We use cookies to ensure you have the best browsing experience on our website. Please read our cookie policy for more information about how we use cookies.
while(std::cin>>n){// for each candle n check:if(max<n){// does n set a new record in height?max=n;// if that's so, then n is the new max heightc=1;// and the counter c must be set to 1 again. "!!" is a cheap trick to convert any value different from 0 into 1}else{// otherwise check if the new candle is as tall as maxif(max==n)c++;// in that case, add 1 to counter (otherwise add 0)}}
Nice one. I arrived at same algo in C, minus the one liner ternary. Looks neat, I like it. Although I'd be curious if there is not a small performance loss of doing:
c=!!(expr);
vs
(expr);c=1;
the former may require additional conditional logic depending on architecture (for instance x86 - http://riffwiki.com/MOV_(x86_instruction) - the MOV instruction doesn't affect ZeroFlag, so I'd guess CPU would have to evaluate whether your expr results in a non-zero value. It's obvious to us as we can see the wider context of the algorithm, but not the CPU)
It is not CPU that analyses your c++, the compiler does. CPU doesn't "thin" but compiler does. It is really pointless to "optimize" your code this way because compiler is required to emit assembly that does what is ment but in which order and through which instructions, it is not specified. You better belive it does good job. You express c++ although it is slower than ++c: there is no way the compiler would use slower version if it doesn't afect the program flow. With no optimization flags may be.
Birthday Cake Candles
You are viewing a single comment's thread. Return to all comments →
can be translated as:
Too good
Nice one !!
How the hell "!!" trick work? I have no idea...
When you negate '!' a value diferent than 0 you will get 0, then if you negate 0 you will get 1 so..
!anyNonZeroVal == 0 !0 == 1
!!anyNonZeroVal == 1;
Good!
nice one
nice. thank you
Well I came up with similar algorithm, so thumbs up. Also seems like solution in editorial goes though array twice, and this goes only once.
hats off..
Nice one. I arrived at same algo in C, minus the one liner ternary. Looks neat, I like it. Although I'd be curious if there is not a small performance loss of doing:
vs
the former may require additional conditional logic depending on architecture (for instance x86 - http://riffwiki.com/MOV_(x86_instruction) - the MOV instruction doesn't affect ZeroFlag, so I'd guess CPU would have to evaluate whether your expr results in a non-zero value. It's obvious to us as we can see the wider context of the algorithm, but not the CPU)
thanks
It is not CPU that analyses your c++, the compiler does. CPU doesn't "thin" but compiler does. It is really pointless to "optimize" your code this way because compiler is required to emit assembly that does what is ment but in which order and through which instructions, it is not specified. You better belive it does good job. You express c++ although it is slower than ++c: there is no way the compiler would use slower version if it doesn't afect the program flow. With no optimization flags may be.
This is brilliant!
nice why didn't i think of this sooner
TYSM!! Helped me a lot..
I did the same thing but my code fails for some tests :O
I tried same in java. It worked! Thanks (: