How should I return an array from a function? My code is
float ClassArray::arr_sub(float a[100][100], float b[100][100]) {
int i,j;
for(i = 1; i < 10; i++) {
for(j = 1; j < 10; j++){
f[i][j]=b[i][j]-a[i][j];
}
}
return f;
}
and the f returned from this function should be assigned to another array g declared in some other class.
float g[100][100];
g= cm.arr_sub(T,W);
but while building the classes, it says incompatible type assignment of float to float[100][100].
My answer here to another question on arrays explains why you don't want to use arrays.
As I say in that answer you can't assign an array like you're trying:
float g[100];
g = foo(); // illegal, assigning to arrays is not allowed
Another of the weird restrictions on arrays is that you're not allowed to return them from functions:
float foo()[100]; // illegal, returning an array from a function is not allowed
Also note that when you declare a function like float arr_sub(float a[100][100]) you might think you're passing an array by value, but in fact that invokes another of the weird exceptions made for arrays. In C and C++, whenever you declare a formal parameter of a function to be an array, the type is adjusted from 'array' to 'pointer to the array's element type'.
Since arrays don't behave like they ought, you should instead use std::array or std::vector:
std::array<float,100> foo(); // works
std::array<float,100> g;
g = foo(); // works
To do multi-dimentional arrays you can use:
std::array<std::array<float,100>,100> g;
Though that's a bit cumbersome so you can typedef it:
typedef std::array<std::array<float,100>,100> Matrix;
Matrix ClassArray::arr_sub(Matrix a, Matrix b) {
...
}
Matrix g;
g = cm.arr_sub(T,W);
And if you have a compiler that supports C++11 you can even do a template type alias:
template<typename T,int Rows,int Columns>
using Matrix2d = std::array<std::array<T,Columns>,Rows>;
Matrix2d<float,100,100> g;
Note on performance
There is one reason you might not want to return an std::array by value. If the array is large then there may be a signficant performance cost in copying the data from the return value into the variable you assign it to. If that ever proves to be a problem for you, then the solution with std::array is the same as it would be for other large types; use an 'out' parameter instead of returning by value.
void arr_sub(Matrix a, Matrix b, Matrix &result);
Matrix g;
arr_sub(T,W,g);
This doesn't apply to std::vector because std::vector can take advantage of move semantics to avoid having to copy all its elements.
If you insist on using "plain C" 2D arrays, the best thing is to pass a pointer to the result along with the two input parameters, rather than passing the arrays by value the way you did.
However, the best thing to do in C++ is to use vector<vector<float> > instead, and pass it by reference.
void ClassArray::arr_sub(
const vector<vector<float> > &a
, const vector<vector<float> > &b
, vector<vector<float> > &res)
{
for(int i=0 ; i != a.size() ; i++)
for(int j=0 ; j != b.size() ; j++)
res[i][j] = b[i][j] - a[i][j];
}
void main() {
vector<vector<float> > a(100, vector<float>(100, 12.345));
vector<vector<float> > b(100, vector<float>(100, 98.765));
vector<vector<float> > res(100, vector<float>(100, 0));
arr_sub(a, b, res);
}
The best way to do this is to wrap everything into a class. From the look of things, its a Matrix.
There are probably a hundred Matrix classes out there already, so it is really pointless to write another one.
But, if this is a learning exercise it might be worthwhile.
To answer your asked question, make a third argument to your function: float result[100][100]. Inside your function, write the results into the result array.
This works because in C and C++, arrays are always passed by reference and never by value. This is because C++ passes only the pointer to the beginning of the array.
if you really wish to return an array and some how manage to use it in the main(), the most efficient way would be to declare the returning array as dynamic. that way you will avoid losing the pointer to this new array as it will be allocated in heap and not in stack.
Related
I am trying to return an array Data Member from one smaller 2D Array Object, and trying to insert the array into a larger 2D array object. But when attempting this, I came into two problems.
First problem is that I want to return the name of the 2D array, but I do not know how to properly syntax to return 2D Array name.
This is what my 2D Array data member looks like
private:
int pieceArray[4][4];
// 2D Smaller Array
and I want to return this array into a function, but this one causes a compiler error:
int Piece::returnPiece()
{
return pieceArray; //not vaild
// return the 2D array name
}
I tired using this return type and it worked:
int Piece::returnPiece()
{
return pieceArray[4][4];
}
But I am unsure if this is what I want, as I want to return the array and all of it's content.
The other problem is the InsertArray() function, where I would put the returnPiece() function in the InsertArray()'s argument.
The problem with the InsertArray() is the argument, heres the code for it:
void Grid::InsertArray( int arr[4][4] ) //Compiler accepts, but does not work
{
for(int i = 0; i < x_ROWS ; ++i)
{
for (int j = 0; j < y_COLUMNS ; ++j)
{
squares[i][j] = arr[i][j];
}
}
}
The problem with this is that it does not accept my returnPiece(), and if i remove the "[4][4]", my compiler does not accept.
Mostly all these are syntax errors, but how do I solve these problems?
Returning the whole pieceArray in returnPiece()
The correct syntax for the argument in InsertArray()
The argument of InsertArray() accepting the returnPiece()
These 3 are the major problems that I need help with, and had the same problem when I attempt to use the pointer pointer method. Does anyone know how to solve these 3 problems?
When passing your array around, you have to decide whether or not you want to make a copy of the array, or if you just want to return a pointer to the array. For returning arrays, you can't (easily) return a copy - you can only return a pointer (or reference in C++). For example:
// Piece::returnPiece is a function taking no arguments and returning a pointer to a
// 4x4 array of integers
int (*Piece::returnPiece(void))[4][4]
{
// return pointer to the array
return &pieceArray;
}
To use it, call it like so:
int (*arrayPtr)[4][4] = myPiece->returnPiece();
int cell = (*arrayPtr)[i][j]; // cell now stores the contents of the (i,j)th element
Note the similarity between the type declaration and using it - the parentheses, dereferencing operator *, and brackets are in the same places.
Your declaration for Grid::InsertArray is correct - it takes one argument, which is a 4x4 array of integers. This is call-by-value: whenever you call it, you make a copy of your 4x4 array, so any modification you make are not reflected in the array passed in. If you instead wanted to use call-by-reference, you could pass a pointer to an array instead:
// InsertArray takes one argument which is a pointer to a 4x4 array of integers
void Grid::InsertArray(int (*arr)[4][4])
{
for(int i = 0; i < x_ROWS; i++)
{
for(int j = 0; j < y_COLUMNS ; j++)
squares[i][j] = (*arr)[i][j];
}
}
These type declarations with pointers to multidimensional arrays can get really confusing fast. I recommend making a typedef for it like so:
// Declare IntArray4x4Ptr to be a pointer to a 4x4 array of ints
typedef int (*IntArray4x4Ptr)[4][4];
Then you can declare your functions much more readable:
IntArray4x4Ptr Piece::returnPiece(void) { ... }
void Grid::InsertArray(IntArray4x4Ptr arr) { ... }
You can also use the cdecl program to help decipher complicated C/C++ types.
It seems like you need to read up more on pointers in C++ and on pass by reference vs. pass by value.
Your returnPiece method is defined as returning the value of a single cell. Given the index (e.g., [4][4]) you return a copy of the contents of that cell, so you won't be able to change it, or more correctly, changing it would change the copy.
I'm sure someone will give you the correct syntax, but I would really recommend learning this stuff since otherwise you may use the code that you do get incorrectly.
Here is how I would do it:
class Array {
public:
Array() {
for (int i = 0; i < 4; ++i)
{
for (int j = 0; j < 4; ++j)
{
(*this)(i, j) = 0;
}
}
}
int &operator()(int i, int j)
{
return pieceArray[i][j];
}
private:
int pieceArray[4][4];
};
You can then do something like:
Array x; // create 4x4 array
x(1, 2) = 3; // modify element
Trouble with Adam Rosenfield's arrayPtr in that Piece::pieceArray can change out from under you. (Copy-by-reference vs Copy-by-value.)
Copy-by-value is inefficient. But if you really want to do it, just cheat:
struct FOO { int piece [4][4]; };
FOO Piece::returnPiece()
{
FOO f;
memcpy( f.piece, pieceArray, sizeof(pieceArray) );
return f;
}
void Grid::InsertArray( const FOO & theFoo )
{
// use theFoo.piece[i][j]
}
Of course, a better, more Object-Oriented solution, would be to have returnPiece() create and return a Piece or Array object. (As Juan suggested...)
I got this library of mathematical routines ( without documentation ) to work on some task at college. The problem I have with it is that all of its functions have void return type, although these functions call one another, or are part of another, and the results of their computations are needed.
This is a piece of ( simplified ) code extracted from the libraries. Don't bother about the mathematics in code, it is not significant. Just passing arguments and returning results is what puzzles me ( as described after code ) :
// first function
void vector_math // get the (output) vector we need
(
double inputV[3], // input vector
double outputV[3] // output vector
)
{
// some variable declarations and simple arithmetics
// .....
//
transposeM(matrix1, matrix2, 3, 3 ); // matrix2 is the result
matrixXvector( matrix2, inputV, outputV) // here you get the result, outputV
}
////////
// second function
void transposeM // transposes a matrix
(
std::vector< std::vector<double> > mat1, // input matrix
std::vector< std::vector<double> > &mat2, // transposed matrix
int mat1rows, int mat1columns
)
{
int row,col;
mat2.resize(mat1columns); // rows
for (std::vector< std::vector<double> >::iterator it=mat2.begin(); it !=mat2.end();++it)
it->resize(mat1rows);
for (row = 0; row < mat1rows; row++)
{
for (col = 0; col < mat1columns; col++)
mat2[col][row] = mat1[row][col];
}
}
////////
// third function
void matrixXvector // multiply matrix and vector
(
std::vector< std::vector<double> > inMatrix,
double inVect[3],
double outVect[3]
)
{
int row,col,ktr;
for (row = 0; row <= 2; row++)
{
outVect[row]= 0.0;
for (ktr = 0; ktr <= 2; ktr++)
outVect[row]= outVect[row] + inMatrix[row][ktr] * inVect[ktr];
}
}
So "vector_math" is being called by the main program. It takes inputV as input and the result should be outputV. However, outputV is one of the input arguments, and the function returns void. And similar process occurs later when calling "transposeM" and "matrixXvector".
Why is the output variable one of the input arguments ? How are the results being returned and used for further computation ? How this kind of passing and returning arguments works ?
Since I am a beginner and also have never seen this style of coding, I don't understand how passing parameters and especially giving output works in these functions. Therefore I don't know how to use them and what to expect of them ( what they will actually do ). So I would very much appreciate an explanation that will make these processes clear to me.
EXTRA :
Thank you all for great answers. It was first time I could barely decide which answer to accept, and even as I did it felt unfair to others. I would like to add an extra question though, if anyone is willing to answer ( as a comment is enough ). Does this "old" style of coding input/output arguments have its name or any other expression with which it is referred ?
This is an "old" (but still popular) style of returning certain or multiple values. It works like this:
void copy (const std::vector<double>& input, std::vector<double>& output) {
output = input;
}
int main () {
std::vector<double> old_vector {1,2,3,4,5}, new_vector;
copy (old_vector, new_vector); // new_vector now copy of old_vector
}
So basically you give the function one or multiple output parameter to write the result of its computation to.
If you pass input parameters (i.e. you don't intend to change them) by value or by const reference does not matter, although passing read only arguments by value might be costly performance-wise. In the first case, you copy the input object and use the copy in the function, in the latter you just let the function see the original and prevent it from being modified with the const. The const for the input parameters is optional, but leaving it out allows the function to change their values which might not be what you want, and inhibits passing temporaries as input.
The input parameter(s) have to be passed by non-const reference to allow the function to change it/them.
Another, even older and "C-isher" style is to passing output-pointer or raw-arrays, like the first of your functions does. This is potentially dangerous as the pointer might not point to a valid piece of memory, but still pretty wide spread. It works essentially just like the first example:
// Copies in to int pointed to by out
void copy (int in, int* out) {
*out = in;
}
// Copies int pointed to by in to int pointed to by out
void copy (const int* in, int* out) {
*out = *in;
}
// Copies length ints beginning from in to length ints beginning at out
void copy (const int* in, int* out, std::size_t length) {
// For loop for beginner, use std::copy IRL:
// std::copy(in, in + length, out);
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < length; ++i)
out[i] = in[i];
}
The arrays in your first example basically work like pointers.
Baum's answer is accurate, but perhaps not as detailed as a C/C++ beginner would like.
The actual argument values that go into a function are always passed by value (i.e. a bit pattern) and cannot be changed in a way that is readable by the caller. HOWEVER - and this is the key - those bits in the arguments may in fact be pointers (or references) that don't contain data directly, but rather contain a location in memory that contains the actual value.
Examples: in a function like this:
void foo(double x, double output) { output = x ^ 2; }
naming the output variable "output doesn't change anything - there is no way for the caller to get the result.
But like this:
void foo(double x, double& output) { output = x ^ 2; }
the "&" indicates that the output parameter is a reference to the memory location where the output should be stored. It's syntactic sugar in C++ that is equivalent to this 'C' code:
void foo(double x, double* pointer_to_output) { *pointer_to_output = x ^ 2; }
The pointer dereference is hidden by the reference syntax but the idea is the same.
Arrays perform a similar syntax trick, they are actually passed as pointers, so
void foo(double x[3], double output[3]) { ... }
and
void foo(double* x, double* output) { ... }
are essentially equivalent. Note that in either case there is no way to determine the size of the arrays. Therefore, it is generally considered good practice to pass pointers and lengths:
void foo(double* x, int xlen, double* output, int olen);
Output parameters like this are used in multiple cases. A common one is to return multiple values since the return type of a function can be only a single value. (While you can return an object that contains multiple members, but you can't return multiple separate values directly.)
Another reason why output parameters are used is speed. It's frequently faster to modify the output in place if the object in question is large and/or expensive to construct.
Another programming paradigm is to return a value that indicates the success/failure of the function and return calculated value(s) in output parameters. For example, much of the historic Windows API works this way.
An array is a low-level C++ construct. It is implicitly convertible to a pointer to the memory allocated for the array.
int a[] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
int *p = a; // a can be converted to a pointer
assert(a[0] == *a);
assert(a[1] == *(a + 1));
assert(a[1] == p[1]);
// etc.
The confusing thing about arrays is that a function declaration void foo(int bar[]); is equivalent to void foo(int *bar);. So foo(a) doesn't copy the array a; instead, a is converted to a pointer and the pointer - not the memory - is then copied.
void foo(int bar[]) // could be rewritten as foo(int *bar)
{
bar[0] = 1; // could be rewritten as *(bar + 0) = 1;
}
int main()
{
int a[] = {0};
foo(a);
assert(a[0] == 1);
}
bar points to the same memory that a does so modifying the contents of array pointed to by bar is the same as modifying the contents of array a.
In C++ you can also pass objects by reference (Type &ref;). You can think of references as aliases for a given object. So if you write:
int a = 0;
int &b = a;
b = 1;
assert(a == 1);
b is effectively an alias for a - by modifying b you modify a and vice versa. Functions can also take arguments by reference:
void foo(int &bar)
{
bar = 1;
}
int main()
{
int a = 0;
foo(a);
assert(a == 1);
}
Again, bar is little more than an alias for a, so by modifying bar you will also modify a.
The library of mathematical routines you have is using these features to store results in an input variable. It does so to avoid copies and ease memory management. As mentioned by #Baum mit Augen, the method can also be used as a way to return multiple values.
Consider this code:
vector<int> foo(const vector<int> &bar)
{
vector<int> result;
// calculate the result
return result;
}
While returning result, foo will make a copy of the vector, and depending on number (and size) of elements stored the copy can be very expensive.
Note:
Most compilers will elide the copy in the code above using Named Return Value Optimization (NRVO). In general case, though, you have no guarantee of it happening.
Another way to avoid expensive copies is to create the result object on heap, and return a pointer to the allocated memory:
vector<int> *foo(const vector<int> &bar)
{
vector<int> *result = new vector<int>;
// calculate the result
return result;
}
The caller needs to manage the lifetime of the returned object, calling delete when it's no longer needed. Faililng to do so can result in a memory leak (the memory stays allocated, but effectively unusable, by the application).
Note:
There are various solutions to help with returning (expensive to copy) objects. C++03 has std::auto_ptr wrapper to help with lifetime management of objects created on heap. C++11 adds move semantics to the language, which allow to efficiently return objects by value instead of using pointers.
const int ADJ_MATRIX[VERTEX_NUM][VERTEX_NUM]={
{0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0},
{1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0},
{1,0,0,0,0,1,1,0},
{0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1},
{0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1},
{0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0},
{0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0},
{0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0}
};
typedef struct {
int vertex;
int matrix[VERTEX_NUM][VERTEX_NUM];
int vNum;
int eNum;
}Graph;
void buildGraph(Graph *graph){
graph->vNum = VERTEX_NUM;
graph->eNum = EDGE_NUM;
graph->matrix = ADJ_MATRIX;
}
The error occurs in this sentence:
graph->matrix = ADJ_MATRIX;
I am new to c++. please tell me why this problem occur and how to solve it?
I want to assign ADJ_MATRIX to the matrix in struct.
As was said, you can't assign arrays in C++. This is due to the compiler being a meanie, because the compiler can. It just won't let you do it...
... unless you trick it ;)
template <typename T, int N>
struct square_matrix {
T data[N][N];
};
square_matrix<int, 10> a;
square_matrix<int, 10> b;
a = b; // fine, and actually assigns the .data arrays
a.data = b.data; // not allowed, compiler won't let you assign arrays
The catch? Now the code needs some little things:
const square_matrix<int, VERTEX_NUM> ADJ_MATRIX={{
// blah blah
}}; // extra set of braces
typedef struct {
int vertex;
square_matrix<int, VERTEX_NUM> matrix;
int vNum;
int eNum;
}Graph;
void buildGraph(Graph *graph){
graph->vNum = VERTEX_NUM;
graph->eNum = EDGE_NUM;
graph->matrix = ADJ_MATRIX; // no change
}
And to access the cells, now we need to use graph->matrix.data[1][2]. This can be mitigated by overloading operator[] or operator() for square_matrix. However, this is now getting terribly close to the new std::array class, or the Boost equivalent boost::array, so it might be wise to consider those instead.
Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately, who knows...) you can't just assign one array to another in C++.
If you want to copy an array, you will need to either copy each of it's elements into a new array one by one, or use the memcpy() function:
for( int i = 0; i < VERTEX_NUM; i++ )
for( int j = 0; j < VERTEX_NUM; j++ )
graph->matrix[i][j] = ADJ_MATRIX[i][j];
or
memcpy( graph->matrix, ADJ_MATRIX, VERTEX_NUM * VERTEX_NUM * sizeof(int) );
Arrays are not assignable. You can use memcpy:
memcpy(graph->matrix, ADJ_MATRIX, sizeof(graph->matrix));
You cannot assign an array to another array. You will need to copy the elements from the source to the destination index by index, or use memcpy to copy the data. Array assignment like this is not allowed
You are trying to assign your variable address of a constant data,
try using
memcpy(graph->matrix,ADJ_MATRIX,sizeof(ADJ_MATRIX));//using sizeof(graph->matrix) is safer.
You can't use an array in assignments. You may use cycles or memcpy instead
memcpy(graph->matrix, ADJ_MATRIX, VERTEX_NUM * VERTEX_NUM * sizeof(int));
or
for(int i = 0; i < VERTEX_NUM; ++i){
for(int j = 0; j < VERTEX_NUM; ++j){
graph->matrix[i][j] = ADJ_MATRIX[i][j];
}
}
The error is thrown, because int matrix[VERTEX_NUM][VERTEX_NUM] in a structure definition means that each structure will have a 2D array of integers of the predefined size and matrix is going to be pointing to its first element. The thing is that matrix cannot be assigned to an arbitrary address, because it's a const pointer i.e. its value (the address it's pointing to) cannot change.
You have 2 options here: you can either use memcpy or some stl algorithms to copy the ADJ_MATRIX into matrix directly or you can declare matrix as a pointer and do the assignment that is currently produces an error.
The latter can be done in the following way:
typedef struct {
int vertex;
const int (*matrix)[VERTEX_NUM];
int vNum;
int eNum;
}Graph;
Thus you can do graph->matrix = ADJ_MATRIX assignment, but you won't be able to modify the individual items in matrix due to constness. This means, graph->matrix[0][1] = 3; is not allowed, while you can read the elements freely.
I have a problem with C++.
I have a function which sorts the array, but I don't want to work on an original array. I want to send the array to the function by value not by reference. Please help me.
int bogoSort(int tab[], int n){
int iloscOperacjiDominujacych = 0;
cout<<"rozpoczalem algorytm BogoSort"<<endl;
srand (time(NULL));
named (outer)
while(true){
// cout<<"Zaczal sie while"<<endl;
named (inner)
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++){
if(i == n-1){
break (outer);
}
if (tab[i] > tab[i+1]){
break (inner);
}
}
for(int i = n-1; i > 0; i--){
iloscOperacjiDominujacych++;
//operacja dominujaca to zamiana dwoch elementow w tablicy, wykonuje sie ZAWSZE najwiecej razy i jest najbardziej zlozona
int swapPostition = rand() % (i+1); //wylosowanie liczby miedzy <0;i> nalezacej do calkowitych
int temp = tab[i];
tab[i] = tab[swapPostition];
tab[swapPostition] = temp;
}
}
// cout<<"Wykonal sie while"<<endl;
show(tab,n);
return iloscOperacjiDominujacych;
}
There is no way to pass an array by value in C++. If you don't want to modify the original array, then you either have to make a separate copy yourself and manipulate the copy, or use std::vector or std::array (if you have C++11) and pass and return it by value (because you can copy std::vector or array).
C++ Says about function declarations
After determining the type of each parameter, any parameter of type “array of T” or “function returning T” is adjusted to be “pointer to T” or “pointer to function returning T,” [dcl.fct] 8.3.5/5
So when you want to pass an array C++ ends up passing a pointer to the first element of the original array, instead of making a copy and passing it by value as would be consistent with other types. This is an unfortunate consequence of C compatibility, and I have no idea why C thought this inconsistency was a good idea.
In any case, C++ offers std::array for statically sized arrays and std::vector for dynamically sized arrays. Because of the oddities with C arrays you should avoid them whenever possible. (There's rarely a situation where you can't avoid them)
int tab[] is an array with an unknown bound, so you can't use a statically sized std::array and must use std::vector:
int bogoSort(std::vector<int> tab){
Not that you no longer need the n parameter because the vector knows its own size. This is one of the ways std::vector and std::array are safer than an array. And even though a vector does have extra overhead associated with remembering that size, it's really zero overhead because it's saving you from having to do that work elsewhere.
If you really want to take a C array (which you should not) you can simply copy it manually.
int bogoSort(int const *tab,int n) {
std::vector<int> tab_copy(tab,tab+n);
bogoSort(tab_copy);
}
int bogoSort(std::vector<int> tab) {
...
}
As you can see, internally I'm using a vector and I have an overload of bogoSort that takes a vector. Compare this with making the copy a raw array:
int bogoSort(int const *tab,int n) {
int *tab_copy = new int[n];
std::copy(tab,tab+n,tab_copy); // manual copying
bogoSort_impl(tab_copy,n); // not overloading, hidden internal function
delete [] tab_copy; // resource cleanup. We're not exception safe!
}
// or
int bogoSort(int const *tab,int n) {
// unqiue_ptr for exception safety
std::unqiue_ptr<int[]> tab_copy = std::unqiue_ptr<int[]>(new int[n]);
std::copy(tab,tab+n,tab_copy.get());
bogoSort_impl(tab_copy.get(),n);
}
So again, you really should not be using C arrays. They're too much trouble and there's no benefit.
You cannot pass C-style arrays by value. End of story.
You can however pass variables of class-type by value which contain arrays. The easiest way to exploit this is to use std::array:
void f(std::array<int, 10> a);
std::array<int, 10> a;
f(a);
The class is basically just something like struct { int data[10]; };, so you could even roll this yourself if you really wanted to.
I am trying to return an array Data Member from one smaller 2D Array Object, and trying to insert the array into a larger 2D array object. But when attempting this, I came into two problems.
First problem is that I want to return the name of the 2D array, but I do not know how to properly syntax to return 2D Array name.
This is what my 2D Array data member looks like
private:
int pieceArray[4][4];
// 2D Smaller Array
and I want to return this array into a function, but this one causes a compiler error:
int Piece::returnPiece()
{
return pieceArray; //not vaild
// return the 2D array name
}
I tired using this return type and it worked:
int Piece::returnPiece()
{
return pieceArray[4][4];
}
But I am unsure if this is what I want, as I want to return the array and all of it's content.
The other problem is the InsertArray() function, where I would put the returnPiece() function in the InsertArray()'s argument.
The problem with the InsertArray() is the argument, heres the code for it:
void Grid::InsertArray( int arr[4][4] ) //Compiler accepts, but does not work
{
for(int i = 0; i < x_ROWS ; ++i)
{
for (int j = 0; j < y_COLUMNS ; ++j)
{
squares[i][j] = arr[i][j];
}
}
}
The problem with this is that it does not accept my returnPiece(), and if i remove the "[4][4]", my compiler does not accept.
Mostly all these are syntax errors, but how do I solve these problems?
Returning the whole pieceArray in returnPiece()
The correct syntax for the argument in InsertArray()
The argument of InsertArray() accepting the returnPiece()
These 3 are the major problems that I need help with, and had the same problem when I attempt to use the pointer pointer method. Does anyone know how to solve these 3 problems?
When passing your array around, you have to decide whether or not you want to make a copy of the array, or if you just want to return a pointer to the array. For returning arrays, you can't (easily) return a copy - you can only return a pointer (or reference in C++). For example:
// Piece::returnPiece is a function taking no arguments and returning a pointer to a
// 4x4 array of integers
int (*Piece::returnPiece(void))[4][4]
{
// return pointer to the array
return &pieceArray;
}
To use it, call it like so:
int (*arrayPtr)[4][4] = myPiece->returnPiece();
int cell = (*arrayPtr)[i][j]; // cell now stores the contents of the (i,j)th element
Note the similarity between the type declaration and using it - the parentheses, dereferencing operator *, and brackets are in the same places.
Your declaration for Grid::InsertArray is correct - it takes one argument, which is a 4x4 array of integers. This is call-by-value: whenever you call it, you make a copy of your 4x4 array, so any modification you make are not reflected in the array passed in. If you instead wanted to use call-by-reference, you could pass a pointer to an array instead:
// InsertArray takes one argument which is a pointer to a 4x4 array of integers
void Grid::InsertArray(int (*arr)[4][4])
{
for(int i = 0; i < x_ROWS; i++)
{
for(int j = 0; j < y_COLUMNS ; j++)
squares[i][j] = (*arr)[i][j];
}
}
These type declarations with pointers to multidimensional arrays can get really confusing fast. I recommend making a typedef for it like so:
// Declare IntArray4x4Ptr to be a pointer to a 4x4 array of ints
typedef int (*IntArray4x4Ptr)[4][4];
Then you can declare your functions much more readable:
IntArray4x4Ptr Piece::returnPiece(void) { ... }
void Grid::InsertArray(IntArray4x4Ptr arr) { ... }
You can also use the cdecl program to help decipher complicated C/C++ types.
It seems like you need to read up more on pointers in C++ and on pass by reference vs. pass by value.
Your returnPiece method is defined as returning the value of a single cell. Given the index (e.g., [4][4]) you return a copy of the contents of that cell, so you won't be able to change it, or more correctly, changing it would change the copy.
I'm sure someone will give you the correct syntax, but I would really recommend learning this stuff since otherwise you may use the code that you do get incorrectly.
Here is how I would do it:
class Array {
public:
Array() {
for (int i = 0; i < 4; ++i)
{
for (int j = 0; j < 4; ++j)
{
(*this)(i, j) = 0;
}
}
}
int &operator()(int i, int j)
{
return pieceArray[i][j];
}
private:
int pieceArray[4][4];
};
You can then do something like:
Array x; // create 4x4 array
x(1, 2) = 3; // modify element
Trouble with Adam Rosenfield's arrayPtr in that Piece::pieceArray can change out from under you. (Copy-by-reference vs Copy-by-value.)
Copy-by-value is inefficient. But if you really want to do it, just cheat:
struct FOO { int piece [4][4]; };
FOO Piece::returnPiece()
{
FOO f;
memcpy( f.piece, pieceArray, sizeof(pieceArray) );
return f;
}
void Grid::InsertArray( const FOO & theFoo )
{
// use theFoo.piece[i][j]
}
Of course, a better, more Object-Oriented solution, would be to have returnPiece() create and return a Piece or Array object. (As Juan suggested...)