I am working with a class I created that has a function addClass which allow the user to add A an Instance of Class to a dynamically allocated array.
Here is the code of the class and a simple test:
Class.h Listing
#ifndef CLASS_H
#define CLASS_H
#include<iostream>
class Class {
public:
Class(std::string text);
Class(const Class& orig);
virtual ~Class();
Class(std::string text, Class * name, int size);
std::string toString();
void addClass(Class * name, int size = 1);
Class getClass(int index);
private:
Class * classArray;
std::string value;
int size;
};
#endif /* CLASS_H */
Class.c Listing
#include "Class.h"
#include <cstdlib>
Class::Class(std::string text) {
classArray = NULL;
value = text;
size = 0;
}
Class::Class(const Class& orig) {/*...*/}
Class::~Class() {}
Class::Class(std::string text, Class * name, int size){
value = text;
this->size = size;
if(size == 1)
classArray = name;
else{
int i;
classArray = (Class*)malloc(size*sizeof(Class));
for(i = 0; i < size; i++){
classArray[i] = name[i];
}
}
}
std::string Class::toString(){
return value;
}
void Class::addClass(Class * name, int size){
int i;
Class * tmp = (Class*)malloc((this->size+size)*sizeof(Class));
for(i = 0; i < this->size-1; i++){
tmp[i] = classArray[i];
}
if(size == 1)
tmp[size-1] = name[0];//assignement method is the problem!!!??
else{
for(i = this->size; i < this->size+size-1; i++){
tmp[i] = name[i];
}
}
this->size += size;
free(classArray);
classArray = tmp;
}
Class Class::getClass(int index){
return classArray[index];
}
test.c Listing
#include<iostream>
#include "Class.h"
using namespace std;
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
Class * objectA = new Class("objectA");
Class * objectB = new Class("objectB");
cout << objectA->toString() << endl;
objectA->addClass(objectB);
//never gets here :'(
cout << objectA->toString() << endl;
return 0;
}
The problem is the test never gets past the objectA->addClass(objectB) instruction. I tried to debug and what I found was that the problem comes from the assignement instruction of the addClass() method. I also tried memcpy it didn't work. Does anyone have a solution for this please. Thanks.
Don't use malloc on C++ objects, use new and new[] and delete and delete[]. The problem with malloc in C++ is that it doesn't call the constructors for your objects, and free doesn't call the destructors. new, new[], delete and delete[] do. You get a crash because you are assigning to unconstructed objects and you get that because you didn't use new.
Not saying that's the only problem with your code, but it's the obvious one.
A basic solution is to prefer new and delete over malloc and free. A much better solution is to use a standard container such as std::vector to hold the elements at Class::addClass(). Let the computer take care of all that memory management; you will be saving a lot of development and debugging time.
Note that in your code you defined a custom copy constructor Class(const Class&) for your class, but you seem not having defined a copy assignment operator Class& operator=(const Class&). Note that in your code you use copy assignment (operator=) to make copies of your class, but you don't have a proper implementation of it.
Moreover, in C++ you should prefer using new[]/delete[] to C's malloc()/free(), and even better just use std::vector container for arrays.
You can also have a std::vector< SomeSmartPointer > (e.g. std::vector<std::shared_ptr<SomeClass>>, or std::vector<std::unique_ptr<SomeClass>>). In general, consider std::vector of some smart pointer, but don't use a std::vector of owning raw pointers (std::vector<SomeClass*>).
Related
I have written a DynamicArray class in the past analogous to vector which worked.
I have also written as a demo, one where the performance is bad because it has only length and pointer, and has to grow every time. Adding n elements is therefore O(n^2).
The purpose of this code was just to demonstrate placement new. The code works for types that do not use dynamic memory, but with string it crashes and -fsanitize=address shows that the memory allocated in the addEnd() method is being used in printing. I commented out removeEnd, the code is only adding elements, then printing them. I'm just not seeing the bug. can anyone identify what is wrong?
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <memory.h>
using namespace std;
template<typename T>
class BadGrowArray {
private:
uint32_t size;
T* data;
public:
BadGrowArray() : size(0), data(nullptr) {}
~BadGrowArray() {
for (uint32_t i = 0; i < size; i++)
data[i].~T();
delete [] (char*)data;
}
BadGrowArray(const BadGrowArray& orig) : size(orig.size), data((T*)new char[orig.size*sizeof(T)]) {
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
new (data + i) T(orig.data[i]);
}
BadGrowArray& operator =(BadGrowArray copy) {
size = copy.size;
swap(data, copy.data);
return *this;
}
void* operator new(size_t sz, void* p) {
return p;
}
void addEnd(const T& v) {
char* old = (char*)data;
data = (T*)new char[(size+1)*sizeof(T)];
memcpy(data, old, size*sizeof(T));
new (data+size) T(v); // call copy constructor placing object at data[size]
size++;
delete [] (char*)old;
}
void removeEnd() {
const char* old = (char*)data;
size--;
data[size].~T();
data = (T*)new char[size*sizeof(T)];
memcpy(data, old, size*sizeof(T));
delete [] (char*)old;
}
friend ostream& operator <<(ostream& s, const BadGrowArray& list) {
for (int i = 0; i < list.size; i++)
s << list.data[i] << ' ';
return s;
}
};
class Elephant {
private:
string name;
public:
Elephant() : name("Fred") {}
Elephant(const string& name) {}
};
int main() {
BadGrowArray<int> a;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
a.addEnd(i);
for (int i = 0; i < 9; i++)
a.removeEnd();
// should have 0
cout << a << '\n';
BadGrowArray<string> b;
b.addEnd("hello");
string s[] = { "test", "this", "now" };
for (int i = 0; i < sizeof(s)/sizeof(string); i++)
b.addEnd(s[i]);
// b.removeEnd();
cout << b << '\n';
BadGrowArray<string> c = b; // test copy constructor
c.removeEnd();
c = b; // test operator =
}
The use of memcpy is valid only for trivially copyable types.
The compiler may even warn you on that, with something like:
warning: memcpy(data, old, size * sizeof(T));
writing to an object of non-trivially copyable type 'class string'
use copy-assignment or copy-initialization instead [-Wclass-memaccess]
Note that your code do not move the objects, but rather memcpy them, which means that if they have for example internal pointers that point to a position inside the object, then your mem-copied object will still point to the old location.
Trivially Copyable types wouldn't have internal pointers that point to a position in the object itself (or similar issues that may prevent mem-copying), otherwise the type must take care of them in copying and implement proper copy and assignemnt operations, which would make it non-trivially copyable.
To fix your addEnd method to do proper copying, for non-trivially copyable types, if you use C++17 you may add to your code an if-constexpr like this:
if constexpr(std::is_trivially_copyable_v<T>) {
memcpy(data, old, size * sizeof(T));
}
else {
for(std::size_t i = 0; i < size; ++i) {
new (data + i) T(std::move_if_noexcept(old[i]));
}
}
In case you are with C++14 or before, two versions of copying with SFINAE would be needed.
Note that other parts of the code may also require some fixes.
Here is a simple code:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
typedef struct Car{
std::string model;
} Car;
std::string get_model() {
std::string str = "Maserati";
return str;
}
int main() {
const int nCars = 2;
//Car *list = new Car[nCars]; // works everywhere g++/VC++
Car *list = (Car *)malloc(nCars * sizeof(Car)); // works in g++, not VC++
list[0].model = get_model();
std::cout << "model=" << list[0].model << std::endl;
// delete[] list;
free(list);
return 0;
}
There is no problem when I used malloc() or new in g++. However, malloc() does not work in Visual C++. Should I use new always when I allocate the C++ class object?
(a debtor)<><
You are allocating memory without calling a constructor or calling the destructor when the object is about to be removed. This is what new[] and delete[] does for you, so use them - or better yet, use smart pointers - or even better, a standard container, like std::vector to keep the objects for you.
Your code with the missing parts added:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
struct Car {
std::string model;
Car() { std::cout << "ctor\n"; }
~Car() { std::cout << "dtor\n"; }
};
int main() {
const int nCars = 2;
// allocate memory
Car *list = (Car *)malloc(nCars * sizeof(Car));
// manually calling constructors
for(int i=0; i<nCars; ++i) {
new(&list[i]) Car();
}
// use objects here
// manually calling destructors
for(int i=0; i<nCars; ++i) {
list[i].~Car();
}
// freeing memory
free(list);
}
Compare with using new[] and delete[]:
int main() {
const int nCars = 2;
// create cars
Car* list = new Car[nCars];
// use objects here
// delete cars
delete[] list;
}
Compare with using a container:
int main() {
const int nCars = 2;
// create cars
std::vector<Car> list(nCars);
// use objects here
}
Yes.
While it is wrong to say, "Never use malloc() in C++," it is definitely true that you should never use malloc() to instantiate a class.
Keep in mind that C++ is, in a sense, a hybrid language in that it effectively supports an almost complete subset of C and adds the superset of C++ functionality. malloc() has a role to play when using built-in types like int, char, float, etc.
For objects, however, new must be used. It might be true that you have found that malloc() works in many cases, but new and delete will cause constructors and destructors to be called, which will never happen with malloc() and free().
The problem here is because you're allocating a memory for the std::string of your Car struct but do not call the std::string constructor.
You should call a placement new for each item in the array to call the constructor and initialize the std::string field in the Car struct:
int main() {
const int nCars = 2;
Car* list = (Car *)malloc(nCars * sizeof(Car));
for (int i = 0; i < nCars; ++i)
new(&list[i])Car();
list[0].model = get_model();
std::cout << "model=" << list[0].model << std::endl;
}
-- ORIGINAL ANSWER --
Here's my original answer (which is inorrect due to an extra overhead that may be required for arrays: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/new#Allocation)
If you have to use malloc then I suggest you use a in-place constructor with the returned memory block:
int main() {
const int nCars = 2;
Car *list = new (malloc(nCars * sizeof(Car)))Car[nCars];
list[0].model = get_model();
std::cout << "model=" << list[0].model << std::endl;
return 0;
}
I am trying to swap the content in the arrays by swapping the pointers pointing to the two arrays.
My method is the same as what Daniel answered in this question: Swap arrays by using pointers in C++. But the difference is that my array will be a member in a class.
My code can be compiled successfully, but the output results are quite weird.
This is my header file:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <iostream>
class Map
{
public:
Map(int times); // Create an empty map (i.e., one with no key/value pairs)
int size(); // Return the number of key/value pairs in the map.
void dump();
void swap(Map &other);
int *retrieve();
void setptr(int *newptr);
private:
int *ptr;
int array_1[5];
};
Here is my implementation:
#include "Map.h"
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
Map::Map(int times) {
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
array_1[i]=i*times;
}
ptr=array_1;
}
void Map::dump() {
ptr=array_1;
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
cout << *ptr << endl;
ptr++;
}
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
ptr--;
}
}
void Map::swap(Map &other) {
int *temp;
temp = this->ptr;
this->ptr = other.retrieve();
other.setptr(temp);
}
int *Map::retrieve() {
return ptr;
}
void Map::setptr(int *newptr) {
ptr=newptr;
}
Can anyone tell me what is wrong and how to implement it smartly?
The following code runs fine:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <conio.h>
using namespace std;
class Map
{
public:
Map(int times); // Create an empty map (i.e., one with no key/value pairs)
int size(); // Return the number of key/value pairs in the map.
void dump();
void swap(int &other);
int *retrieve();
void setptr(int *newptr);
private:
int *ptr;
int array_1[5];
};
Map::Map(int times){
for (int i=0;i<5;i++){
array_1[i]=i*times;
}
ptr=array_1;
}
void Map::dump(){
for (int i=0;i<5;i++)
{
cout<<ptr[i]<<endl;
}
}
void Map::swap(int &other){
int *temp;
temp=this->ptr;
this->ptr=&other;
other = *temp;
}
int *Map::retrieve(){
return ptr;
}
void Map::setptr(int *newptr){
ptr=newptr;
}
int main()
{
Map m(2);
Map n(3);
m.dump();
m.swap(*n.retrieve());
m.dump();
getchar();
}
1) Added a main function
2) Changed Swap function
But the problem that christopher pointed out will still persist i.e the pointer will point to an array in another object.
Edit: You probably need something like this:
void Map::swap(Map &other){
Map *temp;
temp=this;
*this = other;
other = *temp;
}
Map *Map::retrieve(){
return this;
}
Note: it is probably not elegant.
The problem with your design is that the pointer refers to an array in the same object.
Suppose you have to objects a and b. If you swap their pointers, a.ptr will point to b.array_1 which contains the data. reciprocally b.ptr will point to a.array1.
Unfortunately if one of the object -- say b -- gets destroyed (because it was a local object that goes out of scope, or for whatever reason) the pointer of the remaining object would point to an array which doesn't exist anymore. This is UB.
To solve your issue, you'd neet to allocate an array dynamically in the constructor. Get rid of array_1 completely:
Map::Map(int times){
ptr=new int[5]; // or better define a constant to avoid hard coded sizes
for (int i=0;i<5;i++){
ptr[i]=i*times;
}
}
Note that if you use pointers, you need to ensure the invarients on it. This means that you should define also the copy constructor and the assignment operator (to avoid the ptr to be blindly copied), as well as a destructor (to delete the dynamically allocated array).
P.S.: I suppose that you are learning C++ and are not yet familiar with vectors. These would avoid all the hassles here
Edit: if you experience your problem before any object is destroyed, it's because of a bad implementation of dump(): you increment the pointer there in, so that it will no longer point to the start of the array.
void Map::dump(){
for (int i=0;i<5;i++){
cout<<ptr[i]<<endl; // don't change ptr value !!
}
}
One simple trick to avoid such problems, is to systematically declare the member functions that are not supposed to change the state of the object as const:
class Map {
...
void dump() const;
...
}
Then the compiler issues an error if you try to accidentally change a member.
The following code constitutes a MCVE, this reproduces the problem I want to ask about but it's not the real code. The real code is quite more complicated so that's why I wrote this for a demonstration of the problem.
The key feature I am looking for is to be able to grow a dynamically allocated array, please do not suggest using the stl because it's explicitly forbidden. This code is for educational purpose and thus there are restrictions.
#include <cstring>
#include <iostream>
class Value
{
public:
Value(int value = 0);
Value(const Value &value);
Value &operator =(const Value &other);
~Value();
operator int() {return *m_absurdPointer;}
private:
int *m_absurdPointer;
};
Value::Value(int value) :
m_absurdPointer(new int[1])
{
*m_absurdPointer = value;
}
Value::Value(const Value &value)
{
m_absurdPointer = new int[1];
memcpy(m_absurdPointer, value.m_absurdPointer, sizeof(*m_absurdPointer));
}
Value &Value::operator =(const Value &other)
{
m_absurdPointer = new int[1];
memcpy(m_absurdPointer, other.m_absurdPointer, sizeof(*m_absurdPointer));
return *this;
}
Value::~Value()
{
delete[] m_absurdPointer;
}
class ValueArray
{
public:
ValueArray();
~ValueArray();
void append(const Value &value);
void show() const;
private:
Value *m_array;
unsigned int m_capacity;
unsigned int m_length;
};
ValueArray::ValueArray() :
m_array(nullptr)
, m_capacity(0)
, m_length(0)
{
}
ValueArray::~ValueArray()
{
delete[] m_array;
}
void
ValueArray::append(const Value &value)
{
if (m_length >= m_capacity)
{
Value *newarray;
unsigned int unitSize;
unitSize = 1;
newarray = new Value[m_capacity + unitSize];
if ((m_capacity > 0) && (m_array != nullptr))
memcpy(newarray, m_array, m_capacity * sizeof(*m_array));
delete[] m_array;
m_array = newarray;
m_capacity += unitSize;
}
m_array[m_length++] = value;
}
void
ValueArray::show() const
{
for (size_t i = 0 ; i < m_length ; ++i)
std::cout << static_cast<int>(m_array[i]) << std::endl;
}
int
main(void)
{
ValueArray example;
for (int i = 0 ; i < 10 ; ++i)
example.append(Value(i));
example.show();
return 0;
}
It causes as you can see a double free issue, because the delete[] m_array; calls the destructor of the class Value after it has copied the values to the re-newed array.
I tried to do this with malloc()/realloc() but I need the destructor of Value() to be called so new is mandatory because I can't use free().
How to prevent this?, if I remove the delete[] m_absurdPointer; the double free would be gone of course but there would be a memory leak.
You basically want to implement an own vector class, right?
OK, first things first: As far as I know you cannot grow previously allocated memory. At least not with the standard allocator.
So you need to allocate a new, larger chunk of memory.
You can do this the standard way, using new:
Type * newdata = new Type[size];
In this case the constructor of the class Type will be called for each new element, which is size times.
To get your old data into that new array you need to copy or move it there:
for (size_t it = 0; it < oldsize; ++it) {
newdata[it] = olddata[it];
// newdata[it] = std::move(olddata[it]);
}
This is what std::copy resp. std::move are doing. (You could also use std::swap inside a loop.)
For that to work the Type class needs both a default constructor and a valid implementation of copy or move assignment.
You're using memcpy. In C++, this is generally a bad idea: Your implemented assignment operator isn't called, Therefore both the objects in your old array and the raw copies are using the same pointer, which is why you get that double free, obviously.
You could also allocate raw memory and use placement new to copy or move construct the new objects from the old ones:
void * memory = new char[size * sizeof(Type)];
for (size_t it = 0; it < oldsize; ++it) {
new (memory + it * sizeof(Type)) Type(olddata[it]); // copy
}
The above is only an example, for real code you need to consider alignment, too.
Finally, I'm sure you can somehow trick the default allocator to free your (old) memory without destructing the objects within, this allowing you to use the raw copy memcpy made. Though this would be a hack and could break on complex classes, it's not the C++ way of doing this.
The idiomatic way is to copy or move the old objects to the new storage (with either assignment or construction).
You should use the move-constructor if you have to stick with an vector-like implementation of ValueArray:
class Value
{
public:
Value(int value = 0);
Value(const Value &value);
Value(Value&& val);
Value &operator =(const Value &other);
Value &operator =(Value&& other);
~Value();
operator int() {return *m_absurdPointer;}
private:
int *m_absurdPointer;
};
Value::Value(Value&& o) : m_absurdPointer(o.m_absurdPointer) {
o.m_absurdPointer = nullptr;
}
Value &operator =(Value&& o) {
delete[] this->m_absurdPointer;
this->m_absurdPointer = o.m_absurdPointer;
o.m_absurdPointer = nullptr;
}
void
ValueArray::append(const Value &value)
{
if (m_length >= m_capacity)
{
Value *newarray;
unsigned int unitSize;
unitSize = 1;
newarray = new Value[m_capacity + unitSize];
if ((m_capacity > 0) && (m_array != nullptr)) {
std::move(m_array, m_array + m_length, newarray);
}
delete[] m_array;
m_array = newarray;
m_capacity += unitSize;
}
}
I'm trying to create my own version of an array called a safearray, to test my knowledge of operator overloading and creating proper class's and such.
I'm encountering two errors.
SafeArray.h:11:15: error: ‘const int SafeArray::operator’ cannot be overloaded
SafeArray.h:10:10: error: with ‘int& SafeArray::operator’
My code is split between three files.
Main.cpp
#include <cstdlib>
#include <iostream>
#include "SafeArray.h"
using namespace std;
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
SafeArray a(10); // 10 integer elements
for (int i = 0; i < a.length(); i++) {
cout << i << " " << a[i] << "s" << endl; // values initialise to 0
}
cout << endl << a[1]; // Program exits here.
a[3] = 42;
cout << a[3];
a[10] = 10;
cout << a[10];
a[-1] = -1; // out-of-bounds is "safe"?
SafeArray b(20); // another array
b = a; // array assignment
for (int i = 0; i < b.length(); i++) {
cout << b[i] << endl; // values copied from a
}
return 0;
}
SafeArray.h
#ifndef SAFEARRAY_H
#define SAFEARRAY_H
class SafeArray {
public:
SafeArray(int); // int variable will be the array size
int length();
int boundsCheck(int y); // constructor will call this function
// const SafeArray operator= (const SafeArray&);
int& operator[] (int y);
const int operator [] (const int y); // you need this one too.
SafeArray &operator=(SafeArray rhs) {
std::swap(array, rhs.array);
std::swap(length_, rhs.length_);
}
SafeArray(SafeArray const &other);
~SafeArray();
private:
int length_;
int *array;
//int array[];
};
#endif /* SAFEARRAY_H */
SafeArray.cpp
#include "SafeArray.h"
#include <iostream>
SafeArray::SafeArray(int x) {
length_ = x;
array = new int[length];
for (int i = 0; i < length_; i++) {
array[i] = 0;
}
}
int SafeArray::length() {
return this->length_;
}
int SafeArray::boundsCheck(int y) {
}
int& SafeArray::operator[] (int y) {
return array[y];
}
SafeArray::~SafeArray() {
delete [] array;
}
SafeArray::SafeArray(SafeArray const &other) {
int *temp = new int[rhs.size_];
for (int i=0; i<rhs.size_; i++)
temp[i] = rhs.array[i];
std::swap(temp, array);
delete [] temp;
return *this;
}
Your class definition isn't valid. int array[] is an incomplete type, which must not appear as a (non-static) class member. Some compilers accept this as a synonym for int array[0], but zero-sized arrays are not valid in C++, either (only in C99).
In short, you cannot write your code the way you do. You need to learn about dynamic allocation and manage your own memory. Check out how std::vector is implemented.
In C++11, I might recommend a std::unique_ptr<int[]> array as a quick-fix approach, to be initialized as array(new int[x]).
Actually int array[] is valid, and may appear as a class member. The following compiles with strict C++11 conformance:
class foo
{
public:
foo() {}
int length;
int A[];
};
void ralph()
{
foo *bar = (foo *)new int[ 21 ];
bar->length = 20;
bar->A[0] = 1;
}
This is legal, and has its advantages (occasionally). Although it is not commonly used.
However, I suspect that the OP wanted something more along the lines of
class SafeArray {
public:
SafeArray(int); // int variable will be the array size
int length();
int boundsCheck(int y); // constructor will call this function
int& operator[] (int y);
const int operator [] (const int y) // you need this one too.
private:
int length_;
int *array;
};
along with
SafeArray::SafeArray(int x) {
length_ = x;
array = new int[length];
for (int i = 0; i < length_; i++) {
array[i] = 0;
}
}
As #Kerrek already pointed out, your class definition is clearly wrong (shouldn't compile).
To fix it, you want to change the definition to something like:
int *array;
Then in your default ctor you could use something like this:
SafeArray::SafeArray(unsigned size = 0)
: array(new int[size])
{
for (unsigned i=0; i<size; i++)
array[i] = 0;
}
Then, yes, you'll need to write an assignment operator. The usual way is called the copy and swap idiom. You create a copy, then swap the contents of the current one with those of the copy:
SafeArray &operator=(SafeArray rhs) {
std::swap(array, rhs.array);
std::swap(length_, rhs.length_);
}
Along with that, you'll need a copy constructor that makes a copy of the data as well:
SafeArray::SafeArray(SafeArray const &other) {
int *temp = new int[rhs.size_];
for (int i=0; i<rhs.size_; i++)
temp[i] = rhs.array[i];
std::swap(temp, array);
delete [] temp;
return *this;
}
Finally, you'll need a destructor to destroy an object and (particularly) delete the memory it holds:
SafeArray::~SafeArray() {
delete [] array;
}
Then realize that all of that is an ugly mess that will never really work well. In particular, the basic methodology is restricted to an array that's basically fixed in size. As long as you only store ints, it's fairly easy to overlook the problems, and make a dynamic array that (sort of) works. When/if you want to store some other type, however, you just about need to separate allocating memory from initializing objects in that memory, which means throwing away essentially all the code above, and replacing it with something that:
keeps track of the array size and allocation size separately
allocates memory with ::operator new, an Allocator object, or something else similar
uses placement new to initialize objects in the memory when needed.
uses explicit destructor calls to destroy the objects
uses ::operator delete to release memory
and so on. To summarize, std::vector is not a trivial piece of work.
The error message refers to these two lines:
int& operator[] (int y);
const int operator [] (const int y); // you need this one too.
Your error message says that (int y) and (const int y) are too similar to be two different overloads of the [] operator. You cannot overload on (int y) and (const int y) because the calls would all be ambiguous.
You probably meant to return a const int if your SafeArray is const, but return an int& if your SafeArray is not const. In that case, you declare the second function to apply to const SafeArray, by putting the word const after the parameter list. This is what you should write in SafeArray.h:
int& operator[] (int y);
const int operator [] (int y) const; // you need this one too.
You would then have to write both of these functions in SafeArray.cpp:
int& SafeArray::operator[] (int y) {
return array[y];
}
const int SafeArray::operator[] (int y) const { // you need this one too.
return array[y];
}