Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #84083

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque

From Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c++
Subject Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque
Date 2022-05-13 17:22 +0100
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <87bkw1z9k6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink)
References (9 earlier) <20220513015816.00006f57@reddwarf.jmc> <D7WdnSjo4swvKOD_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <20220513080247.000077d7@reddwarf.jmc> <t5l090$2f3k$1@news.gegeweb.eu> <AKmdnVy_E98P4OP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

Show all headers | View raw


olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 5/13/2022 2:10 AM, tth wrote:
>> On 5/13/22 09:02, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> 
>>> You cannot implement all of std::deque's member functions meeting
>>> std::deque requirements using your chosen data structure of two
>>> std::vectors.
>>     Not with any version of the C language.
>
> Many are implemented
>
> class Tape_Type
> {
> public:
> typedef unsigned char tape_element;
>
> private:
>   int Tape_Head = 0;               // Can be negative
>   std::vector<tape_element> Left;  // Stores left expansion
>   std::vector<tape_element> Right; // Stores right expansion
>
>   tape_element& operator[](int index)
>   {
>     return index >= 0 ? Right[index] : Left[-index - 1];
>   }
>
> public:
>   tape_element& front( )      { return Left.back();       }
>   tape_element& back()        { return Right.back();      }
>   void pop_front()                  { Left.pop_back();    }
>   void pop_back()                   { Right.pop_back();   }
>   void push_front(tape_element& E)  { Left.push_back(E);  }
>   void push_back(tape_element& E)   { Right.push_back(E); }
>   void reserve(unsigned int N)
>                      { Left.reserve(N); Right.reserve(N); }
>
> My deque is indexed by an integer, >=0 grows the RIGHT with
> Right.push_back() as the index increases above 0 and grows the Left
> with Left.push_back() as the index decreases below 0.

This is not a deque.  Test before you post!

-- 
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 17:51 -0500
  Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-12 23:56 +0100
    Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 18:09 -0500
      Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 00:22 +0100
        Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 18:38 -0500
          Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 00:40 +0100
            Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 18:49 -0500
              Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 00:53 +0100
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 19:12 -0500
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 01:58 +0100
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 20:34 -0500
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-05-12 21:05 -0700
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 08:02 +0100
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque tth <tth@none.invalid> - 2022-05-13 09:10 +0200
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 10:47 -0500
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 17:22 +0100
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-05-13 19:31 +0300
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 10:58 -0500
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 17:02 +0100
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 12:44 -0700
  Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-12 19:23 -0400
    Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 18:32 -0500
  Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 01:06 +0100
    Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 19:55 -0500
      Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 02:01 +0100
        Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 20:36 -0500
          Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 08:04 +0100
            Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 11:00 -0500
              Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 17:04 +0100
                Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 12:05 -0500

csiph-web