Here's how I refactored the code:
---
public struct EquationSolution
{
private double[] solns;
public EquationSolution(double[] solutions)
{
solns = (double[])solutions.Clone();
}
public int NumberOfSolutions
{
get { return solns.Length; }
}
public double this[int n]
{
get { return solns[n]; }
}
}
public struct Equation
{
private double a, b, c;
public Equation(double a, double b, double c)
{
this.a = a; this.b = b; this.c = c;
}
public EquationSolution Solve()
{
double[] solutions;
if (a == 0)
solutions = new double[] { (-c / b) };
// Get the determinant.
double d = (b * b) - 4 * a * c;
if (d < 0)
solutions = new double[0]; // No real solution.
else if (d == 0)
solutions = new double[1] { (-b / (2 * a)) }; // ONE real
solution.
else // if (d > 0)
solutions = new double[2] { ((-b + Math.Sqrt(d)) / (2 * a)), ((-
b - Math.Sqrt(d)) / (2 * a)) }; // TWO real solutions.
return new EquationSolution(solutions);
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
string strEndProgram;
Console.WriteLine("This program solves equation of the form [ax²+bx
+c=0]");
bool endProgram = false;
do
{
Console.Write("Please enter the value of a:");
double a = double.Parse(Console.ReadLine());
Console.Write("Please enter the value of b:");
double b = double.Parse(Console.ReadLine());
Console.Write("Please enter the value of c:");
double c = double.Parse(Console.ReadLine());
Equation eq = new Equation(a, b, c);
EquationSolution solutions = eq.Solve();
switch(solutions.NumberOfSolutions)
{
case 0:
System.Console.WriteLine("No Solution");
break;
case 1:
Console.Out.WriteLine("The Solution is: {0:F1}", solutions
[0]);
break;
case 2:
Console.Out.WriteLine("The Solutions are: {0:F1}, {1:F1}",
solutions[0], solutions[1]);
break;
}
Console.Out.Write("Solve another equation? (y/n)");
strEndProgram = Console.ReadLine();
if(strEndProgram.StartsWith("n"))
endProgram = true;
} while(!endProgram);
}
---
Points to note:
1. Removed the "Solver" struct/class altogether. It makes more sense
as an instance method of the Equation class.
2. Converted both classes to structs, removed unnecessary constructor,
used a single one.
3. Cleaned up the code to make the flow clearer.
HTH,
--
Cerebrus.
On Jul 13, 4:07 pm, thread <[email protected]> wrote:
> i think this is the soft stomech of this code lines,my only way is to
> add some kind of indexer that if there is solution it will be fliped
> to 1 and when there is no solution it will alocate it to 0 anyway so
> it will not crash down
> but i'm not sure its the smartest way
