Related
I was reading book about competitive programming and was encountered to problem where we have to count all possible paths in the n*n matrix.
Now the conditions are :
`
1. All cells must be visited for once (cells must not be unvisited or visited more than once)
2. Path should start from (1,1) and end at (n,n)
3. Possible moves are right, left, up, down from current cell
4. You cannot go out of the grid
Now this my code for the problem :
typedef long long ll;
ll path_count(ll n,vector<vector<bool>>& done,ll r,ll c){
ll count=0;
done[r][c] = true;
if(r==(n-1) && c==(n-1)){
for(ll i=0;i<n;i++){
for(ll j=0;j<n;j++) if(!done[i][j]) {
done[r][c]=false;
return 0;
}
}
count++;
}
else {
if((r+1)<n && !done[r+1][c]) count+=path_count(n,done,r+1,c);
if((r-1)>=0 && !done[r-1][c]) count+=path_count(n,done,r-1,c);
if((c+1)<n && !done[r][c+1]) count+=path_count(n,done,r,c+1);
if((c-1)>=0 && !done[r][c-1]) count+=path_count(n,done,r,c-1);
}
done[r][c] = false;
return count;
}
Here if we define recurrence relation then it can be like: T(n) = 4T(n-1)+n2
Is this recurrence relation true? I don't think so because if we use masters theorem then it would give us result as O(4n*n2) and I don't think it can be of this order.
The reason, why I am telling, is this because when I use it for 7*7 matrix it takes around 110.09 seconds and I don't think for n=7 O(4n*n2) should take that much time.
If we calculate it for n=7 the approx instructions can be 47*77 = 802816 ~ 106. For such amount of instruction it should not take that much time. So here I conclude that my recurrene relation is false.
This code generates output as 111712 for 7 and it is same as the book's output. So code is right.
So what is the correct time complexity??
No, the complexity is not O(4^n * n^2).
Consider the 4^n in your notation. This means, going to a depth of at most n - or 7 in your case, and having 4 choices at each level. But this is not the case. In the 8th, level you still have multiple choices where to go next. In fact, you are branching until you find the path, which is of depth n^2.
So, a non tight bound will give us O(4^(n^2) * n^2). This bound however is far from being tight, as it assumes you have 4 valid choices from each of your recursive calls. This is not the case.
I am not sure how much tighter it can be, but a first attempt will drop it to O(3^(n^2) * n^2), since you cannot go from the node you came from. This bound is still far from optimal.
I'm making an if statement in objective c and would like to know if it's possible to test if a variable is not in the range of value x and value y. For example, something that goes along the lines of:
// test if float variable (called varFloat) is not in between 10.5 and 30.5
If (10.5 <! varFloat <! 30.5) {
doStuff();
}
I tried that code above and it doesn't seem to work, and I'm not even sure if the <! operator exits. Any help is much appreciated. Thanks!
Sure, a value is not in a range if it is less than the lower bound or greater than the upper bound.
if ( var < x || var > y )
You might find a list of operator in C and C++ useful.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Why do most programming languages only have binary equality comparison operators?
I have had a simple question for a fairly long time--since I started learning programming languages.
I'd like to write like "if x is either 1 or 2 => TRUE (otherwise FALSE)."
But when I write it in a programming language, say in C,
( x == 1 || x == 2 )
it really works but looks awkward and hard to read. I guess it should be possible to simplify such an or operation, and so if you have any idea, please tell me. Thanks, Nathan
Python allows test for membership in a sequence:
if x in (1, 2):
An extension version in C#
step 1: create an extension method
public static class ObjectExtensions
{
public static bool Either(this object value, params object[] array)
{
return array.Any(p => Equals(value, p));
}
}
step 2: use the extension method
if (x.Either(1,2,3,4,5,6))
{
}
else
{
}
While there are a number of quite interesting answers in this thread, I would like to point out that they may have performance implications if you're doing this kind of logic inside of a loop depending on the language. A far as for the computer to understand, the if (x == 1 || x == 2) is by far the easiest to understand and optimize when it's compiled into machine code.
When I started programming it seemed weird to me as well that instead of something like:
(1 < x < 10)
I had to write:
(1 < x && x < 10)
But this is how most programming languages work, and after a while you will get used to it.
So I believe it is perfectly fine to write
( x == 1 || x == 2 )
Writing it this way also has the advantage that other programmers will understand easily what you wrote. Using a function to encapsulate it might just make things more complicated because the other programmers would need to find that function and see what it does.
Only more recent programming languages like Python, Ruby etc. allow you to write it in a simpler, nicer way. That is mostly because these programming languages are designed to increase the programmers productivity, while the older programming languages' main goal was application performance and not so much programmer productivity.
It's Natural, but Language-Dependent
Your approach would indeed seem more natural but that really depends on the language you use for the implementation.
Rationale for the Mess
C being a systems programming language, and fairly close to the hardware (funny though, as we used to consider a "high-level" language, as opposed to writing machine code), it's not exactly expressive.
Modern higher-level languages (again, arguable, lisp is not that modern, historically speaking, but would allow you to do that nicely) allow you to do such things by using built-in constructs or library support (for instances, using Ranges, Tuples or equivalents in languages like Python, Ruby, Groovy, ML-languages, Haskell...).
Possible Solutions
Option 1
One option for you would be to implement a function or subroutine taking an array of values and checking them.
Here's a basic prototype, and I leave the implementation as an exercise to you:
/* returns non-zero value if check is in values */
int is_in(int check, int *values, int size);
However, as you will quickly see, this is very basic and not very flexible:
it works only on integers,
it works only to compare identical values.
Option 2
One step higher on the complexity ladder (in terms of languages), an alternative would be to use pre-processor macros in C (or C++) to achieve a similar behavior, but beware of side effects.
Other Options
A next step could be to pass a function pointer as an extra parameter to define the behavior at call-point, define several variants and aliases for this, and build yourself a small library of comparators.
The next step then would be to implement a similar thing in C++ using templates to do this on different types with a single implementation.
And then keep going from there to higher-level languages.
Pick the Right Language (or learn to let go!)
Typically, languages favoring functional programming will have built-in support for this sort of thing, for obvious reasons.
Or just learn to accept that some languages can do things that others cannot, and that depending on the job and environment, that's just the way it is. It mostly is syntactic sugar, and there's not much you can do. Also, some languages will address their shortcomings over time by updating their specifications, while others will just stall.
Maybe a library implements such a thing already and that I am not aware of.
that was a lot of interesting alternatives. I am surprised nobody mentioned switch...case - so here goes:
switch(x) {
case 1:
case 2:
// do your work
break;
default:
// the else part
}
it is more readable than having a
bunch of x == 1 || x == 2 || ...
more optimal than having a
array/set/list for doing a
membership check
I doubt I'd ever do this, but to answer your question, here's one way to achieve it in C# involving a little generic type inference and some abuse of operator overloading. You could write code like this:
if (x == Any.Of(1, 2)) {
Console.WriteLine("In the set.");
}
Where the Any class is defined as:
public static class Any {
public static Any2<T> Of<T>(T item1, T item2) {
return new Any2<T>(item1, item2);
}
public struct Any2<T> {
T item1;
T item2;
public Any2(T item1, T item2) {
this.item1 = item1;
this.item2 = item2;
}
public static bool operator ==(T item, Any2<T> set) {
return item.Equals(set.item1) || item.Equals(set.item2);
}
// Defining the operator== requires these three methods to be defined as well:
public static bool operator !=(T item, Any2<T> set) {
return !(item == set);
}
public override bool Equals(object obj) { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
public override int GetHashCode() { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
}
You could conceivably have a number of overloads of the Any.Of method to work with 3, 4, or even more arguments. Other operators could be provided as well, and a companion All class could do something very similar but with && in place of ||.
Looking at the disassembly, a fair bit of boxing happens because of the need to call Equals, so this ends up being slower than the obvious (x == 1) || (x == 2) construct. However, if you change all the <T>'s to int and replace the Equals with ==, you get something which appears to inline nicely to be about the same speed as (x == 1) || (x == 2).
Err, what's wrong with it? Oh well, if you really use it a lot and hate the looks do something like this in c#:
#region minimizethisandneveropen
public bool either(value,x,y){
return (value == x || value == y);
}
#endregion
and in places where you use it:
if(either(value,1,2))
//yaddayadda
Or something like that in another language :).
In php you can use
$ret = in_array($x, array(1, 2));
As far as I know, there is no built-in way of doing this in C. You could add your own inline function for scanning an array of ints for values equal to x....
Like so:
inline int contains(int[] set, int n, int x)
{
int i;
for(i=0; i<n; i++)
if(set[i] == x)
return 1;
return 0;
}
// To implement the check, you declare the set
int mySet[2] = {1,2};
// And evaluate like this:
contains(mySet,2,x) // returns non-zero if 'x' is contained in 'mySet'
In T-SQL
where x in (1,2)
In COBOL (it's been a long time since I've even glanced briefly at COBOL, so I may have a detail or two wrong here):
IF X EQUALS 1 OR 2
...
So the syntax is definitely possible. The question then boils down to "why is it not used more often?"
Well, the thing is, parsing expressions like that is a bit of a bitch. Not when standing alone like that, mind, but more when in compound expressions. The syntax starts to become opaque (from the compiler implementer's perspective) and the semantics downright hairy. IIRC, a lot of COBOL compilers will even warn you if you use syntax like that because of the potential problems.
In .Net you can use Linq:
int[] wanted = new int{1, 2};
// you can use Any to return true for the first item in the list that passes
bool result = wanted.Any( i => i == x );
// or use Contains
bool result = wanted.Contains( x );
Although personally I think the basic || is simple enough:
bool result = ( x == 1 || x == 2 );
Thanks Ignacio! I translate it into Ruby:
[ 1, 2 ].include?( x )
and it also works, but I'm not sure whether it'd look clear & normal. If you know about Ruby, please advise. Also if anybody knows how to write this in C, please tell me. Thanks. -Nathan
Perl 5 with Perl6::Junction:
use Perl6::Junction 'any';
say 'yes' if 2 == any(qw/1 2 3/);
Perl 6:
say 'yes' if 2 == 1|2|3;
This version is so readable and concise I’d use it instead of the || operator.
Pascal has a (limited) notion of sets, so you could do:
if x in [1, 2] then
(haven't touched a Pascal compiler in decades so the syntax may be off)
A try with only one non-bitwise boolean operator (not advised, not tested):
if( (x&3) ^ x ^ ((x>>1)&1) ^ (x&1) ^ 1 == 0 )
The (x&3) ^ x part should be equal to 0, this ensures that x is between 0 and 3. Other operands will only have the last bit set.
The ((x>>1)&1) ^ (x&1) ^ 1 part ensures last and second to last bits are different. This will apply to 1 and 2, but not 0 and 3.
You say the notation (x==1 || x==2) is "awkward and hard to read". I beg to differ. It's different than natural language, but is very clear and easy to understand. You just need to think like a computer.
Also, the notations mentioned in this thread like x in (1,2) are semantically different then what you are really asking, they ask if x is member of the set (1,2), which is not what you are asking. What you are asking is if x equals to 1 or to 2 which is logically (and semantically) equivalent to if x equals to 1 or x equals to 2 which translates to (x==1 || x==2).
In java:
List list = Arrays.asList(new Integer[]{1,2});
Set set = new HashSet(list);
set.contains(1)
I have a macro that I use a lot that's somewhat close to what you want.
#define ISBETWEEN(Var, Low, High) ((Var) >= (Low) && (Var) <= (High))
ISBETWEEN(x, 1, 2) will return true if x is 1 or 2.
Neither C, C++, VB.net, C#.net, nor any other such language I know of has an efficient way to test for something being one of several choices. Although (x==1 || x==2) is often the most natural way to code such a construct, that approach sometimes requires the creation of an extra temporary variable:
tempvar = somefunction(); // tempvar only needed for 'if' test:
if (tempvar == 1 || tempvar == 2)
...
Certainly an optimizer should be able to effectively get rid of the temporary variable (shove it in a register for the brief time it's used) but I still think that code is ugly. Further, on some embedded processors, the most compact and possibly fastest way to write (x == const1 || x==const2 || x==const3) is:
movf _x,w ; Load variable X into accumulator
xorlw const1 ; XOR with const1
btfss STATUS,ZERO ; Skip next instruction if zero
xorlw const1 ^ const2 ; XOR with (const1 ^ const2)
btfss STATUS,ZERO ; Skip next instruction if zero
xorlw const2 ^ const3 ; XOR with (const2 ^ const3)
btfss STATUS,ZERO ; Skip next instruction if zero
goto NOPE
That approach require two more instructions for each constant; all instructions will execute. Early-exit tests will save time if the branch is taken, and waste time otherwise. Coding using a literal interpretation of the separate comparisons would require four instructions for each constant.
If a language had an "if variable is one of several constants" construct, I would expect a compiler to use the above code pattern. Too bad no such construct exists in common languages.
(note: Pascal does have such a construct, but run-time implementations are often very wasteful of both time and code space).
return x === 1 || x === 2 in javascript
I remember many years back, when I was in school, one of my computer science teachers taught us that it was better to check for 'trueness' or 'equality' of a condition and not the negative stuff like 'inequality'.
Let me elaborate - If a piece of conditional code can be written by checking whether an expression is true or false, we should check the 'trueness'.
Example: Finding out whether a number is odd - it can be done in two ways:
if ( num % 2 != 0 )
{
// Number is odd
}
or
if ( num % 2 == 1 )
{
// Number is odd
}
(Please refer to the marked answer for a better example.)
When I was beginning to code, I knew that num % 2 == 0 implies the number is even, so I just put a ! there to check if it is odd. But he was like 'Don't check NOT conditions. Have the practice of checking the 'trueness' or 'equality' of conditions whenever possible.' And he recommended that I use the second piece of code.
I am not for or against either but I just wanted to know - what difference does it make? Please don't reply 'Technically the output will be the same' - we ALL know that. Is it a general programming practice or is it his own programming practice that he is preaching to others?
NOTE: I used C#/C++ style syntax for no reason. My question is equally applicable when using the IsNot, <> operators in VB etc. So readability of the '!' operator is just one of the issues. Not THE issue.
The problem occurs when, later in the project, more conditions are added - one of the projects I'm currently working on has steadily collected conditions over time (and then some of those conditions were moved into struts tags, then some to JSTL...) - one negative isn't hard to read, but 5+ is a nightmare, especially when someone decides to reorganize and negate the whole thing. Maybe on a new project, you'll write:
if (authorityLvl!=Admin){
doA();
}else{
doB();
}
Check back in a month, and it's become this:
if (!(authorityLvl!=Admin && authorityLvl!=Manager)){
doB();
}else{
doA();
}
Still pretty simple, but it takes another second.
Now give it another 5 to 10 years to rot.
(x%2!=0) certainly isn't a problem, but perhaps the best way to avoid the above scenario is to teach students not to use negative conditions as a general rule, in the hopes that they'll use some judgement before they do - because just saying that it could become a maintenance problem probably won't be enough motivation.
As an addendum, a better way to write the code would be:
userHasAuthority = (authorityLvl==Admin);
if (userHasAuthority){
doB();
else{
doA();
}
Now future coders are more likely to just add "|| authorityLvl==Manager", userHasAuthority is easier to move into a method, and even if the conditional is reorganized, it will only have one negative. Moreover, no one will add a security hole to the application by making a mistake while applying De Morgan's Law.
I will disagree with your old professor - checking for a NOT condition is fine as long as you are checking for a specific NOT condition. It actually meets his criteria: you would be checking that it is TRUE that a value is NOT something.
I grok what he means though - mostly the true condition(s) will be orders of magnitude smaller in quantity than the NOT conditions, therefore easier to test for as you are checking a smaller set of values.
I've had people tell me that it's to do with how "visible" the ping (!) character is when skim reading.
If someone habitually "skim reads" code - perhaps because they feel their regular reading speed is too slow - then the ! can be easily missed, giving them a critical mis-understanding of the code.
On the other hand, if a someone actually reads all of the code all of the time, then there is no issue.
Two very good developers I've worked with (and respect highily) will each write == false instead of using ! for similar reasons.
The key factor in my mind is less to do with what works for you (or me!), and more with what works for the guy maintaining the code. If the code is never going to be seen or maintained by anyone else, follow your personal whim; if the code needs to be maintained by others, better to steer more towards the middle of the road. A minor (trivial!) compromise on your part now, might save someone else a week of debugging later on.
Update: On further consideration, I would suggest factoring out the condition as a separate predicate function would give still greater maintainability:
if (isOdd(num))
{
// Number is odd
}
You still have to be careful about things like this:
if ( num % 2 == 1 )
{
// Number is odd
}
If num is negative and odd then depending on the language or implementation num % 2 could equal -1. On that note, there is nothing wrong with checking for the falseness if it simplifies at least the syntax of the check. Also, using != is more clear to me than just !-ing the whole thing as the ! may blend in with the parenthesis.
To only check the trueness you would have to do:
if ( num % 2 == 1 || num % 2 == -1 )
{
// Number is odd
}
That is just an example obviously. The point is that if using a negation allows for fewer checks or makes the syntax of the checks clear then that is clearly the way to go (as with the above example). Locking yourself into checking for trueness does not suddenly make your conditional more readable.
I remember hearing the same thing in my classes as well. I think it's more important to always use the more intuitive comparison, rather than always checking for the positive condition.
Really a very in-consequential issue. However, one negative to checking in this sense is that it only works for binary comparisons. If you were for example checking some property of a ternary numerical system you would be limited.
Replying to Bevan (it didn't fit in a comment):
You're right. !foo isn't always the same as foo == false. Let's see this example, in JavaScript:
var foo = true,
bar = false,
baz = null;
foo == false; // false
!foo; // false
bar == false; // true
!bar; // true
baz == false; // false (!)
!baz; // true
I also disagree with your teacher in this specific case. Maybe he was so attached to the generally good lesson to avoid negatives where a positive will do just fine, that he didn't see this tree for the forest.
Here's the problem. Today, you listen to him, and turn your code into:
// Print black stripe on odd numbers
int zebra(int num) {
if (num % 2 == 1) {
// Number is odd
printf("*****\n");
}
}
Next month, you look at it again and decide you don't like magic constants (maybe he teaches you this dislike too). So you change your code:
#define ZEBRA_PITCH 2
[snip pages and pages, these might even be in separate files - .h and .c]
// Print black stripe on non-multiples of ZEBRA_PITCH
int zebra(int num) {
if (num % ZEBRA_PITCH == 1) {
// Number is not a multiple of ZEBRA_PITCH
printf("*****\n");
}
}
and the world seems fine. Your output hasn't changed, and your regression testsuite passes.
But you're not done. You want to support mutant zebras, whose black stripes are thicker than their white stripes. You remember from months back that you originally coded it such that your code prints a black stripe wherever a white strip shouldn't be - on the not-even numbers. So all you have to do is to divide by, say, 3, instead of by 2, and you should be done. Right? Well:
#define DEFAULT_ZEBRA_PITCH 2
[snip pages and pages, these might even be in separate files - .h and .c]
// Print black stripe on non-multiples of pitch
int zebra(int num, int pitch) {
if (num % pitch == 1) {
// Number is odd
printf("*****\n");
}
}
Hey, what's this? You now have mostly-white zebras where you expected them to be mostly black!
The problem here is how think about numbers. Is a number "odd" because it isn't even, or because when dividing by 2, the remainder is 1? Sometimes your problem domain will suggest a preference for one, and in those cases I'd suggest you write your code to express that idiom, rather than fixating on simplistic rules such as "don't test for negations".
I want to check whether a value is equal to 1. Is there any difference in the following lines of code
Evaluated value == 1
1 == evaluated value
in terms of the compiler execution
In most languages it's the same thing.
People often do 1 == evaluated value because 1 is not an lvalue. Meaning that you can't accidentally do an assignment.
Example:
if(x = 6)//bug, but no compiling error
{
}
Instead you could force a compiling error instead of a bug:
if(6 = x)//compiling error
{
}
Now if x is not of int type, and you're using something like C++, then the user could have created an operator==(int) override which takes this question to a new meaning. The 6 == x wouldn't compile in that case but the x == 6 would.
It depends on the programming language.
In Ruby, Smalltalk, Self, Newspeak, Ioke and many other single-dispatch object-oriented programming languages, a == b is actually a message send. In Ruby, for example, it is equivalent to a.==(b). What this means, is that when you write a == b, then the method == in the class of a is executed, but when you write b == a, then the method in the class of b is executed. So, it's obviously not the same thing:
class A; def ==(other) false end; end
class B; def ==(other) true end; end
a, b = A.new, B.new
p a == b # => false
p b == a # => true
No, but the latter syntax will give you a compiler error if you accidentally type
if (1 = evaluatedValue)
Note that today any decent compiler will warn you if you write
if (evaluatedValue = 1)
so it is mostly relevant for historical reasons.
Depends on the language.
In Prolog or Erlang, == is written = and is a unification rather than an assignment (you're asserting that the values are equal, rather then testing that they are equal or forcing them to be equal), so you can use it for an assertion if the left hand side is a constant, as explained here.
So X = 3 would unify the variable X and the value 3, whereas 3 = X would attempt to unify the constant 3 with the current value of X, and be equivalent of assert(x==3) in imperative languages.
It's the same thing
In general, it hardly matters whether you use,
Evaluated value == 1 OR 1 == evaluated value.
Use whichever appears more readable to you. I prefer if(Evaluated value == 1) because it looks more readable to me.
And again, I'd like to quote a well known scenario of string comparison in java.
Consider a String str which you have to compare with say another string "SomeString".
str = getValueFromSomeRoutine();
Now at runtime, you are not sure if str would be NULL. So to avoid exception you'll write
if(str!=NULL)
{
if(str.equals("SomeString")
{
//do stuff
}
}
to avoid the outer null check you could just write
if ("SomeString".equals(str))
{
//do stuff
}
Though this is less readable which again depends on the context, this saves you an extra if.
For this and similar questions can I suggest you find out for yourself by writing a little code, running it through your compiler and viewing the emitted asembler output.
For example, for the GNU compilers, you do this with the -S flag. For the VS compilers, the most convenient route is to run your test program in the debugger and then use the assembeler debugger view.
Sometimes in C++ they do different things, if the evaluated value is a user type and operator== is defined. Badly.
But that's very rarely the reason anyone would choose one way around over the other: if operator== is not commutative/symmetric, including if the type of the value has a conversion from int, then you have A Problem that probably wants fixing rather than working around. Brian R. Bondy's answer, and others, are probably on the mark for why anyone worries about it in practice.
But the fact remains that even if operator== is commutative, the compiler might not do exactly the same thing in each case. It will (by definition) return the same result, but it might do things in a slightly different order, or whatever.
if value == 1
if 1 == value
Is exactly the same, but if you accidentally do
if value = 1
if 1 = value
The first one will work while the 2nd one will produce an error.
They are the same. Some people prefer putting the 1 first, to void accidentally falling into the trap of typing
evaluated value = 1
which could be painful if the value on the left hand side is assignable. This is a common "defensive" pattern in C, for instance.
In C languages it's common to put the constant or magic number first so that if you forget one of the "=" of the equality check (==) then the compiler won't interpret this as an assignment.
In java, you cannot do an assignment within a boolean expression, and so for Java, it is irrelevant which order the equality operands are written in; The compiler should flag an error anyway.