Simplifying complex if statements - if-statement

Question

I have a matrix of values that I need to check against to show different content on a page. The vars valueA and valueB each have at least 3 possible states. The code below works fine, but I am wondering if there is a better / smarter way to handle this. Thanks!
<cfif valueA EQ -1 AND valueB EQ -1>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueA EQ -1 AND valueB EQ 0>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueA EQ -1 AND valueB EQ 1>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueA EQ -1 AND valueB GT 1>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueA EQ 0 AND valueB EQ -1>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueA EQ 0 AND valueB EQ 0>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueA EQ 0 AND valueB EQ 1>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueA EQ 0 AND valueB GT 1>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueA EQ 1 AND valueB EQ -1>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueA EQ 1 AND valueB EQ 0>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueA EQ 1 AND valueB EQ 1>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueA EQ 1 AND valueB GT 1>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueA GT 1 AND valueB EQ -1>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueA GT 1 AND valueB EQ 0>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueA GT 1 AND valueB EQ 1>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueA GT 1 AND valueB GT 1>
<!--- Do something --->
</cfif>

Answer 1

The ColdFusion engine won't see complexity in the code above. The humans developers will have a bit of hard time (although I'm sure there are some who will have no problem to parse that, (not me)).
Here is my version, which with the use of editor's code folding, it makes easier to read, at least for me.
<cfif valueA EQ -1>
<cfif valueB EQ -1>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueB EQ 0>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueB EQ 1>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueB GT 1>
<!--- Do something --->
</cfif>
<cfelseif valueA EQ 0>
<cfif valueB EQ -1>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueB EQ 0>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueB EQ 1>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueB GT 1>
<!--- Do something --->
</cfif>
<cfelseif valueA EQ 1>
<cfif valueB EQ -1>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueB EQ 0>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueB EQ 1>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueB GT 1>
<!--- Do something --->
</cfif>
<cfelseif valueA GT 1>
<cfif valueB EQ -1>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueB EQ 0>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueB EQ 1>
<!--- Do something --->
<cfelseif valueB GT 1>
<!--- Do something --->
</cfif>
</cfif>
I hope it helps.

Answer 2

To show you how the different options behave differently, I created a fiddle with the 2 cfif options so-far presented and added a switch option with a little bit of math magic to make a switch work.
The whole fiddle is at: https://trycf.com/gist/041d1a6c3b3701d30306a9c80f1ddbea/acf2018?theme=monokai
My switch code:
local.valA = arguments.valueA>1?99:arguments.valueA ; // If GT 1, then 99
local.valB = arguments.valueB>1?99:arguments.valueB ; // If GT 1, then 99
local.finalOut = "" ;
switch (valA*valB) { // multiply the two vals and it will be -1,0,1,99,-99 or -99*99
case -1 : // One is -1 and One is 1 >> 1*-1=-1
if (valA == 1) {
finalOut = "1,-1" ;
} else {
finalOut = "-1,1" ;
}
break ;
case 1 : // Both are either 1 or -1 >> -1*-1=1 | 1*1=1
if (valA == 1) {
finalOut = "1,1" ;
} else {
finalOut = "-1,-1" ;
}
break ;
case 0 : // One is 0 >> 0*x=0
if (valA == 0) {
switch (valB) {
case -1 :
finalOut = "0,-1" ;
break;
case 0 :
finalOut = "0,0" ;
break;
case 1 :
finalOut = "0,1" ;
break;
case 99 :
finalOut = "0,99" ;
break;
}
} else {
switch (valA) {
case -1 :
finalOut = "-1,0" ;
break;
case 1 :
finalOut = "1,0" ;
break;
case 99 :
finalOut = "99,0" ;
break;
}
}
break ;
default : // One > 1, Other not 0
switch (ValA) {
case -1 : // ValA is -1, ValB is >1
finalOut = "-1,99" ;
break ;
case 1 : // ValA is 1, ValB is >1
finalOut = "1,99" ;
break ;
case 99 : // ValA is >1, ValB <> 0
switch (valB) {
case 1 :
finalOut = "99,1" ;
break ;
case -1 :
finalOut = "99,-1" ;
break ;
case 99 :
finalOut = "99,99" ;
break;
}
break ;
}
break ;
}
My Fiddle puts each of the 3 options in a function, so I could loop through them multiple times to demonstrate them and check timing. See the Fiddle above for those functions.
A couple of notes: as far as performance, you definitely want to try to short-circuit the logic as much as possible. Both my switch and Alex's cfif solutions were a bit faster than the original, un-nested cfif. That demonstrates the value of nesting the options to bypass some logic.
A cfif works from top to bottom. When I changed the array to add about 100K rows and mostly include values that would meet conditions early in the cycle without having to go through many options, all three options performed very similarly. If I included conditions that would fall at the end of the options, then the original cfif performed about a third slower than the other two options that short-circuited logic, with the cfif and the switch performing very similarly.
I tested with around 1M, 100K and 10K rows. With fewer rows, the performance was very close on all 3. I assume that's likely because of the variable instantiation and math checks being fairly consistent (despite number of iterations) and not being needed in the cfif versions.
One thing that I didn't test was tags vs script. I wrote my switch in script-syntax, and it will probably be slightly faster in tag-syntax. I also didn't test either of the cfifs in script. That might make a slight difference. Moving around the logic will also possibly change speed of the options.
TL;DR: Since I believe you said you will be using this to only evaluate one set of values, then Alex's solution will probably work best. I think you should go with what's easiest to read and interpret here. My example was mostly because you asked about performance. :-)