char array

I'm having problem with a char array.. here's my code.. nice and simple (I took out the unnecessary stuff), but this only gives a popup saying "a".. I've tried various other things, and keys[0] never works.. what's up with that?

Code:

// Test.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application.
//

#include "stdafx.h"
#include <windows.h>
#include <math.h>

class hack
{
	public:
		hack(char* hotkeys)
		{
			strcpy_s(keys,sizeof(keys),hotkeys);
			char* test = "a\0";
			test[0] = keys[0];
			MessageBox(0,test,"keys",MB_OK);
		};
		~hack()
		{
			
		}

		char  keys[6];
};

// create an array of hacks... what they affect
hack hacks[] =
	{
		hack("HP"	),
		hack("MH"	),
		hack("MP"	),
		hack("M"	),
		hack("A"	),
		hack("D"	),
		hack("P"	),
		hack("R"	),
		hack("S"	),
		hack("J"	),
		hack("RC"	),
		hack("YC"	),
		hack("HR"	),
		hack("MR"	)
	};
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
	return 0;
}

test does not point to writable memory, so test[0] = keys[0] is doomed to failure.

yeah I got it.. just make test an array and it works fine

Yes!
And this is typically why we recommend that string literals should be const (ie assigned to a const char* pointer):
http://cpwiki.sourceforge.net/Common...kes_and_errors

Oh and your "keys" array should probably be private.

I use keys in outter code (it's not shown here, but I do)

Then I would say your class is pretty poor encapsulation (in other words, its function is pretty shallow: it does not act much like an object, like a car, so to speak).
Either tune it a little to make it like an object or add getter/setters. Getter/setters are great since they will protect your code if your class contents change.

I don't care all too much about encapsulation.. I've never encountered very many reasons to use it.. if I run into problems, I will

Then you are a bad C++ programmer and setting yourself up for a load of problems.
Just pointing out. If you continue down that path, you will get yourself burned, one day.

Originally Posted by Elysia

Then you are a bad C++ programmer and setting yourself up for a load of problems.
Just pointing out. If you continue down that path, you will get yourself burned, one day.

I agree with you unless this individual is just a hobbyist. In which case *shrug* he can just do as (s)he pleases. Though, I don't see what the big problem with encapsulation seems to be. It is kind of the whole point of having private and protected members in the first place.

Originally Posted by master5001

I agree with you unless this individual is just a hobbyist. In which case *shrug* he can just do as (s)he pleases. Though, I don't see what the big problem with encapsulation seems to be. It is kind of the whole point of having private and protected members in the first place.

Then why use classes to begin with? Encapsulation is kind of the point of the class functionality.

edit: If I would learn to read, then I would see you just said almost the same thing.

Naturally, and this is what I am just pointing it out.
And it is really no fun to have to fix a lot of code that breaks because you made a public variable private or made changes to how it is handled. That is why we tend to use encapsulation in the first place.

The power of Re-usability is awe inspiring. Ok, pointless post #1 of the day.

It made me laugh And do not worry about the not reading my post in its entirety. I call it my illiterate blond manuver. It has served me well these many years.