer> list) {
if (list.size() == 1)
return list.get(0);
final List<Integer> compacted = new LinkedList<>();
final Iterator<Integer> iter = list.iterator();
while (iter.hasNext()) {
final int first = iter.next();
if (iter.hasNext()) compacted.add(first + iter.next());
else compacted.add(first);
}
return sumPairs(compacted);
}
Now you could break this method apart into several appropriately named shorter methods, and that would make sense. It's sometimes more helpful to start from the other end. Sketch out the logic of your code and what it's trying to do, then find meaningful fragments to split it into. Possibly after adding unit tests to verify behaviour.
what about doing by Recursion:
public int calculateSum(List<Integer> nums) {
displayList(nums);
if (nums.size() == 1) {
return nums.get(0);
}
List<Integer> interim = new ArrayList<Integer>();
for (int i = 0; i < nums.size(); i = i + 2) {
if (i + 1 < nums.size()) {
interim.add(nums.get(i) + nums.get(i + 1));
} else {
interim.add(nums.get(i));
}
}
return calculateSum(interim);
}
public static void displayList(List<Integer> nums){
System.out.println(nums);
}
Steps:
Run calculate sum until list has 1 element
if list has more than 1 element:
iterate the list by step +2 and sum the element and put into a new List
again call calculate sum
I have made a class called Iset that takes integers and modifies it's boolean array's index equivalent to the integer to true.
e.g. If I pass an integer 1 then the boolean array setI[1] is turned to true.
I have a method called include that returns true if the provided integer is in there and false if it isn't. However no matter what I do I always get true. I have made sure that everything in the array is set to false and I add in a number further up the code. Obviously I'm missing something really obvious here:
public class Iset {
public int size;
boolean[] setI;
Iset(int a) {
this.size = a;
this.setI = new boolean[size];
}
public boolean include(int i) {
for (int n = 0; n <= size; n++) {
if (setI[n]== setI[i]){
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
}
Please try this code, I think you should add a funktion: set(), and change a little of the include(int i)
public class Iset {
public int size;
boolean[] setI;
Iset(int a) {
this.size = a;
this.setI = new boolean[size];
}
public boolean include(int i) {
return setI[i];
}
//set your values in the boolean array "setI" to "true"
public void set(int... values) {
for (int i : values) {
setI[i] = true;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Iset mm = new Iset(100);
mm.set(25, 40, 22);
System.out.println(mm.include(25));
}
}
The other answers have given solutions, but I think we can also get an explanation going as to why your original code was slightly wrong as you say. Here is what your include() method is doing in pseudocode:
for each boolean called 'setI[n]' in the array:
if 'setI[n]' is the same as the boolean at 'setI[i]':
return true
So, it's not actually checking if either of those boolean are true or false, it's just checking if they are the same. This method will always return true unless the boolean at index i is the only one in the array with its value (I'd suggest trying that to see if I am right). For example, if i = 1 your method will return true for:
[false, true, false, false, ...]
[true, false, true, true, ...]
... and no other values.
Hopefully this makes things a little clearer.
You don't have to walk over the complete array, just ask the method if your number is included.
public boolean isIncluded(int i) {
if (setI[i] == true){
return true;
}
return false;
}
or even simpler:
public boolean isIncluded(int i) {
return setI[i];
}
P.S. I changed your method name to something more meaningful
Try this:
public boolean include(int i) {
if (i >= size){
// To avoid ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException
return false;
}
return setI[i];
}
I'm not completely sure what you are after for, but, in you for-loop you are making a selfcomparison when n == i and thus return true always.
I'm doing a program where user input five numbers and in the end the numbers are printed out which is working fine. What I can't get to work is a boolean function to check for duplicates. It should check for duplicates as the user write them in, so e.g. if number one is 5 and the second numbers is also 5, you should get an error until you write in a different number. Meaning if the user input a duplicate it should NOT be saved in the array. This is obviously an assignment, so I'm just asking for a hint or two.
This program is written based on pseudo-code given to me, and therefore I have to use a boolean to check for duplicates with the public boolean duplicate( int number ) class.
I've tried getting my head around it and tried something by myself, but obviously I'm doing a stupid mistake. E.g.:
if(int i != myNumbers[i])
checkDuplicates = false
else
checkDuplicates = true;
return checkDuplicates;
DuplicatesTest class:
public class DuplicatesTest {
public final static int AMOUNT = 5;
public static void main(String[] args) {
Duplicates d = new Duplicates(AMOUNT);
d.inputNumber();
d.duplicate(AMOUNT);
d.printInputNumbers();
}
}
Duplicates class:
public class Duplicates {
private int amount;
private int[] myNumbers;
private boolean checkDuplicates;
public Duplicates(int a) {
amount = a;
myNumbers = new int[amount];
}
public void inputNumber() {
for(int i = 0; i < amount; i++ ) {
int input = Integer.parseInt(JOptionPane.showInputDialog("Input 5 numbers"));
myNumbers[i] = input;
}
}
public boolean duplicate( int number ) {
<BOOLEAN TO CHECK FOR DUPLICATES, RETURN FALSE OR TRUE>
}
public void printInputNumbers() {
JTextArea output = new JTextArea();
output.setText("Your numbers are:" + "\n");
for(int i = 0; i < myNumbers.length; i++) {
if (i % 5 == 0) {
output.append("\n");
}
output.append(myNumbers[i] + "\t");
}
JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(null, output, "Numbers", JOptionPane.PLAIN_MESSAGE);
}
}
Sorry if the code tag is messy, I had some trouble with white fields in between and such. I'm new here.
Don't store the numbers in an array. Use a Set<Integer> instead. And then do a Set#contains() operation. It's O(1) operation which is actually far better than iterating over the array to search for duplicates.
Ok, if it's a compulsion to use an array, then you should modify your current approach, to return true as soon as you find a duplicate, instead of iterating over the array again. In your current approach, since you are setting the boolean variable to false in the else block, your method will return false if the last element of the array is not the same as what you are checking. So, just modify your approach to:
// loop over the array
if (number == myNumbers[i])
return true;
// outside the loop, if you reach, return false
return false;
Note that your current if statement will not compile. You are declaring an int variable there, which you can't do.
if (int i == myNumbers[i]) // this is not a valid Java code.
int nums[] = new int[5];
int count = 0;
public boolean duplicate(int number)
{
boolean isDup = false;
for (int i = 0; i <= count; i++)
{
if (number == nums[i])
{
isDup = true;
break;
}
}
if (!isDup)
{
count++;
nums[count] = number;
}
return isDup;
}
This method should return the index of the first string that starts with the target.
Return -1 if no string starts with the target.
My implementations works but not covers all variations.
Code:
public int getIndex(ArrayList<String> text, String target)
{
int i = 0;
int index = -1;
boolean found = false;
while (!found && i < text.size()) //supply condition
{
for (String s : text) {
if (s.contains(target)) {
found = true;
} else {
i++;
}
if (found) index = i;
}
}
return index;
}
testing part:
public static void main(String[] args)
{
ArrayList<String> cities = new ArrayList<String>();
cities.add("Chicago");
cities.add("Houston");
cities.add("San Jose");
cities.add("Seattle");
cities.add("Denver");
Finder finder = new Finder();
System.out.println(finder.getIndex(cities, "C"));
System.out.println("Expected: 0");
System.out.println(finder.getIndex(cities, "S"));
System.out.println("Expected: 2");
System.out.println(finder.getIndex(cities, "D"));
System.out.println("Expected: 4");
System.out.println(finder.getIndex(cities, "X"));
System.out.println("Expected: -1");
}
This code has coverage 50/50 input:
4
- Expected: 0
3
- Expected: 2
4
+ Expected: 4
-1
+ Expected: -1
How to solve this issue?
You claim:
My implementations works
It doesn't look like it to me, based on the tests. Your code is much more complicated than it needs to be, which is making it hard to find the bug. The problem is that you've got two loops for no reason:
while (!found && i < text.size()) //supply condition
{
for (String s : text) {
}
}
Why have you got both of those loops? You're incrementing i multiple times within the inner loop...
You'd probably find it easier to get all the tests to pass if you simplify it:
public int getIndex(List<String> text, String target) {
for (int i = 0; i < text.size(); i++) {
if (text.get(i).startsWith(target)) {
return i;
}
}
return -1;
}
This is one of those cases where a dogmatic insistence on only having one return statement per method leads to much messier code.
Note that I've changed the condition from contains (in your code) to startsWith to match the description. You should add a test for this difference - try to find a string which is present in one of the cities, but the city doesn't start with that value.
I've also changed the parameter type to List<String> as you don't really need it to be an ArrayList<String>. (With a bit of work you could make it accept Iterable<String> instead, but that would be more complicated.)
I'd also recommend that you start using JUnit or something similar for your testing, rather than just using System.out.println.
EDIT: Just for a bit of fun, a version which takes Iterable<String> and uses that to handle even LinkedList<String> efficiently:
public int getIndex(Iterable<String> elements, String target) {
int index = 0;
for (String element : elements) {
if (element.startsWith(target)) {
return index;
}
index++;
}
return -1;
}
(Not that much harder after all...)
public int getIndex(ArrayList<String> text, String target)
{
for(int i=0;i < text.size();i++)
{
if(text.get(i).indexOf(target) == 0)
return i;
}
return -1;
}
Making the following changes:
Get rid of unnecessary found variable
Replace contains with startsWith
Remove the for-loop, otherwise you pass through the data a few times
Change the while-loop to a for-loop
I get to this, which seems to work:
public int getIndex(ArrayList<String> text, String target)
{
int index = -1;
for (int i = 0; index == -1 && i < text.size(); i++)
{
if (text.get(i).startsWith(target))
{
index = i;
}
}
return index;
}
You can of course improve on it a lot more still.
Change the getIndex method with this:
public int getIndex(ArrayList<String> text, String target)
{
int i = 0;
for (String s : text) {
// Use startsWith if you want to check if the string starts with target...
// Use contains if you want to check if contains target...
if (s.startsWith(target)) {
return i;
}
i++;
}
return -1;
}