U.S. Independence Day Deal! Unlock 25% OFF Today – Limited-Time Offer - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

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

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
C) bool operator < (const A & b) const { return b.a
A) operator int() const { return a;} inserted at Place 1
B) bool operator < (const A & b) const { return a<b.a;} inserted at Place 1
D) struct R { bool operator ()(const A & a, const A & b) { return a.getA()<b.getA();} }; inserted at Place 2 replacing line marked 3 with multimap<A, string, R> m; replacong line marked 4 with multimap<A, string, R>::iterator i=m.begin();

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

by Vallie at May 19, 2024, 06:58 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium CPP Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Dante
7 months ago
I agree, D makes sense for the multimap.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elke
7 months ago
Surprised that we need a struct for the comparator!
upvoted 0 times
...
Tien
7 months ago
Wait, C seems off. Why would we reverse the comparison?
upvoted 0 times
...
Elenore
8 months ago
I think B is the right choice too.
upvoted 0 times
...
Virgie
8 months ago
A and D are definitely needed!
upvoted 0 times
...
Pamella
8 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
8 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
8 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
9 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
9 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
9 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
9 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
9 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
9 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
9 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
9 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
9 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
1 year 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
1 year ago
User 2
upvoted 0 times
...
Melynda
1 year ago
User 1
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Kris
1 year 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
1 year 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
1 year ago
D) struct R { bool operator ()(const A & a, const A & b) { return a.getA()
upvoted 0 times
...
Lauran
1 year ago
C) bool operator < (const A & b) const { return b.a
upvoted 0 times
...
Angelica
1 year ago
B) bool operator < (const A & b) const { return a
upvoted 0 times
...
Jestine
1 year ago
A) operator int() const { return a;} inserted at Place 1
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Lenna
1 year 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
1 year ago
Hmm, you might be right. Let's see which option actually works when we try to compile the code.
upvoted 0 times
...
Pauline
1 year 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
1 year ago
I think option A will allow the code to compile and display the desired output.
upvoted 0 times
...