Related
char s[251],c[13][21],*p;
int n;
f.get(s,251);
p=strtok(s," ");
n=0;
while(p)
{
strcpy(c[n],p);
++n;
p=strtok(NULL," ");
}
Code takes multiple words separated by spaces then the n word is put on the n-1 line of the "c" char matrix. What the program should do next is sort those words in alphabetical order.
How can I use the "sort" function to do that ? If not are there any other ways to do it ?
No, you can't std::sort char[][]s, because arrays are not assignable. You can sort char*[]s, because pointers are.
However I suggest that instead of char[][] you use std::vector<std::string> and sort that, or use std::set<std::string> which enforces an alphabetic order on it's elements.
std::string line;
f.getline(line);
std::stringstream ss(line);
std::vector<std::string> words(std::istream_iterator<std::string>(ss), {});
std::sort(std::begin(words), std::end(words));
No. std::sort cannot be used to sort a 2D array, because elements of a 2D array are arrays and arrays are not swappable, which is something that std::sort requires.
You could use std::array as shown by Ted, which may be fine for a small array like yours. But do realise that swapping an array has linear complexity, and therefore sorting array elements can be quite slow for large arrays.
If you wish to sort an array of arrays, it is better to use indirection. Instead of subarrays, use references to arrays. I mean reference in general sense; you cannot have arrays of T& references. You can keep your 2D array untouched, but sort an array of pointers to that 2D array:
char* rows[std::size(c)];
for(size_t i = 0; i < std::size(c); i++)
rows[i] = c[i];
}
std::sort(std::begin(rows), std::end(rows), [](char* l, char* r){
return std::strcmp(l, r) < 0;
});
// rows now contains pointers to each row of c; in sorted order
If you wish to have the original array modified instead of a "pointer view", then you should use indirection in the original array itself. For that, you need dynamic allocation, and the simplest solution is std::string:
std::array<std::string, 13> c;
This can be sorted without even a custom comparison object. Note though that the strings in the array are empty, so you must first grow them by for example inserting characters. It is not a drop-in replacement for an array whose elements exist for the entire lifetime of the array.
As already answered, no you can't. You can however use std::array's where std::sort will do a lexicographical comparison of the inner arrays.
std::array<std::array<char, 21>, 13> c;
//...
std::sort(c.begin(), c.end());
for(const auto& v : c)
std::cout << v.data() << "\n";
Note that this is a very slow way of sorting strings since the inner arrays (std::array<char, 21>) will be copied around, byte-by-byte, when they need to change places. Use std::vector<std::string> instead.
I have a function:
void foo(double[][4]);
which takes a 2d array with 2nd dimension equal to 4. How do I allocate a 2d array so that I can pass it to the function? If I do this:
double * arr[4];
arr = new double[n][4];
where n is not known to the compiler. I cannot get it to compile. If I use a generic 2d dynamic array, the function foo will not take it.
As asked, it is probably best to use a typedef
typedef double four[4];
four *arr; // equivalently double (*arr)[4];
arr = new four[n];
Without the typedef you get to be more cryptic
double (*arr)[4];
arr = new double [n][4];
You should really consider using standard containers (std::vector, etc) or containers of containers though.
typedef double v4[4];
v4* arr = new v4[n];
Consider switching to arrays and vectors though.
I know it may not be what OP has intended to do, but it may help others that need a similar answer.
You are trying to make a dynamic array of statically success array. The STL got your solution: std::vector and std::array
With these containers, things are easy easier:
std::vector<std::array<int, 4>> foo;
// Allocate memory
foo.reserve(8);
// Or instead of 8, you can use some runtime value
foo.reserve(someSize);
// Or did not allocated 8 + someSize, but ensured
// that vector has allocated at least someSize
// Add entries
foo.push_back({1, 2, 3, 4});
// Looping
for (auto&& arr : foo) {
arr[3] = 3;
}
// Access elements
foo[5][2] = 2;
Alternatively to creating a new type and occupying a symbol, you can create a pointer to pointer, and do it like that:
double **arr = new double*[j];
for (int i = 0; i < j; ++i)
{
arr[i] = new double[4];
}
whereas j is the int variable that holds the dynamic value.
I've written a simple code that shows it working, check it out here.
I apologize for the total noob question, but I just cannot find an answer. I googled, searched here, searched C++ array documentation, and some C++ array tutorials.
The question is simple. Why does
#include "stdafx.h"
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
short pixelarray[3][3] = {{1,1,1},{0,0,0},{-1,-1,-1}};
... //do stuff. Imagine a loop here, and BIG array - I'm just simplifying it for StackOverflow
pixelarray = {{1,0,-1},{1,0,-1},{1,0,-1}};
return 0;
}
result in an error?
1>arraytest.cpp(11): error C2059: syntax error : '{'
How do I put a static array inside my array? I realize I could set each item individually, but there has to be a better way.
Built-in arrays in C++ have their problems, and not being assignable does make them rather inflexible. I'd stick with std::array, a C++11 container that emulates a better style of array, which allows a somewhat similar syntax to what you're looking for:
std::array<int, 3> arr{{1, 2, 3}};
std::array<int, 3>{{4, 5, 6}}.swap(arr);
//now arr is {4, 5, 6}
Here's a full sample. The trick is to use the initializer list on a newly-constructed array and then swap that with yours. I believe that the next C++ update is going to remove the need for the double braces as well, which makes it an even closer match to familiar syntax.
Initializer lists can be used just for initialization :)
Like when you declare your variable:
short pixelarray[3][3] = {{1,1,1},{0,0,0},{-1,-1,-1}}; // this is ok
You have to remove this:
pixelarray = {{1,0,-1},{1,0,-1},{1,0,-1}};
And assign new values manually (i.e. pixelarray[x][y] = or with a memcpy(pixelarray, <some other array>, sizeof(pixelarray)))
If you don't want to assign each individual element manually, you can do this:
short pixelarray2[3][3] = {{1,0,-1},{1,0,-1},{1,0,-1}};
memcpy(pixelarray, pixelarray2, sizeof(pixelarray));
As #Nick points out: initializer lists are not for assignment.
Arrays are not assignable, so the short answer is that you can't do exactly what you're asking for. The most direct way to do something similar enough for most purposes is probably a 2D array class that acts as a wrapper around a std::vector, on the order of the one I posted in a previous answer.
If you insist on staying with C-style arrays, one possibility would be to use a pointer:
int main() {
typedef short array[3];
array pixelarray0[3] = {{1,1,1},{0,0,0},{-1,-1,-1}};
array pixelarray1[3] = {{1,0,-1},{1,0,-1},{1,0,-1}};
array *pixelarray = pixelarray0;
// when needed:
pixelarray = pixelarray1;
}
Taking this question from a straight C context, you can have different constant arrays and just copy them with memcpy:
typedef short TArray[3][3];
const TArray a1 = {{1,1,1},{0,0,0},{-1,-1,-1}};
const TArray a2 = {{1,0,-1},{1,0,-1},{1,0,-1}};
// ...
TArray a;
memcpy( a, a2, sizeof(TArray));
Or you could exploit C99 struct copying, but I'd consider this a dangerous hack because the structure might be padded to be larger than the array, or have a different alignment.
typedef struct {
TArray arr;
} TDummyArray;
// ...
TArray a;
*(TDummyArray*)a = *(TDummyArray*)a2;
Once you have declared your array there is no way to use the assignment operator to reassign the entire content of the array.
So to change the contents or your array after this:
short pixelarray[3][3] = {{1,1,1},{0,0,0},{-1,-1,-1}};
You need to either loop through the array and manually change each value, or you something like std::memcpy to copy your new values over.
But you should really not be using an array in the first place, use some fromthing the std collections library instead like std::array or std::vector. Only use arrays if you have a really really good reason why you can't use a collection.
Let's say I have an array arr. When would the following not give the number of elements of the array: sizeof(arr) / sizeof(arr[0])?
I can thing of only one case: the array contains elements that are of different derived types of the type of the array.
Am I right and are there (I am almost positive there must be) other such cases?
Sorry for the trivial question, I am a Java dev and I am rather new to C++.
Thanks!
Let's say I have an array arr. When
would the following not give the
number of elements of the array:
sizeof(arr) / sizeof(arr[0])?
One thing I've often seen new programmers doing this:
void f(Sample *arr)
{
int count = sizeof(arr)/sizeof(arr[0]); //what would be count? 10?
}
Sample arr[10];
f(arr);
So new programmers think the value of count will be 10. But that's wrong.
Even this is wrong:
void g(Sample arr[]) //even more deceptive form!
{
int count = sizeof(arr)/sizeof(arr[0]); //count would not be 10
}
It's all because once you pass an array to any of these functions, it becomes pointer type, and so sizeof(arr) would give the size of pointer, not array!
EDIT:
The following is an elegant way you can pass an array to a function, without letting it to decay into pointer type:
template<size_t N>
void h(Sample (&arr)[N])
{
size_t count = N; //N is 10, so would be count!
//you can even do this now:
//size_t count = sizeof(arr)/sizeof(arr[0]); it'll return 10!
}
Sample arr[10];
h(arr); //pass : same as before!
Arrays in C++ are very different from those in Java in that they are completely unmanaged. The compiler or run-time have no idea whatsoever what size the array is.
The information is only known at compile-time if the size is defined in the declaration:
char array[256];
In this case, sizeof(array) gives you the proper size.
If you use a pointer as an array however, the "array" will just be a pointer, and sizeof will not give you any information about the actual size of the array.
STL offers a lot of templates that allow you to have arrays, some of them with size information, some of them with variable sizes, and most of them with good accessors and bounds checking.
There are no cases where, given an array arr, that the value of sizeof(arr) / sizeof(arr[0]) is not the count of elements, by the definition of array and sizeof.
In fact, it's even directly mentioned (ยง5.3.3/2):
.... When applied to an array, the result is the total number of bytes in the array. This implies that the size of an array of n elements is n times the size of an element.
Emphasis mine. Divide by the size of an element, sizeof(arr[0]), to obtain n.
Since C++17 you can also use the standardized free function:
std::size(container) which will return the amount of elements in that container.
example:
std::vector<int> vec = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 };
std::cout << std::size(vec) << "\n\n"; // 5
int A[] = {40,10,20};
std::cout << std::size(A) << '\n'; // 3
No that would still produce the right value because you must define the array to be either all elements of a single type or pointers to a type. In either case the array size is known at compile time so sizeof(arr) / sizeof(arr[0]) always returns the element count.
Here is an example of how to use this correctly:
int nonDynamicArray[ 4 ];
#define nonDynamicArrayElementCount ( sizeof(nonDynamicArray) / sizeof(nonDynamicArray[ 0 ]) )
I'll go one further here to show when to use this properly. You won't use it very often. It is primarily useful when you want to define an array specifically so you can add elements to it without changing a lot of code later. It is a construct that is primarily useful for maintenance. The canonical example (when I think about it anyway ;-) is building a table of commands for some program that you intend to add more commands to later. In this example to maintain/improve your program all you need to do is add another command to the array and then add the command handler:
char *commands[] = { // <--- note intentional lack of explicit array size
"open",
"close",
"abort",
"crash"
};
#define kCommandsCount ( sizeof(commands) / sizeof(commands[ 0 ]) )
void processCommand( char *command ) {
int i;
for ( i = 0; i < kCommandsCount; ++i ) {
// if command == commands[ i ] do something (be sure to compare full string)
}
}
_countof(my_array) in MSVC
I can thing of only one case: the array contains elements that are of different derived types of the type of the array.
Elements of an array in C++ are objects, not pointers, so you cannot have derived type object as an element.
And like mentioned above, sizeof(my_array) (like _countof() as well) will work just in the scope of array definition.
It seems that if you know the type of elements in the array you can also use that to your advantage with sizeof.
int numList[] = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 };
cout << sizeof(numList) / sizeof(int);
// => 5
First off, you can circumvent that problem by using std::vector instead of an array. Second, if you put objects of a derived class into an array of a super class, you will experience slicing, but the good news is, your formula will work. Polymorphic collections in C++ are achieved using pointers. There are three major options here:
normal pointers
a collection of boost::shared_ptr
a Boost.Pointer Container
Let's say I have an array arr. When would the following not give the number of elements of the array: sizeof(arr) / sizeof(arr[0])?
In contexts where arr is not actually the array (but instead a pointer to the initial element). Other answers explain how this happens.
I can thing of only one case: the array contains elements that are of different derived types of the type of the array.
This cannot happen (for, fundamentally, the same reason that Java arrays don't play nicely with generics). The array is statically typed; it reserves "slots" of memory that are sized for a specific type (the base type).
Sorry for the trivial question, I am a Java dev and I am rather new to C++.
C++ arrays are not first-class objects. You can use boost::array to make them behave more like Java arrays, but keep in mind that you will still have value semantics rather than reference semantics, just like with everything else. (In particular, this means that you cannot really declare a variable of type analogous to Foo[] in Java, nor replace an array with another one of a different size; the array size is a part of the type.) Use .size() with this class where you would use .length in Java. (It also supplies iterators that provide the usual interface for C++ iterators.)
Use the Microsoft "_countof(array)" Macro. This link to the Microsoft Developer Network explains it and offers an example that demonstrates the difference between "sizeof(array)" and the "_countof(array)" macro.
Microsoft and the "_countof(array)" Macro
If you can not use C++17, which allows to use std::size(container), you can easily implement your own generic sizeofArray template function as a one-liner:
#include <cstddef>
#include <cstdio>
template< typename T, std::size_t N >
inline constexpr std::size_t sizeofArray( const T(&)[N] ) noexcept { return N; }
int x[10];
void* y[100];
long z[1000];
struct {int x; char y; long z;} s[123];
static_assert( sizeofArray(x) == 10, "error" );
static_assert( sizeofArray(y) == 100, "error" );
static_assert( sizeofArray(z) == 1000, "error" );
static_assert( sizeofArray(s) == 123, "error" );
int main() {
puts( "ok" );
}
test it here: http://cpp.sh/8tio3
It will work if and only if arr is a C-Array (type[size]; except for function parameters!), a reference to a C-Array (type(&)[size]) or a pointer to a C-Array (type(*)[size]).
Note you should use std::size or std::ssize instead with current C++-Standards!
In C++17 you can use std::size:
int arr[] = {1, 2, 3};
auto count = std::size(arr); // type std::size_t, value == 3
In C++20 you can additionally get a signed value by using std::ssize:
int arr[] = {1, 2, 3};
auto count = std::ssize(arr); // type std::ptrdiff_t, value == 3
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/iterator/size
Also note that C++ unfortunately inherited from C that C-Arrays are never passed by value (deep copy) to functions.
void f(int a[3]);
is the same as
void f(int* a);
so you loose the information that a is an array and with this, how much elements it had. The 3 is completely ignored by the compiler!
If you want to preserve the datatype (including the array element count), you can use a pointer or a reference to an C-Array:
void f(int (&a)[3]); // reference to C-Array with 3 elements
void f(int (*a)[3]); // pointer to C-Array with 3 elements
void f(int a[3]); // pointer to int
void f(int* a); // pointer to int
If you want to call functions with Arrays call-by-value, you can use C++-Arrays (std::array) from the C++ standard library:
f(std::array<int, 3> a);
std::array<int, 3> arr = {1, 2, 3};
f(arr); // deep copy
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/array
Determine how many numbers are in your array.
#include<bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int n[10] ;
int l = sizeof(n)/sizeof(n[0]);
cout << l;
return 0;
}
I know is old topic but what about simple solution like while loop?
int function count(array[]) {
int i = 0;
while(array[i] != NULL) {
i++;
}
return i;
}
I know that is slower than sizeof() but this is another example of array count.
Let's say I have a function called MyFunction(int myArray[][]) that does some array manipulations.
If I write the parameter list like that, the compiler will complain that it needs to know the size of the array at compile time. Is there a way to rewrite the parameter list so that I can pass an array with any size to the function?
My array's size is defined by two static const ints in a class, but the compiler won't accept something like MyFunction(int myArray[Board::ROWS][Board::COLS]).
What if I could convert the array to a vector and then pass the vector to MyFunction? Is there a one-line conversion that I can use or do I have to do the conversion manually?
In C++ language, multidimensional array declarations must always include all sizes except possibly the first one. So, what you are trying to do is not possible. You cannot declare a parameter of built-in multidimensional array type without explicitly specifying the sizes.
If you need to pass a run-time sized multidimensional array to a function, you can forget about using built-in multidimensional array type. One possible workaround here is to use a "simulated" multidimensional array (1D array of pointers to other 1D arrays; or a plain 1D array that simulates multidimensional array through index recalculation).
In C++ use std::vector to model arrays unless you have a specific reason for using an array.
Example of a 3x2 vector filled with 0's called "myArray" being initialized:
vector< vector<int> > myArray(3, vector<int>(2,0));
Passing this construct around is trivial, and you don't need to screw around with passing length (because it keeps track):
void myFunction(vector< vector<int> > &myArray) {
for(size_t x = 0;x < myArray.length();++x){
for(size_t y = 0;y < myArray[x].length();++y){
cout << myArray[x][y] << " ";
}
cout << endl;
}
}
Alternatively you can iterate over it with iterators:
void myFunction(vector< vector<int> > &myArray) {
for(vector< vector<int> >::iterator x = myArray.begin();x != myArray.end();++x){
for(vector<int>::iterator y = x->begin();y != x->end();++y){
cout << *y << " ";
}
cout << endl;
}
}
In C++0x you can use the auto keyword to clean up the vector iterator solution:
void myFunction(vector< vector<int> > &myArray) {
for(auto x = myArray.begin();x != myArray.end();++x){
for(auto y = x->begin();y != x->end();++y){
cout << *y << " ";
}
cout << endl;
}
}
And in c++0x for_each becomes viable with lambdas
void myFunction(vector< vector<int> > &myArray) {
for_each(myArray.begin(), myArray.end(), [](const vector<int> &x){
for_each(x->begin(), x->end(), [](int value){
cout << value << " ";
});
cout << endl;
});
}
Or a range based for loop in c++0x:
void myFunction(vector< vector<int> > &myArray) {
for(auto x : myArray){
for(auto y : *x){
cout << *y << " ";
}
cout << endl;
}
}
*I am not near a compiler right now and have not tested these, please feel free to correct my examples.
If you know the size of the array at compile time you can do the following (assuming the size is [x][10]):
MyFunction(int myArray[][10])
If you need to pass in a variable length array (dynamically allocated or possibly just a function which needs to take different sizes of arrays) then you need to deal with pointers.
And as the comments to this answer state:
boost::multiarray may be appropriate since it more efficiently models a multidimensional array. A vector of vectors can have performance implications in critical path code, but in typical cases you will probably not notice an issue.
Pass it as a pointer, and take the dimension(s) as an argument.
void foo(int *array, int width, int height) {
// initialize xPos and yPos
assert(xPos >= 0 && xPos < width);
assert(yPos >= 0 && yPos < height);
int value = array[yPos * width + xPos];
}
This is assuming you have a simple two-dimensional array, like int x[50][50].
There are already a set of answers with the most of the common suggestions: using std::vector, implementing a matrix class, providing the size of the array in the function argument... I am only going to add yet another solution based on native arrays --note that if possible you should use a higher level abstraction.
At any rate:
template <std::size_t rows, std::size_t cols>
void function( int (&array)[rows][cols] )
{
// ...
}
This solution uses a reference to the array (note the & and the set of parenthesis around array) instead of using the pass-by-value syntax. This forces the compiler not to decay the array into a pointer. Then the two sizes (which could have been provided as compile time constants can be defined as template arguments and the compiler will deduct the sizes for you.
NOTE: You mention in the question that the sizes are actually static constants you should be able to use them in the function signature if you provide the value in the class declaration:
struct test {
static const int rows = 25;
static const int cols = 80;
};
void function( int *array[80], int rows ) {
// ...
}
Notice that in the signature I prefer to change the double dimension array for a pointer to an array. The reason is that this is what the compiler interprets either way, and this way it is clear that there is no guarantee that the caller of the function will pass an array of exactly 25 lines (the compiler will not enforce it), and it is thus apparent the need for the second integer argument where the caller passes the number of rows.
You can't pass an arbitrary size like that; the compiler doesn't know how to generate the pointer arithmetic. You could do something like:
MyFunction(int myArray[][N])
or you could do:
MyFunction(int *p, int M, int N)
but you'll have to take the address of the first element when you call it (i.e. MyFunction(&arr[0][0], M, N).
You can get round all of these problems in C++ by using a container class; std::vector would be a good place to start.
The compiler is complaining because it needs to know the size of the all but the first dimension to be able to address an element in the array. For instance, in the following code:
int array[M][N];
// ...
array[i][j] = 0;
To address the element, the compiler generates something like the following:
*(array+(i*N+j)) = 0;
Therefore, you need to re-write your signature like this:
MyFunction(int array[][N])
in which case you will be stuck with a fixed dimension, or go with a more general solution such as a (custom) dynamic 2D array class or a vector<vector<int> >.
Use a vector<vector<int> > (this would be cheating if underlying storage was not guaranteed to be contiguous).
Use a pointer to element-of-array (int*) and a size (M*N) parameter. Here be dragons.
First, lets see why compiler is complaining.
If an array is defined as int arr[ ROWS ][ COLS ]; then any array notation arr[ i ][ j ] can be translated to pointer notation as
*( arr + i * COLS + j )
Observe that the expression requires only COLS, it does not require ROWS. So, the array definition can be written equivalently as
int arr [][ COLS ];
But, missing the second dimension is not acceptable. For little more details, read here.
Now, on your question:
Is there a way to rewrite the
parameter list so that I can pass an
array with any size to the function?
Yes, perhaps you can use a pointer, e.g. MyFunction( int * arr );. But, think about it, how would MyFunction() know where to stop accessing the array? To solve that you would need another parameter for the length of the array, e.g. MyFunction( int * arr, size_t arrSize );
Yes: MyFunction(int **myArray);
Careful, though. You'd better know what you're doing. This will only accept an array of int pointers.
Since you're trying to pass an array of arrays, you'll need a constant expression as one of the dimentions:
MyFunction(int myArray[][COLS]);
You'll need to have COLS at compile time.
I suggest using a vector instead.
Pass a pointer and do the indexing yourself or use a Matrix class instead.
yes - just pass it as pointer(s):
MyFunction(int** someArray)
The downside is that you'll probably need to pas the array's lengths as well
Use MyFunction(int *myArray[])
If you use MyFunction(int **myArray) an pass int someArray[X][Y], the program will crash.
EDIT: Don't use the first line, it's explained in comments.
I don't know about C++, but the C99 standard introduced variable length arrays.
So this would work in a compiler that supports C99:
void func(int rows, int cols, double[rows][cols] matrix) {
for (int r = 0; r < rows; r++) {
for (int c = 0; c < cols; c++) {
printf("%f", matrix[r][c]);
}
}
}
Note that the size arguments come before the array. Really, only the number of columns has to be known at compile time, so this would be valid as well:
void func(int rows, int cols, double[][cols] matrix)
For three or more dimensions, all but the first dimension must have known sizes. The answer ArunSaha linked to explains why.
Honestly, I don't know whether C++ supports variable-length arrays, so this may or may not work. In either case, you may also consider encapsulating your array in some sort of matrix class.
EDIT: From your edit, it looks like C++ may not support this feature. A matrix class is probably the way to go. (Or std::vector if you don't mind that the memory may not be allocated contiguously.)
Don't pass an array, which is an implementation detail. Pass the Board
MyFunction(Board theBoard)
{
...
}
in reality my array's size is defined by two static const ints in a class, but the compiler won't accept something like MyFunction(int myArray[Board::ROWS][Board::COLS]).
That's strange, it works perfectly fine for me:
struct Board
{
static const int ROWS = 6;
static const int COLS = 7;
};
void MyFunction(int myArray[Board::ROWS][Board::COLS])
{
}
Maybe ROWS and COLS are private? Can you show us some code?
In C++, using the inbuilt array types is instant fail. You could use a boost::/std:: array of arrays or vector of arrays. Primitive arrays are not up to any sort of real use
In C++0x, you can use std::initializer_list<...> to accomplish this:
MyFunction(std::initializer_list<std::initializer_list<int>> myArray);
and use it (I presume) like this (with the range based for syntax):
for (const std::initializer_list<int> &subArray: myArray)
{
for (int value: subArray)
{
// fun with value!
}
}