|
Found in legacy code...
Dim startbit As Integer = ((6 * data.i) + (3 * data.j) + 16)
startbit = Math.Ceiling(startbit / 16) * 16
If startbit Mod 16 <> 0 Then Throw New Exception("you don't know how to round")
 Always check what computer is doing
|
|
|
|
|
notmasteryet wrote: startbit = Math.Ceiling(startbit / 16) * 16
Typical and terrible VB approach. :/
Greetings - Gajatko
Portable.NET is part of DotGNU, a project to build a complete Free Software replacement for .NET - a system that truly belongs to the developers.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a coding rule - avoid "return" somewhere in the middle of a method, try using local variables to compensate instead. Observing this leads to the following (seen in existing code):
if(flagA)
{
if(flagB)
{
if(flagC)
{
if(PromtUser())
{
DoSomething();
}
else
{
DoOtherThing();
}
}
else
{
DoOtherThing();
}
}
else
{
DoOtherThing();
}
}
else
{
DoOtherThing();
}
How I would have written this is:
if(flagA)
{
if(flagB)
{
if(flagC)
{
if(PromptUser())
{
return;
}
}
}
}
DoOtherThing();
I was wondering how you guys feel about it?
Thanks,
Georgi
|
|
|
|
|
You forgot to execute DoSomething() in your second example. That aside...
I don't necessarily dislike "return in the middle." But I expect early returns to be an error condition (i.e. invalid parameter, resource not obtained, etc) to keep the method from continuing. In your example, the early return seems to be the normal, successful condition and that makes me uncomfortable.
So looking at your code samples... Definitely not the first example. If you ever want to add more logic around DoOtherThing(), you've essentially "cut-and-pasted" your code all over the place (a big no-no).
There are a lot of conditions where DoOtherThing() would be executed. According to your logic, if each process (A, B, and C) passes, ask the user if they want to DoSomething(). If user says "no" or any of the processes fail, then DoOtherThing().
To make my intentions clear, I would try and write the logic exactly as I would describe it (of course, the variables would be more "English-Like" if I knew their purpose). Maybe something like this:
bool DoSomethingNeeded = false;
if (FlagA && FlagB && FlagC)
{
DoSomthingNeeded = PromptUser();
}
if (DoSomethingNeeded)
{
DoSomething();
}
else
{
DoOtherThing();
}
return;
|
|
|
|
|
That is pretty much what I do or just break up the function into smaller parts if there are too many levels of conditionals.
John
|
|
|
|
|
if ( flagA && flagB && flagC && PromptUser() )
{
DoSomething();
}
else
{
DoOtherThing();
}
return ;
Keep in mind that the && operator is short-circuit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
According those many sites, C and C++ do use short-circuiting. As a well-defined part of the language standard. Which means that it's fine to reply on, as long as you feel it won't impact readability.
Java also seems to behave differently from what you said:
http://www.student.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~cs132/Weekly/W02/SCBooleans.html[^]
And anyway, it's very pointless to put extra boolean operators (&&, ||) in a language without defining them to be short-circuiting. There are | and & already, and if there is no short-circuiting they'd be the same.
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: Java also seems to behave differently from what you said:
I think you are right. I was looking at this section[^] of the Java language specification:
15.7.2 Evaluate Operands before Operation<br />
The Java programming language also guarantees that every operand of an operator (except the conditional operators &&, ||, and ? : ) appears to be fully evaluated before any part of the operation itself is performed.
They do explicitly exempt the logical operators. Let's hope that && is not overloaded -- in C++ at least -- then short circuiting does not apply.
Then I was reading this on C++ Sequence Points[^]. It says that "the left operand of the logical AND operator is completely evaluated and all side effects completed before continuing. There is no guarantee that the right operand of the logical AND operator will be evaluated.
Of course, it doesn't say that is guaranteed not to be evaluated, either.
Then it says this: "The controlling expression in a selection (if or switch) statement. The expression is completely evaluated and all side effects completed before the code dependent on the selection is executed."
So, who knows. My conclusion would be that a C/C++ compiler is indeed supposed to do left-right evaluation and short circuiting.
But I still say it's irrelevant. If I have to hunt that hard to get down into the bowels of how a compiler works to determine how my code will execute, I say it's a bad programming practice.
I'll take these guys word for it:
...The moral is that writing code that depends on order of evaluation is a bad programming practice in any language. Naturally, it is necessary to know what things to avoid, but if you don't know how they are done on various machines, you won't be tempted to take advantage of a particular implementation. -- The C Programming Language[^], Kernighan & Ritchie, p. 49.
Enjoy,
Robert C. Cartaino
|
|
|
|
|
Ah good ol' C and C++ with their lack of guarantees
Now that is a real horror 
|
|
|
|
|
From the ANSI C99 spec I have:
"
6.5.13-4
Unlike the bitwise & operator, the && operator guarantees left-to-right evaluation; there is a sequence point after the evaluation of the first operand. If the first operand compares equal to 0, the second operand is not evaluated.
"
Even Ritchie's C manual from 1974 says it's left-to-right. (It appears that B does not have these operators.)
In the K&R book, they're talking about a[i]=i++, not the && operator, plus that's a very old book.
You may certainly go right ahead and write code any way you like... I do.
|
|
|
|
|
Robert.C.Cartaino wrote: I think C++ has an "undefined order of evaluation".
C and C++ are both strict left to right evaluation order for logical operators, and always use short-circuiting. It allows constructs such as
void* p = GetPointer();
if (p != NULL && p->SomeMethod()
....
p->SomeMethod() will only be called if p is not NULL
|
|
|
|
|
see this[^]
"
&& Operator (C# Reference)
The conditional-AND operator (&& ) performs a logical-AND of its bool operands, but only evaluates its second operand if necessary.
"
"
x && y
if x is false, y is not evaluated (because the result of the AND operation is false no matter what the value of y may be). This is known as "short-circuit" evaluation.
"
Any language that doesn't do it that way is not a "real" programming language.
|
|
|
|
|
Robert.C.Cartaino wrote: Writing code that depends on order of evaluation is bad programming practice
If order of evaluation is not defined by the specification of the language, which is not true for logical operators in C/C++.
According to your statement one should not write something like this:
if( node && node->value )
node->value->Do();
Instead you need to have another if for this simple operation even if the previous example is perfectly legal and clean and the desired behavior is guaranteed by the language specification. Well I guess that the only bad programming practice here is that someone introduces unneeded code because he doesn't trust/know language.
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed. And should we question the order/precedence of the other operators as well?
Can we trust 3 + 4 * 5 to return 23? or might it return 35 once in a while?
I'm all for adding parentheses for clarity, but I don't get that confused with necessity.
|
|
|
|
|
You are depending on the order of evaluation of your if-statement for your logic to work. Will the PromptUser() operand be evaluated before the entire set of && operations are performed? I think C++ has an "undefined order of evaluation". Who knows. It should be irrelevant. Writing code that depends on order of evaluation is bad programming practice, regardless of language.
Sorry, but not knowing how your programming language works is bad practice (operator priority is very important in every language!). And depending on the order of your evaluations is the usual case in real world programming-logic. (I think you are mixing up here with the | and & operators and something a teacher told you once...).
I think C++ has an "undefined order of evaluation". Who knows
No - and I!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
The second certainly looks cleaner; but sometimes you need to do cleanup (dispose objects, free memory, release handles, etc.) before exiting a function / method. If you add code later that needs cleanup, and already coded the second way, you'll have a lot to change... in addition, code that is already out there running stable is more valuable than new code, since you risk introducing bugs by changing from your second example back to the first. So I'd definitely go for the first - good habits breed consistency.
|
|
|
|
|
I've got to say, i don't agree with that rule.
I will aim to return out the function either very early, or at the end. Trivial conditions should be treated as such, and I'd rather they returned at the top, than add a unnecessary level of nested bracers.
I have seen the result of blindly following that practice to it's conclusion - a mountain of if / else statements with embedded switches that was 12 deep in places. I would rather see:
<br />
<br />
if (guardCondition1)<br />
return guard1Default;<br />
<br />
if (guardCondition2)<br />
return guard2Default;<br />
<br />
if (guardCondition3)<br />
return guard3Default;<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
return result;<br />
<br />
That said, throwing return statements in without any real eye on program flow can cause just as many problems.
Regards
Tris
-------------------------------
Carrier Bags - 21st Century Tumbleweed.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe WF fit such situation
The God created the world.
The programer made the world easy.
|
|
|
|
|
I completely agree with your sentiment. But in this specific example, it looks like processes generating FlagA, FlagB, and FlagC should always execute, regardless of whether any of the previous processes fail. Your guardConditionals don't allow for that.
|
|
|
|
|
Having been brought up on 'Structured Programming' I used to think that one-entry and one-exit point was the only way to write procedures.
Now I'm in favour of your approach - i.e. use guard conditions and exit early if need be. Oh and keep the procedure small, roughly no more than can fit on an A4 page.
One example of how not to do it that I came across was a C++ function that had around 500 lines of code with about 15 returns scattered throughout. It also had a couple of places where it could throw an exception!
David Rice
|
|
|
|
|
Having one return statement is still a worthwhile goal.
You just have to look at it both ways and decide which is "better" in each individual case.
I don't recall encountering any situations that required multiple return statements.
|
|
|
|
|
You can't make a rule like that because there is no one correct rule that works for every single function you're going to write in your life. Well, you can make the rule, but doing so will be counter-productive. Why create a state machine with local variables in a function (and don't forget to test every possible state!), just to avoid using a perfectly valid language feature?
|
|
|
|
|
it all depends on how much coffe i've had for the day...
do or do not, there is no try
|
|
|
|
|
Drinking coffee leads to good code. Drinking "energy drinks" leads to poor code.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
