|
That really is the best explanation of the proliferation of programming languages.
|
|
|
|
|
The first result returned by a search for my WizardWrx.Core NuGet package was https://nugetmusthaves.com/Tag/Constants, which listed the library in question, along with another that contains even more constants, as "must-have" packages. Since I did nothing to seek out this attention, it was a very pleasant surprise.
The surprise here is that they ranked the WizardWrx.Core package ahead of WizardWrx.Constants, which defines far more constants. Perhaps that is because there is so much general purpose code in the former, in addition to the constants. Regardless, it was an unexpected discovery that they were ranked 1 and 2.
David A. Gray
Delivering Solutions for the Ages, One Problem at a Time
Interpreting the Fundamental Principle of Tabular Reporting
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty little piece of code I inherited. I deleted code out of the try, the real point was the catch... that code is verbatim.
// create vector of file types so we can reorder the list from newest to oldest
try
{
}
catch(...)
{
}
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
Still better than
int main() {
begin:
try {
}
catch(...) {
goto begin;
}
return 0;
} 
PS - Enjoy the cleanup on aisle one, two, three, four...!
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: goto
Blech. I'm sure someone will douse me with an accelerant and light me up for this, but the only time I've felt justified in using goto over the last umpteen years of my career has been in embedded assembly language code via jmp instructions of one flavor or another.
If you're using any kind of higher-level language that supports structured programming, the ease of misusing goto far outweighs it's utility. After writing millions of lines of FORTRAN, Ada, Pascal, LISP, PL/I, C, C++, and C# I've never written code using a goto that wasn't simpler, more robust, and easier to follow when written structured.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
To me, this is cleaner than the alternative. I'm certain many will disagree, but this matches my thought process, and eliminating the gotos requires more indentation levels (which I despise) and thinking time. And if it doesn't require more indentation levels, it still requires more time! I agree with not using gotos often.
void Repeater::createRepeatedObjs() {
if (!createdObjsC.empty()) throw dwl::Exception(_T("Delete created objs prior to "
"creation"));
app::ObjMap & holder = appC.objMap();
holder.setPtrPos(s_cast<OBJECT_TIME>(0));
object::BaseObj * obj;
object::BaseObj * objToCopy;
while ((obj = holder.objAtPtr()) && obj != nullptr && obj->time() < endTimeC) {
if (obj->time() < timeC) goto breakout;
for (size_t i=1, count=numRepeatsC; i<=count; ++i) {
object::BaseObj::Type type = obj->type();
if (type == object::BaseObj::Type::TypeOne) {
object::TypeOne * typeOne = s_cast<object::TypeOne *>(obj);
object::ObjParent * parent = s_cast<object::ObjParent*>(typeOne->parent());
if (parent) objToCopy = parent;
else objToCopy = typeOne;
}
else if (type == object::BaseObj::Type::TypeTwo) goto breakout;
else if (type == object::BaseObj::Type::TypeThree) goto breakout;
else objToCopy = obj;
if (objToCopy->copyOf()) goto breakout;
std::unique_ptr<object::BaseObj> newObj = objToCopy->copyToTick(objToCopy->time() +
durationC * i);
if (newObj->type() == object::BaseObj::Type::ObjParent) {
s_cast<object::ObjParent*>(newObj.get())->typeOne().copyOf((object::BaseObj*)1);
s_cast<object::ObjParent*>(newObj.get())->noteOff().copyOf((object::BaseObj*)1);
}
createdObjsC.push_back(newObj.get());
newObj.release();
}
breakout:
holder.incObjPtr();
}
}
Forcing it into your way, I believe it becomes:
void Repeater::createRepeatedObjs() {
if (!createdObjsC.empty()) throw dwl::Exception(_T("Delete created objs prior to "
"creation"));
app::ObjMap & holder = appC.objMap();
holder.setPtrPos(s_cast<OBJECT_TIME>(0));
object::BaseObj * obj;
object::BaseObj * objToCopy;
while ((obj = holder.objAtPtr()) && obj != nullptr && obj->time() < endTimeC) {
if (obj->time() < timeC) goto breakout;
for (size_t i=1, count=numRepeatsC; i<=count; ++i) {
object::BaseObj::Type type = obj->type();
if (!(type == object::BaseObj::Type::TypeTwo ||
type == object::BaseObj::Type::TypeThree)) {
if (type == object::BaseObj::Type::TypeOne) {
object::TypeOne * typeOne = s_cast<object::TypeOne *>(obj);
object::ObjParent * parent = s_cast<object::ObjParent*>(typeOne->parent());
if (parent) objToCopy = parent;
else objToCopy = typeOne;
}
else objToCopy = obj;
}
if (!(objToCopy->copyOf())) {
std::unique_ptr<object::BaseObj> newObj = objToCopy->copyToTick(objToCopy->time() +
durationC * i);
if (newObj->type() == object::BaseObj::Type::ObjParent) {
s_cast<object::ObjParent*>(newObj.get())->typeOne().copyOf((object::BaseObj*)1);
s_cast<object::ObjParent*>(newObj.get())->noteOff().copyOf((object::BaseObj*)1);
}
createdObjsC.push_back(newObj.get());
newObj.release();
}
}
holder.incObjPtr();
}
}That is much uglier to me, especially with the !.
modified 31-May-19 23:50pm.
|
|
|
|
|
not that I'm really arguing, but it looks like your code base between example 1 and 2 have the same level of complexity. And why use a goto to leave the loop when a break would work just fine? Maybe it's just the example.
My point in the original is that I have try/catch pairs all through the code, and nothing is done in the catch. No logging, no recovery, no ASSERTS, I mean nothing. If you're not going to handle the exception, just remove the try and let it crater 
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
The gotos don't break out of the loop, so a break won't keep the same flow. I should have named breakout something like skipProcessingTo, but the breakout nomenclature comes to my mind naturally.
I believe they are equivalent, except for the extra indentation level which I don't like, and the
if (!(type == object::BaseObj::Type::TypeTwo ||
type == object::BaseObj::Type::TypeThree)) {
which I despise. The ! / || construct flips my brain upside down, vs the other way which is clear.
I did not notice the 'verbatim' part. At least they gave you a template to fill in! 
Their comment indicates they possibly once meant to do something. Copy/paste at its finest! Have fun making it better!
|
|
|
|
|
Ha! I missed that last bracket. My bad.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: The ! / || construct flips my brain upside down, vs the other way which is clear.
I'm not familiar with C(++), but can't your if be rewritten as:
if (type != TypeTwo && type != TypeThree) 
And do you even need it at all?
Simply checking for TypeOne should suffice as you do absolutely nothing in case of TypeTwo or TypeThree...
if (type == TypeOne) {
}
holder.incObjPtr();Or maybe I'm wrong, but your example is mostly hard to read because indentation is way off
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: ...can't your if be rewritten as:
Possibly. It works, though, so I will leave it for now!
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I'm not familiar with C(++), but can't your if be rewritten as:
if (type != TypeTwo && type != TypeThree)
Yes, that is part of De Morgan's laws.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Somewhat recently I have found one genuine use for goto (in C# at least).
switch(someEnum)
{
case SomeEnum.FirstCase:
break;
case SomeEnum.SecondCase:
break;
default: goto case SomeEnum.FirstCase;
}
|
|
|
|
|
Really? Why not:
switch (someEnum)
{
case SomeEnum.SecondCase:
break;
default:
break;
} Exactly the same behaviour, with no need to use goto in your code.
(Of course, the generated IL will probably still use the equivalent of goto behind the scenes.)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, I haven't seen a goto since the last time I opened up some very, very, very old FORTRAN code.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
|
I used to have a developer who did his try/catch routine like this, thinking that as exceptions were caught "in the wild", he would fill in his catch clause. I had to show him that if he left his catch clauses open, none of the exceptions would be handled.
At the very lease, rethrow the original exception. The most effective method I've used is to go through all your activities in the try clause and look for all the different exceptions you are capable of throwing, and then trap those exceptions one at a time and recast the exception with a more descriptive message with any relevant values and capture the original exception as an inner exception so you don't lose the stack trace. And finish it with a catch-all.
It's a paranoid way of writing your catch clause, but OMG my operations guys were the first converts because they didn't have to go through the stack trace and data dumps...it's all right there in the message. It also makes for very effective unit tests too, since you can predict just every aspect of where the routine could break rather than some obtuse unhandled null reference exception.
|
|
|
|
|
error checking is hard, especially in embedded systems. in 14 years of development, I have not yet heard of a cogent approach to how to fail creatively. That said, the *minimum* error handling should be a log message saying "you're f****" and why . Hopefully with some minimal thought, you can come up with a recovery approach...
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
I dreamed I got the source code for my life, but forgot to check for errors and my entire life is a major debugging process.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
Life is like a game of chess.
I don't know chess.
|
|
|
|
|
So you want to play catch?
?Maybe I should try throwing again?
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
bool flags[2];
if ( (flags[0] == true) ||
(flags[1] == true) )
{
if ( (flags[0] == TRUE) ||
(flags[1] == TRUE) )
{
}
}  I just found this in some code I have to extend to support a new feature. I wonder if Mike Rowe[^] knows C++...
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
One can never be too sure
noop()
|
|
|
|
|
Check them in the outer...then checks them in the inner??? 
Sheer Poetry He's checkin' his flags,
he's checkin' them twice.
He knows if them flags
have been naughty or nice!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, and the flags aren't changed anywhere inside the intervening 'logic'.
Not only does he compare a bool to true, he also compares it to the Windows-defined TRUE as well, which is not really the same thing.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
