Sign up to receive Decoded, a new monthly digest with product updates, feature release info, continuing education opportunities, and more.
Refactor procedural algorithm to OOP
I'm looking at an algorithm for generating permutations, and I notice it has an "output" statement buried deep in the main loop.
What I'd like is an OOP way of doing this, where I can call hasnext() and next() to get the next permutation, and then do what I like with it. That way I'm in control, rather than the algorithm being in control saying, "Here's the next permutation, and the next, and the next..."
My specific example is Heap's algorithm for generating permutations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w
I don't like how it has an "output" statement nested deep within the main loop. That seems like an old fashioned procedural way of doing things.
Is there a general method for converting procedural algorithms to OOP? I'm using this permutation algorithm as a concrete example. I'm hoping if I can convert this specific example, then I'll see the general pattern.
Here's a working C# program:
I came up with this class which almost does what I want. The class holds state variables which keep track of where we are in the algorithm. The state variables are initialized in the Constructor.
I had to add a return (new List<String>()); to the end of the next() method, so all paths return a List.
Problem: On the last iteration, p.hasnext() says there's a next element when actually there isn't, and the method executes return (new List<String>()); returning an empty List, which isn't satisfying.
hasnext() actually doesn't know if there's a next element, because we haven't generated it yet. At the same time, I don't want the hasnext() method to generate the next element, because I can't count on the caller always calling hasnext() before calling next().
I could throw in a whole boatload of flags:
"have we run the initializing code?"
"have we generated the next permutation?"
"have we returned the next permutation?"
The code quickly becomes messy with a bunch of if statements.
i also considered running the algorithm in a separate thread, where it generates a permutation, places it somewhere to be fetched, then pauses within the loop and waits for a resume signal. Sounds messy.
Code to call the above class:
(Sometimes I encounter procedural code that I want to convert to OOP. For example, awhile ago I encountered some procedural code that had a Read Input() statement followed by more code handling the input. I couldn't run this in a GUI because the Read statement blocked the message pump, preventing the Read from happening. I had to queue up the Read, then provide a separate callback method to handle the read. The separate callback method had to know which read it was handling.)
What I'd like is an OOP way of doing this, where I can call hasnext() and next() to get the next permutation, and then do what I like with it. That way I'm in control, rather than the algorithm being in control saying, "Here's the next permutation, and the next, and the next..."
My specific example is Heap's algorithm for generating permutations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w
I don't like how it has an "output" statement nested deep within the main loop. That seems like an old fashioned procedural way of doing things.
Is there a general method for converting procedural algorithms to OOP? I'm using this permutation algorithm as a concrete example. I'm hoping if I can convert this specific example, then I'll see the general pattern.
Here's a working C# program:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Text;
namespace permute1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<String> list = new List<String>();
list.Add("A");
list.Add("B");
list.Add("C");
generate(list);
}
public static void output(List<String> A)
{
foreach (String s in A)
{
System.Console.Write(s);
}
System.Console.WriteLine("");
}
public static bool IsEven(int value)
{
return value % 2 == 0;
}
public static void swap(List<String> A, int position1, int position2)
{
String temp = A[position1]; // Copy the first position's element
A[position1] = A[position2]; // Assign to the second element
A[position2] = temp; // Assign to the first element
}
public static void generate(List<String> A)
{
//HEAP'S ALGORITHM FOR GENERATING PERMUTATIONS
int n = A.Count;
int[] c = new int[n];
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
c[i] = 0;
}
output(A);
for (int i = 0; i < n; )
{
if (c[i] < i)
{
if (IsEven(i))
{
swap(A, 0, i);
}
else
{
swap(A, c[i], i);
}
output(A);
c[i] += 1;
i = 0;
}
else
{
c[i] = 0;
i += 1;
}
}
}
}
}
method algorithm()
{
initializing code
.
.
output(A);
while(condition)
if (something)
code
.
.
output(A);
more code
.
.
else
other code
.
.
endwhile
}
p = new algorithm()
while(p.hasnext())
A = p.next()
endwhile
I came up with this class which almost does what I want. The class holds state variables which keep track of where we are in the algorithm. The state variables are initialized in the Constructor.
class permuter
{
List<String> A;
int[] c;
int n;
int i;
public permuter(List<String> I)
{
this.A = new List<String>(I);
this.n = A.Count;
this.c = new int[n];
for (int j = 0; j < n; j++)
{
c[j] = 0;
}
}
public bool hasnext()
{
return (this.i < this.n);
}
public bool IsEven(int value)
{
return value % 2 == 0;
}
public void swap(List<String> A, int position1, int position2)
{
String temp = A[position1]; // Copy the first position's element
A[position1] = A[position2]; // Assign to the second element
A[position2] = temp; // Assign to the first element
}
public List<String> next()
{
while (i < n)
{
if (c[i] < i)
{
if (IsEven(i))
{
swap(A, 0, i);
}
else
{
swap(A, c[i], i);
}
c[i] += 1;
i = 0;
return (A);
}
else
{
c[i] = 0;
i += 1;
}
}
return (new List<String>());
}
}
I had to add a return (new List<String>()); to the end of the next() method, so all paths return a List.
Problem: On the last iteration, p.hasnext() says there's a next element when actually there isn't, and the method executes return (new List<String>()); returning an empty List, which isn't satisfying.
hasnext() actually doesn't know if there's a next element, because we haven't generated it yet. At the same time, I don't want the hasnext() method to generate the next element, because I can't count on the caller always calling hasnext() before calling next().
I could throw in a whole boatload of flags:
"have we run the initializing code?"
"have we generated the next permutation?"
"have we returned the next permutation?"
The code quickly becomes messy with a bunch of if statements.
i also considered running the algorithm in a separate thread, where it generates a permutation, places it somewhere to be fetched, then pauses within the loop and waits for a resume signal. Sounds messy.
Code to call the above class:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<String> list = new List<String>();
list.Add("A");
list.Add("B");
list.Add("C");
permuter p = new permuter(list);
output(list);
while (p.hasnext())
{
List<String> L = p.next();
output(L);
}
}
(Sometimes I encounter procedural code that I want to convert to OOP. For example, awhile ago I encountered some procedural code that had a Read Input() statement followed by more code handling the input. I couldn't run this in a GUI because the Read statement blocked the message pump, preventing the Read from happening. I had to queue up the Read, then provide a separate callback method to handle the read. The separate callback method had to know which read it was handling.)
Asked:
3 Solutions
You could use an iterator:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Text;
namespace permute1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<String> list = new List<String>();
list.Add("A");
list.Add("B");
list.Add("C");
foreach(List<string> L in generate(list))
output(L);
}
public static void output(List<String> A)
{
foreach (String s in A)
{
System.Console.Write(s);
}
System.Console.WriteLine("");
}
public static bool IsEven(int value)
{
return value % 2 == 0;
}
public static void swap(List<String> A, int position1, int position2)
{
String temp = A[position1]; // Copy the first position's element
A[position1] = A[position2]; // Assign to the second element
A[position2] = temp; // Assign to the first element
}
public static IEnumerate<<List<string>> generate(List<String> A)
{
//HEAP'S ALGORITHM FOR GENERATING PERMUTATIONS
int n = A.Count;
int[] c = new int[n];
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
c[i] = 0;
}
yield return A;
for (int i = 0; i < n; )
{
if (c[i] < i)
{
if (IsEven(i))
{
swap(A, 0, i);
}
else
{
swap(A, c[i], i);
}
yield return A;
c[i] += 1;
i = 0;
}
else
{
c[i] = 0;
i += 1;
}
}
}
}
}
OOP is imho not the exact term. Cause you want a special behavior called iterator pattern. And much better: .NET has the IEnumerable pattern and even the yield keyword.
For your concrete problems:
return (new List<String>()): you need to accept a set as input and you need to generate a set as output. Thus it is basically ok. But you should later one thing about using more abstract classes or interfaces here.
Also there is imho no need for a specific data type, so you should use generics.
hasnext(): permutations are a fixed number of elements over a given start set. Thus you can calculate his number once at the beginning and use a simple counter for hasnext(). But the drawback: It is n! (faculty), thus this can lead quickly to an overflow. So you need to simply use a cache approach. Create one permutation in advance and return it later. When this is possible, then you have the answer for hasnext(). Thus you need to create one in the constructor to initialize it,
So I would use a class like
For your concrete problems:
return (new List<String>()): you need to accept a set as input and you need to generate a set as output. Thus it is basically ok. But you should later one thing about using more abstract classes or interfaces here.
Also there is imho no need for a specific data type, so you should use generics.
hasnext(): permutations are a fixed number of elements over a given start set. Thus you can calculate his number once at the beginning and use a simple counter for hasnext(). But the drawback: It is n! (faculty), thus this can lead quickly to an overflow. So you need to simply use a cache approach. Create one permutation in advance and return it later. When this is possible, then you have the answer for hasnext(). Thus you need to create one in the constructor to initialize it,
So I would use a class like
public class Permutations<T> : IEnumerable<T>
{
public Permutations(IList<T> set)
{
}
}
Question has a verified solution.
Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.
Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.
Join & Write a Comment Already a member? Login.
Featured Post
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now
using of hasnext or next doesn't turn it from procedural code to OOP.
a while loop used by an outer object to control action on a lower object (here your list) is an evidance for procedural code. for OOP you would need to create a class that is derived from the list or owns the list and where you can get the whole list of permutations and the count and perhaps each single permutation by index. true OOP you would get by creating an iterator class which gets initialized by using begin member function of your permuter class and ends by checking whether next iteration meets the end member function. for iteration you should overload the ++ operator (or next member function if you like better).
Sara