Related
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Okay, we know that the following two lines are equivalent -
(0 == i)
(i == 0)
Also, the first method was encouraged in the past because that would have allowed the compiler to give an error message if you accidentally used '=' instead of '=='.
My question is - in today's generation of pretty slick IDE's and intelligent compilers, do you still recommend the first method?
In particular, this question popped into my mind when I saw the following code -
if(DialogResult.OK == MessageBox.Show("Message")) ...
In my opinion, I would never recommend the above. Any second opinions?
I prefer the second one, (i == 0), because it feel much more natural when reading it. You ask people, "Are you 21 or older?", not, "Is 21 less than or equal to your age?"
It doesn't matter in C# if you put the variable first or last, because assignments don't evaluate to a bool (or something castable to bool) so the compiler catches any errors like "if (i = 0) EntireCompanyData.Delete()"
So, in the C# world at least, its a matter of style rather than desperation. And putting the variable last is unnatural to english speakers. Therefore, for more readable code, variable first.
If you have a list of ifs that can't be represented well by a switch (because of a language limitation, maybe), then I'd rather see:
if (InterstingValue1 == foo) { } else
if (InterstingValue2 == foo) { } else
if (InterstingValue3 == foo) { }
because it allows you to quickly see which are the important values you need to check.
In particular, in Java I find it useful to do:
if ("SomeValue".equals(someString)) {
}
because someString may be null, and in this way you'll never get a NullPointerException. The same applies if you are comparing constants that you know will never be null against objects that may be null.
(0 == i)
I will always pick this one. It is true that most compilers today do not allow the assigment of a variable in a conditional statement, but the truth is that some do. In programming for the web today, I have to use myriad of langauges on a system. By using 0 == i, I always know that the conditional statement will be correct, and I am not relying on the compiler/interpreter to catch my mistake for me. Now if I have to jump from C# to C++, or JavaScript I know that I am not going to have to track down assignment errors in conditional statements in my code. For something this small and to have it save that amount of time, it's a no brainer.
I used to be convinced that the more readable option (i == 0) was the better way to go with.
Then we had a production bug slip through (not mine thankfully), where the problem was a ($var = SOME_CONSTANT) type bug. Clients started getting email that was meant for other clients. Sensitive type data as well.
You can argue that Q/A should have caught it, but they didn't, that's a different story.
Since that day I've always pushed for the (0 == i) version. It basically removes the problem. It feels unnatural, so you pay attention, so you don't make the mistake. There's simply no way to get it wrong here.
It's also a lot easier to catch that someone didn't reverse the if statement in a code review than it is that someone accidentally assigned a value in an if. If the format is part of the coding standards, people look for it. People don't typically debug code during code reviews, and the eye seems to scan over a (i = 0) vs an (i == 0).
I'm also a much bigger fan of the java "Constant String".equals(dynamicString), no null pointer exceptions is a good thing.
You know, I always use the if (i == 0) format of the conditional and my reason for doing this is that I write most of my code in C# (which would flag the other one anyway) and I do a test-first approach to my development and my tests would generally catch this mistake anyhow.
I've worked in shops where they tried to enforce the 0==i format but I found it awkward to write, awkward to remember and it simply ended up being fodder for the code reviewers who were looking for low-hanging fruit.
Actually, the DialogResult example is a place where I WOULD recommend that style. It places the important part of the if() toward the left were it can be seen. If it's is on the right and the MessageBox have more parameters (which is likely), you might have to scroll right to see it.
OTOH, I never saw much use in the "(0 == i) " style. If you could remember to put the constant first, you can remember to use two equals signs,
I'm trying always use 1st case (0==i), and this saved my life a few times!
I think it's just a matter of style. And it does help with accidentally using assignment operator.
I absolutely wouldn't ask the programmer to grow up though.
I prefer (i == 0), but I still sort of make a "rule" for myself to do (0 == i), and then break it every time.
"Eh?", you think.
Well, if I'm making a concious decision to put an lvalue on the left, then I'm paying enough attention to what I'm typing to notice if I type "=" for "==". I hope. In C/C++ I generally use -Wall for my own code, which generates a warning on gcc for most "=" for "==" errors anyway. I don't recall seeing that warning recently, perhaps because the longer I program the more reflexively paranoid I am about errors I've made before...
if(DialogResult.OK == MessageBox.Show("Message"))
seems misguided to me. The point of the trick is to avoid accidentally assigning to something.
But who is to say whether DialogResult.OK is more, or less likely to evaluate to an assignable type than MessageBox.Show("Message")? In Java a method call can't possibly be assignable, whereas a field might not be final. So if you're worried about typing = for ==, it should actually be the other way around in Java for this example. In C++ either, neither or both could be assignable.
(0==i) is only useful because you know for absolute certain that a numeric literal is never assignable, whereas i just might be.
When both sides of your comparison are assignable you can't protect yourself from accidental assignment in this way, and that goes for when you don't know which is assignable without looking it up. There's no magic trick that says "if you put them the counter-intuitive way around, you'll be safe". Although I suppose it draws attention to the issue, in the same way as my "always break the rule" rule.
I use (i == 0) for the simple reason that it reads better. It makes a very smooth flow in my head. When you read through the code back to yourself for debugging or other purposes, it simply flows like reading a book and just makes more sense.
My company has just dropped the requirement to do if (0 == i) from its coding standards. I can see how it makes a lot of sense but in practice it just seems backwards. It is a bit of a shame that by default a C compiler probably won't give you a warning about if (i = 0).
Third option - disallow assignment inside conditionals entirely:
In high reliability situations, you are not allowed (without good explanation in the comments preceeding) to assign a variable in a conditional statement - it eliminates this question entirely because you either turn it off at the compiler or with LINT and only under very controlled situations are you allowed to use it.
Keep in mind that generally the same code is generated whether the assignment occurs inside the conditional or outside - it's simply a shortcut to reduce the number of lines of code. There are always exceptions to the rule, but it never has to be in the conditional - you can always write your way out of that if you need to.
So another option is merely to disallow such statements, and where needed use the comments to turn off the LINT checking for this common error.
-Adam
I'd say that (i == 0) would sound more natural if you attempted to phrase a line in plain (and ambiguous) english. It really depends on the coding style of the programmer or the standards they are required to adhere to though.
Personally I don't like (1) and always do (2), however that reverses for readability when dealing with dialog boxes and other methods that can be extra long. It doesn't look bad how it is not, but if you expand out the MessageBox to it's full length. You have to scroll all the way right to figure out what kind of result you are returning.
So while I agree with your assertions of the simplistic comparison of value types, I don't necessarily think it should be the rule for things like message boxes.
both are equal, though i would prefer the 0==i variant slightly.
when comparing strings, it is more error-prone to compare "MyString".equals(getDynamicString())
since, getDynamicString() might return null.
to be more conststent, write 0==i
Well, it depends on the language and the compiler in question. Context is everything.
In Java and C#, the "assignment instead of comparison" typo ends up with invalid code apart from the very rare situation where you're comparing two Boolean values.
I can understand why one might want to use the "safe" form in C/C++ - but frankly, most C/C++ compilers will warn you if you make the typo anyway. If you're using a compiler which doesn't, you should ask yourself why :)
The second form (variable then constant) is more readable in my view - so anywhere that it's definitely not going to cause a problem, I use it.
Rule 0 for all coding standards should be "write code that can be read easily by another human." For that reason I go with (most-rapidly-changing value) test-against (less-rapidly-changing-value, or constant), i.e "i == 0" in this case.
Even where this technique is useful, the rule should be "avoid putting an lvalue on the left of the comparison", rather than the "always put any constant on the left", which is how it's usually interpreted - for example, there is nothing to be gained from writing
if (DateClass.SATURDAY == dateObject.getDayOfWeek())
if getDayOfWeek() is returning a constant (and therefore not an lvalue) anyway!
I'm lucky (in this respect, at least) in that these days in that I'm mostly coding in Java and, as has been mentioned, if (someInt = 0) won't compile.
The caveat about comparing two booleans is a bit of a red-herring, as most of the time you're either comparing two boolean variables (in which case swapping them round doesn't help) or testing whether a flag is set, and woe-betide-you if I catch you comparing anything explicitly with true or false in your conditionals! Grrrr!
In C, yes, but you should already have turned on all warnings and be compiling warning-free, and many C compilers will help you avoid the problem.
I rarely see much benefit from a readability POV.
Code readability is one of the most important things for code larger than a few hundred lines, and definitely i == 0 reads much easier than the reverse
Maybe not an answer to your question.
I try to use === (checking for identical) instead of equality. This way no type conversion is done and it forces the programmer do make sure the right type is passed,
You are right that placing the important component first helps readability, as readers tend to browse the left column primarily, and putting important information there helps ensure it will be noticed.
However, never talk down to a co-worker, and implying that would be your action even in jest will not get you high marks here.
I always go with the second method. In C#, writing
if (i = 0) {
}
results in a compiler error (cannot convert int to bool) anyway, so that you could make a mistake is not actually an issue. If you test a bool, the compiler is still issuing a warning and you shouldn't compare a bool to true or false. Now you know why.
I personally prefer the use of variable-operand-value format in part because I have been using it so long that it feels "natural" and in part because it seems to the predominate convention. There are some languages that make use of assignment statements such as the following:
:1 -> x
So in the context of those languages it can become quite confusing to see the following even if it is valid:
:if(1=x)
So that is something to consider as well. I do agree with the message box response being one scenario where using a value-operand-variable format works better from a readability stand point, but if you are looking for constancy then you should forgo its use.
This is one of my biggest pet peeves. There is no reason to decrease code readability (if (0 == i), what? how can the value of 0 change?) to catch something that any C compiler written in the last twenty years can catch automatically.
Yes, I know, most C and C++ compilers don't turn this on by default. Look up the proper switch to turn it on. There is no excuse for not knowing your tools.
It really gets on my nerves when I see it creeping into other languages (C#,Python) which would normally flag it anyway!
I believe the only factor to ever force one over the other is if the tool chain does not provide warnings to catch assignments in expressions. My preference as a developer is irrelevant. An expression is better served by presenting business logic clearly. If (0 == i) is more suitable than (i == 0) I will choose it. If not I will choose the other.
Many constants in expressions are represented by symbolic names. Some style guides also limit the parts of speech that can be used for identifiers. I use these as a guide to help shape how the expression reads. If the resulting expression reads loosely like pseudo code then I'm usually satisfied. I just let the expression express itself and If I'm wrong it'll usually get caught in a peer review.
We might go on and on about how good our IDEs have gotten, but I'm still shocked by the number of people who turn the warning levels on their IDE down.
Hence, for me, it's always better to ask people to use (0 == i), as you never know, which programmer is doing what.
It's better to be "safe than sorry"
if(DialogResult.OK == MessageBox.Show("Message")) ...
I would always recommend writing the comparison this way. If the result of MessageBox.Show("Message") can possibly be null, then you risk a NPE/NRE if the comparison is the other way around.
Mathematical and logical operations aren't reflexive in a world that includes NULLs.
I'm hoping to perform the following steps in a single IF statement to save on code writing:
If ret is TRUE, set ret to the result of function lookup(). If ret is now FALSE, print error message.
The code I've written to do this is as follows:
BOOLEAN ret = TRUE;
// ... functions assigning to `ret`
if ( ret && !(ret = lookup()) )
{
fprintf(stderr, "Error in lookup()\n");
}
I've got a feeling that this isn't as simple as it looks. Reading from, assigning to and reading again from the same variable in an IF statement. As far as I'm aware, the compiler will always split statements like this up into their constituent operations according to precedence and evaluates conjuncts one at a time, failing immediately when evaluating an operand to false rather than evaluating them all. If so, then I expect the code to follow the steps I wrote above.
I've used assignments in IF statements a lot and I know they work, but not with another read beforehand.
Is there any reason why this isn't good code? Personally, I think it's easy to read and the meaning is clear, I'm just concerned about the compiler maybe not producing the equivalent logic for whatever reason. Perhaps compiler vendor disparities, optimisations or platform dependencies could be an issue, though I doubt this.
...to save on code writing This is almost never a valid argument. Don't do this. Particularly, don't obfuscate your code into a buggy, unreadable mess to "save typing". That is very bad programming.
I've got a feeling that this isn't as simple as it looks. Reading from, assigning to and reading again from the same variable in an IF statement.
Correct. It has little to do with the if statement in itself though, and everything to do with the operators involved.
As far as I'm aware, the compiler will always split statements like this up into their constituent operations according to precedence and evaluates conjuncts one at a time
Well, yes... but there is operator precedence and there is order of evaluation of subexpressions, they are different things. To make things even more complicated, there are sequence points.
If you don't know the difference between operator precedence and order of evaluation, or if you don't know what sequence points are, you need to instantly stop stuffing as many operators as you can into a single line, because in that case, you are going to write horrible bugs all over the place.
In your specific case, you get away with the bad programming just because as a special case, there happens to be a sequence point between the left and right evaluation of the && operator. Had you written some similar mess with a different operator, for example ret + !(ret = lookup(), your code would have undefined behavior. A bug which will take hours, days or weeks to find. Well, at least you saved 10 seconds of typing!
Also, in both C and C++ use the standard bool type and not some home-brewed version.
You need to correct your code into something more readable and safe:
bool ret = true;
if(ret)
{
ret = lookup();
}
if(!ret)
{
fprintf(stderr, "Error in lookup()\n");
}
Is there any reason why this isn't good code?
Yes, there are a lot issues whith such dirty code fragments!
1)
Nobody can read it and it is not maintainable. A lot of coding guidlines contain a rule which tells you: "One statement per line".
2) If you combine multiple expressions in one if statement, only the first statements will be executed until the expression is defined! This means: if you have multiple expressions which combined with AND the first expression which generates false will be the last one which will be executed. Same with OR combinations: The first one which evaluates to true is the last one which is executed.You already wrote this and you! know this, but this is a bit of tricky programming. If all your colleges write code that way, it is maybe ok, but as I know, my colleagues will not understand what you are doing in the first step!
3) You should never compare and assign in one statement. It is simply ugly!
4) if YOU! already think about " I'm just concerned about the compiler maybe not producing the equivalent logic" you should think again why you are not sure what you are doing! I believe that everybody who must work with such a dirty code will think again on such combinations.
Hint: Don't do that! Never!
This question already has answers here:
What is the difference between these (bCondition == NULL) and (NULL==bCondition)? [duplicate]
(6 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I have received code from someone working earlier on it, and it contains a lot of lines like
while(false==find && false == err && k<kmax)
if(true==refract(ep1,ep2,n1,RI_blood, RI_collagen))
and my favorite line is
if(false == (ret_s<0))
The other code is done really well, documented just fine, but these lines with these odd conditions are throwing me off, and I wonder why they are done that way.
Especially that false==(ret_s<0) is completely confusing, and you kind of need to read that line like three times to understand what they want there.
Is this a common programming style, don't I understand the reasoning for that, or is that just bad style?
Edit: I don't feel this is similar to if(object==NULL) vs if(NULL==object), since this isn't about accidental assigning but about obfuscated if clauses...
Is this a common programming style?
No.
don't I understand the reasoning for that?
Some people like to explicitly compare booleans with true or false, even though the result is exactly the same boolean value. The logic is presumably that, by making the code harder to read and more surprising, people will think harder about it and make fewer assumptions about its behaviour. Or perhaps just that code should be hard to maintain, since it was hard to write.
Others like to write comparisons with constants backwards, which prevents mistakes like if (x = 5) when you meant if (x == 5). Any modern compiler will warn you about this mistake, so again its only real purpose is to make the code harder to read.
Combining these two behaviours gives the bizarre code you posted.
Or is that just bad style?
It's a style. I'm no judge of style, but if you like to keep maintainence programmers on their toes, it certainly does that. Personally, I like my code to be readable, but that's just me.
my favorite line is
I once encountered return a && !b implemented in about ten lines of code. The first line was switch(a).
Yoda Conditions
Using if(constant == variable) instead of if(variable == constant), like if(4 == foo). Because it's like saying "if blue is the sky" or "if tall is the man".
Its a safe guard against assignment in C++.
In C++ it is perfectly legal to do this
if (foo = true) ....
In this case the single = is an assignment and would replace the value of foo.
This is not legal and will generate a compiler error
if (true = foo) ....
Constants and literals are often put on the left because it prevents accidental assignments. Consider typing:
if(foo == bar)
as:
if(foo = bar)
The second might appear to work... but silently clobber foo. If foo is a constant, this error is not longer possible.
It's a self-protection technique that prevents you from accidentally typing an assignment operator (=) instead of equality operator (==), which can introduce strange bugs. Putting the constant value on the left hand side will introduce a compiler error, while putting a variable on the LHS will just silently compile.
Perhaps the original programmer thought that explicit comparison to true or false was clearler than if(condition) or if(!condition) and coded things in that way. I haven't seen this particular style before however.
It's quite subjective but I find while(!find && !err && k<kmax) easier to read.
The code could have been written for a shop where there is a site standard that every conditional statement must include a comparison operator, in order to avoid accidentally leaving out part of the comparison. (Maybe that's a stretch, but you did say that the rest of the code was very good.) That, coupled with a standard or habit of putting the constant on the left to avoid accidentally using = instead of == would give pretty much the code you showed. It doesn't explain the use of 'false' instead of the more natural 'true', though. Maybe it's a (misguided on multiple levels) attempt to gain microefficiency by comparing to zero instead of 1 at the machine level.
for my is only bad style,
if(false == (ret_s<0))
is equals to in C#
if(!(ret_s<0))
With respect to coding standards, speed, and efficiency, which of the following is a better programming practice for this situation?
function foo() {
if(bar) { return 0; }
if(baz) { return 0; }
if(qux) { return 0; }
}
or
function foo() {
if(bar || baz || qux) { return 0; }
}
I'd lean toward the first, since only one condition has to be evaluated and therefore would be faster, but having the multiple returns is not good...?
//EDIT
The languages I'd be applying this to are mainly PHP and Javascript, possibly C++ and Ruby.
Almost every single programming language today uses short-circuit evaluation for ||, which means the two examples will be equivalent in terms of control flow and thus performance.
Having multiple returns should indeed be avoided if they are spread all over the function and they return different things, because this decreases readability. On the other hand, it's fairly standard to have early-out conditions that detect inacceptable conditions and stop the execution flow:
function getFriendList()
{
if (! has_internet_connection() ) return null;
if (! is_logged_in() ) return null;
return server.getFriendList();
}
Regarding your second example the || is short-circuiting in most languages so only the necessary conditions will be evaluated. For example if bar evaluates to true, neither baz nor qux will be evaluated.
Knowing this, I would probably choose the second example.
The latter but as:
function foo()
{
var result = 1;
if(bar || baz || quz)
{
result = 0;
}
return result;
}
Exiting your code willy-nilly with "return" is bad practice and makes debugging a nightmare - especially if it is someone elses code you are trying to debug! Flow of control should always exit at the bottom of the function!
In C# you can use the second version because is the same regarding performance but looks nicer. If bar is true then the other flags are no longer checked.
In the second case since you are using logical-OR the second conditions are checked only if it is necessary,so wrt better coding standards I would like to go with second one.
The latter example is better in my opinion in terms of coding. In an OR statement, atmost one condition is true the statement is true. So if the first condition is true, no further conditions will be looked at. There is no loss in speed or efficiency.
It depends entirely upon the language. Many languages will short-circuit evaluations so that, if bar is true, the other two are not evaluated, and any half-decent compiler will optimise those to the same thing in that case. Of the four languages you mentioned (C++, Ruby, PHP and Javascript), they all do short circuit evaluations.
And, despite what the "avoid multiple returns" crowd will tell you, that's not a rule you should follow like a sheep. It's meant to avoid situations where it's hard to see where returns (or loop breaks) are happening. Your first solution does not suffer from that problem any more than your second.
Blind following of dogma without understanding the reasons behind it should be an offence punishable by painful torture.
In the following code, what is the benefit of using (!!p) instead of (p != NULL)?
AClass *p = getInstanceOfAClass();
if( !!p )
// do something
else
// do something without having valid pointer
It is pretty much the same, although I consider the !!p to be bad style, and usually indicates a coder trying to be clever.
That's a matter of style, in fact they are equivalent. See this very similar question for discussion.
IMO comparing against null pointer is clearer.
I thing GMan’s original comment should be the accepted answer:
I wonder what's wrong with just if (p)
The point is: nothing is wrong with it, and this should be the preferred way. First off, !!p is “too clever”; it’s also completely unnecessary and thus bad (notice: we’re talking about pointers in an if statement here, so Anacrolix’ comment, while generally valid, doesn’t apply here!).
The same goes for p != NULL. While this is possible, it’s just not needed. It’s more code, it’s completely redundant code and hence it makes the code worse. The truest thing Jeff Atwood ever said was that “the best code is no code at all.” Avoid redundant syntax. Stick to the minimum (that still conveys the complete meaning; if (p) is complete).
Finally, if (p) is arguably the most idiomatic way to write this in C++. C++ bends over backwards to get this same behaviour for other types in the language (e.g. data streams), at the cost of some very weird quirks. The next version of the standard even introduces new a syntax to achieve this behaviour in user-defined types.
For pointers, we get the same for free. So use it.
/EDIT: About clarity: sharptooth writes that
IMO comparing against null pointer is clearer.
I claim that this is objectively wrong: if (p) is clearer. There is no possible way that this statement could mean anything else, neither in this context nor in any other, in C++.
As far as I can see, it's just a shorter way to convert it into a boolean value. It applies the ! twice, though, whereas p != NULL does one comparison. So I guess the benefit is just shorter code, albeit more cryptic if you don't know what !!p is supposed to mean.
They are the same, but I recommend to use
NULL != p
It is more readable.
There is no difference in the given example.
However the assumption that this applies to all cases is incorrect. a = not not b is not the same as a = b, as far as integer types are concerned.
In C, 0 is false. Anything but 0 is true. But not 0 is 1, and nothing else. In C++, true casts to 1 as an integer, not only for backward compatibilty with C, but because 1 is not 0, and 1 is the most common value used to denote true in C bool types, including the official C bool type, and BOOL used in Win32.
While for the example code given, !!p is unnecessary because the result is cast to a bool for evaluation of the if condition, that doesn't rule out the use of !! for purposes of casting booleans to expected integer values. Personally in this example, to maximize the probability that type changes and semantics are clear, I would use NULL != p or p != NULL to make it absolutely clear what is meant.
This technique is known as the double-bang idiom, and this guy provides some good justifications.
Do !!NOT use double negation. A simple argument is that since C++ is a limited English subset and english just does not have a double negation then english speakers will have a lot of difficulty to parse what is going on.