指向数组元素的指针，该元素显示内存地址而不是元素的值

Question

I am currently writing a program for a class that takes user input to either add or remove a number from a dynamic array, and then print all the values of the array in ascending order.

From what I have already researched, all I need to do to get the value of the element in the array to print is to ensure the dereference operator is inserted next to the pointer name. However, when done as below ( newArray[i]) I get a compile-time error saying that the operand to the right of the ' ' must be a pointer, even though newArray is declared as pointer at the beginning of the function.

void output(int *arrayPtr, int size){
int small;
int i, j;
int *newArray;
newArray = new int[size];

for (i = 0; i < size; i++){
    *newArray[i] = arrayPtr[i];
}

for (i = 0; i < size; i++){
    small = *newArray[i];
    for (j = 0; j < size; j++){
        if (*newArray[j] < small){
            *newArray[j] = small;
        }
        std::cout << small;
    }
    int number = small;
    removeNumber(*& arrayPtr, number, size);
}

}

I feel like there is something totally obvious I am missing, but I would greatly appreciate any help or ideas!!

Answer 1

 small = *newArray[i];

That should just be:

 small = newArray[i];

(Same thing in the other places you compare/assign *newArray[i]

What your first operation is doing is first dereferencing newArray, which means it gets the value of the first element in the array, and then attempting to index that. The element is not a pointer, so this of course fails. When you index, it also implicitly dereferences the pointer. You could also write:

small = *(newArray + i);

However, generally you only use pointer arithmetic when you need the actual pointer, since indexing is easier to read if you need the value.

Going through your code, a few other things seem off:

for (i = 0; i < size; i++){
    *newArray[i] = arrayPtr[i];
}

This might compile but I don't think it is right, I'm guessing you mean:

for (i = 0; i < size; i++){
    newArray[i] = arrayPtr[i];
}  

Also:

removeNumber(*& arrayPtr, number, size);

While this is technically correct, *& first returns a pointer reference, then turns around and dereferences it again. I wouldn't be surprised if the compiler optimizes it away anyway, but it is unnecessary.