I have a file.txt where I'm reading each line and I wan't to handle those lines. The file contains IP, Nicknames and some values. I want to save only the IP addresses to another file, but before that I'm checking the result returned by my function (char* get_ip(char arr[])).
The problem is the returned value, it's showing me only a partial, e.g:
normal IP address: 66.55.44.33
My return: 66.55.44
Edit:
There are 2 functions: main() and get_ip()
//<----------- FUNCTION get_ip() -------------------- ><br />
char* get_ip(char buff[]){
char line[32];
for(int i = 0; i < sizeof(buff); i++){
if(buff[i] == '.'){
if(isdigit(buff[i + 1])){
i = 0;
while(buff[i] != ' '){
line[i] = buff[i];
i++;
}
break;
}
}
}
if(isdigit(line[0]))
return line;
else
return 0;
}
//<------------ FUNCTION int main() --------------------->
int main(){
// variable, opening folder etc.
char buff[64], *line;
while(!feof(fph)){
fgets(buff, 63, fph);
line = get_ip(buff);
if(line)
cout << line << "\n";
}
} // main() func. end
Current expected behavior is not defined, as line is a local variable, you are not allowed to return from the function. If you want it to be separate buffer from buff you should use malloc instead of the declaration char line[32];
You should show more code: the signature of you function at least.
You are allocating buff on stack, and then return it.
But arrays are never returned by value, they are decayed to pointer-to-first-element.
That means, that when you use your function like this:
char[32] myFunction(...);
char ip[32] = myFunction(...);
your ip array is initialized with a pointer to array (line) that was destroyed after going out of scope when myFunction returns!
That means, it contains a garbage and you are lucky that you get even partial result from it (although if it was complete garbage you would probably track the problem easier).
The possible remedies is to use std::string (which I recommend) or to pass the pointer to preallocated array to myFunction (C-style solution):
char[32] ip;
myFunction(ip, ...);
One issue might be in the line:
for(int i = 0; i < sizeof(buff); i++){
Specifically the statement
sizeof(buff)
While you might have expected this to return 64, the size of the buffer, you are forgetting how C arrays almost always decay to pointers, so this is actually returning 4( if 32-bit) or 8(if 64-bit), the size of a char *.
You need to explicitly pass in a size.
Related
I'm currently doing a programming exercise from a C++ book for beginners. The task reads as follows: "Write a function that reverses the characters in a text string by using two pointers. The only function parameter shall be a pointer to the string."
My issue is that I haven't been able to make the characters swap properly, see the output below. (And I also made the assumption that the function parameter doesn't count, hence why I'm technically using three pointers).
I am almost certain that the problem has to do with the for loop. I wrote this pseudocode:
Assign value of element number i in at_front to the 1st element in transfer_back.
Assign value of element number elem in at_back to element number i in at_front.
Assign value of the 1st element in transfer_back to element number elem in at_back.
Increment i, decrement elem. Repeat loop until !(i < elem)
I wasn't sure whether of not I was supposed to take the null terminator into account. I tried writing (elem - 1) but that messed up with the characters even more so I've currently left it as it is.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
void strrev(string *at_front) {
string *transfer_back = at_front, *at_back = transfer_back;
int elem = 0;
while(at_back->operator[](elem) != '\0') {
elem++;
}
for(int i = 0; i < elem; i++) {
transfer_back->operator[](0) = at_front->operator[](i);
at_front->operator[](i) = at_back->operator[](elem);
at_back->operator[](elem) = transfer_back->operator[](0);
elem--;
}
}
int main() {
string str = "ereh txet yna";
string *point_str = &str;
strrev(point_str);
cout << *point_str << endl;
return 0;
}
Expected output: "any text here"
Terminal window: "xany text her"
The fact that the 'x' has been assigned to the first element is something I haven't been able to grasp.
Here is the correct answer
void strrev(string *at_front) {
string *at_back = at_front;
char transfer_back;
int elem = 0;
while(at_back->operator[](elem) != '\0') {
elem++;
}
for(int i = 0; i <elem; i++) {
transfer_back = at_front->operator[](i);
at_front->operator[](i) = at_back->operator[](elem);
at_back->operator[](elem) = transfer_back;
elem--;
}
}
Let me explain why you have that error. string *transfer_back = at_front those two are pointed to the same reference, that is why when you change transfer_back->operator[](0) = at_front->operator[](i);this change will reflect in at_front string as well.
"Write a function that reverses the characters in a text string by using two pointers. The only function parameter shall be a pointer to the string."
This sounds to me like the question addresses C strings but not std::string.
Assuming my feeling is right, this could look like:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
void strrev(char *at_front) {
char *at_back = at_front;
if (!*at_back) return; // early out in edge case
// move at_back to end (last char before 0-terminator)
while (at_back[1]) ++at_back;
// reverse by swapping contents of front and back
while (at_front < at_back) {
std::swap(*at_front++, *at_back--);
}
}
int main() {
char str[] = "ereh txet yna";
strrev(str);
std::cout << str << '\n';
return 0;
}
Output:
any text here
Live Demo on coliru
Note:
I stored the original string in a char str[].
If I had used char *str = "ereh txet yna"; I had assigned an address of a constant string to str. This feels very wrong as I want to modify the contents of str which must not be done on constants.
strrev():
The at_back[1] reads the next char after address in at_back. For a valid C string, this should be always possible as I excluded the empty string (consisting of 0-terminator only) before.
The swapping loop moves at_front as well as at_back. As the pointer is given as value, this has no "destructive" effect outside of strrev().
Concerning std::swap(*at_front++, *at_back--);:
The swapping combines access to pointer contents with pointer increment/decrement, using postfix-increment/-decrement. IMHO, one of the rare cases where the postfix operators are useful somehow.
Alternatively, I could have written:
std::swap(*at_front, *at_back); ++at_front; --at_back;
Please, note that std::string is a container class. A pointer to the container cannot be used to address its contained raw string directly. For this, std::string provides various access methods like e.g.
std::string::operator[]()
std::string::at()
std::string::data()
etc.
I am doing component test for a 'C' code. I have read the functionality of strtok_r function but I am not able to get the return value that I want to pass in strncmp' function. My code is contains strtok_r and strncmp functions as below:
typedef struct BufferN {
uint32_t v;
uint32_t m;
} My_Buffer;
char subsystemstr[64] = { '\0' };
My_Buffer buffer;
char *p_system;
char *p_subsystem;
(void) GetString(&buffer, subsystemstr, sizeof(subsystemstr));
p_system = strtok_r (subsystemstr, ":", &p_subsystem);
for (i = 0u; i < 100; i++)
{
if (strncmp(p_system, "all", 64) == 0)
{
/*Some Code Statement*/
}
}
Since array subsystemstr is initialized to '\0', I am modifying this array value with the help of function GetString as below:
strncpy(subsystemstr, "all:", 64);
When I am printing subsystemstr, I am having updated array as:
["all:", '\0' <repeats 59 times>]
but when I am printing p_system(return value of strtok_r). I am getting
[0x388870 ""]
I am confused how it is working. Actually I want value of p_system = "all" so that 'strncmp' function can return 0.
Please suggest.
I suspect your understanding of what
p p_system
actually does (prints the address of p_system)
in gdb, the command would be
p *p_system
or, using the builtin printf command
printf "%s", p_system
or, using the C function
call printf("%s", p_system)
or,
call (void)puts(p_system)
or, if you do not mind also seeing some address values
x /s p_system
I created a function that returns an error code (ErrCode enum) and pass two output parameters. But when I print the result of the function, I don't get the correct values in the array.
// .. some codes here ..
ErrCode err;
short lstCnt;
short lstArr[] = {};
err = getTrimmedList(lstArr, &lstCnt);
// list returned array (for comparison)
for (int i=0; i<lstCnt; ++i)
printf("lstArr[%3d] = %d", i, lstArr[i]);
// .. some codes here ..
The getTrimmedList function is like this:
ErrCode getTrimmedList(short* vList, short* vCnt)
{
short cnt;
ErrCode err = foo.getListCount(FOO_TYPE_1, &cnt);
if (NoError!=err) return err;
short* list = new short [cnt];
short total = 0;
for (short i=0; i<cnt; ++i)
{
FooBar bar = foo.getEntryByIndex(FOO_TYPE_1, i);
if (bar.isDeleted) continue;
list[total] = i;
++total;
}
*vCnt = total;
//vList = (short*)realloc(index, sizeof(short)*total);
vList = (short*)malloc(sizeof(short)*total);
memcpy(vList, list, sizeof(short)*total)
// list returned array (for comparison)
for (int i=0; i<lstCnt; ++i)
printf("lstArr[%3d] = %d", i, lstArr[i]);
return NoError;
}
where:
foo is an object that holds arrays of FooBar objects
foo.getListCount() returns the number of objects with type FOO_TYPE_1
FOO_TYPE_1 is the type of object we want to take/list
foo.getEntryByIndex() returns the ith FooBar object with type FOO_TYPE_1
bar.isDeleted is a flag that tells if bar is considered as 'deleted' or not
What's my error?
Edit:
Sorry, I copied a wrong line. I commented it above and put the correct line.
Edit 2
I don't have control over the returns of foo and bar. All their function returns are ErrCode and the outputs are passed through parameter.
Couple of questions before I can answer your post...
Where is "index" defined in:
vList = (short*)realloc(index, sizeof(short)*total);
Are you leaking the memory associated with:
short* list = new short [cnt];
Is it possible you have accidentally confused your pointers in memory allocation? In any case, here is an example to go from. You have a whole host of problems, but you should be able to use this as a guide to answer this question as it was originally asked.
WORKING EXAMPLE:
#include "stdio.h"
#include "stdlib.h"
#include "string.h"
int getTrimmedList(short** vList, short* vCnt);
int main ()
{
// .. some codes here ..
int err;
short lstCnt;
short *lstArr = NULL;
err = getTrimmedList(&lstArr, &lstCnt);
// list returned array (for comparison)
for (int i=0; i<lstCnt; ++i)
printf("lstArr[%3d] = %d\n", i, lstArr[i]);
// .. some codes here ..
return 0;
}
int getTrimmedList(short** vList, short* vCnt)
{
short cnt = 5;
short* list = new short [cnt];
short* newList = NULL;
short total = 0;
list[0] = 0;
list[1] = 3;
list[2] = 4;
list[3] = 6;
total = 4;
*vCnt = total;
newList = (short*)realloc(*vList, sizeof(short)*total);
if ( newList ) {
memcpy(newList, list, sizeof(short)*total);
*vList = newList;
} else {
memcpy(*vList, list, sizeof(short)*total);
}
delete list;
return 0;
}
You have serious problems.
For starters, your function has only one output param as you use it: vCnt.
vList you use as just a local variable.
realloc is called with some index that we kow nothing about, not likely good. It must be something got from malloc() or realloc().
The allocated memory in vList is leaked as soon as you exit getTrimmedList.
Where you call the function you pass the local lstArr array as first argument that is not used for anything. Then print the original, unchanged array, to bounds in cnt, while it has 0 size still -- behavior is undefined.
Even if you managed to pass that array by ref, you could not reassign it to a different value -- C-style arrays can't do that.
You better use std::vector that you can actually pass by reference and fill in the called function. eliminating the redundant size and importantly the mess with memory handling.
You should use std::vector instead of raw c-style arrays, and pass-by-reference using "&" instead of "*" here. Right now, you are not properly setting your out parameter (a pointer to an array would look like "short **arr_ptr" not "short *arr_ptr", if you want to be return a new array to your caller -- this API is highly error-prone, however, as you're finding out.)
Your getTrimmedList function, therefore, should have this signature:
ErrCode getTrimmedList(std::vector<short> &lst);
Now you no longer require your "count" parameters, as well -- C++'s standard containers all have ways of querying the size of their contents.
C++11 also lets you be more specific about space requirements for ints, so if you're looking for a 16-bit "short", you probably want int16_t.
ErrCode getTrimmedList(std::vector<int16_t> &lst);
It may also be reasonable to avoid requiring your caller to create the "out" array, since we're using smarter containers here:
std::vector<int16_t> getTrimmedList(); // not a reference in the return here
In this style, we would likely manage errors using exceptions rather than return-codes, however, so other things about your interface would evolve, as well, most likely.
I am trying to call a function that takes char** as a parameter. Its job is to fill an array of strings (i.e. an array of char*). I know the max length of the strings, and I can pass the max number to fill as another parameter, so I was hoping to stack allocate it like this:
fill_my_strings(char** arr_str, int max_str); // function prototype
char fill_these[max_strings][max_chars_per_string]; // allocating chars
fill_my_strings(fill_these, max_strings); // please fill them!
Of course, I get the "cannot convert char[max_strings][max_chars_per_string] to char**" error.
I know this is some subtle (or not-so-subtle) problem with my understanding of the difference between arrays and pointers. I'm just not sure why it's not possible to pass this block of memory to something wanting a char** and have it fill in my stack-allocated chars. Could somebody please explain if this is possible, or if not, why not?
Is it possible to call a function like this without calling malloc / new?
The simple answer to your question is no; a two dimensional array is different than a pointer-to pointer type. Arrays decay to pointers to their first element, but pointers actually are that value.
The difference between these types is clear, if you cast both to char*
int x;
char *arr_pp[] = {"foo", "bar", "baz"};
char arr_2d[][4] = {"foo", "bar", "baz"};
char *cp = (char*)arr_pp;
for(x=0; x<3; x++)
printf("%d ", cp[x]);
printf("\n");
cp = (char*)arr_2d;
for(x=0; x<3; x++)
printf("%d ", cp[x]);
printf("\n");
The output (on my computer) is:
-80 -123 4
102 111 111
Where the first row is gibberish formed by the fact that I'm printing an address cast into bytes, and the second row is the ascii values of "foo".
In a function taking a char ** the compiler can't know to decay array types, which don't actually contain pointers.
Suppose you have n pointers to strings of m-1 maximum characters (m characters including the NULL).
So, in pure C:
sizeof(char[n][m]) will return n*m.
sizeof(char**) will return the size of a pointer in your architecture, probably 32 (if x86) or 64 (if x86_64).
char[n][m] actually allocates the n*m byte contiguously. char** allocates a single pointer. This pointer references a memory stripe of *n bytes. Each of these n pointers points to a memory stripe of m characters.
So, considering that sizeof(char) == u, if you declare char a[n][m], when you use a[i][j], the compiler understands *(a + i*m*u + j*u).
So, considering that sizeof(char *) == w, if you declare char **a, when you use a[i][j], the compiler understands ((a + i*w) + j*w).
Completely different data management.
The closes thing you could do to handle your special case is to create a char** variable, and populate it with the addresses of your stack allocated matrix.
char **tmp = malloc(max_strings * sizeof(char *));
int i;
for(i = 0; i < max_strings; i++){
tmp[i] = &(fill_these[i][0]); //you probably can't reference a char[][] with a single index - not confirmed
}
I am not sure why fill_my_strings() need a char** parameter. From your example, caller have already allocated the memory from stack. So using a char* should be OK.
But if you want to use char** or you can't modify the fill_my_strings() function, try following example code:
void fill_my_strings(char** arr_str, int max_chars_per_string, int max_strings)
{
for(int i = 0; i < max_strings; ++i)
{
//Make sure you have enough space
memcpy(*arr_str, "ABCD", sizeof("ABCD"));
*arr_str += max_chars_per_string;
}
}
char fill_these[max_strings][max_chars_per_string];
char* pointer = (char*)fill_these;
fill_my_strings(&pointer, max_strings, max_chars_per_string);
The obvious thing to do is build an index
In c use something like:
char string_list[num_strings][str_length];
// ...
char**index = calloc( (num_strings+1), sizeof(*index) ); // calloc insures NULL termination
for (int i=0; i<num_strings; ++i) {
index[i] = string_list[i]
}
In c++ prefer new[] to calloc;
I just took an exam where I was asked the following:
Write the function body of each of the methods GenStrLen, InsertChar and StrReverse for the given code below. You must take into consideration the following;
How strings are constructed in C++
The string must not overflow
Insertion of character increases its length by 1
An empty string is indicated by StrLen = 0
class Strings {
private:
char str[80];
int StrLen;
public:
// Constructor
Strings() {
StrLen=0;
};
// A function for returning the length of the string 'str'
int GetStrLen(void) {
};
// A function to inser a character 'ch' at the end of the string 'str'
void InsertChar(char ch) {
};
// A function to reverse the content of the string 'str'
void StrReverse(void) {
};
};
The answer I gave was something like this (see bellow). My one of problem is that used many extra variables and that makes me believe am not doing it the best possible way, and the other thing is that is not working....
class Strings {
private:
char str[80];
int StrLen;
int index; // *** Had to add this ***
public:
Strings(){
StrLen=0;
}
int GetStrLen(void){
for (int i=0 ; str[i]!='\0' ; i++)
index++;
return index; // *** Here am getting a weird value, something like 1829584505306 ***
}
void InsertChar(char ch){
str[index] = ch; // *** Not sure if this is correct cuz I was not given int index ***
}
void StrRevrse(void){
GetStrLen();
char revStr[index+1];
for (int i=0 ; str[i]!='\0' ; i++){
for (int r=index ; r>0 ; r--)
revStr[r] = str[i];
}
}
};
I would appreciate if anyone could explain me roughly what is the best way to have answered the question and why. Also how come my professor closes each class function like " }; ", I thought that was only used for ending classes and constructors only.
Thanks a lot for your help.
First, the trivial }; question is just a matter of style. I do that too when I put function bodies inside class declarations. In that case the ; is just an empty statement and doesn't change the meaning of the program. It can be left out of the end of the functions (but not the end of the class).
Here's some major problems with what you wrote:
You never initialize the contents of str. It's not guaranteed to start out with \0 bytes.
You never initialize index, you only set it within GetStrLen. It could have value -19281281 when the program starts. What if someone calls InsertChar before they call GetStrLen?
You never update index in InsertChar. What if someone calls InsertChar twice in a row?
In StrReverse, you create a reversed string called revStr, but then you never do anything with it. The string in str stays the same afterwords.
The confusing part to me is why you created a new variable called index, presumably to track the index of one-past-the-last character the string, when there was already a variable called StrLen for this purpose, which you totally ignored. The index of of one-past-the-last character is the length of the string, so you should just have kept the length of the string up to date, and used that, e.g.
int GetStrLen(void){
return StrLen;
}
void InsertChar(char ch){
if (StrLen < 80) {
str[StrLen] = ch;
StrLen = StrLen + 1; // Update the length of the string
} else {
// Do not allow the string to overflow. Normally, you would throw an exception here
// but if you don't know what that is, you instructor was probably just expecting
// you to return without trying to insert the character.
throw std::overflow_error();
}
}
Your algorithm for string reversal, however, is just completely wrong. Think through what that code says (assuming index is initialized and updated correctly elsewhere). It says "for every character in str, overwrite the entirety of revStr, backwards, with this character". If str started out as "Hello World", revStr would end up as "ddddddddddd", since d is the last character in str.
What you should do is something like this:
void StrReverse() {
char revStr[80];
for (int i = 0; i < StrLen; ++i) {
revStr[(StrLen - 1) - i] = str[i];
}
}
Take note of how that works. Say that StrLen = 10. Then we're copying position 0 of str into position 9 of revStr, and then position 1 of str into position 9 of revStr, etc, etc, until we copy position StrLen - 1 of str into position 0 of revStr.
But then you've got a reversed string in revStr and you're still missing the part where you put that back into str, so the complete method would look like
void StrReverse() {
char revStr[80];
for (int i = 0; i < StrLen; ++i) {
revStr[(StrLen - 1) - i] = str[i];
}
for (int i = 0; i < StrLen; ++i) {
str[i] = revStr[i];
}
}
And there are cleverer ways to do this where you don't have to have a temporary string revStr, but the above is perfectly functional and would be a correct answer to the problem.
By the way, you really don't need to worry about NULL bytes (\0s) at all in this code. The fact that you are (or at least you should be) tracking the length of the string with the StrLen variable makes the end sentinel unnecessary since using StrLen you already know the point beyond which the contents of str should be ignored.
int GetStrLen(void){
for (int i=0 ; str[i]!='\0' ; i++)
index++;
return index; // *** Here am getting a weird value, something like 1829584505306 ***
}
You are getting a weird value because you never initialized index, you just started incrementing it.
Your GetStrLen() function doesn't work because the str array is uninitialized. It probably doesn't contain any zero elements.
You don't need the index member. Just use StrLen to keep track of the current string length.
There are lots of interesting lessons to learn by this exam question. Firstly the examiner is does not appear to a fluent C++ programmer themselves! You might want to look at the style of the code, including whether the variables and method names are meaningful as well as some of the other comments you've been given about usage of (void), const, etc... Do the method names really need "Str" in them? We are operating with a "Strings" class, after all!
For "How strings are constructed in C++", well (like in C) these are null-terminated and don't store the length with them, like Pascal (and this class) does. [#Gustavo, strlen() will not work here, since the string is not a null-terminated one.] In the "real world" we'd use the std::string class.
"The string must not overflow", but how does the user of the class know if they try to overflow the string. #Tyler's suggestion of throwing a std::overflow_exception (perhaps with a message) would work, but if you are writing your own string class (purely as an exercise, you're very unlikely to need to do so in real life) then you should probably provide your own exception class.
"Insertion of character increases its length by 1", this implies that GetStrLen() doesn't calculate the length of the string, but purely returns the value of StrLen initialised at construction and updated with insertion.
You might also want to think about how you're going to test your class. For illustrative purposes, I added a Print() method so that you can look at the contents of the class, but you should probably take a look at something like Cpp Unit Lite.
For what it's worth, I'm including my own implementation. Unlike the other implementations so far, I have chosen to use raw-pointers in the reverse function and its swap helper. I have presumed that using things like std::swap and std::reverse are outside the scope of this examination, but you will want to familiarise yourself with the Standard Library so that you can get on and program without re-inventing wheels.
#include <iostream>
void swap_chars(char* left, char* right) {
char temp = *left;
*left = *right;
*right = temp;
}
class Strings {
private:
char m_buffer[80];
int m_length;
public:
// Constructor
Strings()
:m_length(0)
{
}
// A function for returning the length of the string 'm_buffer'
int GetLength() const {
return m_length;
}
// A function to inser a character 'ch' at the end of the string 'm_buffer'
void InsertChar(char ch) {
if (m_length < sizeof m_buffer) {
m_buffer[m_length++] = ch;
}
}
// A function to reverse the content of the string 'm_buffer'
void Reverse() {
char* left = &m_buffer[0];
char* right = &m_buffer[m_length - 1];
for (; left < right; ++left, --right) {
swap_chars(left, right);
}
}
void Print() const {
for (int index = 0; index < m_length; ++index) {
std::cout << m_buffer[index];
}
std::cout << std::endl;
}
};
int main(int, char**) {
Strings test_string;
char test[] = "This is a test string!This is a test string!This is a test string!This is a test string!\000";
for (char* c = test; *c; ++c) {
test_string.InsertChar(*c);
}
test_string.Print();
test_string.Reverse();
test_string.Print();
// The output of this program should look like this...
// This is a test string!This is a test string!This is a test string!This is a test
// tset a si sihT!gnirts tset a si sihT!gnirts tset a si sihT!gnirts tset a si sihT
return 0;
}
Good luck with the rest of your studies!
void InsertChar(char ch){
str[index] = ch; // *** Not sure if this is correct cuz I was not given int index ***
}
This should be something more like
str[strlen-1]=ch; //overwrite the null with ch
str[strlen]='\0'; //re-add the null
strlen++;
Your teacher gave you very good hints on the question, read it again and try answering yourself. Here's my untested solution:
class Strings {
private:
char str[80];
int StrLen;
public:
// Constructor
Strings() {
StrLen=0;
str[0]=0;
};
// A function for returning the length of the string 'str'
int GetStrLen(void) {
return StrLen;
};
// A function to inser a character 'ch' at the end of the string 'str'
void InsertChar(char ch) {
if(StrLen < 80)
str[StrLen++]=ch;
};
// A function to reverse the content of the string 'str'
void StrReverse(void) {
for(int i=0; i<StrLen / 2; ++i) {
char aux = str[i];
str[i] = str[StrLen - i - 1];
str[StrLen - i - 1] = aux;
}
};
};
When you init the char array, you should set its first element to 0, and the same for index. Thus you get a weird length in GetStrLen since it is up to the gods when you find the 0 you are looking for.
[Update] In C/C++ if you do not explicitly initialize your variables, you usually get them filled with random garbage (the content of the raw memory allocated to them). There are some exceptions to this rule, but the best practice is to always initialize your variables explicitly. [/Update]
In InsertChar, you should (after checking for overflow) use StrLen to index the array (as the comment specifies "inser a character 'ch' at the end of the string 'str'"), then set the new terminating 0 character and increment StrLen.
You don't need index as a member data. You can have it a local variable if you so please in GetStrLen(): just declare it there rather than in the class body. The reason you get a weird value when you return index is because you never initialized it. To fix that, initialize index to zero in GetStrLen().
But there's a better way to do things: when you insert a character via InsertChar() increment the value of StrLen, so that GetStrLen() need only return that value. This will make GetStrLen() much faster: it will run in constant time (the same performance regardless of the length of string).
In InsertChar() you can use StrLen as you index rather than index, which we already determined is redundant. But remember that you must make sure the string terminates with a '\0' value. Also remember to maintain StrLen by incrementing it to make GetStrLen()'s life easier. In addition, you must take the extra step in InsertChar() to avoid a buffer overflow. This happens when the user inserts a character to the string when the length of the string is alreay 79 characters. (Yes, 79: you must spend one character on the terminating null).
I don't see an instruction as to how to behave when that happens, so it must be up to your good judgment call. If the user tries to add the 80th character you might ignore the request and return, or you might set an error flag -- it's up to you.
In your StrReverse() function you have a few mistakes. First, you call GetStrLen() but ignore its return value. Then why call it? Second, you're creating a temporary string and work on that, rather than on the string member of the class. So your function doesn't change the string member, when it should in fact reverse it. And last, you could reverse the string faster by iterating through half of it only.
Work on the member data string. To reverse a string you can swap the first element (character) of the string with its last (not the terminating null, the character just before that!), the second element with the second-to-last and so on. You're done when you arrive at the middle of the string. Don't forget that the string must terminate with a '\0' character.
While you were solving the exam it would also be a good opportunity to teach your instructor a think or two about C++: we don't say f(void) because that belongs to the old days of C89. In C++ we say f(). We also strive in C++ to use class initializer lists whenever we can. Also remind your instructor how important const-correctness is: when a function shouldn't change the object is should be marked as such. int GetStrLen(void) should be int GetStrLen() const.
You don't need to figure out the length. You already know it it is strLen. Also there was nothing in the original question to indicate that the buffer should contain a null terminated string.
int GetStrLen(void){
return strLen;
}
Just using an assertion here but another option is to throw an exception.
void InsertChar(char ch){
assert(strLen < 80);
str[strLen++] = ch;
}
Reversing the string is just a matter of swapping the elements in the str buffer.
void StrRevrse(void){
int n = strLen >> 1;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
char c = str[i];
str[i] = str[strLen - i];
str[strLen - i] = c;
}
}
I would use StrLen to track the length of the string. Since the length also indicates the end of the string, we can use that for inserting:
int GetStrLen(void) {
return StrLen;
}
int InsertChar(char ch)
{
if (strLen < sizeof(str))
{
str[StrLen] = ch;
++strLen;
}
}
void StrReverse(void) {
for (int n = 0; n < StrLen / 2; ++n)
{
char tmp = str[n];
str[n] = str[StrLen - n - 1];
str[StrLen - n - 1] = tmp;
}
}
first of all why on you use String.h for the string length?
strlen(char[] array) returns the Lenght or any char array to a int.
Your function return a werid value because you never initialize index, and the array has zero values, first initilize then execute your method.