I am working through the solidity course cryptozombies and heres something im not understanding
struct Zombie {
string name;
uint dna;
uint32 level;
uint32 readyTime;
uint16 winCount;
uint16 lossCount;
}
Zombie[] public zombies;
mapping (uint => address) public zombieToOwner;
mapping (address => uint) ownerZombieCount;
function _createZombie(string memory _name, uint _dna) internal {
uint id = zombies.push(Zombie(_name, _dna, 1, uint32(now + cooldownTime), 0, 0)) - 1;
zombieToOwner[id] = msg.sender;
ownerZombieCount[msg.sender]++;
emit NewZombie(id, _name, _dna);
}
Based on my understanding "zombies" is an array containing a string and different type of integers. If you look in the _createzombie function "id" is set as an uint. How can something of type uint store all these values?
Based on my understanding "zombies" is an array containing a string and different type of integers
This is only partially correct. zombies is in fact an array. But each of its items is of type Zombie.
A struct (docs) is kind of a "wrapper" type - it can contain multiple other datatypes on the inside, but from the outside it's seen as just one datatype (in this case you created a new datatype called Zombie).
You can see it for example in the push() function that accepts one new item of the array - type Zombie (wrapping the other variables).
zombies.push(
Zombie(...) // pushes 1 item of type `Zombie` to the array
)
I am trying to solve the following question on LeetCode; Write a function that takes an unsigned integer and returns the number of '1' bits it has. Constraints: The input must be a binary string of length 32.
I have written the following code for that which works fine for inputs 00000000000000000000000000001011 and 00000000000000000000000010000000 (provided internally by the website) but give output 0 for input 11111111111111111111111111111101 and in my local compiler for the last input it says "out of range"
class Solution {
// you need treat n as an unsigned value
fun hammingWeight(n:Int):Int {
var num = n
var setCountBit = 0
while (num > 0) {
setCountBit++
num= num and num-1
}
return setCountBit
}
}
To correctly convert binary string to Int and avoid "out of range error", you need to do the following (I believe LeetCode does the same under the hood):
fun binaryStringToInt(s: String): Int = s.toUInt(radix = 2).toInt()
"11111111111111111111111111111101" is equivalent to 4294967293. This is greater than Int.MAX_VALUE, so it will be represented as negative number after .toInt() convertion (-3 in this case).
Actually, this problem could be solved with one-liner in Kotlin 1.4:
fun hammingWeight(n: Int): Int = n.countOneBits()
But LeetCode uses Kotlin 1.3.10, so you need to adjust your solution to handle negative Ints as well.
Please change the type of your input variable from Int to a type like Double .At the moment The given value is bigger than the maximum value that a type Int number can store.
Ok. So I know this should be easy to do, I simply want to set a default value in the following:
uint8 public gasPriceLimit; //Gas Price Limit
//Constructor
constructor(string _name, string _symbol, uint8 _decimals) public {
name = _name;
symbol = _symbol;
decimals = _decimals;
uint8 gasPriceLimit = 999;
}
However, doing this I get the following error when compiling:
Type int_const 999 is not implicitly convertible to expected type uint8.
I also tried setting in the declaration itself without luck.
Cheers
Ok. A mystery to me, but if I change to use uint instead of uint8 then the following works fine:
uint public gasPriceLimit = 999;
I wrote a function containing array as argument,
and call it by passing value of array as follows.
void arraytest(int a[])
{
// changed the array a
a[0] = a[0] + a[1];
a[1] = a[0] - a[1];
a[0] = a[0] - a[1];
}
void main()
{
int arr[] = {1, 2};
printf("%d \t %d", arr[0], arr[1]);
arraytest(arr);
printf("\n After calling fun arr contains: %d\t %d", arr[0], arr[1]);
}
What I found is though I am calling arraytest() function by passing values, the original copy of int arr[] is changed.
Can you please explain why?
When passing an array as a parameter, this
void arraytest(int a[])
means exactly the same as
void arraytest(int *a)
so you are modifying the values in main.
For historical reasons, arrays are not first class citizens and cannot be passed by value.
For passing 2D (or higher multidimensional) arrays instead, see my other answers here:
How to pass a multidimensional [C-style] array to a function in C and C++, and here:
How to pass a multidimensional array to a function in C++ only, via std::vector<std::vector<int>>&
Passing 1D arrays as function parameters in C (and C++)
1. Standard array usage in C with natural type decay (adjustment) from array to ptr
#Bo Persson correctly states in his great answer here:
When passing an array as a parameter, this
void arraytest(int a[])
means exactly the same as
void arraytest(int *a)
Let me add some comments to add clarity to those two code snippets:
// param is array of ints; the arg passed automatically "adjusts" (frequently said
// informally as "decays") from `int []` (array of ints) to `int *`
// (ptr to int)
void arraytest(int a[])
// ptr to int
void arraytest(int *a)
However, let me add also that the above two forms also:
mean exactly the same as
// array of 0 ints; automatically adjusts (decays) from `int [0]`
// (array of zero ints) to `int *` (ptr to int)
void arraytest(int a[0])
which means exactly the same as
// array of 1 int; automatically adjusts (decays) from `int [1]`
// (array of 1 int) to `int *` (ptr to int)
void arraytest(int a[1])
which means exactly the same as
// array of 2 ints; automatically adjusts (decays) from `int [2]`
// (array of 2 ints) to `int *` (ptr to int)
void arraytest(int a[2])
which means exactly the same as
// array of 1000 ints; automatically adjusts (decays) from `int [1000]`
// (array of 1000 ints) to `int *` (ptr to int)
void arraytest(int a[1000])
etc.
In every single one of the array examples above, and as shown in the example calls in the code just below, the input parameter type adjusts (decays) to an int *, and can be called with no warnings and no errors, even with build options -Wall -Wextra -Werror turned on (see my repo here for details on these 3 build options), like this:
int array1[2];
int * array2 = array1;
// works fine because `array1` automatically decays from an array type
// to a pointer type: `int *`
arraytest(array1);
// works fine because `array2` is already an `int *`
arraytest(array2);
As a matter of fact, the "size" value ([0], [1], [2], [1000], etc.) inside the array parameter here is apparently just for aesthetic/self-documentation purposes, and can be any positive integer (size_t type I think) you want!
In practice, however, you should use it to specify the minimum size of the array you expect the function to receive, so that when writing code it's easy for you to track and verify. The MISRA-C-2012 standard (buy/download the 236-pg 2012-version PDF of the standard for £15.00 here) goes so far as to state (emphasis added):
Rule 17.5 The function argument corresponding to a parameter declared to have an array type shall have an appropriate number of elements.
...
If a parameter is declared as an array with a specified size, the corresponding argument in each function call should point into an object that has at least as many elements as the array.
...
The use of an array declarator for a function parameter specifies the function interface more clearly than using a pointer. The minimum number of elements expected by the function is explicitly stated, whereas this is not possible with a pointer.
In other words, they recommend using the explicit size format, even though the C standard technically doesn't enforce it--it at least helps clarify to you as a developer, and to others using the code, what size array the function is expecting you to pass in.
2. Forcing type safety on arrays in C
(Not recommended (correction: sometimes recommended, especially for fixed-size multi-dimensional arrays), but possible. See my brief argument against doing this at the end. Also, for my multi-dimensional-array [ex: 2D array] version of this, see my answer here.)
As #Winger Sendon points out in a comment below my answer, we can force C to treat an array type to be different based on the array size!
First, you must recognize that in my example just above, using the int array1[2]; like this: arraytest(array1); causes array1 to automatically decay into an int *. HOWEVER, if you take the address of array1 instead and call arraytest(&array1), you get completely different behavior! Now, it does NOT decay into an int *! This is because if you take the address of an array then you already have a pointer type, and pointer types do NOT adjust to other pointer types. Only array types adjust to pointer types. So instead, the type of &array1 is int (*)[2], which means "pointer to an array of size 2 of int", or "pointer to an array of size 2 of type int", or said also as "pointer to an array of 2 ints". So, you can FORCE C to check for type safety on an array by passing explicit pointers to arrays, like this:
// `a` is of type `int (*)[2]`, which means "pointer to array of 2 ints";
// since it is already a ptr, it can NOT automatically decay further
// to any other type of ptr
void arraytest(int (*a)[2])
{
// my function here
}
This syntax is hard to read, but similar to that of a function pointer. The online tool, cdecl, tells us that int (*a)[2] means: "declare a as pointer to array 2 of int" (pointer to array of 2 ints). Do NOT confuse this with the version withOUT parenthesis: int * a[2], which means: "declare a as array 2 of pointer to int" (AKA: array of 2 pointers to int, AKA: array of 2 int*s).
Now, this function REQUIRES you to call it with the address operator (&) like this, using as an input parameter a POINTER TO AN ARRAY OF THE CORRECT SIZE!:
int array1[2];
// ok, since the type of `array1` is `int (*)[2]` (ptr to array of
// 2 ints)
arraytest(&array1); // you must use the & operator here to prevent
// `array1` from otherwise automatically decaying
// into `int *`, which is the WRONG input type here!
This, however, will produce a warning:
int array1[2];
// WARNING! Wrong type since the type of `array1` decays to `int *`:
// main.c:32:15: warning: passing argument 1 of ‘arraytest’ from
// incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
// main.c:22:6: note: expected ‘int (*)[2]’ but argument is of type ‘int *’
arraytest(array1); // (missing & operator)
You may test this code here.
To force the C compiler to turn this warning into an error, so that you MUST always call arraytest(&array1); using only an input array of the corrrect size and type (int array1[2]; in this case), add -Werror to your build options. If running the test code above on onlinegdb.com, do this by clicking the gear icon in the top-right and click on "Extra Compiler Flags" to type this option in. Now, this warning:
main.c:34:15: warning: passing argument 1 of ‘arraytest’ from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
main.c:24:6: note: expected ‘int (*)[2]’ but argument is of type ‘int *’
will turn into this build error:
main.c: In function ‘main’:
main.c:34:15: error: passing argument 1 of ‘arraytest’ from incompatible pointer type [-Werror=incompatible-pointer-types]
arraytest(array1); // warning!
^~~~~~
main.c:24:6: note: expected ‘int (*)[2]’ but argument is of type ‘int *’
void arraytest(int (*a)[2])
^~~~~~~~~
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
Note that you can also create "type safe" pointers to arrays of a given size, like this:
int array[2]; // variable `array` is of type `int [2]`, or "array of 2 ints"
// `array_p` is a "type safe" ptr to array of size 2 of int; ie: its type
// is `int (*)[2]`, which can also be stated: "ptr to array of 2 ints"
int (*array_p)[2] = &array;
...but I do NOT necessarily recommend this (using these "type safe" arrays in C), as it reminds me a lot of the C++ antics used to force type safety everywhere, at the exceptionally high cost of language syntax complexity, verbosity, and difficulty architecting code, and which I dislike and have ranted about many times before (ex: see "My Thoughts on C++" here).
For additional tests and experimentation, see also the link just below.
References
See links above. Also:
My code experimentation online: https://onlinegdb.com/B1RsrBDFD
See also:
My answer on multi-dimensional arrays (ex: 2D arrays) which expounds upon the above, and uses the "type safety" approach for multi-dimensional arrays where it makes sense: How to pass a multidimensional array to a function in C and C++
If you want to pass a single-dimension array as an argument in a function, you would have to declare a formal parameter in one of following three ways and all three declaration methods produce similar results because each tells the compiler that an integer pointer is going to be received.
int func(int arr[], ...){
.
.
.
}
int func(int arr[SIZE], ...){
.
.
.
}
int func(int* arr, ...){
.
.
.
}
So, you are modifying the original values.
Thanks !!!
Passing a multidimensional array as argument to a function.
Passing an one dim array as argument is more or less trivial.
Let's take a look on more interesting case of passing a 2 dim array.
In C you can't use a pointer to pointer construct (int **) instead of 2 dim array.
Let's make an example:
void assignZeros(int(*arr)[5], const int rows) {
for (int i = 0; i < rows; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < 5; j++) {
*(*(arr + i) + j) = 0;
// or equivalent assignment
arr[i][j] = 0;
}
}
Here I have specified a function that takes as first argument a pointer to an array of 5 integers.
I can pass as argument any 2 dim array that has 5 columns:
int arr1[1][5]
int arr1[2][5]
...
int arr1[20][5]
...
You may come to an idea to define a more general function that can accept any 2 dim array and change the function signature as follows:
void assignZeros(int ** arr, const int rows, const int cols) {
for (int i = 0; i < rows; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < cols; j++) {
*(*(arr + i) + j) = 0;
}
}
}
This code would compile but you will get a runtime error when trying to assign the values in the same way as in the first function.
So in C a multidimensional arrays are not the same as pointers to pointers ... to pointers. An int(*arr)[5] is a pointer to array of 5 elements,
an int(*arr)[6] is a pointer to array of 6 elements, and they are a pointers to different types!
Well, how to define functions arguments for higher dimensions? Simple, we just follow the pattern!
Here is the same function adjusted to take an array of 3 dimensions:
void assignZeros2(int(*arr)[4][5], const int dim1, const int dim2, const int dim3) {
for (int i = 0; i < dim1; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < dim2; j++) {
for (int k = 0; k < dim3; k++) {
*(*(*(arr + i) + j) + k) = 0;
// or equivalent assignment
arr[i][j][k] = 0;
}
}
}
}
How you would expect, it can take as argument any 3 dim arrays that have in the second dimensions 4 elements and in the third dimension 5 elements. Anything like this would be OK:
arr[1][4][5]
arr[2][4][5]
...
arr[10][4][5]
...
But we have to specify all dimensions sizes up to the first one.
You are not passing the array as copy. It is only a pointer pointing to the address where the first element of the array is in memory.
You are passing the address of the first element of the array
You are passing the value of the memory location of the first member of the array.
Therefore when you start modifying the array inside the function, you are modifying the original array.
Remember that a[1] is *(a+1).
Arrays in C are converted, in most of the cases, to a pointer to the first element of the array itself. And more in detail arrays passed into functions are always converted into pointers.
Here a quote from K&R2nd:
When an array name is passed to a function, what is passed is the
location of the initial element. Within the called function, this
argument is a local variable, and so an array name parameter is a
pointer, that is, a variable containing an address.
Writing:
void arraytest(int a[])
has the same meaning as writing:
void arraytest(int *a)
So despite you are not writing it explicitly it is as you are passing a pointer and so you are modifying the values in the main.
For more I really suggest reading this.
Moreover, you can find other answers on SO here
In C, except for a few special cases, an array reference always "decays" to a pointer to the first element of the array. Therefore, it isn't possible to pass an array "by value". An array in a function call will be passed to the function as a pointer, which is analogous to passing the array by reference.
EDIT: There are three such special cases where an array does not decay to a pointer to it's first element:
sizeof a is not the same as sizeof (&a[0]).
&a is not the same as &(&a[0]) (and not quite the same as &a[0]).
char b[] = "foo" is not the same as char b[] = &("foo").
Arrays are always passed by reference if you use a[] or *a:
int* printSquares(int a[], int size, int e[]) {
for(int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
e[i] = i * i;
}
return e;
}
int* printSquares(int *a, int size, int e[]) {
for(int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
e[i] = i * i;
}
return e;
}
An array can also be called as a decay pointer.
Usually when we put a variable name in the printf statement the value gets printed in case of an array it decays to the address of the first element, Therefore calling it as a decay pointer.
And we can only pass the decay pointer to a function.
Array as a formal parameter like Mr.Bo said int arr[] or int arr[10] is equivalent to the int *arr;
They will have there own 4 bytes of memory space and storing the decay pointer received.and we do pointer arithmetic on them.
I want to use the following code to reverse a char * type string in objective-c:
- (char *)reverseString:(char *)aString
{
unsigned long length = strlen(aString);
int end = length - 1;
int start = 0;
while (start < end) {
aString[start] ^= aString[end];
aString[end] ^= aString[start];
aString[start] ^= aString[end];
++start;
--end;
}
return aString;
}
But I got an error EXC_BAD_ACCESS at this line
aString[start] ^= aString[end]
I googled and found people said I can't modify a literal string because it is readonly. I am new to C so I wonder what simple data type (no object) I can use in this example? I get the same error when I use (char []) aString to replace (char *) aString.
I assume you're calling this like
[myObj reverseString:"foobar"];
The string "foobar" here is a constant literal string. Its type should be const char *, but because C is braindead, it's char *. But it's still constant, so any attempt to modify it is going to fail.
Declaring the method as taking char[] actually makes no difference whatsoever. When used as a parameter type, char[] is identical to char*.
You have two choices here. The first is to duplicate the string before passing it to the method. The second is to change the method to not modify its input string at all but instead to return a new string as output. Both can be accomplished using strdup(). Just remember that the string returned from strdup() will need to be free()'d later.