Multiple distinct objects: Difference between revisions

 

=={{header|Ada}}==

A : array (1..N) of T;

Here N can be unknown until run-time. T is any constrained type.

=={{header|C}}==

 

foo *foos = malloc(n * sizeof(*foos));

for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)

init_foo(&foos[i]);

 

(Or if no particular initialization is needed, skip that part, or use <tt>calloc</tt>.)

=={{header|C++}}==

Using only language primitives:

// this assumes T is a default-constructible type (all built-in types are)

T* p = new T[n]; // if T is POD, the objects are uninitialized, otherwise they are default-initialized

// when you don't need the objects any more, get rid of them

delete[] p;

 

Using the standard library

#include <vector>

 

for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)

vec3.push_back(makeDistinctObject());

 

For polymorphic objects:

#include <vector>

 

// set the pointers to NULL after deleting; again, using a smart pointer

// would remove this need)

Of course, also in this case one can use the other sequence containers or plain new/delete instead of <tt>vector</tt>.

 

=={{header|Common Lisp}}==

The mistake is often written as one of these:

(make-list n :initial-element (make-the-distinct-thing))

(make-array n :initial-element (make-the-distinct-thing))

(loop repeat n collect (make-the-distinct-thing))

 

=={{header|Haskell}}==

 

replicateM n makeTheDistinctThing

in an appropriate do block. If it is distinguished by, say, a numeric label, one could write

mapM makeTheDistinctThing [1..n]

 

An incorrect version:

do x <- makeTheDistinctThing

return (replicate n x)

 

=={{header|Java}}==

{{works with|Java|1.5+}}

simple array:

Foo[] foos = new Foo[n]; // all elements initialized to null

for (int i = 0; i < foos.length; i++)

Foo[] foos_WRONG = new Foo[n];

Arrays.fill(foos, new Foo()); // new Foo() only evaluated once

 

simple list:

List<Foo> foos = new ArrayList<Foo>();

for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)

// incorrect:

List<Foo> foos_WRONG = Collections.nCopies(n, new Foo()); // new Foo() only evaluated once

 

Generic version for class given at runtime:

 

It's not pretty but it gets the job done. The first method here is the one that does the work. The second method is a convenience method so that you can pass in a <tt>String</tt> of the class name. When using the second method, be sure to use the full class name (ex: "java.lang.String" for "String"). <tt>InstantiationException</tt>s will be thrown when instantiating classes that you would not normally be able to call <tt>new</tt> on (abstract classes, interfaces, etc.).

public static <E> List<E> getNNewObjects(int n, Class<? extends E> c){

List<E> ans = new LinkedList<E>();

return getNNewObjects(n, Class.forName(className));

}

 

=={{header|OCaml}}==

 

Incorrect:

Array.make n (new foo);; (* here (new foo) can be any expression that returns a new object, record, array, or string *)

Array.init n (fun _ -> new foo);;

 

=={{header|Perl}}==

incorrect:

(Foo->new) x $n # here Foo->new can be any expression that returns a reference representing a new object

 

A correct version is:

map { Foo->new } 1 .. $n;

which evaluates <tt>Foo->new</tt> <var>$n</var> times and collects each result in a list.

 

=={{header|Python}}==

The mistake is often written as:

[Foo()] * n # here Foo() can be any expression that returns a new object

which is incorrect since <tt>Foo()</tt> is only evaluated once. A common correct version is:

[Foo() for i in xrange(n)]

which evaluates <tt>Foo()</tt> <var>n</var> times and collects each result in a list. This last form is also discussed [[Two-dimensional array (runtime)#Python|here]], on the correct construction of a two dimensional array.

 

=={{header|Ruby}}==

The mistake is often written as one of these:

[Foo.new] * n # here Foo.new can be any expression that returns a new object

Array.new(n, Foo.new)

Array.new(n) { Foo.new }