stack

I'm writing an iPhone app, and I'm surprised that there seem to be no NSQueue or NSStack classes in Apple's Foundation Framework . I see that it would be quite easy to roll my own, starting with an NSMutableArray , so I'll do that unless I've missed something. Have I missed something? as far as I know there is no generic class avaialbe. Try using the NSMutableArray, add via addObject and get first/last via objectAtIndex and removeObjectAtIndex. Tommy Herbert Here's my Stack class, in case it's useful to those who come after me. As you can see, the pop method involves enough code that you'd

so in c++ it's very easy. you want whatever class/struct to be allocated on the heap, use new. if you want it on the stack, don't use new. in C# we always use the new keyword, and depending on whether it's a struct or a class it's allocated either on the stack or on the heap (structs go to the stack, classes to the heap) - and in some applications there can be a HUGE performance difference when changing the design such that only those objects go to the heap that really belong there. What I wonder is - is there a direct way to control where an object is allocated independant of whether it's

I read in this presentation http://golang.org/doc/ExpressivenessOfGo.pdf page 42: Safe - no stack overflows How is this possible? and/or how does Go works to avoid this? It's a feature called "segmented stacks": every goroutine has its own stack, allocated on the heap . In the simplest case, programming language implementations use a single stack per process/address space, commonly managed with special processor instructions called push and pop (or something like that) and implemented as a dynamic array of stack frames starting at a fixed address (commonly, the top of virtual memory). That is

Before I even ask, let me get the obvious answer out of the way: The ICollection<T> interface includes a Remove method to remove an arbitrary element, which Queue<T> and Stack<T> can't really support (since they can only remove "end" elements). OK, I realize that. Actually, my question is not specifically about the Queue<T> or Stack<T> collection types; rather, it's about the design decision of not implementing ICollection<T> for any generic type that is essentially a collection of T values. Here's what I find odd. Say I have a method that accepts an arbitrary collection of T , and for the

What is a good way to override bash trap handlers that don't permanently trample existing ones that may or may not already be set? What about dynamically managing arbitrary chains of trap routines? Is there a way to save the current state of the trap handlers so they can be restored later? Save and Restore Your Trap Handler State in Bash I would submit the following stack implementation to track and restore trap state. Using this method, I am able to push trap changes and then pop them away when I'm done with them. This could also be used to chain many trap routines together. See the following

long story short my lecturer is crap, and was showing us infix to prefix stacks via an overhead projector and his bigass shadow was blocking everything so i missed the important stuff he was referring to push and pop, push = 0 pop = x he gave an example but i cant see how he gets his answer at all, 2*3/(2-1)+5*(4-1) step 1 Reverse : )1-4(*5+)1-2(/3*2 ok i can see that he then went on writing x's and o's operations and i got totally lost answer 14-5*12-32*/+ then reversed again to get +/*23-21*5-41 if some one could explain to me the push pop so i could understand i would be very greatful, i

What is the need of using two different stacks in same program? How does trap change the current stack of program from user stack to kernel stack? How does it come back to user stack after completing system call? Does every process have a kernel and user stack? There is one "kernel stack" per CPU. There is one "user stack" for each process, though each thread has its own stack, including both user and kernel threads. How "trapping changes the stack" is actually fairly simple. The CPU changes processes or "modes", as a result of an interrupt. The interrupt can occur for many different reasons -

Ok so I understand about the stack and the heap (values live on the Stack, references on the Heap). When I declare a new instance of a Class, this lives on the heap, with a reference to this point in memory on the stack. I also know that C# does it's own Garbage Collection (ie. It determines when an instanciated class is no longer in use and reclaims the memory). I have 2 questions: Is my understanding of Garbage Collection correct? Can I do my own? If so is there any real benefit to doing this myself or should I just leave it. I ask because I have a method in a For loop. Every time I go