|
The first line.
Your favorite style is worse, since you are using implicit casting and poor maintainable conventions.
I refer to MISRA-C 2004.
|
|
|
|
|
|
geoffs wrote: but it is a coding horror for my programming style and I am curious as to what the others here think about it.
As you said - it is a horror for your programming style. Different people use different styles, and as long as the code is correct and reasonably readable there is no point in discussing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: As you said - it is a horror for your programming style. Different people use different styles, and as long as the code is correct and reasonably readable there is no point in discussing it.
Are you serious?? Glad you're not in MY shop.
|
|
|
|
|
It's questionable. Depends on how much readability is necessary.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
"Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
|
|
|
|
|
I would have scoped it:
m_boolVar = (intVar != 0);
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I would have scoped it:
m_boolVar = (intVar != 0);
Yeah, I do this, too. This is VERY readable to someone with sufficient competency in C# to be trusted with the maintenance of production code. The scoops highlight the boolean expression and make it a one-glance read; without the scoops, it requires a bit more concentration, which can be exhausting if you have to spend that bit of concentration 300 times while reading a single source file.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's too trivial to fuss over.
|
|
|
|
|
dighn wrote: I think it's too trivial to fuss over.
If someone is wasting their time in writing such foolish expressions, and wasting my time by making me read it, it isn't trivial, not when I have to edit 200-300 lines of code before lunch.
|
|
|
|
|
i would go with:
m_boolVar = intVar ? true : false;
|
|
|
|
|
That would be invalid in C# or Java. Even in C/C++ I would always query against a Boolean expression for conceptual clarity.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Swinefeaster wrote: i would go with:
m_boolVar = intVar ? true : false;
That combines the worst of expression one with the worst of expression three.
|
|
|
|
|
I use the style of your second example though usually with brackets around the expression.
m_boolVar = (intVar != 0);
However, recently I've been moving towards dispensing with the brackets too, partly prompted by my refactoring tool.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer your coworkers style . In terms of efficiency i doubt if there is any significant difference unless this is getting called repeatedly , and it is much much easier to read and understand than m_boolVar = intVar != 0; as this requires you to think about precedence. Just becasue you understand it does not mean that the maintenance programmer will . But at the end of the day its a style question , and nothing divides programmers more than that .
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Torrance wrote: it is much much easier to read and understand than m_boolVar = intVar != 0; as this requires you to think about precedence.
If you have to think about precedence, you need to work on your skill set. I guarantee that if you were a junior I was mentoring, you wouldn't have to think about it by the time I got through with you.
|
|
|
|
|
Now that I've gotten this off of my chest, I can admit to myself that it really was more of a style issue rather than a coding horror as modern compilers would probably generate similar, if not same, code for any of the alternatives. I probably should have posted it to Soap Box or Lounge, but it is what it is at this point.
Thanks for all of your inputs. Some people agreed, some did not, and yet others were bored by the whole thing (in which case why did they even bother to reply?).
Meanwhile, my style is best...  
|
|
|
|
|
geoffs wrote: Now that I've gotten this off of my chest, I can admit to myself that it really was more of a style issue rather than a coding horror as modern compilers would probably generate similar, if not same, code for any of the alternatives. I probably should have posted it to Soap Box or Lounge, but it is what it is at this point.
Don't let the idiots beat on you. It's not style, it's a clear indicator of someone uncomfortable with the language. Perhaps this is a minor thing, but I despise working with people (a) who are uncomfortable working with their language, (b) and who don't work like heck to GET comfortable.
|
|
|
|
|
geoffs wrote: m_boolVar = !!intVar;
What is so perverse with that?
To those who understand, I extend my hand.
To the doubtful I demand: Take me as I am.
Not under your command, I know where I stand.
I won't change to fit yout plan. Take me as I am.
|
|
|
|
|
 Ah, a man after my own heart!
It is not perverse to me. In fact, I am quite at home with that syntax and like it. It is perverse because so many of my fellow programmers hate it and my use of it makes them froth at the mouth or sit there with a dumbfounded look because they don't understand what it is doing.
|
|
|
|
|
geoffs wrote: because they don't understand what it is doing
I hate people who use C to program in Java.
To those who understand, I extend my hand.
To the doubtful I demand: Take me as I am.
Not under your command, I know where I stand.
I won't change to fit yout plan. Take me as I am.
|
|
|
|
|
leonej_dt wrote: geoffs wrote:
m_boolVar = !!intVar;
What is so perverse with that?
Dependence on zero values being interpreted as false and non-zero as true is a particular feature of C-style languages. It confabulates boolean and integer types, which was OK in C (which has no native boolean type) but is highly inappropriate for any language that does support boolean.
|
|
|
|
|
cpkilekofp wrote: It confabulates boolean and integer types, which (...) is highly inappropriate for any language that does support boolean.
What is a boolean when the computer understand data in 8 bit chunks?
|
|
|
|
|
leonej_dt wrote: What is a boolean when the computer understand data in 8 bit chunks?
I know this is marked as a joke....but what IS the joke??
|
|
|
|
|
cpkilekofp wrote: but what IS the joke??
What's the need for such an abstraction as a "boolean"?
|
|
|
|
|
leonej_dt wrote: What's the need for such an abstraction as a "boolean"?
I should think it's obvious. Booleans represent either true or false, yes or no. "Is the door open? yes." Using a boolean type, you're guaranteed that the value of an instance of that type will be one of two choices, true or false. Any other questions?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
