Question

I’m working on a project about Data structures.
In the first , I wrote everything in main but it sounds like C . But as I learned, I tried to thinkk OOP and do as little as possible in my main() methods.

I’ve implemented some opertation in my class like add,delet,find.it’s too easy to implement its .

class ARB
{
        private:
                struct BT
                {
                        int data;
                        BT *l;
                        BT *r;
                };
                struct BT *p;
       public
                ARB();
                ~ARB();
                void del(int n);
                void add(int n); 
};

    void ARB::del(int num)
{
//The code ,don't care about it 

  };  

main()
{
// 
    BTR T;
    T.add(3);
    T.add(5);

};

But I arrived to the big program
How can I define a methode which have to use a binary tree and to get a stack

STACK ARB::MyFunct(BT* p)
{
// The code don't care about it 
}

How can I apply it in the main programme

main()
{
// 
    BT T;
    T.add(3);
    T.add(5);
    STACK S;
    BT* p
    S=T.MyFunct(p); // error C2664 cannot convert parametre 1

};

**mention :I implement STACK class

Answer 1

There’s a few issues here. For one thing, add() is a member function of ARB, not BT. And, BT is a private subclass of ARB, so it can’t be accessed from main(). p is a private member of ARB (as it should be), but it should really be a direct variable, not a pointer, so it will be automatically created and destroyed with ARB. As is, p is never initialized and there’s no way to do so from outside ARB.

I’m guessing here that ARB uses its internal BT p for internal storage, so the implementations of add() and del() both operate on p, and that MyFunct() is supposed to take that BT and generate a stack from it. If so, MyFunct() should take no parameters and simply reference p directly.

So main() would look something like:

ARB arb;
arb.add(3)
arb.add(5)
STACK s = arb.myFunct(); // which should maybe be makeStack() or such

This is all assuming I’ve correctly deduced your intentions here.