Here is my code... I am a beginner and appreciate any feed back. My problem I am trying to solve is to print the pascal triangle up to the user imputed row.
public class Pascal111 {
int max;
int r,c;
public int pascal(int maxm){
max=maxm;
for(int r=0; r<max; r++){
for (int c=0; c<r; c++){
populate();}
}
return max;
}
public void populate(){
int[][] array=new int[max][max];
if (r==0){
array[0][0]=1;
}
else if(c==0){
array[0][0]=1;
}
else if(c==r){
array[r][c]=1;;
}
else
array[r][c]=(array[r-1]+array[c-1]+array[r-1]+array[c]);
}
}
I get the following error....
Error: bad operand types for binary operator '+'
first type: int[]
second type: int[]
array[r][c]=(array[r-1]+array[c-1]+array[r-1]+array[c]);
is wrong.
array is a 2-D array, thus array[X] represents a complete row (1-D array). You just can't do binary operation on 1-D arrays and put it on a single element array[r][c].
Instead replace it with
array[r][c]=(array[r-1][c-1]+array[r-1][c]);
Although I haven't looked at this closely, one mistake stands out: you have two different variables named r and two different variables named c.
Here's the relevant parts of your code:
public class Pascal111 {
int r,c; // (A)
public int pascal(int maxm) {
for (int r=0; r<max; r++){ // (B)
for (int c=0; c<r; c++){ // (B)
populate();
}
}
return max;
}
public void populate() {
if (r==0) {
... more code that accesses r and c
}
}
The declaration at (A) declares instance variables, because the declaration isn't inside a method. This means that whenever you create a Pascal111 object, this object will have fields named r and c. They are initialized to 0.
The declarations at (B), since they have int keywords on them, declare new variables. These variables are local to the pascal method, which means they can be accessed only inside that method. (Actually, they can be accessed only inside the for loops.) These variables have no connection to the instance variables. They are totally separate. As you increment these local r and c variables, the instance variables remain unchanged. That is, they are still 0.
The populate method can't access local variables declared in pascal. So when populate refers to r and c, they are referring to the instance variables. These are not the variables that get incremented in the loop, but rather the instance variables that remain 0.
One way to fix this would be to remove the int on the declarations in (B); that would cause pascal to increment the instance variables, and then populate would use those. However, that is the wrong approach.
The best way to fix these is not to use the instance variables to communicate between pascal and populate--but rather, to use parameters. That is:
for (int r=0; r<max; r++){ // (B)
for (int c=0; c<r; c++){ // (B)
populate(r, c);
}
}
and later:
public void populate(int r, int c) {
Then, when populate refers to r and c, it will refer to the parameters, which are in essence local variables. The parameters will be the r and c from pascal. (But you don't have to use the same names for the pascal variables and the populate parameters.) After you do this, you'll find that the instance variables are no longer needed at all. It's always, or almost always, wrong to have instance variables used as loop indexes anyway.
A similar error: You have array as a local variable inside populate. This means that you're creating a brand new array every time you call it to set up one array element. Then, when populate returns, array can no longer be accessed, so whatever work you've done is lost.
Related
When I try to compile this:
public static Rand searchCount (int[] x)
{
int a ;
int b ;
...
for (int l= 0; l<x.length; l++)
{
if (x[l] == 0)
a++ ;
else if (x[l] == 1)
b++ ;
}
...
}
I get these errors:
Rand.java:72: variable a might not have been initialized
a++ ;
^
Rand.java:74: variable b might not have been initialized
b++ ;
^
2 errors
It seems to me that I initialized them at the top of the method. What's going wrong?
You declared them, but you didn't initialize them. Initializing them is setting them equal to a value:
int a; // This is a declaration
a = 0; // This is an initialization
int b = 1; // This is a declaration and initialization
You get the error because you haven't initialized the variables, but you increment them (e.g., a++) in the for loop.
Java primitives have default values but as one user commented below
Their default value is zero when declared as class members. Local variables don't have default values
Local variables do not get default values. Their initial values are undefined with out assigning values by some means. Before you can use local variables they must be initialized.
There is a big difference when you declare a variable at class level (as a member ie. as a field) and at method level.
If you declare a field at class level they get default values according to their type. If you declare a variable at method level or as a block (means anycode inside {}) do not get any values and remain undefined until somehow they get some starting values ie some values assigned to them.
If they were declared as fields of the class then they would be really initialized with 0.
You're a bit confused because if you write:
class Clazz {
int a;
int b;
Clazz () {
super ();
b = 0;
}
public void printA () {
sout (a + b);
}
public static void main (String[] args) {
new Clazz ().printA ();
}
}
Then this code will print "0". It's because a special constructor will be called when you create new instance of Clazz. At first super () will be called, then field a will be initialized implicitly, and then line b = 0 will be executed.
You declared them, but not initialized.
int a; // declaration, unknown value
a = 0; // initialization
int a = 0; // declaration with initialization
You declared them, but you didn't initialize them with a value. Add something like this:
int a = 0;
You declared them but did not provide them with an intial value - thus, they're unintialized. Try something like:
public static Rand searchCount (int[] x)
{
int a = 0 ;
int b = 0 ;
and the warnings should go away.
Since no other answer has cited the Java language standard, I have decided to write an answer of my own:
In Java, local variables are not, by default, initialized with a certain value (unlike, for example, the field of classes). From the language specification one (§4.12.5) can read the following:
A local variable (§14.4, §14.14) must be explicitly given a value
before it is used, by either initialization (§14.4) or assignment
(§15.26), in a way that can be verified using the rules for definite
assignment (§16 (Definite Assignment)).
Therefore, since the variables a and b are not initialized :
for (int l= 0; l<x.length; l++)
{
if (x[l] == 0)
a++ ;
else if (x[l] == 1)
b++ ;
}
the operations a++; and b++; could not produce any meaningful results, anyway. So it is logical for the compiler to notify you about it:
Rand.java:72: variable a might not have been initialized
a++ ;
^
Rand.java:74: variable b might not have been initialized
b++ ;
^
However, one needs to understand that the fact that a++; and b++; could not produce any meaningful results has nothing to do with the reason why the compiler displays an error. But rather because it is explicitly set on the Java language specification that
A local variable (§14.4, §14.14) must be explicitly given a value (...)
To showcase the aforementioned point, let us change a bit your code to:
public static Rand searchCount (int[] x)
{
if(x == null || x.length == 0)
return null;
int a ;
int b ;
...
for (int l= 0; l<x.length; l++)
{
if(l == 0)
a = l;
if(l == 1)
b = l;
}
...
}
So even though the code above can be formally proven to be valid (i.e., the variables a and b will be always assigned with the value 0 and 1, respectively) it is not the compiler job to try to analyze your application's logic, and neither does the rules of local variable initialization rely on that. The compiler checks if the variables a and b are initialized according to the local variable initialization rules, and reacts accordingly (e.g., displaying a compilation error).
You declared them at the start of the method, but you never initialized them. Initializing would be setting them equal to a value, such as:
int a = 0;
int b = 0;
Imagine what happens if x[l] is neither 0 nor 1 in the loop. In that case a and b will never be assigned to and have an undefined value.
You must initialize them both with some value, for example 0.
It's a good practice to initialize the local variables inside the method block before using it. Here is a mistake that a beginner may commit.
public static void main(String[] args){
int a;
int[] arr = {1,2,3,4,5};
for(int i=0; i<arr.length; i++){
a = arr[i];
}
System.out.println(a);
}
You may expect the console will show '5' but instead the compiler will throw 'variable a might not be initialized' error. Though one may think variable a is 'initialized' inside the for loop, the compiler does not think in that way. What if arr.length is 0? The for loop will not be run at all. Hence, the compiler will give variable a might not have been initialized to point out the potential danger and require you to initialize the variable.
To prevent this kind of error, just initialize the variable when you declare it.
int a = 0;
You haven't initialised a and b, only declared them. There is a subtle difference.
int a = 0;
int b = 0;
At least this is for C++, I presume Java is the same concept.
Set variable "a" to some value like this,
a=0;
Declaring and initialzing are both different.
Good Luck
public class foo {
private int a[];
private int b;
public foo(){
a = new int[] {1,2};
b= 3;
}
public int[] getA(){
return this.a;
}
public int getB(){
return this.b;
}
I noticed that it's possible to change a value of A by accessing the object like this:
foo f = new foo();
f.getA()[0] = 5; // f.a[0] changes to 5
but it isn't possible to do something like:
f.getB = 5; // gives error
f.getA() = new int[]{2,3}; //gives error
can someone explain me how this works, and how to prevent the user from changing the value of an array cell?
Thanks in advance.
In Java, array is a reference type, which means that the value of an array expression is a reference to the actual array.
The return value of getA() is, therefore, a reference to the private array inside your object. This breaks encapsulation: you give access to your object's internals.
You can avoid this by either returning a reference to a copy of your internal array, or by providing a different API which only returns individual elements, say a method getA(int index).
f.get(A) returns a reference to an array. You can access that array the way you access any array, and assign values to its elements with f.get(A)[i]=... (though it makes more sense to store the returned array in a variable, which would let you access that array multiple times, without having to call f.get(A) each time).
You can't, however, assign anything f.get(A) via f.get(A)=.., since a method call is not a valid left side of an assignment operator. For all you know, a call to f.get(A) may generate a new array that is not referred to by a member of the foo class, so assigning f.get(A)= new int[5]; would make no sense, since there would be no variable in which to store the new array.
The same explanation applies to f.getB() = 5;.
Instead of giving away the array, to allow the caller to do what they like with it you can use an indexed getter
public int getA(int n){
return this.a[n];
}
public void setA(int n, int x) {
this.a[n] = x;
}
Now, the caller has no access to the array and cannot change it without you knowing.
Lets say we have these two different constructors.
What is the different between the first one and the second one.
How is the way to do it? Explain the difference please!
(I know you cant have these two constructors in the same class, this is just to show what i mean.
public class StackOverFlow {
private int[] x; // instance variable
StackOverFlow(int[] x) { // constructor
this.x=x;
}
StackOverFlow(int[] x) { // constructor
this.x = new int[x.length];
for(int k=0 ; k < x.length; k++) {
this.x[k]=x[k];
}
}
The first constructor assigns a reference of an existing int array to the member variable. The caller of the constructor can later change the array and the change would be reflected in the instance.
The second constructor copies the array, so later changes in the passed array wouldn't change the copy stored in the instance.
int[] intArray = new intArray {1,2,3};
StackOverFlow so1 = new StackOverFlow(intArray); // assume we are using the first constructor
intArray[1]=5; // changes the array stored in `so1` object
StackOverFlow so2 = new StackOverFlow(intArray); // assume we are using the second constructor
intArray[1]=8; // doesn't change the array stored in `so2` object
In the first case you tell your instance variable to refer to the given x, so when you change data in one of these variables, that changes also affect the second variable.
And in the second case you create a copy of an object, so your instance variable and variable you pass to constructor will need independent from each other in your further code.
This will not work since you got an ambiguity issue as both constructors receive the same type of parameters. So when you try to create an instance :
StackOverflow instance = new StackOverflow(new int[]{});
There is no way to know which constructor should be called.
You need to decide which behavior is good for you.
I would recommend using the second constructor and create a setter method if you want to set the array from an initialized one :
public class StackOverFlow {
private int[] x; // instance variable
StackOverFlow(int[] x) { // conctructor
this.x = new int[x.length];
for(int k=0 ; k < x.length; k++) {
this.x[k]=x[k];
}
}
public void setTheArray(int[] x) {
this.x = x;
}
}
I have been learning about java byte-code recently, and i have been understanding most of it, but i am confused about how the local variable count for example is counted. I thought it would just be the total of the local variables, but this code generates 1 local variable when looking through the bytecode
public int testFail()
{
return 1;
}
But i thought it should be zero local variables because no local variable are defined.
Additionally this method also generates one local variable but it has more local variables than the previous example.
Finally this method
public static int testFail(int a, int b)
{
return a+b;
}
gnerates two local variable in the bytecode.
public static int testFail(int a)
{
return a;
}
Non-static methods use a local variable slot for this. Another complication is that longs and doubles count as 2 each. Also, depending on your compiler and settings, you may not see a one-to-one mapping between local variables in the source code and local variables in the byte code. For example, if debug information is left out, the compiler may eliminate unnecessary local variables.
Edit:
I just remembered: compilers may also re-use local variable slots. For example, given this code:
public static void test() {
for(int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
...
}
for(int j = 0; j < 100; j++) {
}
}
the same slot can be used for i and j because their scopes don't overlap.
The reason the first one has a local variable is because it is a nonstatic method, so there is an implicit this parameter.
I need to convert C code to Java.
The minimal C code is:
void changeX(int *x)
{
*x=5;
}
changeX is called in function B as:
void B()
{
int k= 2;
changeX((int*) &k);
}
The problem while converting it into Java is that x is not a class member so i cannot use this. How can i convert such code to Java?
Assuming you're really asking, "Can I use pass-by-reference in Java" (which that C code isn't using, but is emulating with pointers, which also aren't supported in Java) the answer is no.
Options:
Pass in a reference to an object which does contain a field you can change
(Ugly, but equivalent to the above in some senses) Pass in an array of size 1 constructed using the local variable, mutate the variable in the method, and then set the local variable again based on the array contents afterwards
Return the new value and assign it that way
Change your design so you don't need this
The last two of these options are the nicest ones. If you could give more information about the bigger picture - why you think you want to do this - that would be helpful.
Use one-element array reference:
void changeX(int[] x) {
// do not forget about checks
x[0] = 5;
}
void test() {
int[] x = {0};
changeX(x);
}
Being a primitive, and not a class member, you cannot pass the reference to another method. Use a class member instead.
You should return the new value of x,the method should as follow:
private int changeX(int x){
return 5;
}
You existing C code is incorrect:
void B()
{
int k= 2;
// you are not passing address of variable k but instead
// you are passing k (which is 2) as the address whose location needs
// to be changed. So you are writing to address 2 which you don't own.
changeX((int*) k);
}
What you need is:
changeX(&k);
Now this is changing the value of a variable by passing it by address. Now such a thing is not possible in Java which always uses pass by value. But you can get similar effect by enclosing the int variable inside an Integer object or an integer array (also an object) and pass the object by value.
Simply put Java has no equivalent to a pointer to a basic type - in order to achieve this you need a reference int type something like
class RefInt {
public int Value;
RefInt(int x) { Value=x; }
}
And you pass this in the same context and it works like so:
RefInt X=new RefInt(3)
ChangeX(X);
Obviously in this context simply changing the return value to type int and assigning it would be better but that doesn't solve your general problem.
Option1:
Put the int variable in a wrapper class. Pass that the method. In the method you can change the value in wrapper instance.
Option2:
Make changeX() return int and replace all changeX(k) with k = changeX(k).