C/C++ Why Does My C++ Divide Function Not Compile?

[Jarvis323]

Yes, I glance-read the article $-$ my main quibble with it is that that the writer spells 'gibberish' with a 'j' $\dots$

I don't mind. J makes more sense. This is why I'm not Garvis323 ;)

 

[sysprog]

I don't mind. J makes more sense. This is why I'm not Garvis323 ;)

Are you trying to rule out the soft 'g'? Should we have to write 'jermane' instead of 'germane'? Can we please still write 'Germany', and not 'Jermany', even though there's such a name as 'Jeremy'?

 

[Jarvis323]

Are you trying to rule out the soft 'g'? Should we have to write 'jermane' instead of 'germane'? Can we please still write 'Germany', and not 'Jermany', even though there's such a name as 'Jeremy'?

As long as we don't confuse Japan with Gapan, and Jeff with Geff.

 

[Jarvis323]

To be honest, the rules about C-strings aren't really that straightforward. I wasn't sure because I don't use C-strings whenever I don't have to. The article was the first entry in a google search for "return C-string". I was surprised a little that char * c = "x" (or const char *c = "x") is different than char c[] = "x". I guess the first one is a pointer to a string literal (which has static global storage for the lifetime of the program), and the second one is an array on the stack with automatic storage (gets deleted when out of scope). You can return a string literal, with the return type const char *, in the sense you are returning a pointer to a const global static string literal that exists for the lifetime of the program. But you can't change a string literal, and the usefulness of having functions which return C-strings is limited.

I also maybe shouldn't say that C is a subset of C++. Some things are legal in C but not in C++. For example, apparently char * c = "x" is (supposedly) depreciated in C++ (should be const * char c = "x"), but not in C.

 

[Mark44]

Is passing by argument the only way, to pass by reference or pointer?

No such thing as "passing by argument."
A function argument is an expression inside the parentheses when a function is called.
In C, a function argument be passed by value, or can be passed by reference (i.e., as a pointer).
In C++, a function argument can also be passed by value, but C++ muddies the water a bit, because an argument can be a pointer or it can be a reference variable.

Some examples.

int funValue(int a) {return 42;}
void funPtr(int* adr) { *adr = 42;}
void funRef(int& ref){ ref = 42;}

Calls and results.

int a = 15;
int result = funValue(a);                 // result is set to 42 - no change to a, which is passed by value
funPtr(&a);                               // a is reset to 42
int b = 20;
funRef(b);                                // b is reset to 42

 

[Mark44]

To be honest, the rules about C-strings aren't really that straightforward. I wasn't sure because I don't use C-strings whenever I don't have to. The article was the first entry in a google search for "return C-string". I was surprised a little that char * c = "x" (or const char *c = "x") is different than char c[] = "x". I guess the first one is a pointer to a string literal (which has static global storage for the lifetime of the program), and the second one is an array on the stack with automatic storage (gets deleted when out of scope).

In both cases the string literal "x" is in static storage. The pointer variable c holds the address of the string literal. The array variable c of the second example may or may not be on the stack, depending on whether the array is declared inside of or outside a function. I believe that the contents of the string literal get copied to the space allocated for the array. Also, the contents of the array don't get "deleted" when the array goes out of scope; the array contents merely get overwritten.

You can return a string literal, with the return type const char *, in the sense you are returning a pointer to a const global static string literal that exists for the lifetime of the program. But you can't change a string literal.

Right, you aren't really "returning" a string literal -- just returning a pointer to where the literal is stored in memory.

 

[Jarvis323]

In both cases the string literal "x" is in static storage. The pointer variable c holds the address of the string literal. The array variable c of the second example may or may not be on the stack, depending on whether the array is declared inside of or outside a function. I believe that the contents of the string literal get copied to the space allocated for the array. Also, the contents of the array don't get "deleted" when the array goes out of scope; the array contents merely get overwritten.
Right, you aren't really "returning" a string literal -- just returning a pointer to where the literal is stored in memory.

Right the string literal "x" is in static storage, but (inside a function) c is either a pointer to that static storage or a pointer to stack allocated memory that the literal was copied to, depending on if it's declared *c or c[]. It doesn't get deleted I guess, but the memory is invalidated. I guess "destroyed" is the proper term?

 

[Jarvis323]

No such thing as "passing by argument."
A function argument is an expression inside the parentheses when a function is called.
In C, a function argument be passed by value, or can be passed by reference (i.e., as a pointer).
In C++, a function argument can also be passed by value, but C++ muddies the water a bit, because an argument can be a pointer or it can be a reference variable.

Some examples.

int funValue(int a) {return 42;}
void funPtr(int* adr) { *adr = 42;}
void funRef(int& ref){ ref = 42;}

Calls and results.

int a = 15;
int result = funValue(a);                 // result is set to 42 - no change to a, which is passed by value
funPtr(&a);                               // a is reset to 42
int b = 20;
funRef(b);                                // b is reset to 42

Don't forget R-value references (&&).

 

[Halc]

As long as we don't confuse Japan with Gapan, and Jeff with Geff.

Now you've hurt Geoffrey's feelings. He's probably living in Gapan now too. Not around here anymore at least.

 

[jtbell]

Jee, talk about thread drift...