Table of Contents
Corning Community College
CSCS2320 Data Structures
Project: SLL4
Errata
This section will document any updates applied to the project since original release:
- revision #: <description> (DATESTAMP)
Objective
In this project, we take a step up from our singly linked list implementation- just as the singly-linked list was a step up from the individual nodes as an organizing unit for nodes.
So what does this give us? An organizing unit for lists! I'm calling them “ListGroups” or “GroupOfLists”, and with our sll3 addition of a there pointer to the list struct, we'll be working with groups of linked lists.
Project Overview
group.h
We can now organize our lists with this new groupoflists struct (typedef'ed to Group for typing convenience).
#ifndef _GROUP_H #define _GROUP_H #include "list.h" // group relies on list and node to work struct groupoflists { List *initial; // pointer to first list List *closing; // pointer to last list }; typedef struct groupoflists Group; // cuz we deserve nice things typedef long int sli; // short name for big thing Group *mkgroup(void); // create/allocate new Group Group *rmgroup(Group *); // clear/deallocate Group Group *linsert(Group *, List *, List *); // add list before given list Group *lappend(Group *, List *, List *); // add list after given list Group *lobtain(Group *, List **); // obtain/disconnect list from group sli ldisplay(Group *, sli); // display list group sli lgetpos(Group *, List *); // retrieve position of list List *lsetpos(Group *, sli); // seek to list in group #endif
You should notice a striking similarity to the core list functionality (a first and a last pointer– only to Lists, and not Nodes), and the presence of Group manipulation and utility functions (appending, inserting, obtaining, displaying, getting/setting position, creating, and removing a group).
This project will test the level of your abstraction skills– for there isn't that much of a conceptual difference between the list functions and the group functions. The more you understand that, the easier this project will be.
group library
In src/group/, you will find 7 new C files:
- obtain.c - which will house the group lobtain() function (to disconnect lists from a group)
- pos.c - which will handle getting/setting list positions within the group
- mk.c - which will handle creating (allocating) a new group struct
- rm.c - which will handle deallocating (purging) the group
- insert.c - which will handle inserting (linsert()) a new list into the group
- append.c - which will house the group appending function lappend()
- display.c - which will house the group display (ldisplay()) function.
Take a look at the code there. These are the files that contain functions which will be compiled and archived into the group library (libgroup.a) we will be using in this and future projects.
Figure out what is going on, make sure you understand it.
Group library unit tests
In unit/group/, you will find the unit tests and verify scripts for the functions to be implementated in the group library.
These are complete runnable programs (when compiled, and linked against the group library, which is all handled for you by the Makefile system in place).
Of particular importance, I want you to take a close look at:
- the source code to each of these unit tests
- the purpose of these programs is to validate the correct functionality of the respective library functions
- follow the logic
- make sure you understand what is going on
- ask questions to get clarification!
- the output from these programs once compiled and ran
- analyze the output
- make sure you understand what is going on
- ask questions to get clarification!
Expected Results
To assist you in verifying a correct implementation, a fully working implementation of the node library, list library (with new modifications), and group library should resemble the following:
group library
Here is what you should get for all the functions completed in the group library:
lab46:~/src/data/sll4$ make check ====================================================== = Verifying Singly-Linked Group Functionality = ====================================================== [mkgroup] Total: 5, Matches: 5, Mismatches: 0 [rmgroup] Total: 3, Matches: 3, Mismatches: 0 [linsert] Total: 20, Matches: 20, Mismatches: 0 [lappend] Total: 20, Matches: 20, Mismatches: 0 [lobtain] Total: 15, Matches: 15, Mismatches: 0 [ldisplay] Total: 31, Matches: 31, Mismatches: 0 [lgetpos] Total: 14, Matches: 14, Mismatches: 0 [lsetpos] Total: 14, Matches: 14, Mismatches: 0 ====================================================== [RESULTS] Total: 122, Matches: 122, Mismatches: 0 ====================================================== lab46:~/src/data/sll4$
Submission
Project Submission
When you are done with the project and are ready to submit it, you simply run make submit:
lab46:~/src/data/PROJECT$ make submit ...
Submission Criteria
To be successful in this project, the following criteria must be met:
- Project must be submit on time, by the posted deadline.
- Early submissions will earn 1 bonus point per full day in advance of the deadline.
- Bonus eligibility requires an honest attempt at performing the project (no blank efforts accepted)
- Late submissions will lose 25% credit per day, with the submission window closing on the 4th day following the deadline.
- To clarify: if a project is due on Wednesday (before its end), it would then be 25% off on Thursday, 50% off on Friday, 75% off on Saturday, and worth 0% once it becomes Sunday.
- Certain projects may not have a late grace period, and the due date is the absolute end of things.
- all requested functions must be implemented in the related library
- all requested functionality must conform to stated requirements (either on this project page or in comment banner in source code files themselves).
- Output generated must conform to any provided requirements and specifications (be it in writing or sample output)
- output obviously must also be correct based on input.
- Processing must be correct based on input given and output requested
- Project header files are NOT to be altered. During evaluation the stock header files will be copied in, which could lead to compile-time problems.
- Code must compile cleanly.
- Each source file must compile cleanly (worth 3 total points):
- 3/3: no compiler warnings, notes or errors.
- 2/3: one of warning or note present during compile
- 1/3: two of warning or note present during compile
- 0/3: compiler errors present (code doesn't compile)
- Code must be nicely and consistently indented (you may use the indent tool)
- You are free to use your own coding style, but you must be consistent
- Avoid unnecessary blank lines (some are good for readability, but do not go overboard- double-spacing your code will get points deducted).
- Indentation will be rated on the following scale (worth 3 total points):
- 3/3: Aesthetically pleasing, pristine indentation, easy to read, organized
- 2/3: Mostly consistent indentation, but some distractions (superfluous or lacking blank lines, or some sort of “busy” ness to the code)
- 1/3: Some indentation issues, difficult to read
- 0/3: Lack of consistent indentation (didn't appear to try)
- Unless fundamentally required, none of your code should perform any inventory or manual counting. Basing your algorithms off such fixed numbers complicates things, and is demonstrative of a more controlling nature.
- Code must be commented
- Any “to be implemented” comments MUST be removed
- these “to be implemented” comments, if still present at evaluation time, will result in points being deducted.
- Commenting will be rated on the following scale (worth 3 total points):
- 3/3: Aesthetically pleasing (comments aligned or generally not distracting), easy to read, organized
- 2/3: Mostly consistent, some distractions or gaps in comments (not explaining important things)
- 1/3: Light commenting effort, not much time or energy appears to have been put in.
- 0/3: No original comments
- should I deserve nice things, my terminal is usually 90 characters wide. So if you'd like to format your code not to exceed 90 character wide terminals (and avoid line wrapping comments), at least as reasonably as possible, those are two sure-fire ways of making a good impression on me with respect to code presentation and comments.
- Sufficient comments explaining the point of provided logic MUST be present
- Code must be appropriately modified
- Appropriate modifications will be rated on the following scale (worth 3 total points):
- 3/3: Complete attention to detail, original-looking implementation- also is not unnecessarily reinventing existing functionality
- 2/3: Lacking some details (like variable initializations), but otherwise complete (still conforms, or conforms mostly to specifications), and reinvents some wheels
- 1/3: Incomplete implementation (typically lacking some obvious details/does not conform to specifications)
- 0/3: Incomplete implementation to the point of non-functionality (or was not started at all)
- Implementation must be accurate with respect to the spirit/purpose of the project (if the focus is on exploring a certain algorithm to produce results, but you avoid the algorithm yet still produce the same results– that's what I'm talking about here).. worth 3 total points:
- 3/3: Implementation is in line with spirit of project
- 2/3: Some avoidance/shortcuts taken (note this does not mean optimization– you can optimize all you want, so long as it doesn't violate the spirit of the project).
- 1/3: Generally avoiding the spirit of the project (new, different things, resorting to old and familiar, despite it being against the directions)
- 0/3: entirely avoiding.
- Error checking must be adequately and appropriately performed, according to the following scale (worth 3 total points):
- 3/3: Full and proper error checking performed for all reasonable cases, including queries for external resources and data.
- 2/3: Enough error checking performed to pass basic project requirements and work for most operational cases.
- 1/3: Minimal error checking, code is fragile (code may not work in full accordance with project requirements)
- 0/3: No error checking (code likely does not work in accordance with project requirements)
- Any and all non-void functions written must have, at most, 1 return statement
- points will be lost for solutions containing multiple return statements in a function.
- Absolutely, positively NO (as in ZERO) use of goto statements.
- points will most definitely be lest for solutions employing such things.
- Track/version the source code in a repository
- Filling out any submit-time questionnaires
- Submit a copy of your source code to me using the submit tool (make submit will do this) by the deadline.