C++ Recursion problems <confused>

I am working on understanding recursion, and I think I have it down alright... I'm trying to build a search function (like the std::string.find()) that searches a given string for another string for example:

G开发者_高级运维iven (big) string: "ru the running cat"

search (small) string: "run"

I'm trying to return a index for the where the word i am searching for (in the case above it would be **7) the recursive method i have is as follows - i can't seem to get it to return the index properly.

calling the recursive function:

index = index_of(imput.c_str(), search.c_str())

Recursion method:

int index_of( const char * i, const char * s) {
 int j;
 if (*s == '\0') { return; }
 if (*i == '\0') {
  return NULL;
 }
 else if ( *i == *s ) {
  index_of((i++), (s++));
 }
 else {
  j += index_of((i++), s);
 }
 return j;
}

another foreseeable problem is that when (like in the example - OK it sucks but i need one that worked) it reaches the "ru_" it's still stuck on the ' ' (SPACE) -> how would i get it to 'reset' the s pointer?

---

1. Don't change any state variables. Your code should not include the operator ++ anywhere. You are not trying to loop over a datastructure and change your local variables in some fashion - you are trying to generate an entirely new but smaller problem each time. So, all those ++ operators - whether pre or post increment - are red flags.

2. You have more than one sub-problem. (...so single function recursion isn't ideal).

   Let's look at this systematically.

   Assume you have a working index_of and you just want to call it with input that's shorter than yours, and that both haystack and needle aren't empty yet. Then one of two things may be:

   • The haystack starts with the same letter as the needle, and you just need to look a little deeper to verify this.
     - What happens if verification succeeds - what if it fails? is this an index_of subproblem?

   • ...or the haystack starts off wrong, and you need to look deeper.
     - Is looking deeper into the haystack an index_of subproblem?

   Notice that if the haystack starts OK it doesn't necessarily mean that it starts with the full search string - and if it starts OK but does not start with the full search string, you really don't need to continue looking. That means that the "starts-with" sub-problem is fundamentally different than the index-of sub-problem:

   • index_of: here, failure to find the search string at index 0 means you need to look further.
   • starts_with: here, failure to find the search string at index 0 means you need to stop.

   It is possible to say startswith(haystack, needle):= 0==index_of(haystack, needle), but obviously index_of is a more complicated problem with a more expensive solution - so you shouldn't do that; it's also more confusing at first.

3. Identify your base cases - When either needle or haystack are empty, what does that mean?

4. Good names help clarify things, and recursion is hard to read at the best of times - Yacoby's reply for instance has some meaningful choices here.

Summary

I'm not going to solve your own puzzle for you, but a few tips in recap...

• Avoid changing your local variables: you're trying to define a subproblem and then just call the right function for those newer, shorter parameters. Don't use side-effects, they make things terribly complex.
• Recursion doesn't necessarily mean just one function A calling A - it can be any cyclic call graph that eventually terminates; you may use more functions
• If needle and haystack start with the same letter, that doesn't mean that the entire needle is at the start of the haystack - and if it is not, you still need to continue searching
• This line is wrong: if (*s == '\0') { return 1; }

---

This is how I would do it, which is simplify everything by moving it into different functions. Untested but it should hopefully give you an idea.

/**
 * Checks if one string starts with another string. This returns an
 * incorrect result if it is called where prefix is an empty string.
 */
bool starts_with_impl(const char* haystack, const char* prefix) {
    if ( *prefix == 0 ){ 
        //reached the end of prefix without having found a difference in characters
        return true;
    }else if ( *haystack == 0 || *prefix != *haystack ){
        //either prefix is longer than haystack or there is a difference in characters.
        return false;
    }
    //move along the haystack and prefix by one character
    return starts_with_impl(++haystack, ++prefix);
}
/**
 * Wrapper around starts_with_impl that returns false if prefix is an empty string
 */
bool starts_with(const char* haystack, const char* prefix) {
    return *prefix ? starts_with_impl(haystack, prefix) : false;
}

int get_substr_impl(const char* haystack, const char* const needle, int index) {
    if ( *haystack == 0 ){
        //reached the end of haystack with no match, -1 is no string found
        return -1;
    }else if ( starts_with(haystack, needle) ){
        //we have found a substring match.
        return index;
    }
    //move along haystack by one character
    return get_substr_impl(++haystack, needle, ++index);
}
/**
 * Wrapper function for the above to hide the fact we need an additional argument.
 * I am avoiding using a default argument as it makes a messy api
 */
int get_substr(const char* haystack, const char* const needle) {
    return get_substr_impl(haystack, needle, 0);
}

From the comments

you've got 2 const's in the get_substr_impl method....

Intentional.

// means that the data is constant, in other words I can't change the value of needle
const char* needle;

//means that as well as the data being constant 
//I can't change the address that the pointer points to.
const char* const needle;

from the main method wouldn't i just call teh get_substr_impl with the same parameters given in get_substr?

I split it as get_substr_impl has an additional (required) argument int index that is required for the inner workings of the function and should always start at 0. While you could call get_substr_impl("abc", "a", 0);, it looks nicer and is more understandable to call get_substr("abc", "a"); and it avoids errors (like calling get_substr_impl("abc", "a", 1);)

---

First of all, you have two is in your code. That shouldn't even compile.

Also, index_of((i++), (s++)); is effectively the same as:

index_of(i, s); 
++i;
++s;

In other words, you calling index_of over & over with the same parameters it was called with the first time. (it'll never return to get to the ++i).

Also, purely stylistic, but since the return type is an int, you should return 0, and save NULL for use with pointers.

---

The main problem here is that you are using post-increment, and result of (i++) is i . You have to use ++i