how to pass 2-dimension array to function parameter

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cooker
Why "vector<std::vector<int> >" is 2 dimension array?
Could u describe that in detail?

THX.:confused:

---

std::vector<> is a Standard Template Library (STL) vector class. By having std::vector< std::vector<int> >, 1st vector contains vectors of int.

In terms of memory layout that the vector class occupies, I don't think it will be the same as a 2D array. However, when you dereference the element within the vector object, the syntax is exactly the same, i.e. int result = array[i][j].

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kheun
std::vector<> is a Standard Template Library (STL) vector class. By having std::vector< std::vector<int> >, 1st vector contains vectors of int.

In terms of memory layout that the vector class occupies, I don't think it will be the same as a 2D array. However, when you dereference the element within the vector object, the syntax is exactly the same, i.e. int result = array[i][j].

---

Could u illustrate vector< vector<T> >?
I couldn't understand that.
Would some example?
THX.
:D

Code:

---

#include <vector>
using namespace std;

int main(void)
{
        vector< vector<int> > array(2);  // Starting with 2 rows

        // Populating each element
        int i, j;
        for(i=0; i<5; ++i)
        {
                array[0].push_back(i);
                array[1].push_back(i+5);
        }


        // Display the array
        for(j=0; j<array.size(); ++j)
        {
                for(i=0; i<array[j].size(); ++i)
                        printf("%d ", array[j][i]);

                printf("\n");
        }

        return 0;
}

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CBasicNet
Only the last size must be fixed for 2D array.

void init(int array[][10]);

---

Just to add some detail. For a multidimensional array, all bounds other than the first one need to be fixed.

So for a 3D array, the method signature will look like

void init(int array[][10][10]);

Kheun is right. Multidimensional arrarys are actually stored unidimensionally. So the compiler needs to know the size of each element of that unidimensional array. It is required for pointer arithmetic. For eg. operations such as array++(this will advance the array pointer by one row and not one element) need to know the size of each element.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tarun_jp
Just to add some detail. For a multidimensional array, all bounds other than the first one need to be fixed.

So for a 3D array, the method signature will look like

void init(int array[][10][10]);

Kheun is right. Multidimensional arrarys are actually stored unidimensionally. So the compiler needs to know the size of each element of that unidimensional array. It is required for pointer arithmetic. For eg. operations such as array++(this will advance the array pointer by one row and not one element) need to know the size of each element.

---

void init(int *array);
void init(int *array[]);
Could I use above to pass an aray?
THX.

Code:

---

void init(int* array)
{
        int count=0;
        for(int i=0;i<10;++i)
                for(int j=0;j<10;++j)
                *(array+ i*10 + j) = count++;

}

int main(void)
{
        int num[10][10];
        init(&num[0][0]);
       
        for(int i=0;i<10;++i)
        {
                for(int j=0;j<10;++j)
                {
                        printf("%d ", num[i][j] );
                }
                printf("\n");
        }

        return 0;
}

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kheun

Code:

---

void init(int* array)
{
        int count=0;
        for(int i=0;i<10;++i)
                for(int j=0;j<10;++j)
                *(array+ i*10 + j) = count++;

}

int main(void)
{
        int num[10][10];
        init(&num[0][0]);
       
        for(int i=0;i<10;++i)
        {
                for(int j=0;j<10;++j)
                {
                        printf("%d ", num[i][j] );
                }
                printf("\n");
        }

        return 0;
}

---

---

void init(int array[][10];
void init(int *pArray);
Which is common use in practice?
What's advantage of them?
THX.

Unless you have a good reason to use a C-style array, you
should use a vector.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by souldog
Unless you have a good reason to use a C-style array, you
should use a vector.

---

Usually I would use array for pod unless there is a need to resize the array. Correct me if I am wrong. I think the overhead to use vector is too large for static pod array.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cooker
void init(int array[][10];
void init(int *pArray);
Which is common use in practice?
What's advantage of them?
THX.

---

for

Code:

---

void init(int *pArray);

---

You have to pass the max number of columns and rows as well but rows can be optional if you wish.

Code:

---

void init(int *pArray, const int MaxRow, const int MaxColumn);

---

The advantage of this form over the first form void init(int array[][10]);, is number of columns need not be fixed; ie for void init(int array[][10]);, the 2D array which you pass in, its column must always be 10.

However, with these 2 ways of passing arrays, you have to take care not to use a array index which is out of bounds.

I would suggest you, as Souldog did, to learn to use std::vector.

Vector Tutorial

Not sure if my approach is acceptable. When it comes dynamically allocated multiple dimensional array, e.g. image processing. I usually allocated them as a 1D array and indexed it using something like *(array + i*width * j). Any comments are appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kheun
Not sure if my approach is acceptable. When it comes dynamically allocated multiple dimensional array, e.g. image processing. I usually allocated them as a 1D array and indexed it using something like *(array + i*width * j). Any comments are appreciated.

---

Some people do do it this way, for instance, me. It is always a hassle to dynamically allocate a multi-dimensional array.

Certainly if you find yourself dynamically allocating arrays, then
it is definitely time to use a vector.

As for C-style arrays that do not change size, I would still use a
vector. The code is more maintainable and less error prone.
In this case it is especially true that there is no significant
overhead in using a vector.

Thanks CBasicNet and souldog.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by souldog
The code is more maintainable and less error prone.

---

I agree that vector takes care of allocating and releasing memory. For better or worst, it doesn't perform bound-checking. :(

you can access elements of the vector with the function
at(index). which will throw a range error exception if index is out of range.