Omitting rows numbers of a matrix

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by /* frank */, Jun 25, 2004.

  1. /* frank */

    /* frank */ Guest

    Why I can omit numbers of rows, when I define
    a two-dimensions array i.e. :

    double table [] [100];


    thanks
     
    /* frank */, Jun 25, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. /* frank */

    Eric Sosman Guest

    /* frank */ wrote:
    > Why I can omit numbers of rows, when I define
    > a two-dimensions array i.e. :
    >
    > double table [] [100];


    First, let's simplify to a one-dimensional array. There
    are three principal contexts where you can omit the element
    count:

    - When the array is defined and an initializer is
    provided, the compiler deduces the array size from
    the number of initializer values:

    double vector[] = { 1, 2, 3, 27 };

    has the same effect as

    double vector[4] = { 1, 2, 3, 27 };

    - When you write a declaration of an array that "lives
    elsewhere," you can omit the array size:

    extern double vector[];

    gives the compiler all the information it needs to
    generate code to access the elements of this array;
    it does not need to know how many elements exist.

    - When you write an array declaration in a function
    parameter list, it is automatically transformed into
    a declaration of a pointer to the array's first element.
    Such a pointer carries no information about the number
    of elements in the array, and since the count would be
    "thrown away" anyhow, you needn't provide it. These
    three function definitions have the same meaning:

    int f(double p[4]) { ... }
    int f(double p[]) { ... }
    int f(double *p) { ... }

    If any of this is confusing, I suggest you review Section 6
    in the comp.lang.c Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list

    http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/s6.html

    All the above concerns one-dimensional arrays, but your
    original question was about two-dimensional arrays. Here's
    the connection: C doesn't actually support multi-dimensional
    arrays at all! When we speak of a "two-dimensional array" in
    C, what we actually mean is a one-dimensional array whose
    individual elements are themselves one-dimensional arrays.
    We can show this more explicitly with a typedef:

    typedef double Row[100];
    Row table[];

    The second line says "`table' is an array containing an unknown
    number of `Row' elements." The first line says "A `Row' is an
    array of 100 `double' elements." Together, the two lines say
    exactly the same thing as `double table[][100];'.

    You may wonder why we can't write `double table[][];' for
    an array of unknown size whose elements are arrays of unknown
    size, or why we can't write `typedef double Row[];' in the
    explicit reformulation. The reason is that the compiler needs
    complete information about the type of an array's elements, even
    though it doesn't (usually) need to know exactly how many elements
    there are. And the problem in the "two-dimensional" case is that
    "complete information" about an array's type includes the element
    count. Think about it: The compiler needs to know how many bytes
    to skip over when going from `table[0]' to `table[1]', which means
    it needs to know the `sizeof' the element -- and if the element is
    itself an array, that means the compiler needs to know how many
    elements the sub-array contains.

    The upshot is that only the "leftmost" dimension of a "multi-
    dimensional" array can be left unspecified (in the cases described
    above), but the other dimensions must be specified fully.

    --
     
    Eric Sosman, Jun 25, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Eric Tishkoff

    omitting config values

    Eric Tishkoff, Jul 1, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    332
    Natty Gur
    Jul 2, 2003
  2. RC

    Omitting the .ASPX Extension

    RC, Nov 28, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    377
    Klaus H. Probst
    Nov 29, 2004
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    381
    Karl Seguin
    Dec 20, 2005
  4. Christian Ashby
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    7,832
    Oscar kind
    Aug 24, 2004
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    377
Loading...

Share This Page