How to make a variable always equal to the result of some calculations?
In math, if z = x+y/2
, then z
will always change whenever we replace the value of x
and y
. Can we do that in programming without having to specifically updating z
whenever we change the value of x
and y
?
I mean something like that won't work, right?
int x;
int y;
int z{x + y};
cin >> x;
cin >> y;
cout << z;
c++ c++11
New contributor
add a comment |
In math, if z = x+y/2
, then z
will always change whenever we replace the value of x
and y
. Can we do that in programming without having to specifically updating z
whenever we change the value of x
and y
?
I mean something like that won't work, right?
int x;
int y;
int z{x + y};
cin >> x;
cin >> y;
cout << z;
c++ c++11
New contributor
Why do you want to do that?
– Robert Andrzejuk
8 hours ago
1
Right, that won't work. That's a spreadsheet thing.
– Pete Becker
8 hours ago
2
@RobertAndrzejuk Because it'd be very useful. For example, if you write a game and have something like networth(cash+the worth of all you own). You will have to call the function of networth everytime one of those update. That would be very annoying and error prone if you forgot to call the function somewhere.
– Nay Wunna Zaw
7 hours ago
5
@NayWunnaZaw In my experience this is why getters and setters are encouraged over direct variable access. If you always wanted networth to be updated, you could retrieve the value using getNetWorth() which would itself call updateNetWorth() before returning the value... or just calculate it before returning it.
– Onyz
6 hours ago
1
That's called a "function."
– ApproachingDarknessFish
2 hours ago
add a comment |
In math, if z = x+y/2
, then z
will always change whenever we replace the value of x
and y
. Can we do that in programming without having to specifically updating z
whenever we change the value of x
and y
?
I mean something like that won't work, right?
int x;
int y;
int z{x + y};
cin >> x;
cin >> y;
cout << z;
c++ c++11
New contributor
In math, if z = x+y/2
, then z
will always change whenever we replace the value of x
and y
. Can we do that in programming without having to specifically updating z
whenever we change the value of x
and y
?
I mean something like that won't work, right?
int x;
int y;
int z{x + y};
cin >> x;
cin >> y;
cout << z;
c++ c++11
c++ c++11
New contributor
New contributor
edited 3 hours ago
Nay Wunna Zaw
New contributor
asked 8 hours ago
Nay Wunna ZawNay Wunna Zaw
839
839
New contributor
New contributor
Why do you want to do that?
– Robert Andrzejuk
8 hours ago
1
Right, that won't work. That's a spreadsheet thing.
– Pete Becker
8 hours ago
2
@RobertAndrzejuk Because it'd be very useful. For example, if you write a game and have something like networth(cash+the worth of all you own). You will have to call the function of networth everytime one of those update. That would be very annoying and error prone if you forgot to call the function somewhere.
– Nay Wunna Zaw
7 hours ago
5
@NayWunnaZaw In my experience this is why getters and setters are encouraged over direct variable access. If you always wanted networth to be updated, you could retrieve the value using getNetWorth() which would itself call updateNetWorth() before returning the value... or just calculate it before returning it.
– Onyz
6 hours ago
1
That's called a "function."
– ApproachingDarknessFish
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Why do you want to do that?
– Robert Andrzejuk
8 hours ago
1
Right, that won't work. That's a spreadsheet thing.
– Pete Becker
8 hours ago
2
@RobertAndrzejuk Because it'd be very useful. For example, if you write a game and have something like networth(cash+the worth of all you own). You will have to call the function of networth everytime one of those update. That would be very annoying and error prone if you forgot to call the function somewhere.
– Nay Wunna Zaw
7 hours ago
5
@NayWunnaZaw In my experience this is why getters and setters are encouraged over direct variable access. If you always wanted networth to be updated, you could retrieve the value using getNetWorth() which would itself call updateNetWorth() before returning the value... or just calculate it before returning it.
– Onyz
6 hours ago
1
That's called a "function."
– ApproachingDarknessFish
2 hours ago
Why do you want to do that?
– Robert Andrzejuk
8 hours ago
Why do you want to do that?
– Robert Andrzejuk
8 hours ago
1
1
Right, that won't work. That's a spreadsheet thing.
– Pete Becker
8 hours ago
Right, that won't work. That's a spreadsheet thing.
– Pete Becker
8 hours ago
2
2
@RobertAndrzejuk Because it'd be very useful. For example, if you write a game and have something like networth(cash+the worth of all you own). You will have to call the function of networth everytime one of those update. That would be very annoying and error prone if you forgot to call the function somewhere.
– Nay Wunna Zaw
7 hours ago
@RobertAndrzejuk Because it'd be very useful. For example, if you write a game and have something like networth(cash+the worth of all you own). You will have to call the function of networth everytime one of those update. That would be very annoying and error prone if you forgot to call the function somewhere.
– Nay Wunna Zaw
7 hours ago
5
5
@NayWunnaZaw In my experience this is why getters and setters are encouraged over direct variable access. If you always wanted networth to be updated, you could retrieve the value using getNetWorth() which would itself call updateNetWorth() before returning the value... or just calculate it before returning it.
– Onyz
6 hours ago
@NayWunnaZaw In my experience this is why getters and setters are encouraged over direct variable access. If you always wanted networth to be updated, you could retrieve the value using getNetWorth() which would itself call updateNetWorth() before returning the value... or just calculate it before returning it.
– Onyz
6 hours ago
1
1
That's called a "function."
– ApproachingDarknessFish
2 hours ago
That's called a "function."
– ApproachingDarknessFish
2 hours ago
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
You can get close to this with by using a lambda in C++. Generally, when you set a variable like
int x;
int y;
int z{x + y};
z
will only be the result of x + y
at that time. You'd have to do z = x + y;
every time you chnage x
or y
to keep it update.
If you use a lambda though, you can have it capture what objects it should refer to, and what calculation should be done, and then every time you access the lambda it will give you the result at that point in time. That looks like
int x;
int y;
auto z = [&](){ return x + y; };
cin >> x;
cin >> y;
cout << z();
and now z()
will have the correct value instead of the uninitialized garbage that the original code had.
If the computation is very expensive you can even add some caching to the lambda to make sure you aren't running the computation when you don't need to. That would look like
auto z = [&](){ static auto cache_x = x;
static auto cache_y = y;
static auto cache_result = x + y;
if (x == cache_x && y == cache_y)
return cache_result;
else
{
cache_x = x;
cache_y = y;
cache_result = x + y;
reutrn cache_result;
}
};
2
Shouldn't the caches have a type?
– Aconcagua
8 hours ago
1
Also, at that point you should not repeat the cache code for each kind of lambda. A class encapsulation is pretty much required there.
– Max Langhof
8 hours ago
And a class can be used to avoid thez()
syntax as well: coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/3c3dafe9856c28b8
– Mooing Duck
2 hours ago
@MooingDuck That's awesome! I didn't think it was possible. It deserves to be an answer on its own!
– Fabio Turati
1 hour ago
@FabioTurati See Aconcagua's answer
– NathanOliver
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
The closest you probably can get is to create a functor:
#include <iostream>
int main() {
int x;
int y;
auto z = [&x, &y] { return x + y; }; // a lambda capturing x and y
while(true) {
std::cin >> x;
std::cin >> y;
std::cout << z() << "n";
}
}
add a comment |
You mean something like this:
class Z
{
int& x;
int& y;
public:
Z(int& x, int& y) : x(x), y(y) { }
operator int() { return x + y; }
};
The class delays calculation of the result until casted as int. As cast operator is not explicit, Z
can be used whenever an int is required. As there's an overload of operator<<
for int, you can use it with e. g. std::cout
directly:
int x, y;
Z z(x, y);
std::cin >> x >> y;
if(std::cin) // otherwise, IO error! (e. g. bad user input)
std::cout << z << std::endl;
add a comment |
- You create a function for that.
- You call the function with the appropriate arguments when you need the value.
int z(int x, int y)
{
return (x + y);
}
int x;
int y;
// This does ot work
// int z{x + y};
cin >> x;
cin >> y;
cout << z(x, y);
1
yes, i mean the only way to get z updated is to call that function everytime we change x and y values?
– Nay Wunna Zaw
8 hours ago
@NayWunnaZaw, yes, that is correct.
– R Sahu
8 hours ago
1
@NayWunnaZaw, you can avoid the repeated use ofx
andy
by using a lambda function, as shown by Nathan but you still have to make the call.
– R Sahu
8 hours ago
3
@NayWunnaZaw To complete the issue: Even with my solution, there is a function call (to the cast operator!), just that it is implicit and not required explicitly...
– Aconcagua
8 hours ago
add a comment |
You can define the following lambda z
which always returns the current value of x+y
because x
and y
are captured by reference:
DEMO
int x;
int y;
const auto z = [&x, &y](){ return x+y; };
1
Don't use parentheses around return values –return
is not a function, and in worst case, the parentheses can even create a dangling reference (with return type beingdecltype(auto)
).
– Aconcagua
8 hours ago
@Aconcagua thx! you are right. I edited my answer.
– Hiroki
8 hours ago
Why downvoted ? At least I posted my answer faster than Ted with my tested code.
– Hiroki
1 hour ago
add a comment |
There are two chief techniques:
Deferred calculation - instead of
z
being a simple variable, make it a function which calculates the value on demand (see other answers for examples). This can be source-code transparent ifz
is some proxy object with implicit conversion to the required type.Explicit notification of changes. This requires
x
andy
to be observable types; when either changes value, thenz
updates itself (and notifies its observers if applicable).
The first version is usually preferred, but the second may be more appropriate if you need z
to be an observable type.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Nay Wunna Zaw is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55402807%2fhow-to-make-a-variable-always-equal-to-the-result-of-some-calculations%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You can get close to this with by using a lambda in C++. Generally, when you set a variable like
int x;
int y;
int z{x + y};
z
will only be the result of x + y
at that time. You'd have to do z = x + y;
every time you chnage x
or y
to keep it update.
If you use a lambda though, you can have it capture what objects it should refer to, and what calculation should be done, and then every time you access the lambda it will give you the result at that point in time. That looks like
int x;
int y;
auto z = [&](){ return x + y; };
cin >> x;
cin >> y;
cout << z();
and now z()
will have the correct value instead of the uninitialized garbage that the original code had.
If the computation is very expensive you can even add some caching to the lambda to make sure you aren't running the computation when you don't need to. That would look like
auto z = [&](){ static auto cache_x = x;
static auto cache_y = y;
static auto cache_result = x + y;
if (x == cache_x && y == cache_y)
return cache_result;
else
{
cache_x = x;
cache_y = y;
cache_result = x + y;
reutrn cache_result;
}
};
2
Shouldn't the caches have a type?
– Aconcagua
8 hours ago
1
Also, at that point you should not repeat the cache code for each kind of lambda. A class encapsulation is pretty much required there.
– Max Langhof
8 hours ago
And a class can be used to avoid thez()
syntax as well: coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/3c3dafe9856c28b8
– Mooing Duck
2 hours ago
@MooingDuck That's awesome! I didn't think it was possible. It deserves to be an answer on its own!
– Fabio Turati
1 hour ago
@FabioTurati See Aconcagua's answer
– NathanOliver
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
You can get close to this with by using a lambda in C++. Generally, when you set a variable like
int x;
int y;
int z{x + y};
z
will only be the result of x + y
at that time. You'd have to do z = x + y;
every time you chnage x
or y
to keep it update.
If you use a lambda though, you can have it capture what objects it should refer to, and what calculation should be done, and then every time you access the lambda it will give you the result at that point in time. That looks like
int x;
int y;
auto z = [&](){ return x + y; };
cin >> x;
cin >> y;
cout << z();
and now z()
will have the correct value instead of the uninitialized garbage that the original code had.
If the computation is very expensive you can even add some caching to the lambda to make sure you aren't running the computation when you don't need to. That would look like
auto z = [&](){ static auto cache_x = x;
static auto cache_y = y;
static auto cache_result = x + y;
if (x == cache_x && y == cache_y)
return cache_result;
else
{
cache_x = x;
cache_y = y;
cache_result = x + y;
reutrn cache_result;
}
};
2
Shouldn't the caches have a type?
– Aconcagua
8 hours ago
1
Also, at that point you should not repeat the cache code for each kind of lambda. A class encapsulation is pretty much required there.
– Max Langhof
8 hours ago
And a class can be used to avoid thez()
syntax as well: coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/3c3dafe9856c28b8
– Mooing Duck
2 hours ago
@MooingDuck That's awesome! I didn't think it was possible. It deserves to be an answer on its own!
– Fabio Turati
1 hour ago
@FabioTurati See Aconcagua's answer
– NathanOliver
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
You can get close to this with by using a lambda in C++. Generally, when you set a variable like
int x;
int y;
int z{x + y};
z
will only be the result of x + y
at that time. You'd have to do z = x + y;
every time you chnage x
or y
to keep it update.
If you use a lambda though, you can have it capture what objects it should refer to, and what calculation should be done, and then every time you access the lambda it will give you the result at that point in time. That looks like
int x;
int y;
auto z = [&](){ return x + y; };
cin >> x;
cin >> y;
cout << z();
and now z()
will have the correct value instead of the uninitialized garbage that the original code had.
If the computation is very expensive you can even add some caching to the lambda to make sure you aren't running the computation when you don't need to. That would look like
auto z = [&](){ static auto cache_x = x;
static auto cache_y = y;
static auto cache_result = x + y;
if (x == cache_x && y == cache_y)
return cache_result;
else
{
cache_x = x;
cache_y = y;
cache_result = x + y;
reutrn cache_result;
}
};
You can get close to this with by using a lambda in C++. Generally, when you set a variable like
int x;
int y;
int z{x + y};
z
will only be the result of x + y
at that time. You'd have to do z = x + y;
every time you chnage x
or y
to keep it update.
If you use a lambda though, you can have it capture what objects it should refer to, and what calculation should be done, and then every time you access the lambda it will give you the result at that point in time. That looks like
int x;
int y;
auto z = [&](){ return x + y; };
cin >> x;
cin >> y;
cout << z();
and now z()
will have the correct value instead of the uninitialized garbage that the original code had.
If the computation is very expensive you can even add some caching to the lambda to make sure you aren't running the computation when you don't need to. That would look like
auto z = [&](){ static auto cache_x = x;
static auto cache_y = y;
static auto cache_result = x + y;
if (x == cache_x && y == cache_y)
return cache_result;
else
{
cache_x = x;
cache_y = y;
cache_result = x + y;
reutrn cache_result;
}
};
edited 8 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
NathanOliverNathanOliver
97.1k16137213
97.1k16137213
2
Shouldn't the caches have a type?
– Aconcagua
8 hours ago
1
Also, at that point you should not repeat the cache code for each kind of lambda. A class encapsulation is pretty much required there.
– Max Langhof
8 hours ago
And a class can be used to avoid thez()
syntax as well: coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/3c3dafe9856c28b8
– Mooing Duck
2 hours ago
@MooingDuck That's awesome! I didn't think it was possible. It deserves to be an answer on its own!
– Fabio Turati
1 hour ago
@FabioTurati See Aconcagua's answer
– NathanOliver
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
2
Shouldn't the caches have a type?
– Aconcagua
8 hours ago
1
Also, at that point you should not repeat the cache code for each kind of lambda. A class encapsulation is pretty much required there.
– Max Langhof
8 hours ago
And a class can be used to avoid thez()
syntax as well: coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/3c3dafe9856c28b8
– Mooing Duck
2 hours ago
@MooingDuck That's awesome! I didn't think it was possible. It deserves to be an answer on its own!
– Fabio Turati
1 hour ago
@FabioTurati See Aconcagua's answer
– NathanOliver
1 hour ago
2
2
Shouldn't the caches have a type?
– Aconcagua
8 hours ago
Shouldn't the caches have a type?
– Aconcagua
8 hours ago
1
1
Also, at that point you should not repeat the cache code for each kind of lambda. A class encapsulation is pretty much required there.
– Max Langhof
8 hours ago
Also, at that point you should not repeat the cache code for each kind of lambda. A class encapsulation is pretty much required there.
– Max Langhof
8 hours ago
And a class can be used to avoid the
z()
syntax as well: coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/3c3dafe9856c28b8– Mooing Duck
2 hours ago
And a class can be used to avoid the
z()
syntax as well: coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/3c3dafe9856c28b8– Mooing Duck
2 hours ago
@MooingDuck That's awesome! I didn't think it was possible. It deserves to be an answer on its own!
– Fabio Turati
1 hour ago
@MooingDuck That's awesome! I didn't think it was possible. It deserves to be an answer on its own!
– Fabio Turati
1 hour ago
@FabioTurati See Aconcagua's answer
– NathanOliver
1 hour ago
@FabioTurati See Aconcagua's answer
– NathanOliver
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
The closest you probably can get is to create a functor:
#include <iostream>
int main() {
int x;
int y;
auto z = [&x, &y] { return x + y; }; // a lambda capturing x and y
while(true) {
std::cin >> x;
std::cin >> y;
std::cout << z() << "n";
}
}
add a comment |
The closest you probably can get is to create a functor:
#include <iostream>
int main() {
int x;
int y;
auto z = [&x, &y] { return x + y; }; // a lambda capturing x and y
while(true) {
std::cin >> x;
std::cin >> y;
std::cout << z() << "n";
}
}
add a comment |
The closest you probably can get is to create a functor:
#include <iostream>
int main() {
int x;
int y;
auto z = [&x, &y] { return x + y; }; // a lambda capturing x and y
while(true) {
std::cin >> x;
std::cin >> y;
std::cout << z() << "n";
}
}
The closest you probably can get is to create a functor:
#include <iostream>
int main() {
int x;
int y;
auto z = [&x, &y] { return x + y; }; // a lambda capturing x and y
while(true) {
std::cin >> x;
std::cin >> y;
std::cout << z() << "n";
}
}
answered 8 hours ago
Ted LyngmoTed Lyngmo
3,5802522
3,5802522
add a comment |
add a comment |
You mean something like this:
class Z
{
int& x;
int& y;
public:
Z(int& x, int& y) : x(x), y(y) { }
operator int() { return x + y; }
};
The class delays calculation of the result until casted as int. As cast operator is not explicit, Z
can be used whenever an int is required. As there's an overload of operator<<
for int, you can use it with e. g. std::cout
directly:
int x, y;
Z z(x, y);
std::cin >> x >> y;
if(std::cin) // otherwise, IO error! (e. g. bad user input)
std::cout << z << std::endl;
add a comment |
You mean something like this:
class Z
{
int& x;
int& y;
public:
Z(int& x, int& y) : x(x), y(y) { }
operator int() { return x + y; }
};
The class delays calculation of the result until casted as int. As cast operator is not explicit, Z
can be used whenever an int is required. As there's an overload of operator<<
for int, you can use it with e. g. std::cout
directly:
int x, y;
Z z(x, y);
std::cin >> x >> y;
if(std::cin) // otherwise, IO error! (e. g. bad user input)
std::cout << z << std::endl;
add a comment |
You mean something like this:
class Z
{
int& x;
int& y;
public:
Z(int& x, int& y) : x(x), y(y) { }
operator int() { return x + y; }
};
The class delays calculation of the result until casted as int. As cast operator is not explicit, Z
can be used whenever an int is required. As there's an overload of operator<<
for int, you can use it with e. g. std::cout
directly:
int x, y;
Z z(x, y);
std::cin >> x >> y;
if(std::cin) // otherwise, IO error! (e. g. bad user input)
std::cout << z << std::endl;
You mean something like this:
class Z
{
int& x;
int& y;
public:
Z(int& x, int& y) : x(x), y(y) { }
operator int() { return x + y; }
};
The class delays calculation of the result until casted as int. As cast operator is not explicit, Z
can be used whenever an int is required. As there's an overload of operator<<
for int, you can use it with e. g. std::cout
directly:
int x, y;
Z z(x, y);
std::cin >> x >> y;
if(std::cin) // otherwise, IO error! (e. g. bad user input)
std::cout << z << std::endl;
answered 8 hours ago
AconcaguaAconcagua
12.9k32144
12.9k32144
add a comment |
add a comment |
- You create a function for that.
- You call the function with the appropriate arguments when you need the value.
int z(int x, int y)
{
return (x + y);
}
int x;
int y;
// This does ot work
// int z{x + y};
cin >> x;
cin >> y;
cout << z(x, y);
1
yes, i mean the only way to get z updated is to call that function everytime we change x and y values?
– Nay Wunna Zaw
8 hours ago
@NayWunnaZaw, yes, that is correct.
– R Sahu
8 hours ago
1
@NayWunnaZaw, you can avoid the repeated use ofx
andy
by using a lambda function, as shown by Nathan but you still have to make the call.
– R Sahu
8 hours ago
3
@NayWunnaZaw To complete the issue: Even with my solution, there is a function call (to the cast operator!), just that it is implicit and not required explicitly...
– Aconcagua
8 hours ago
add a comment |
- You create a function for that.
- You call the function with the appropriate arguments when you need the value.
int z(int x, int y)
{
return (x + y);
}
int x;
int y;
// This does ot work
// int z{x + y};
cin >> x;
cin >> y;
cout << z(x, y);
1
yes, i mean the only way to get z updated is to call that function everytime we change x and y values?
– Nay Wunna Zaw
8 hours ago
@NayWunnaZaw, yes, that is correct.
– R Sahu
8 hours ago
1
@NayWunnaZaw, you can avoid the repeated use ofx
andy
by using a lambda function, as shown by Nathan but you still have to make the call.
– R Sahu
8 hours ago
3
@NayWunnaZaw To complete the issue: Even with my solution, there is a function call (to the cast operator!), just that it is implicit and not required explicitly...
– Aconcagua
8 hours ago
add a comment |
- You create a function for that.
- You call the function with the appropriate arguments when you need the value.
int z(int x, int y)
{
return (x + y);
}
int x;
int y;
// This does ot work
// int z{x + y};
cin >> x;
cin >> y;
cout << z(x, y);
- You create a function for that.
- You call the function with the appropriate arguments when you need the value.
int z(int x, int y)
{
return (x + y);
}
int x;
int y;
// This does ot work
// int z{x + y};
cin >> x;
cin >> y;
cout << z(x, y);
answered 8 hours ago
R SahuR Sahu
170k1294193
170k1294193
1
yes, i mean the only way to get z updated is to call that function everytime we change x and y values?
– Nay Wunna Zaw
8 hours ago
@NayWunnaZaw, yes, that is correct.
– R Sahu
8 hours ago
1
@NayWunnaZaw, you can avoid the repeated use ofx
andy
by using a lambda function, as shown by Nathan but you still have to make the call.
– R Sahu
8 hours ago
3
@NayWunnaZaw To complete the issue: Even with my solution, there is a function call (to the cast operator!), just that it is implicit and not required explicitly...
– Aconcagua
8 hours ago
add a comment |
1
yes, i mean the only way to get z updated is to call that function everytime we change x and y values?
– Nay Wunna Zaw
8 hours ago
@NayWunnaZaw, yes, that is correct.
– R Sahu
8 hours ago
1
@NayWunnaZaw, you can avoid the repeated use ofx
andy
by using a lambda function, as shown by Nathan but you still have to make the call.
– R Sahu
8 hours ago
3
@NayWunnaZaw To complete the issue: Even with my solution, there is a function call (to the cast operator!), just that it is implicit and not required explicitly...
– Aconcagua
8 hours ago
1
1
yes, i mean the only way to get z updated is to call that function everytime we change x and y values?
– Nay Wunna Zaw
8 hours ago
yes, i mean the only way to get z updated is to call that function everytime we change x and y values?
– Nay Wunna Zaw
8 hours ago
@NayWunnaZaw, yes, that is correct.
– R Sahu
8 hours ago
@NayWunnaZaw, yes, that is correct.
– R Sahu
8 hours ago
1
1
@NayWunnaZaw, you can avoid the repeated use of
x
and y
by using a lambda function, as shown by Nathan but you still have to make the call.– R Sahu
8 hours ago
@NayWunnaZaw, you can avoid the repeated use of
x
and y
by using a lambda function, as shown by Nathan but you still have to make the call.– R Sahu
8 hours ago
3
3
@NayWunnaZaw To complete the issue: Even with my solution, there is a function call (to the cast operator!), just that it is implicit and not required explicitly...
– Aconcagua
8 hours ago
@NayWunnaZaw To complete the issue: Even with my solution, there is a function call (to the cast operator!), just that it is implicit and not required explicitly...
– Aconcagua
8 hours ago
add a comment |
You can define the following lambda z
which always returns the current value of x+y
because x
and y
are captured by reference:
DEMO
int x;
int y;
const auto z = [&x, &y](){ return x+y; };
1
Don't use parentheses around return values –return
is not a function, and in worst case, the parentheses can even create a dangling reference (with return type beingdecltype(auto)
).
– Aconcagua
8 hours ago
@Aconcagua thx! you are right. I edited my answer.
– Hiroki
8 hours ago
Why downvoted ? At least I posted my answer faster than Ted with my tested code.
– Hiroki
1 hour ago
add a comment |
You can define the following lambda z
which always returns the current value of x+y
because x
and y
are captured by reference:
DEMO
int x;
int y;
const auto z = [&x, &y](){ return x+y; };
1
Don't use parentheses around return values –return
is not a function, and in worst case, the parentheses can even create a dangling reference (with return type beingdecltype(auto)
).
– Aconcagua
8 hours ago
@Aconcagua thx! you are right. I edited my answer.
– Hiroki
8 hours ago
Why downvoted ? At least I posted my answer faster than Ted with my tested code.
– Hiroki
1 hour ago
add a comment |
You can define the following lambda z
which always returns the current value of x+y
because x
and y
are captured by reference:
DEMO
int x;
int y;
const auto z = [&x, &y](){ return x+y; };
You can define the following lambda z
which always returns the current value of x+y
because x
and y
are captured by reference:
DEMO
int x;
int y;
const auto z = [&x, &y](){ return x+y; };
edited 8 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
HirokiHiroki
2,1253320
2,1253320
1
Don't use parentheses around return values –return
is not a function, and in worst case, the parentheses can even create a dangling reference (with return type beingdecltype(auto)
).
– Aconcagua
8 hours ago
@Aconcagua thx! you are right. I edited my answer.
– Hiroki
8 hours ago
Why downvoted ? At least I posted my answer faster than Ted with my tested code.
– Hiroki
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1
Don't use parentheses around return values –return
is not a function, and in worst case, the parentheses can even create a dangling reference (with return type beingdecltype(auto)
).
– Aconcagua
8 hours ago
@Aconcagua thx! you are right. I edited my answer.
– Hiroki
8 hours ago
Why downvoted ? At least I posted my answer faster than Ted with my tested code.
– Hiroki
1 hour ago
1
1
Don't use parentheses around return values –
return
is not a function, and in worst case, the parentheses can even create a dangling reference (with return type being decltype(auto)
).– Aconcagua
8 hours ago
Don't use parentheses around return values –
return
is not a function, and in worst case, the parentheses can even create a dangling reference (with return type being decltype(auto)
).– Aconcagua
8 hours ago
@Aconcagua thx! you are right. I edited my answer.
– Hiroki
8 hours ago
@Aconcagua thx! you are right. I edited my answer.
– Hiroki
8 hours ago
Why downvoted ? At least I posted my answer faster than Ted with my tested code.
– Hiroki
1 hour ago
Why downvoted ? At least I posted my answer faster than Ted with my tested code.
– Hiroki
1 hour ago
add a comment |
There are two chief techniques:
Deferred calculation - instead of
z
being a simple variable, make it a function which calculates the value on demand (see other answers for examples). This can be source-code transparent ifz
is some proxy object with implicit conversion to the required type.Explicit notification of changes. This requires
x
andy
to be observable types; when either changes value, thenz
updates itself (and notifies its observers if applicable).
The first version is usually preferred, but the second may be more appropriate if you need z
to be an observable type.
add a comment |
There are two chief techniques:
Deferred calculation - instead of
z
being a simple variable, make it a function which calculates the value on demand (see other answers for examples). This can be source-code transparent ifz
is some proxy object with implicit conversion to the required type.Explicit notification of changes. This requires
x
andy
to be observable types; when either changes value, thenz
updates itself (and notifies its observers if applicable).
The first version is usually preferred, but the second may be more appropriate if you need z
to be an observable type.
add a comment |
There are two chief techniques:
Deferred calculation - instead of
z
being a simple variable, make it a function which calculates the value on demand (see other answers for examples). This can be source-code transparent ifz
is some proxy object with implicit conversion to the required type.Explicit notification of changes. This requires
x
andy
to be observable types; when either changes value, thenz
updates itself (and notifies its observers if applicable).
The first version is usually preferred, but the second may be more appropriate if you need z
to be an observable type.
There are two chief techniques:
Deferred calculation - instead of
z
being a simple variable, make it a function which calculates the value on demand (see other answers for examples). This can be source-code transparent ifz
is some proxy object with implicit conversion to the required type.Explicit notification of changes. This requires
x
andy
to be observable types; when either changes value, thenz
updates itself (and notifies its observers if applicable).
The first version is usually preferred, but the second may be more appropriate if you need z
to be an observable type.
answered 5 hours ago
Toby SpeightToby Speight
17.2k134367
17.2k134367
add a comment |
add a comment |
Nay Wunna Zaw is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Nay Wunna Zaw is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Nay Wunna Zaw is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Nay Wunna Zaw is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55402807%2fhow-to-make-a-variable-always-equal-to-the-result-of-some-calculations%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Why do you want to do that?
– Robert Andrzejuk
8 hours ago
1
Right, that won't work. That's a spreadsheet thing.
– Pete Becker
8 hours ago
2
@RobertAndrzejuk Because it'd be very useful. For example, if you write a game and have something like networth(cash+the worth of all you own). You will have to call the function of networth everytime one of those update. That would be very annoying and error prone if you forgot to call the function somewhere.
– Nay Wunna Zaw
7 hours ago
5
@NayWunnaZaw In my experience this is why getters and setters are encouraged over direct variable access. If you always wanted networth to be updated, you could retrieve the value using getNetWorth() which would itself call updateNetWorth() before returning the value... or just calculate it before returning it.
– Onyz
6 hours ago
1
That's called a "function."
– ApproachingDarknessFish
2 hours ago