| Yeah this was the comment I was coming to look for. I saw a couple sentences that made me go "hmm" but the one that I copied into my clipboard to post about was: "Arrays, however, have a property called length, which can be queried to get the number of elements in the specified array." This is not correct and causes bugs. Length is the length of the array, not the number of elements within it. Maybe the author understands this, but precision of language is important here and as-written this is either ambiguous at best or incorrect at worst. Also the entire section for "Array size and the concept of arrays of arrays" is terribly confused. Again I'm not sure if this is imprecise use of language or if the author is truly this confused about the topic, but: "As you can see, what you have is truly three arrays, working together to create the equivalent of a three-dimensional array." No, in the naive case of "new int[M][N][10]" you have 1 + M + MN arrays. And if you are working with only the type int[][][], just checking arr.length, arr[0].length, and arr[0][0].length will not give the the dimensions of the 3d array - any of the arrays can be of any length (the length of the array is not part of the type system). And I feel like I'm not nitpicking here - note some algorithms, like DP ones for instance, only use a "diagonal" half of a 2d array and allocating the other half would be wasted space. So it's very possible you'll encounter such non-trivially-shaped 2 and 3D arrays in practice. "Here’s an interesting question: What would happen in a multidimensional array if one of the dimensions were declared with a size of 0? For example, strangePoints = new int[3][4][0][2]" This was a TIL to me though, I'm kind of surprised this doesn't throw at runtime? But also, I suppose, not surprised. It's weird because, is int[3][4][0][2] really* an int[][][][]? I guess it's not not an int[][][][] but it's also kind of weird that it is. I guarantee this has caused a bug at some point. This would be a cursed interview question. |