Probably you meant volatile ?

Yes, typing on a phone makes things complicated

Probably you meant volatile ?

Fixed

It is on the same level of cleverness as volatile int f() { return 4; }

with this volative I don't understand what's the problem with this code.

Fixed

ok

First, you abandon size information, unless you are good friend with your allocator, that may be semantically lost at compile time, then you abandon pointer semantics and typing which are precisely here to remind you need to clean that

What size information do you mean?

What size information do you mean?

The fact that you store 2 integers and not one in that reference

The fact that you store 2 integers and not one in that reference

But you DONT store two. Just one

But you DONT store two. Just one

My bad on that, looked like square brackets to my tired self

The fact that you store 2 integers and not one in that reference

You couldn't have assigned reference to an array to the reference to one int.

Still a bad practice, one should rather use a unique_ptr

You couldn't have assigned reference to an array to the reference to one int.

You can with that syntax

Still a bad practice, one should rather use a unique_ptr

Well yes, but what if you program your own smart pointer, for example

*new int[2] returns int&

Well yes, but what if you program your own smart pointer, for example

Then don't use a reference?

You can with that syntax

No, you can't that would be type check error.

Store a pointer

No, you can't that would be type check error.

Explain me how int& is different from int& to the compiler

*new int[2] returns int&

No, it returns reference to int array of two elements. int (&) [2]

No, it returns reference to int array of two elements. int (&) [2]

Sorry to tell you but no, using deference operator on int* gives you int&

Then don't use a reference?

So, until you want to use pointer arithmetic, there is no problem with this.

Sorry to tell you but no, using deference operator on int* gives you int&

recheck

So, until you want to use pointer arithmetic, there is no problem with this.

Except the fact you wrap something for no reason and may need to unwrap it later

Except the fact you wrap something for no reason and may need to unwrap it later

Wrap in what ?

recheck

Confirmed

Wrap in what ?

FYI, there is no requirement for how references are implemented in C++

It is valid for references in a C++ implementation to be implemented as a class with side effects

recheck

http://cpp.sh/5isfy

It is valid for references in a C++ implementation to be implemented as a class with side effects

The C++ AM doesn't have any saying on how references are implemented. If references are mostly implemented as syntaxic sugar around of pointers in most implementations, it is not defined as such in the standard

Hi guys, I'd like to know if there are any advantages by using a pointer to function in a struct, used to create a linked list [C]. Thank you

In this way it seems an object-oriented way

Hi guys, I'd like to know if there are any advantages by using a pointer to function in a struct, used to create a linked list [C]. Thank you

What is this function used for?

What is this function used for?

Any behaviour, I would just know if it is useful

What is this function used for?

Perhaps on the list itself

Any behaviour, I would just know if it is useful

This can't be answered, I cannot say if it is useful if I don't know use of it

This can't be answered, I cannot say if it is useful if I don't know use of it

Thank you for the answer. I'd just know generally if it could be useful in any way

Having a pointer to function into a struct

I know, it could be a weird question ahah

Hi guys, I'd like to know if there are any advantages by using a pointer to function in a struct, used to create a linked list [C]. Thank you

You have a struct, it uses linked lists and needs to create linked lists, so for this the struct needs this pointer to function that creates list, is it?

Even add

You have a struct, it uses linked lists and needs to create linked lists, so for this the struct needs this pointer to function that creates list, is it?

You're right, maybe it's useless

My question was about if it will be able to do something useful, but as far as i can see, it's useless

Thank you for the answer. I'd just know generally if it could be useful in any way

if you need this pointer then save it, if you don't need it or the function will be anyway same function, then it is not useful at all, you will be just spending memory for this.

Thank you again!

Thank you for the answer. I'd just know generally if it could be useful in any way

Pointers to functions are useful when you need to change the behaviour on runtime or if the behaviour is expected to change in the future but you don't want the rest of your code to rely on the current behaviour

Hi

thank you hi too

Ok I’m so sorry

#ot

Ok

🧐

🧐

Any question

Any question

Nope bro.. Thanks

Ok

😊👍

Hello

😀

Ok

int getSum(int r1, int r2, int c1, int c2, int dp[N + 1][N + 1]) { return dp[r2][c2] - dp[r2][c1] - dp[r1][c2] + dp[r1][c1]; } bool sumFound(int K, int S, int grid[N][N]) { int dp[N + 1][N + 1]; for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) for (int j = 0; j < N; j++) dp[i + 1][j + 1] = dp[i + 1][j] + dp[i][j + 1] - dp[i][j] + grid[i][j]; for (int i = 0; i < N; i += K) for (int j = 0; j < N; j += K) { int sum = getSum(i, i + K, j, j + K, dp); if (sum == S) return true; } return false; } int main() { int grid[N][N] = { { 1, 2, 3, 4 }, { 5, 6, 7, 8 }, { 9, 10, 11, 12 }, { 13, 14, 15, 16 } }; int K = 2; int S = 14; if (sumFound(K, S, grid)) cout << "Yes" << endl; else cout << "No" << endl; }

can anybody help me to understand the sumfound() part

how sum goes to dp[] matrix

how sum goes to dp[] matrix

What is N?

4

4

The program doesn't even work... it tries to write to dp[4,4] using dp which isn't defined so your answer is wrong.

If you initialize dp first after it's defined it might just make sense.

If you initialize dp first after it's defined it might just make sense.

i also face the same kind of problem,

but as i copied this from popularsite so may be there is some is fault in my understanding

so i post it here

after researching i found that it follows kadanes algorithhm

may be any of know post it here

you

Sorry I'm not on PC right now, will send you the part of correction when I get to my computer.

Guys... can someone help rex with double dimension array in C++?

http://cpp.sh/5isfy

Hi you were correct, new expression decays arrays to pointer, fuck! I'm disappointed. BUT this is not related to the code snippet, actually, because there was no arrays originally and both pointers and references would starve from array to pointer decay similarly.

can anybody help me to understand the sumfound() part

What can we help you with? This program is invalid, and you must show all the code for it to be understandable.

can anybody help me to understand the sumfound() part

Multi-dimensional arrays cannot be handled like this AFAIR.

guys if I do a 1 / 1.1 division it gives me 1, why?

guys if I do a 1 / 1.1 division it gives me 1, why?

Use float or double types.

guys if I do a 1 / 1.1 division it gives me 1, why?

not enough info

show the code

https://pastebin.com/fFQ1mSaq