What's wrong with my shuffle function? It shuffles some songs, yet completely gets rid of others.
Here's the code:
void shuffle() //Shuffles songs into a random order. {
Music temp, temp2; //Temporary music file holders, 'Music' is a struct with string title;, string artist;, and int size;.
unsigned int currentTime = (unsigned)time(0);
srand(currentTime);
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_SONGS; i++)
I will keep this simple as I have the code written for my testing software program, I just want to add a feature of randomly generating the answer choice output order, I do not want to randomly output the full questions, but instead the choices (answers to the question), for example =
As you can see I would like to output the answers, choices randomly as in answer choice 3 will appear at the top instead of 1. and so on, it doesn't matter if the numbers move with the txt as the numbers beside the questions are txt.
I learned the bitwise operations in c, but how to shuffle the bits of the plain text accoring to DES's standard. Even with the key and the S-boxes. How DES is performed in C step by step. I have a fair knowledge in C.
I got this program to create an array of playing cards and assign the values and suits and shuffle the array. I'm at the point where I need to output the cards but I need to burn the first card by making it output "**" instead of the card. my cards[] is a constant so I can's assign the first card as such.
void showCards(const int cards[], int numCards, bool hideFirstCard) { if (cards[0]) { hideFirstCard=true; cards[0] = '**'; } for(int a = 0; a <= numCards; a++) { cout >> showCard(cards[a]); } }
my motive is to get random variable at every start of program.so it does not show same sequence when it run again and again
int main() { srand( time ( NULL ) ); cout<<rand(); }
when i run this program in code::block the following program is opening with error in new tab called TIME.H
/* * time.h * This file has no copyright assigned and is placed in the Public Domain. * This file is a part of the mingw-runtime package. * No warranty is given; refer to the file DISCLAIMER within the package. * * Date and time functions and types. * */ #ifndef_TIME_H_ #define_TIME_H_
I've been working on a little experiment, here is the source: [URL]
The problem that I keep running into is when I run the initPop and generate an individual object, the genome of the next individual is _exactly_ the same as the previous one... which confuses me... Shouldn't each individual be randomly different from the one that preceded it? What am I not right when it comes to generating random values?
I want to write a function that can accept any arbitrary array of doubles and return the index of the first element that is out of order or -1 if the elements are in order. Why my for loop exists immediately after an element is found to be out of order. What is wrong with my code and why?
Code: int out_of_order(double stuff[], int size) { int i; //run through entire array
I have recently found this article: URL.....In their example, by declaring variables in other order, they saved 8 bytes. However, shouldn't compiler take care of it? Is it true, and should I declare variables more carefully?
The purpose of doing this is so that the top of the if statements is not preferred over the bottom. I tried assigning enum values to each case. Then choose a random integer r from 0 to the size of the std::list myList containing those enum elements. The enum value is found using it = std::next (myList, r). Then if the if statement corresponding to that enum value is false, then myList.erase (it), and repeat the process with the newly reduce myList. It works, and everything seems nicely randomized. But it is disappointing much slower than when I used the original if-else statements (it is being applied hundreds of times).
Here is a snippet of my code (I decided not to use switch statements because it looked too clumsy):
std::list<FacingDirection> guyFacingDirections = {Positive_x, Negative_x, Positive_y, Negative_y, Positive_xPositive_y, Positive_xNegative_y, Negative_xPositive_y, Negative_xNegative_y}; while (true) { const int r = rand() % guyFacingDirections.size();
[Code] .....
There is a crowd of girls. Each guy will choose a girl, and then choose a facing direction to dance with his chosen girl. But not all facing directions are possible if someone is standing at the spot he wants to stand at to get his desired facing direction. Without randomizing the if-else statements, most of the guys will end up facing the same direction, which I don't like.
I am trying to build a c++ that reads user input and arrange letters in ascending order. for example, if the user input: Hello my name is Moe! the output will be: !aeeehillmmmnoos (ascending order)
my problem is that when i input hello my name is moe the output will be ehllo (not completing other letters) also when i change class size to 50, it outputs unknown weird letters.
I've been upkeeping a mess of a code recently, that uses "pseudo" singletons. Basically, the current code has "Initialize_All" static functions that initializes all the singletons in a given order. At the end of the program, we call "Destroy_All", and destroy everything in the reverse order.
The code is actually heavilly dll'ed, and Initilize_All and Destory_All are referenced counted. We ask that any client who uses our code call Initialize_All first and then Destroy_All when they are finished. The first Initilize_All will initialize everything, and the last Destory_All will delete everything.
This is showing its limits.
I'd like to move us to a fully singleton design. The singleton pattern means we don't have to use an Initilize_All, and each singleton can manage construction dependencies by itself (we are mono-threaded).
Each singleton is "clean", so it is cleans itself up at dll destruction.
The big question is this one:
If there is a singleton dependency during destruction, eg: ~A requires an instance of singleton B (which is in another DLL), are we guaranteed proper behavior?
Or, is there an "Static de-initialization order fiasco"?
If yes, are there any design that can combat this fiasco, short of having each singleton register itself in a manager, that will destroy them in reverse order?
I suspect that C++11 would make it possible to declare high rank vectors such as Code: int N = 15; // chosen arbitrary rank vector<vector<vector<...<vector<double>>>>..> vec; // N layers of nested vectors Is there a way to declare such a vector of rank N (given a fixed integer rank N)?
Heuristically I would like to write the declaration like this: Code:
vector<double> A; vector<A> vec[0]; for(int i=1; i<N; i++) { vector<vec[i-1]> vec[i]; } Is there a way to use the new variadic templates to make this work?
I've been messing around with loops/functions and basic logic and come up with a small maths program. Here it is:
Code: #include <iostream> #include <string> float divide (float x, float y) //function to divide numbers { return x / y;
[Code] ....
Would initializing the string 'anotherGo' to a value that makes the loop run at least once be a suitable way of doing this rather than using a do/while loop? I read that a do/while loop is a black sheep but I have come across a number of uses for it. Maybe it is just preference which one you should/could use?
