how to solve this error msg

Code:

---

const int MAX = 15;
int constructArray (int);


int main ()
{       
        int array[MAX], size, n=0;
        srand(time(NULL));
        size = constructArray(array);

}

int constructArray (int a[])
{
        int i,size;
        size = rand()%MAX;
        for (i=0;i<size;i++)
        {
                a[i] = rand()%100;
        }
        return size;
}

---

i got this error msg "error: invalid conversion from " int*" to "int" at this line
" size = constructArray(array); "

can anyone tell me what is wrong and how to solve it?

Your function prototype says that constructArray takes an int, but you're trying to give in an int[]. Your prototype needs to match reality -- in this case, reality is the actual function down below:

Code:

---

int constructArray (int a[]);

---

umm just a thought. if you set the size variable to rand()%MAX. then you will most likely only initialize some of the values not all of them.

Yes, all the variables in the array won't be initialized, which is bad. You need to think of a solution.
As for the prototypes, I suggest you match them exactly, including the actual name of the arguments, since some IDEs IntelliSense implementation takes the name of the arguments from the declarations.

you may also like to put a more descriptive parameter name in the declaration of the function
and a less descriptive one in the implementation. Doing so it will tell you more about the function with the intellisense code completion tool

Quote:

---

a more descriptive parameter name in the declaration of the function
and a less descriptive one in the implementation

---

Inconsistencies between declaration and definition are generally bad, no matter what kind. Put the descriptive name everywhere. The code maintainers will thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raigne

you may also like to put a more descriptive parameter name in the declaration of the function
and a less descriptive one in the implementation. Doing so it will tell you more about the function with the intellisense code completion tool

---

That is absolutely nonsense. Some intellisense tools will read the declaration, some will read the definition and when you browse the definitions, you'll find less descriptive names even worse.
And yet worse, you actually have to use those less descriptive names in your actual code. Even worse.
No, take CornedBee's advice. Always use descriptive names everywhere.

I am not trying to start an argument, but i believe all of us have reasonable points. I realize my method may be a little unusual, but nonetheless it works when used with the right IDE (MVC++2008). No im not saying my method is the best or if it is correct, but I don't think that it is

Quote:

---

That is absolutely nonsense.

---

That quoted phrase is nonsense. I think it should be up to the original programmer to decide their method of writing code.
I apologize for what may be considered as a flame. I just don't particularly enjoy being called stupid. Elysia you could of put your post in a more respectable manor.

[EDIT]
The reasoning for my saying that a less descriptive name in the implementation is so that (IF) you had to type the param name a lot you would not have to type as much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raigne

I apologize for what may be considered as a flame. I just don't particularly enjoy being called stupid. Elysia you could of put your post in a more respectable manor.

---

Please don't misunderstand. You aren't stupid. Your post was simply misguided. I may have used a too powerful word. If it makes you feel better, then I apologize.
However, your method is not to recommend since it makes the code more difficult to read instead of helping it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raigne

I think it should be up to the original programmer to decide their method of writing code.

---

I strongly disagree. A good, considerate programmer will be thinking of the programmers who will follow him/her in maintaining the code and write code that documents what it's doing clearly, whether it's through the use of judicious commenting and/or code that is self-descriptive.

I don't disagree entirely with Raigne. Naturally, the rule of thumb should be descriptive names everywhere. I tend to follow that rule (despite the fact I find myself changing my names often as I come up with better ones).

However, let's not forget function prototypes don't even need their arguments to be named. I've seen code where prototypes are simply declared with the types. I don't find this method entirely shocking.

However, if anything the advise should have been the other way around, Raigne. That is, more descriptive names in the definitions, since that's where the code goes.

Who doesn't simply copy the definition from the declaration or vice-versa anyway? This is one time where copy and paste is your friend!

Of course D does it better... :)