Objects There is no benefit to using new Object(); – whereas {}; can make your code more compact, and more readable. For defining empty objects they’re technically the same. The {} syntax is shorter, neater (less Java-ish), and allows you to instantly populate the object inline – like so: Arrays For arrays, there’s similarly almost no benefit to ever using new Array(); over []; – … Read more
You have to use bracket notation: The result will be: Maybe instead of an array of objects, you just want one object with two properties: and This will result in x = {left: 0, top: 0}.
At worst, your lecturer is wrong. At best, he was simplifying terminology, and confusing you in the process. This is reasonably commonplace in software education, unfortunately. The truth is, many books get this wrong as well; the array is not “passed” at all, either “by pointer” or “by reference”. In fact, because arrays cannot be passed by … Read more
You can’t use the class name as the name for a method. The only “methods” that can share a name with the class are constructors. One fix would be to rename your class from isPalindrome to PalindromeFinder or something. That would also better align with Java naming conventions. EDIT: Note that you never actually called your method in main; … Read more
Try doing this : The difference between $@ and $*: Unquoted, the results are unspecified. In Bash, both expand to separate args and then wordsplit and globbed. Quoted, “$@” expands each element as a separate argument, while “$*” expands to the args merged into one argument: “$1c$2c…” (where c is the first char of IFS). You almost always want “$@”. Same goes for “${arr[@]}”. Always quote them!
2018 edit: This answer is from 2011, before browsers had widely supported array filtering methods and arrow functions. Have a look at CAFxX’s answer. There is no “magic” way to check for something in an array without a loop. Even if you use some function, the function itself will use a loop. What you can do … Read more
localStorage only supports strings. Use JSON.stringify() and JSON.parse(). You can also use direct access to set/get item:
The typedef would be However, this is probably a very bad idea, because the resulting type is an array type, but users of it won’t see that it’s an array type. If used as a function argument, it will be passed by reference, not by value, and the sizeof for it will then be wrong. A better … Read more
I think you are trying do this:
new type requires deletenew type[size] requires delete []Using one instead of the other is wrong. Btw you should not use such raw pointers like this unless you have a very good reason. Use std::vector or std::array instead. And 2D MxN arrays should generally be linearised into 1D M*N arrays, also using these containers.