Search Results

Search found 3255 results on 131 pages for 'pointers'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 31/131 | < Previous Page | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >

  • Using C++ is a Linked-List implementation without using pointers possible or not?

    - by sonicoder
    My question is very simply, can one using C++, implment a link-list data structure without using pointers (next nodes)? To further qualify my question, I'm mean can one create a Linked-List data structure using only class instantiations. A common node definition might be like so: template<typename T> struct node { T t; node<T>* next; node<T>* prev; }; I'm aware of std::list etc, I'm just curious to know if its possible or not - and if so how? code examples will be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • C++ How do you set an array of pointers to null in an initialiser list like way?

    - by boredjoe
    I am aware you cannot use an initialiser list for an array. However I have heard of ways that you can set an array of pointers to NULL in a way that is similar to an initialiser list. I am not certain how this is done. I have heard that a pointer is set to NULL by default, though I do not know if this is guaranteed/ in the C++ standard. I am also not sure if initialising through the new operator compared to normal allocation can make a difference too.

    Read the article

  • Deleting a element from a vector of pointers in C++.

    - by Kranar
    I remember hearing that the following code is not C++ compliant and was hoping someone with much more C++ legalese than me would be able to confirm or deny it. std::vector<int*> intList; intList.push_back(new int(2)); intList.push_back(new int(10)); intList.push_back(new int(17)); for(std::vector<int*>::iterator i = intList.begin(); i != intList.end(); ++i) { delete *i; } intList.clear() The rationale was that it is illegal for a vector to contain pointers to invalid memory. Now obviously my example will compile and it will even work on all compilers I know of, but is it standard compliant C++ or am I supposed to do the following, which I was told is in fact the standard compliant approach: while(!intList.empty()) { int* element = intList.back(); intList.pop_back(); delete element; }

    Read the article

  • 47 memory leaks. STL pointers.

    - by icelated
    I have a major amount of memory leaks. I know that the Sets have pointers and i cannot change that! I cannot change anything, but clean up the mess i have... I am creating memory with new in just about every function to add information to the sets. I have a Cd/ DVD/book: super classes of ITEM class and a library class.. In the library class i have 2 functions for cleaning up the sets.. Also, the CD, DVD, book destructors are not being called.. here is my potential leaks.. library.h #pragma once #include <ostream> #include <map> #include <set> #include <string> #include "Item.h" using namespace std; typedef set<Item*> ItemSet; typedef map<string,Item*> ItemMap; typedef map<string,ItemSet*> ItemSetMap; class Library { public: // general functions void addKeywordForItem(const Item* const item, const string& keyword); const ItemSet* itemsForKeyword(const string& keyword) const; void printItem(ostream& out, const Item* const item) const; // book-related functions const Item* addBook(const string& title, const string& author, int const nPages); const ItemSet* booksByAuthor(const string& author) const; const ItemSet* books() const; // music-related functions const Item* addMusicCD(const string& title, const string& band, const int nSongs); void addBandMember(const Item* const musicCD, const string& member); const ItemSet* musicByBand(const string& band) const; const ItemSet* musicByMusician(const string& musician) const; const ItemSet* musicCDs() const; // movie-related functions const Item* addMovieDVD(const string& title, const string& director, const int nScenes); void addCastMember(const Item* const movie, const string& member); const ItemSet* moviesByDirector(const string& director) const; const ItemSet* moviesByActor(const string& actor) const; const ItemSet* movies() const; ~Library(); void Purge(ItemSet &set); void Purge(ItemSetMap &map); }; here is some functions for adding info using new in library. Keep in mind i am cutting out alot of code to keep this post short. library.cpp #include "Library.h" #include "book.h" #include "cd.h" #include "dvd.h" #include <iostream> // general functions ItemSet allBooks; ItemSet allCDS; ItemSet allDVDs; ItemSetMap allBooksByAuthor; ItemSetMap allmoviesByDirector; ItemSetMap allmoviesByActor; ItemSetMap allMusicByBand; ItemSetMap allMusicByMusician; const ItemSet* Library::itemsForKeyword(const string& keyword) const { const StringSet* kw; ItemSet* obj = new ItemSet(); return obj; const Item* Library::addBook(const string& title, const string& author, const int nPages) { ItemSet* obj = new ItemSet(); Book* item = new Book(title,author,nPages); allBooks.insert(item); // add to set of all books obj->insert(item); return item; const Item* Library::addMusicCD(const string& title, const string& band, const int nSongs) { ItemSet* obj = new ItemSet(); CD* item = new CD(title,band,nSongs); return item; void Library::addBandMember(const Item* musicCD, const string& member) { ItemSet* obj = new ItemSet(); (((CD*) musicCD)->addBandMember(member)); obj->insert((CD*) musicCD); here is the library destructor..... Library::~Library() { Purge(allBooks); Purge(allCDS); Purge(allDVDs); Purge(allBooksByAuthor); Purge(allmoviesByDirector); Purge(allmoviesByActor); Purge(allMusicByBand); Purge(allMusicByMusician); } void Library::Purge(ItemSet &set) { for (ItemSet::iterator it = set.begin(); it != set.end(); ++it) delete *it; set.clear(); } void Library::Purge(ItemSetMap &map) { for (ItemSetMap::iterator it = map.begin(); it != map.end(); ++it) delete it->second; map.clear(); } so, basically item, cd, dvd class all have a set like this: typedef set<string> StringSet; class CD : public Item StringSet* music; and i am deleting it like: but those superclasses are not being called.. Item destructor is. CD::~CD() { delete music; } Do, i need a copy constructor? and how do i delete those objects i am creating in the library class? and how can i get the cd,dvd, destructor called? would the addbandmember function located in the library.cpp cause me to have a copy constructor? Any real help you can provide me to help me clean up this mess instead of telling me not to use pointers in my sets i would really appreciate. How can i delete the memory i am creating in those functions? I cannot delete them in the function!!

    Read the article

  • How can I declare and initialize an array of pointers to a structure in C?

    - by worlds-apart89
    I have a small assignment in C. I am trying to create an array of pointers to a structure. My question is how can I initialize each pointer to NULL? Also, after I allocate memory for a member of the array, I can not assign values to the structure to which the array element points. #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> typedef struct list_node list_node_t; struct list_node { char *key; int value; list_node_t *next; }; int main() { list_node_t *ptr = (list_node_t*) malloc(sizeof(list_node_t)); ptr->key = "Hello There"; ptr->value = 1; ptr->next = NULL; // Above works fine // Below is erroneous list_node_t **array[10] = {NULL}; *array[0] = (list_node_t*) malloc(sizeof(list_node_t)); array[0]->key = "Hello world!"; //request for member ‘key’ in something not a structure or union array[0]->value = 22; //request for member ‘value’ in something not a structure or union array[0]->next = NULL; //request for member ‘next’ in something not a structure or union // Do something with the data at hand // Deallocate memory using function free return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Boost MultiIndex - objects or pointers (and how to use them?)?

    - by Sarah
    I'm programming an agent-based simulation and have decided that Boost's MultiIndex is probably the most efficient container for my agents. I'm not a professional programmer, and my background is very spotty. I've two questions: Is it better to have the container contain the agents (of class Host) themselves, or is it more efficient for the container to hold Host *? Hosts will sometimes be deleted from memory (that's my plan, anyway... need to read up on new and delete). Hosts' private variables will get updated occasionally, which I hope to do through the modify function in MultiIndex. There will be no other copies of Hosts in the simulation, i.e., they will not be used in any other containers. If I use pointers to Hosts, how do I set up the key extraction properly? My code below doesn't compile. // main.cpp - ATTEMPTED POINTER VERSION ... #include <boost/multi_index_container.hpp> #include <boost/multi_index/hashed_index.hpp> #include <boost/multi_index/member.hpp> #include <boost/multi_index/ordered_index.hpp> #include <boost/multi_index/mem_fun.hpp> #include <boost/tokenizer.hpp> typedef multi_index_container< Host *, indexed_by< // hash by Host::id hashed_unique< BOOST_MULTI_INDEX_MEM_FUN(Host,int,Host::getID) > // arg errors here > // end indexed_by > HostContainer; ... int main() { ... HostContainer testHosts; Host * newHostPtr; newHostPtr = new Host( t, DOB, idCtr, 0, currentEvents ); testHosts.insert( newHostPtr ); ... } I can't find a precisely analogous example in the Boost documentation, and my knowledge of C++ syntax is still very weak. The code does appear to work when I replace all the pointer references with the class objects themselves. As best I can read it, the Boost documentation (see summary table at bottom) implies I should be able to use member functions with pointer elements.

    Read the article

  • Is there any difference between null and 0 when assigning to pointers in unsafe code?

    - by Eloff
    This may seem odd, but in C (size_t)(void*)0 == 0 is not guaranteed by the language spec. Compilers are allowed to use any value they want for null (although they almost always use 0.) In C#, you can assign null or (T*)0 to a pointer in unsafe code. Is there any difference? (long)(void*)0 == 0 (guaranteed or not? put another way: IntPtr.Zero.ToInt64() == 0) MSDN has this to say about IntPtr.Zero: "The value of this field is not equivalent to null." Well if you want to be compatible with C code, that makes a lot of sense - it'd be worthless for interop if it didn't convert to a C null pointer. But I want to know if IntPtr.Zero.ToInt64() == 0 which may be possible, even if internally IntPtr.Zero is some other value (the CLR may or may not convert null to 0 in the cast operation) Not a duplicate of this question

    Read the article

  • Does the order I declare pointers really matter in C? getcwd() problem...

    - by chucknelson
    On a Solaris 5.8 machine, I have the following code: [non-working code] char *buf; char *dir; size_t psize; psize = (size_t) 1024; dir = getcwd(buf, psize); On this unix machine, the above does not work and I get a segmentation fault when trying to run the program. It only works if I declare dir before buf: [working code] char *dir; char *buf; ... dir = getcwd(buf, psize); When using another flavor of Unix, such as Mac OS X, I don't get any of these what seem to be very strict rules on how to write the code. Can anyone explain what's going on with the above example? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Silverlight: Is it possible to use custom mouse cursors/pointers?

    - by Mark Redman
    I have just found this page indicating the support for Silverlight mouse cursors: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.input.cursor(VS.95).aspx Is that it!!! :-| what are they thinking, at least there is stylish looking Eraser! Is there aany other way to use custom cursors? How efficient/usable would it be to hide the cursor and show a png instead?

    Read the article

  • How to sanely read and dump structs to disk when some fields are pointers?

    - by bp
    Hello, I'm writing a FUSE plugin in C. I'm keeping track of data structures in the filesystem through structs like: typedef struct { block_number_t inode; filename_t filename; //char[SOME_SIZE] some_other_field_t other_field; } fs_directory_table_item_t; Obviously, I have to read (write) these structs from (to) disk at some point. I could treat the struct as a sequence of bytes and do something like this: read(disk_fd, directory_table_item, sizeof(fs_directory_table_item_t)); ...except that cannot possibly work as filename is actually a pointer to the char array. I'd really like to avoid having to write code like: read(disk_df, *directory_table_item.inode, sizeof(block_number_t)); read(disk_df, directory_table_item.filename, sizeof(filename_t)); read(disk_df, *directory_table_item.other_field, sizeof(some_other_field_t)); ...for each struct in the code, because I'd have to replicate code and changes in no less than three different places (definition, reading, writing). Any DRYer but still maintainable ideas?

    Read the article

  • Can this example be done with pointers instead of global variable?

    - by Louise
    This is a simplified example of the problem I have: #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> void f2(int** a) { printf("a: %i\n", **a); } void f1(int* a) { f2(&a); } int main() { int a = 3; f1(&a); // prints "a: 3" f2(???); return 0; } The problem is that I would like to be able to use f2() both in main() and in f1(). Can that be done without using global variables?

    Read the article

  • Does operator precedence in C++ differ for pointers and iterators?

    - by oraz
    The code below demonstrates this difference: #include <iostream> #include <string> int main() { char s[] = "ABCD"; std::string str(s); char *p = s; while(*p) { *p++ = tolower(*p); // <-- incr after assignment } std::cout << s << std::endl; std::string::iterator it = str.begin(), end = str.end(); while(it != end) { *it++ = tolower(*it); // <-- incr before assignment ? } std::cout << str << std::endl; return 0; } the code above outputs: abcd bcd if we separate assignment operation and increment operator: while(it != end) { *it = tolower(*it); // <-- incr before assignment ? it++; } the output will be as expected. What's wrong with the original code? $ g++ --version g++ (GCC) 3.4.4 (cygming special, gdc 0.12, using dmd 0.125) Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

    Read the article

  • JMS message. Model to include data or pointers to data?

    - by John
    I am trying to resolve a design difference of opinion where neither of us has experience with JMS. We want to use JMS to communicate between a j2ee application and the stand-alone application when a new event occurs. We would be using a single point-to-point queue. Both sides are Java-based. The question is whether to send the event data itself in the JMS message body or to send a pointer to the data so that the stand-alone program can retrieve it. Details below. I have a j2ee application that supports data entry of new and updated persons and related events. The person records and associated events are written to an Oracle database. There are also stand-alone, separate programs that contribute new person and event records to the database. When a new event occurs through any of 5-10 different application functions, I need to notify remote systems through an outbound interface using an industry-specific standard messaging protocol. The outbound interface has been designed as a stand-alone application to support scalability through asynchronous operation and by moving it to a separate server. The j2ee application currently has most of the data in memory at the time the event is entered. The data would consist of approximately 6 different objects; a person object and some with multiple instances for an average size in the range of 3000 to 20,000 bytes. Some special cases could be many times this amount. From a performance and reliability perspective, should I model the JMS message to pass all the data needed to create the interface message, or model the JMS message to contain record keys for the data and have the stand-alone Java application retrieve the data to create the interface message?

    Read the article

  • How do I code a tree of objects in Haskell with pointers to parent and children?

    - by axilmar
    I've got the following problem: I have a tree of objects of different classes where an action in the child class invalidates the parent. In imperative languages, it is trivial to do. For example, in Java: public class A { private List<B> m_children = new LinkedList<B>(); private boolean m_valid = true; public void invalidate() { m_valid = false; } public void addChild(B child) { m_children.add(child); child.m_parent = this; } } public class B { public A m_parent = null; private int m_data = 0; public void setData(int data) { m_data = 0; m_parent.invalidate(); } } public class Main { public static void main(String[] args) { A a = new A(); B b = new B(); b.setData(0); //invalidates A } } How do I do the above in Haskell? I cannot wrap my mind around this, since once I construct an object in Haskell, it cannot be changed. I would be much obliged if the relevant Haskell code is posted.

    Read the article

  • Are there deprecated practices for multithread and multiprocessor programming that I should no longer use?

    - by DeveloperDon
    In the early days of FORTRAN and BASIC, essentially all programs were written with GOTO statements. The result was spaghetti code and the solution was structured programming. Similarly, pointers can have difficult to control characteristics in our programs. C++ started with plenty of pointers, but use of references are recommended. Libraries like STL can reduce some of our dependency. There are also idioms to create smart pointers that have better characteristics, and some version of C++ permit references and managed code. Programming practices like inheritance and polymorphism use a lot of pointers behind the scenes (just as for, while, do structured programming generates code filled with branch instructions). Languages like Java eliminate pointers and use garbage collection to manage dynamically allocated data instead of depending on programmers to match all their new and delete statements. In my reading, I have seen examples of multi-process and multi-thread programming that don't seem to use semaphores. Do they use the same thing with different names or do they have new ways of structuring protection of resources from concurrent use? For example, a specific example of a system for multithread programming with multicore processors is OpenMP. It represents a critical region as follows, without the use of semaphores, which seem not to be included in the environment. th_id = omp_get_thread_num(); #pragma omp critical { cout << "Hello World from thread " << th_id << '\n'; } This example is an excerpt from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenMP Alternatively, similar protection of threads from each other using semaphores with functions wait() and signal() might look like this: wait(sem); th_id = get_thread_num(); cout << "Hello World from thread " << th_id << '\n'; signal(sem); In this example, things are pretty simple, and just a simple review is enough to show the wait() and signal() calls are matched and even with a lot of concurrency, thread safety is provided. But other algorithms are more complicated and use multiple semaphores (both binary and counting) spread across multiple functions with complex conditions that can be called by many threads. The consequences of creating deadlock or failing to make things thread safe can be hard to manage. Do these systems like OpenMP eliminate the problems with semaphores? Do they move the problem somewhere else? How do I transform my favorite semaphore using algorithm to not use semaphores anymore?

    Read the article

  • what exactly is the danger of an uninitialized pointer in C

    - by akh2103
    I am trying get a handle on C as I work my way thru Jim Trevor's "Cyclone: A safe dialect of C" for a PL class. Trevor and his co-authors are trying to make a safe version of C, so they eliminate uninitialized pointers in their language. Googling around a bit on uninitialized pointers, it seems like un-initialized pointers point to random locations in memory. It seems like this alone makes them unsafe. If you reference an un-itilialized pointer, you jump to an unsafe part of memory. Period. But the way Trevor talks about them seems to imply that it is more complex. He cites the following code, and explains that when the function FrmGetObjectIndex dereferences f, it isn’t accessing a valid pointer, but rather an unpredictable address — whatever was on the stack when the space for f was allocated. What does Trevor mean by "whatever was on the stack when the space for f was allocated"? Are "un-initialized" pointers initialized to random locations in memory by default? Or does their "random" behavior have to do with the memory allocated for these pointers getting filled with strange values (that are then referenced) because of unexpected behavior on the stack. Form *f; switch (event->eType) { case frmOpenEvent: f = FrmGetActiveForm(); ... case ctlSelectEvent: i = FrmGetObjectIndex(f, field); ... }

    Read the article

  • C++ pointer to different array

    - by begun
    Assume I have an array a and an array b. Both have the same type and size but different values. Now I create 3 or so pointers that point to different elements in a, you could say a[ 0 ], a[ 4 ] and a[ 13 ]. Now if I overwrite a with b via a=b - Where will the pointers point? Do the pointers still point to their original positions in a but the values they point to are now those of b?

    Read the article

  • Using macro to check null values [migrated]

    - by poliron
    My C code contains many functions with pointers to different structs as parameteres which shouldn't be NULL pointers. To make my code more readable, I decided to replace this code: if(arg1==NULL || arg2==NULL || arg3==NULL...) { return SOME_ERROR; } With that macro: NULL_CHECK(arg1,arg2,...) How should I write it, if the number of args is unknown and they can point to different structs?(I work in C99)

    Read the article

  • Writing cross-platforms Types, Interfaces and Classes/Methods in C++

    - by user827992
    I'm looking for the best solution to write cross-platform software, aka code that I write and that I have to interface with different libraries and platforms each time. What I consider the easiest part, correct me if I'm wrong, is the definition of new types, all I have to do is to write an hpp file with a list of typedefs, I can keep the same names for each new type across the different platforms so my codebase can be shared without any problem. typedefs also helps me to redefine a better scope for my types in my code. I will probably end up having something like this: include |-windows | |-types.hpp |-linux | |-types.hpp |-mac |-types.hpp For the interfaces I'm thinking about the same solution used for the types, a series of hpp files, probably I will write all the interfaces only once since they rely on the types and all "cross-platform portability" is ensured by the work done on the types. include | |-interfaces.hpp | |-windows | |-types.hpp |-linux | |-types.hpp |-mac | |-types.hpp For classes and methods I do not have a real answer, I would like to avoid 2 things: the explicit use of pointers the use of templates I want to avoid the use of the pointers because they can make the code less readable for someone and I want to avoid templates just because if I write them, I can't separate the interface from the definition. What is the best option to hide the use of the pointers? I would also like some words about macros and how to implement some OS-specifics calls and definitions.

    Read the article

  • Merge sort versus quick sort performance

    - by Giorgio
    I have implemented merge sort and quick sort using C (GCC 4.4.3 on Ubuntu 10.04 running on a 4 GB RAM laptop with an Intel DUO CPU at 2GHz) and I wanted to compare the performance of the two algorithms. The prototypes of the sorting functions are: void merge_sort(const char **lines, int start, int end); void quick_sort(const char **lines, int start, int end); i.e. both take an array of pointers to strings and sort the elements with index i : start <= i <= end. I have produced some files containing random strings with length on average 4.5 characters. The test files range from 100 lines to 10000000 lines. I was a bit surprised by the results because, even though I know that merge sort has complexity O(n log(n)) while quick sort is O(n^2), I have often read that on average quick sort should be as fast as merge sort. However, my results are the following. Up to 10000 strings, both algorithms perform equally well. For 10000 strings, both require about 0.007 seconds. For 100000 strings, merge sort is slightly faster with 0.095 s against 0.121 s. For 1000000 strings merge sort takes 1.287 s against 5.233 s of quick sort. For 5000000 strings merge sort takes 7.582 s against 118.240 s of quick sort. For 10000000 strings merge sort takes 16.305 s against 1202.918 s of quick sort. So my question is: are my results as expected, meaning that quick sort is comparable in speed to merge sort for small inputs but, as the size of the input data grows, the fact that its complexity is quadratic will become evident? Here is a sketch of what I did. In the merge sort implementation, the partitioning consists in calling merge sort recursively, i.e. merge_sort(lines, start, (start + end) / 2); merge_sort(lines, 1 + (start + end) / 2, end); Merging of the two sorted sub-array is performed by reading the data from the array lines and writing it to a global temporary array of pointers (this global array is allocate only once). After each merge the pointers are copied back to the original array. So the strings are stored once but I need twice as much memory for the pointers. For quick sort, the partition function chooses the last element of the array to sort as the pivot and scans the previous elements in one loop. After it has produced a partition of the type start ... {elements <= pivot} ... pivotIndex ... {elements > pivot} ... end it calls itself recursively: quick_sort(lines, start, pivotIndex - 1); quick_sort(lines, pivotIndex + 1, end); Note that this quick sort implementation sorts the array in-place and does not require additional memory, therefore it is more memory efficient than the merge sort implementation. So my question is: is there a better way to implement quick sort that is worthwhile trying out? If I improve the quick sort implementation and perform more tests on different data sets (computing the average of the running times on different data sets) can I expect a better performance of quick sort wrt merge sort? EDIT Thank you for your answers. My implementation is in-place and is based on the pseudo-code I have found on wikipedia in Section In-place version: function partition(array, 'left', 'right', 'pivotIndex') where I choose the last element in the range to be sorted as a pivot, i.e. pivotIndex := right. I have checked the code over and over again and it seems correct to me. In order to rule out the case that I am using the wrong implementation I have uploaded the source code on github (in case you would like to take a look at it). Your answers seem to suggest that I am using the wrong test data. I will look into it and try out different test data sets. I will report as soon as I have some results.

    Read the article

  • Game Object Factory: Fixing Memory Leaks

    - by Bunkai.Satori
    Dear all, this is going to be tough: I have created a game object factory that generates objects of my wish. However, I get memory leaks which I can not fix. Memory leaks are generated by return new Object(); in the bottom part of the code sample. static BaseObject * CreateObjectFunc() { return new Object(); } How and where to delete the pointers? I wrote bool ReleaseClassType(). Despite the factory works well, ReleaseClassType() does not fix memory leaks. bool ReleaseClassTypes() { unsigned int nRecordCount = vFactories.size(); for (unsigned int nLoop = 0; nLoop < nRecordCount; nLoop++ ) { // if the object exists in the container and is valid, then render it if( vFactories[nLoop] != NULL) delete vFactories[nLoop](); } return true; } Before taking a look at the code below, let me help you in that my CGameObjectFactory creates pointers to functions creating particular object type. The pointers are stored within vFactories vector container. I have chosen this way because I parse an object map file. I have object type IDs (integer values) which I need to translate them into real objects. Because I have over 100 different object data types, I wished to avoid continuously traversing very long Switch() statement. Therefore, to create an object, I call vFactoriesnEnumObjectTypeID via CGameObjectFactory::create() to call stored function that generates desired object. The position of the appropriate function in the vFactories is identical to the nObjectTypeID, so I can use indexing to access the function. So the question remains, how to proceed with garbage collection and avoid reported memory leaks? #ifndef GAMEOBJECTFACTORY_H_UNIPIXELS #define GAMEOBJECTFACTORY_H_UNIPIXELS //#include "MemoryManager.h" #include <vector> template <typename BaseObject> class CGameObjectFactory { public: // cleanup and release registered object data types bool ReleaseClassTypes() { unsigned int nRecordCount = vFactories.size(); for (unsigned int nLoop = 0; nLoop < nRecordCount; nLoop++ ) { // if the object exists in the container and is valid, then render it if( vFactories[nLoop] != NULL) delete vFactories[nLoop](); } return true; } // register new object data type template <typename Object> bool RegisterClassType(unsigned int nObjectIDParam ) { if(vFactories.size() < nObjectIDParam) vFactories.resize(nObjectIDParam); vFactories[nObjectIDParam] = &CreateObjectFunc<Object>; return true; } // create new object by calling the pointer to the appropriate type function BaseObject* create(unsigned int nObjectIDParam) const { return vFactories[nObjectIDParam](); } // resize the vector array containing pointers to function calls bool resize(unsigned int nSizeParam) { vFactories.resize(nSizeParam); return true; } private: //DECLARE_HEAP; template <typename Object> static BaseObject * CreateObjectFunc() { return new Object(); } typedef BaseObject*(*factory)(); std::vector<factory> vFactories; }; //DEFINE_HEAP_T(CGameObjectFactory, "Game Object Factory"); #endif // GAMEOBJECTFACTORY_H_UNIPIXELS

    Read the article

  • question/problem regarding assigning an array of char *

    - by Fantastic Fourier
    Hi I'm working with C and I have a question about assigning pointers. struct foo { int _bar; char * _car[MAXINT]; // this is meant to be an array of char * so that it can hold pointers to names of cars } int foofunc (void * arg) { int bar; char * car[MAXINT]; struct foo thing = (struct foo *) arg; bar = arg->_bar; // this works fine car = arg->_car; // this gives compiler errors of incompatible types in assignment } car and _car have same declaration so why am I getting an error about incompatible types? My guess is that it has something to do with them being pointers (because they are pointers to arrays of char *, right?) but I don't see why that is a problem. when i declared char * car; instead of char * car[MAXINT]; it compiles fine. but I don't see how that would be useful to me later when I need to access certain info using index, it would be very annoying to access that info later. in fact, I'm not even sure if I am going about the right way, maybe there is a better way to store a bunch of strings instead of using array of char *?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >