Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Page 460: In exercise 13-5, the TODO comment for fib_sum refers to the wrong thing. #107

WraithGlade opened this issue Jan 12, 2020 · 2 comments


Copy link

WraithGlade commented Jan 12, 2020

The following example code in exercise 13-5 refers to the wrong thing:

long fib_sum(size_t n) { 
    // TODO: Adapt code from Exercise 12.1
    return 0; 

Here is the actual contents of Exercise 12.1:

12-1. Reimplement the narrow_cast in Listing 6-6 to return a std::optional. If the cast would result in a narrowing conversion, return an empty optional rather than throwing an exception. Write a unit test that ensures your solution works.

Perhaps you instead intended to refer to the recursive version of the Fibonacci algorithm, considering that its naive implementation performance is terrible and easily noticed. Or perhaps you are only intending for the summing of the Fibonacci sequence itself to be the source of the performance overhead. The clarity here could be improved.


Also, why are you passing by const reference in the following example code, from that same example code block?:

long cached_fib_sum(const size_t& n) { 
    static std:: map <long, long> cache; 
    //TODO: Implement me 
    return 0; 

There doesn't seem to be a point to doing that, although it doesn't really harm anything either in this case.

Copy link

WraithGlade commented Jan 13, 2020

On further thought, I estimate that you were not referring to the recursive version of the Fibonacci sum, considering that the iterative version is already plenty slow when you sum it together as in this exercise.

Copy link

JLospinoso commented Jan 21, 2020

Thanks, @WraithGlade!

kruschk pushed a commit to kruschk/ccc that referenced this issue Apr 26, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet
None yet

No branches or pull requests

2 participants