New Year Sale 2026! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

C++ Institute CPP Exam - Topic 1 Question 85 Discussion

Actual exam question for C++ Institute's CPP exam
Question #: 85
Topic #: 1
[All CPP Questions]

Which changes introduced independently will allow the code to compile and display ''one'' ''eight'' ''nine'' ''ten''? Choose all that apply.

#include

#include

#include

using namespace std;

class A {

int a;

public:

A(int a):a(a){}

int getA() const { return a;}

/* Insert Code Here 1 */

};

/* Insert Code Here 2 */

int main(){

int t[] ={ 3, 4, 2, 1, 6, 5, 7, 9, 8, 10 };

string s[] = {"three", "four", "two", "one", "six","five", "seven", "nine","eight","ten"};

multimap m;/* Replace Code Here 3 */

for(int i=0; i<10; i++) {

m.insert(pair(A(t[i]),s[i]));

}

m.erase(m.lower_bound(2),m.upper_bound(7));

multimap::iterator i=m.begin();/* Replace Code Here 4 */

for( ; i!= m.end(); i++) {

cout<second<<" ";

}

cout<

return 0;

}

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Dante
3 months ago
I agree, D makes sense for the multimap.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elke
3 months ago
Surprised that we need a struct for the comparator!
upvoted 0 times
...
Tien
4 months ago
Wait, C seems off. Why would we reverse the comparison?
upvoted 0 times
...
Elenore
4 months ago
I think B is the right choice too.
upvoted 0 times
...
Virgie
4 months ago
A and D are definitely needed!
upvoted 0 times
...
Pamella
4 months ago
I think option C is incorrect because it reverses the comparison, which doesn't make sense for sorting. I’m leaning towards B and D being the right answers.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tammi
5 months ago
I feel like option D is a good choice since it defines a functor for the multimap, but I'm a bit confused about how it interacts with the other options.
upvoted 0 times
...
Yolande
5 months ago
I remember practicing a similar question where we had to define comparison operators for a class. I think option A might be useful too, but I can't recall if it's necessary here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Karan
5 months ago
I think option B is definitely needed for the comparison to work in the multimap, but I'm not sure about the others.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brianne
5 months ago
This is a good test of our understanding of C++ classes, operator overloading, and the multimap container. I'll need to work through this step-by-step to make sure I get the right solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ming
5 months ago
Okay, I think I've got a handle on this. The key is to implement a custom comparison function for the A class so that the multimap can sort the elements properly.
upvoted 0 times
...
Theodora
5 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit confused about the different options. I'll need to think through each one and see how it would impact the code's behavior.
upvoted 0 times
...
Merilyn
5 months ago
This looks like a tricky question. I'll need to carefully read through the code and understand the problem before attempting to solve it.
upvoted 0 times
...
Providencia
5 months ago
I'm feeling pretty confident about this one. I think option D is the way to go - it provides the custom comparison function and updates the multimap declaration and iterator accordingly.
upvoted 0 times
...
Scot
5 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit confused on this one. I know ABC includes more overhead costs, but I'm not sure how that impacts the reported profits.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elin
5 months ago
Okay, let's see. The application works directly on the servers, so the issue must be with the LTM configuration. I'll need to think through the options carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rueben
5 months ago
I remember learning about weekly distribution in class, but I'm not totally confident I understand all the details. I'll have to read the options closely.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lashonda
10 months ago
I'm going to go with options B and D. The custom comparator seems like a cleaner solution than overloading the less-than operator directly on the A class.
upvoted 0 times
Tennie
10 months ago
User 2
upvoted 0 times
...
Melynda
10 months ago
User 1
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Kris
10 months ago
Option D looks promising, but I'm not sure about the custom comparator. Shouldn't we just use the default less-than operator for the A class?
upvoted 0 times
...
Wenona
10 months ago
Haha, the problem says 'choose all that apply', so I'm going to mark all of them just to be safe! Better too many than too few, right?
upvoted 0 times
Earleen
9 months ago
D) struct R { bool operator ()(const A & a, const A & b) { return a.getA()
upvoted 0 times
...
Lauran
9 months ago
C) bool operator < (const A & b) const { return b.a
upvoted 0 times
...
Angelica
9 months ago
B) bool operator < (const A & b) const { return a
upvoted 0 times
...
Jestine
9 months ago
A) operator int() const { return a;} inserted at Place 1
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Lenna
11 months ago
I think option B is the correct answer. Comparing the object's 'a' member directly should allow the multimap to sort the keys properly.
upvoted 0 times
...
Valene
11 months ago
Hmm, you might be right. Let's see which option actually works when we try to compile the code.
upvoted 0 times
...
Pauline
11 months ago
I disagree, I believe option D is the correct choice because it provides the necessary comparison function for the multimap.
upvoted 0 times
...
Valene
11 months ago
I think option A will allow the code to compile and display the desired output.
upvoted 0 times
...