finding length of array

Since there''s no portable way to do that, just have the user pass the size of the array.

[Resist Windows XP''s Invasive Production Activation Technology!]

here''s the thing... i am basically making a static class function solely for the purpose of returning a text equivalent of the classes properties:

static bool toString(char* daString)
  {
  strcpy(m_name, daString);  // m_name == name property (char*)
  };
 

i want to check that daString is large enough to hold the text. the docs say that the destination char* for strcpy() must be allocated large enough to hold the src char*. so basically, daString must be allocated for 10 chars or i will have problems.
i guess i will just make sure i am careful when using the function. this is not a big problem, since it is for testing only, and i''m then going to add graphics when i know my calculations work. but, i was hoping, just so i could make "safe" functions in the future.
oh well. thanks anyways

--- krez (krezisback@aol.com)

ok, i though up a workaround here... which is not the original problem, but i figure it is better to ask here instead of starting a new post.

char* CLookUp::fetchStuff(int fIndex)
  {
  switch (fIndex)
    {
    case 0: return "Item 1";
    case 1: return "Something else";
    case 2: return "da da da";
    default: return "foo";
    };
  };
 

this will return a char* based on the index you pass it... it compiles, and works... so the important part is, does anyone know if this will cause any memory problems or anything at all? i can directly

cout << CLookUp::fetchStuff(1); 

, so i''m not allocating any memory... no need to delete[] anything...
so, is there anything bad that i am missing?

--- krez (krezisback@aol.com)

That works, but this is safer (and faster ):

char *CLookUp::fetchStuff(int fIndex) { static char *Table[] = { "Item 1", "Something else", "da da da", "foo" }; }; return Table[fIndex]; }

Since those strings have to be in memory all the time anyway (otherwise the char pointer returned wouldn''t be valid) making it static clarifies the point. Making it into a table just makes it easier to return by index.

[Resist Windows XP''s Invasive Production Activation Technology!]

you could write your own string gimmic, where the first char is the length of the memory. when you wanted work with the string, you would always send &string[1].
the string would need to be less than 255 chars where 256 = NULL, for use with standard funcs.

char* Str = new char[20]; Str[0] = 20; strcpy(&Str[1], "Hello World!!\0"; cout << &Str[1];

its kinda like a lazy struct...
and you can always write an accessor func to clean up ur code.

char* str(char* Str) { return &Str[1]; }

Edited by - evilcrap on January 6, 2002 9:51:45 AM

OR BETTER YET, write your own string class.
OR BETTER YET, use the std string class.
OR BETTER YET, write a string class better than the std one, and use that one.

why use a class? because you want to screw with 2 peices of data... and that calls for a direct association, a class.

well, as i said this is for debugging my combat calculations, after which i''m getting rid of it all anyways and moving it over to graphics. i considered making a class, or using STL string, or making my own string class... but it isn''t that important. thanks though
NULL and VOID: thanks for the "static" tip and the table idea!

--- krez (krezisback@aol.com)