|
bigdenny200 wrote: Can you give an explanation why is that good?
Don't tell him unless he knows the secret handshake
|
|
|
|
|
Hehe just in time....I was just about to reply! 
Mark Salsbery
Microsoft MVP - Visual C++
![Java | [Coffee]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
So where is the reply 
|
|
|
|
|
Heh. Where's the secret handshake.
This came up recently in a discussion here.
I actually argued that if I can see all the exit points in a function
easily then I don't mind. That doesn't mean it's good practice on my part.
Most (if not all) others that commented stated they prefer a single exit
point.
(The discussion was about nested "if"s versus multiple exit points.)
A problem occurs in changes later - any cleanup of new objects may
need to be done at every exit point. What if you miss one?
I looked at my code and found many places I used multiple returns
in a function. Mostly wordy initialization stuff like DirectX. Nested ifs
get too deep for my liking. I guess a goto to a common exit point
works, but who likes gotos? What's the alternative, a try block
using an exception handler as the common exit point? I dunno...
that's a glorified goto
Personally, in your posted code example, I thought the first one just looked
better and was easier to read. I have no need to save whitespace or to
minimize line count. I have plenty of harddisk space.
Mark
Mark Salsbery
Microsoft MVP - Visual C++
|
|
|
|
|
"..was easier to read. "
I agree with that.  .
// Not anymore ) After I looked at it once again
Just, for me the second looks more compact.
-- modified at 17:31 Thursday 4th October, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Salsbery wrote: A problem occurs in changes later - any cleanup of new objects may
need to be done at every exit point. What if you miss one?
I have no manditory rules on this, though I do try to have a single exit point for just those cleanup reasons, I do have multiple exit points for culling determination. For instance checking a sensor for operations:
sensor()
{
if outside range return;
if outside azimuth field of view return;
if outside elevation field of view return;
allocate variables;
process;
cleanup;
return;
}
in this case there are multipe exit points, but the idea is to reduce the processed data before the allocation of process overhead. Therefore the resources are reduced by the previous exit points, and only one exit point has to worry about cleanup. I consider that a single exit point. It could be rewritten as a single exit point:
sensor()
{
if (inside range && inside azimuth && inside elevation)
{
allocate variables;
process;
cleanup;
}
return;
}
but when the list of checks grows significantly inside the if statement it still becomes difficult to read. In the case of the sensor comparisons, there are more checks going on there I can't show, and the list did get too lengthy, so I used the culling paradigm instead. Even in debugging it is easier to follow than a single long if.
_________________________
Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau.
Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks L. That's cool and I like it.
What about something like this though....again I'll loosely use
Direct(whatever) as an example...
SetupDirect____()
{
create com object instance
if (succeeded)
create com object instance
if (succeeded)
create com object instance
if (succeeded)
...
}
If any creates fail, then all the previously created objects need to be released.
I always struggle on a good way to code this...
Thoughts, examples, advice?
Mark
Mark Salsbery
Microsoft MVP - Visual C++
![Java | [Coffee]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Salsbery wrote: Thoughts, examples, advice?
If each object is interdependant upon the creation of the later object then I have no other way of writing it. You are using the naturally stacked architecture of the compiler to build and release objects. Given I am self-taught, others may offer better solutons. Assuming no additional processing needs to be applied you simply write in the form of
setup()
{
create object1
if (success)
{
create object2
if (success)
{
.... (final statements evaluates total success)
}
cleanup object2
}
cleanup object1
return evaluaton of total success
}
the clincher is when the algorithm requires post processing before cleanup. evaluatng if/else for every single object is bulky and time-consuming, and looks too busy to follow. But I have a few of those monsters I am not proud of. I will admit it. Others I have stopped and said, "can I define this differently? can I redefine it sideways/backwards or however?" redefining the problem sometimes helps. Sorry, I can't help you there.
_________________________
Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau.
Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
|
|
|
|
|
bigdenny200 wrote:
What do you think ?
I think...that the compiler (probably) couldn't care less.
"A good athlete is the result of a good and worthy opponent." - David Crow
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
|
|
|
|
|
David, I didnt ask from the compiler point of view
|
|
|
|
|
But I responded as such. I've seen way too many people get all hung up on how pretty/tight the code looks, or how efficient they *think* it is, when it matters not one iota. Trimming a few variables/statements from an already small function just screams of wasted time. Unless a profiler was used to gather actual metrics, there's really no use in doing it.
"A good athlete is the result of a good and worthy opponent." - David Crow
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
|
|
|
|
|
I totally, completely despise putting the { on the same line as the if/while/whatever. That makes it very hard to find matching braces when you're skimming through code. The { and } absolutely must be in the same column.
|
|
|
|
|
That was part of my modification as well
And I agree totally, with {} being in the same column.
|
|
|
|
|
This is an old debate and is a matter of preference or company policy.
I prefer and use the option 2, because I find it easier to read and I like to be consistent with my placement of braces.
Once upon a time I used option 1, but that was when programming in C. Now days with C++ and now .NET, the length of the lines are harder to control. I do not like to have to search for the starting brace, because it interferes with my flow of thought. Life is complicated enough as it is.
INTP
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence."Edsger Dijkstra
|
|
|
|
|
I'm late getting in, but I just now read it.
Two viewpoints:
First: Scanning code, looking for a quick idea of what's happening. In this context, definitely the second format. Without spending 15 seconds to readjust my glasses, and beginning to mentally parse thru each symbol in the function, I couldn't make heads or tails of the first format.
Second: When you KNOW this function has an issue, and you simply MUST trace thru it. Then perhaps the first format, although I didn't get that deep. I stopped after 15 seconds (since I'm not getting paid for looking thru that code).
I TRY to write code knowing that non-programmers (but smart folk nonetheless) will be picking thru my code at some point in the future, and I try to write as literarily as possible. Non-literary symbols (the standard C++ operators like &, *, ::, etc.) can make the code difficult to read, even for me, and I do this stuff 8 hours/day!
By the way; excellent discussion on exit points. Thanks to the contributors.
David
|
|
|
|
|
Hi frnds,
Im trying to get the handle of the active window...to take the image of it...
the problem is that the window is in other process...and GetActiveWindow() gets the window of current thread...since both are different threads the above fn is not working...
guide me in this matter...
|
|
|
|
|
What about GetForegroundWindow()?
Mark
Mark Salsbery
Microsoft MVP - Visual C++
|
|
|
|
|
Thankx a lot Mark... that worked for a bit...
The prob with ForGr..() is tht if we open any other window while this is code is running...then screenshot is changed cos it takes the picture of the window with which the user is interacting at that moment...
I'll explain my scenario a bit...
Im opening an application from my code...then that application is run and tht app will create a dialog...until the dialog is destroyed the control doesnt return to the next line of code...so im creating another thread and taking the screen shot...
GetActiveWindow() returns the handle of the window of the present thread but i want the handle to the window of another thread...
i got a start in this dir...
i used GetWindowThreadProcessId() to get the threadID and used GetGUIThreadInfo() to get the handle for the window...
but i got got stuck here...its throwing a external link error...
can u guide me in this...
Inder... 
|
|
|
|
|
dudedotnet wrote: its throwing a external link error...
What specific error?
Mark Salsbery
Microsoft MVP - Visual C++
|
|
|
|
|
error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _GetGUIThreadInfo
|
|
|
|
|
Is your project configured as a win32 or MFC app?
I'm not sure why it wouldn't link - user32.lib is the import library.
Mark
Mark Salsbery
Microsoft MVP - Visual C++
|
|
|
|
|
configured as win32 application
|
|
|
|
|
Hi
I have access to a CAD program that allows me to insert an ActiveX Control into its main window.
I wish to insert a TreeView, but fail to find any good ActiveX Control TreeViews. My idea is then to use the System.Windows.Forms.TreeView from the .NET framework. Is that readily usable as an ActiveX control, somehow?
I, of course, need to be able to change the content of the tree as well as receiving event from the tree. Everything is programmed in C++ using Visual Studio 2005.
I can see that I can create a wrapper for any .NET control using COM Callable Wrappers and REGASM, but if this is really necessary then surely someone must have done this before me!
Please advise. What is the easiest way to handle this problem.
Thanks
LG
---
See news at: www.dzone.com
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I would like to know if there is a way to switch windows focus to another application thats already running from a current application?? For example, I have two MFC applications (each application uses up one screen of the two screens connected to the system) running on a system, I spend most of the time running one of those applications, but occasionally I wanna do a quick click on another application, I dont want to waste time to drag mouse and check where the button on the other application is to click on it.
So is there a way to achieve this??
-Pavan
PKNT
|
|
|
|
|
Kiran Satish wrote: I would like to know if there is a way to switch windows focus to another application thats already running from a current application??
SetForegroundWindow()?
Kiran Satish wrote: but occasionally I wanna do a quick click on another application
That's different than just setting the focus to another application.
Do you want to click a button in another app remotely?
Mark
Mark Salsbery
Microsoft MVP - Visual C++
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
