Initializing an array of structures
-
I could find better ways.
-
I could find better ways.
glad to see you're back. :-D
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google - the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get - use the code block button (PRE tags) to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
-
glad to see you're back. :-D
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google - the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get - use the code block button (PRE tags) to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
Was just in Vegas, couldn't be bothered to find a wifi hot spot.
-
struct _X
{
int field1;
int field2;
int field3;
} anArray[15];for (int i = 0; i < 15; ++i)
{
anArray[i].field1 = 1;
}for (int i = 0; i < 15; ++i)
{
anArray[i].field2 = 2;
}for (int i = 0; i < 15; ++i)
{
anArray[i].field3 = 3;
}Really horrible, poor guy didn't consider performance of such code. I have far more superior solution:
anArray[0].field1 = 1;
anArray[1].field1 = 1;
anArray[2].field1 = 1;
anArray[3].field1 = 1;
anArray[4].field1 = 1;
anArray[5].field1 = 1;
anArray[6].field1 = 1;
anArray[7].field1 = 1;
anArray[8].field1 = 1;
anArray[9].field1 = 1;
anArray[10].field1 = 1;
anArray[11].field1 = 1;
anArray[12].field1 = 1;
anArray[13].field1 = 1;
anArray[14].field1 = 1;anArray[0].field2 = 2;
anArray[1].field2 = 2;
anArray[2].field2 = 2;
anArray[3].field2 = 2;
anArray[4].field2 = 2;
anArray[5].field2 = 2;
anArray[6].field2 = 2;
anArray[7].field2 = 2;
anArray[8].field2 = 2;
anArray[9].field2 = 2;
anArray[10].field2 = 2;
anArray[11].field2 = 2;
anArray[12].field2 = 2;
anArray[13].field2 = 2;
anArray[14].field2 = 2;anArray[0].field3 = 3;
anArray[1].field3 = 3;
anArray[2].field3 = 3;
anArray[3].field3 = 3;
anArray[4].field3 = 3;
anArray[5].field3 = 3;
anArray[6].field3 = 3;
anArray[7].field3 = 3;
anArray[8].field3 = 3;
anArray[9].field3 = 3;
anArray[10].field3 = 3;
anArray[11].field3 = 3;
anArray[12].field3 = 3;
anArray[13].field3 = 3;
anArray[14].field3 = 3; -
No matter what language - all of them allow at least for summarizing this in one loop construct... :) Regards Thomas
www.thomas-weller.de Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
Programmer - an organism that turns coffee into software.I don't know, maybe Brain fuck doesn't. :laugh: Cheers
You have the thought that modern physics just relay on assumptions, that somehow depends on a smile of a cat, which isn’t there.( Albert Einstein)
-
Really horrible, poor guy didn't consider performance of such code. I have far more superior solution:
anArray[0].field1 = 1;
anArray[1].field1 = 1;
anArray[2].field1 = 1;
anArray[3].field1 = 1;
anArray[4].field1 = 1;
anArray[5].field1 = 1;
anArray[6].field1 = 1;
anArray[7].field1 = 1;
anArray[8].field1 = 1;
anArray[9].field1 = 1;
anArray[10].field1 = 1;
anArray[11].field1 = 1;
anArray[12].field1 = 1;
anArray[13].field1 = 1;
anArray[14].field1 = 1;anArray[0].field2 = 2;
anArray[1].field2 = 2;
anArray[2].field2 = 2;
anArray[3].field2 = 2;
anArray[4].field2 = 2;
anArray[5].field2 = 2;
anArray[6].field2 = 2;
anArray[7].field2 = 2;
anArray[8].field2 = 2;
anArray[9].field2 = 2;
anArray[10].field2 = 2;
anArray[11].field2 = 2;
anArray[12].field2 = 2;
anArray[13].field2 = 2;
anArray[14].field2 = 2;anArray[0].field3 = 3;
anArray[1].field3 = 3;
anArray[2].field3 = 3;
anArray[3].field3 = 3;
anArray[4].field3 = 3;
anArray[5].field3 = 3;
anArray[6].field3 = 3;
anArray[7].field3 = 3;
anArray[8].field3 = 3;
anArray[9].field3 = 3;
anArray[10].field3 = 3;
anArray[11].field3 = 3;
anArray[12].field3 = 3;
anArray[13].field3 = 3;
anArray[14].field3 = 3; -
I don't know, maybe Brain fuck doesn't. :laugh: Cheers
You have the thought that modern physics just relay on assumptions, that somehow depends on a smile of a cat, which isn’t there.( Albert Einstein)
-
some languages such as C# allow for code inside a struct; C does not. How would you do it in C? :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google - the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get - use the code block button (PRE tags) to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
-
that is something different, it generates no run-time code. It may or may not be sufficient for what the original program needed, assuming you duplicate the constants 15 times. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google - the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get - use the code block button (PRE tags) to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
-
Can't modify a deleted message :P I couldn't make it scalable so I deleted my post:
struct k[15] = { {1,2,3},...}
bulg wrote:
Can't modify a deleted message
No, however you can edit a message instead of deleting it. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google - the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get - use the code block button (PRE tags) to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
-
No matter what language - all of them allow at least for summarizing this in one loop construct... :) Regards Thomas
www.thomas-weller.de Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
Programmer - an organism that turns coffee into software.I especially love the brackets he put around the loop bodies - in case he needs to add some additional instructions there!
-
I especially love the brackets he put around the loop bodies - in case he needs to add some additional instructions there!
peterchen wrote:
I especially love the brackets he put around the loop bodies
Well, this can be a coding guideline. It may look a bit silly and pedantic to put brackets around a single statement, because it makes you write things like:
if (somecondition)
{
return;
}Tools like e.g. ReSharper (for C#) do that automatically, so you don't have to type. I've seen this often in larger teams, and it brings some more readability to the code. I do it myself... Or, as you suggest, it's simply an absence of any thinking or understanding. Who knows ? :cool: Regards Thomas
www.thomas-weller.de Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
Programmer - an organism that turns coffee into software. -
peterchen wrote:
I especially love the brackets he put around the loop bodies
Well, this can be a coding guideline. It may look a bit silly and pedantic to put brackets around a single statement, because it makes you write things like:
if (somecondition)
{
return;
}Tools like e.g. ReSharper (for C#) do that automatically, so you don't have to type. I've seen this often in larger teams, and it brings some more readability to the code. I do it myself... Or, as you suggest, it's simply an absence of any thinking or understanding. Who knows ? :cool: Regards Thomas
www.thomas-weller.de Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
Programmer - an organism that turns coffee into software.Thomas Weller wrote:
Well, this can be a coding guideline.
Excactly - even though I don't subscribe to it, it is a common guideline to avoid a mistake like this:
for (int i = 0; i < 15; ++i)
anArray[i].field1 = 1;
someotherarray[i].somefield = 2;It's just a strange idea, but someone, in the future, MIGHT come up with maybe another array to be assigned a different value. :rolleyes:
Don't attribute to stupidity what can be equally well explained by buerocracy.
My latest article | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Do you get paid by LOC ;)
Yusuf Oh didn't you notice, analogous to square roots, they recently introduced rectangular, circular, and diamond roots to determine the size of the corresponding shapes when given the area. Luc Pattyn[^]
That would go
// Set field to 1:
anArray
[
// index
0
].
// field name
field1// value
1;Don't attribute to stupidity what can be equally well explained by buerocracy.
My latest article | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist