When is one better than the other?
Is one faster than the other or does the only difference is the return of false or nil?
Use if when you have exactly one truthy and one falsy case and you don't need an implicit do block. In contrast, when should be used when you only have to handle the truthy case and the implicit do. There is no difference in speed, it's a matter of using the most idiomatic style.
(if (my-predicate? my-data)
(do-something my-data)
(do-something-else my-data))
(when (my-predicate? my-data)
(do-something my-data)
(do-something-additionally my-data))
In the if case, only do-something will be run if my-predicate? returns a truthy result, whereas in the when case, both do-something and do-something-additionally are executed.
Use if when you have two different expressions: for true clause and for false clause.
when and when-not are useful in two cases:
when you want to perform one or several (implicit do helps here) non-pure operations conditionally;
when you want to evaluate something when some predicate evaluates to true (or false in case of when-not), and return nil in opposite case.
only difference is the return of false or nil
There is no major difference between false and nil, as the both evaluate to false in logical context.
Since Clojure is still relatively young I think it's worth looking into the much longer history of Lisp practice for guidance here.
Originally when was to be used if you have a side effect (e.g. see 1, 2 among others). Why? Well it doesn't have an explicit return value in the falsy case implying you don't really care about it, and it also has an implicit do block (or progn in Lisp parlor) which only makes sense if you have side effects.
Sometime in the 90s or so the focus shifted though and most guides start to suggest to use when instead of an if with only one branch without regards to side effects (for a summary see 3). Why? Well, if you have an if with only one branch it can leave open the question if you missed to provide the alternative branch or if you even have a misplaced parenthesis. In the best case this can lead to confusion, in the worst case to hidden bugs.
The difference is subtle though, if you rely on the implicit nil for if in the falsy case maybe you should make it explicit. Otherwise you probably already rely on a side effect of the truthy branch so when would be appropriate under both guidances. If your expression is functional and should be preferred anyway (e.g. see 2), the difference here is that you might get false instead of nil in the falsy case though. But again: if you rely on getting nil why not make it explicit? (In other words: I think linting rules like the example in 4 are misguided.)
Sometimes the rationale for using when over if is given as: one should use the most specific construct one needs in the particular case (e.g. see 5). But that same argument can be turned around: don't use when if you don't need the implicit do form. So while a good guiding principle in general it can not be really applied here.
So I tend to use when only when there is a side effect as otherwise there are usually constructs with less imperative smell available (like and). That is not to say that an if form should only be used for expressions without side effects, as it might very well be that you need a side effect for both branches.
Seeing as the Maybe type is isomorphic to the set of null and singleton lists, why would anyone ever want to use the Maybe type when I could just use lists to accomodate absence?
Because if you match a list against the patterns [] and [x] that's not an exhaustive match and you'll get a warning about that, forcing you to either add another case that'll never get called or to ignore the warning.
Matching a Maybe against Nothing and Just x however is exhaustive. So you'll only get a warning if you fail to match one of those cases.
If you choose your types such that they can only represent values that you may actually produce, you can rely on non-exhaustiveness warnings to tell you about bugs in your code where you forget to check for a given a case. If you choose more "permissive" types, you'll always have to think about whether a warning represents an actual bug or just an impossible case.
You should strive to have accurate types. Maybe expresses that there is exactly one value or that there is none. Many imperative languages represent the "none" case by the value null.
If you chose a list instead of Maybe, all your functions would be faced with the possibility that they get a list with more than one member. Probably many of them would only be defined for one value, and would have to fail on a pattern match. By using Maybe, you avoid a class of runtime errors entirely.
Building on existing (and correct) answers, I'll mention a typeclass based answer.
Different types convey different intentions - returning a Maybe a represents a computation with the possiblity of failing while [a] could represent non-determinism (or, in simpler terms, multiple possible return values).
This plays into the fact that different types have different instances for typeclasses - and these instances cater to the underlying essence the type conveys. Take Alternative and its operator (<|>) which represents what it means to combine (or choose) between arguments given.
Maybe a Combining computations that can fail just means taking the first that is not Nothing
[a] Combining two computations that each had multiple return values just means concatenating together all possible values.
Then, depending on which types your functions use, (<|>) would behave differently. Of course, you could argue that you don't need (<|>) or anything like that, but then you are missing out on one of Haskell's main strengths: it's many high-level combinator libraries.
As a general rule, we like our types to be as snug fitting and intuitive as possible. That way, we are not fighting the standard libraries and our code is more readable.
Lisp, Scheme, Python, Ruby, JavaScript, etc., manage to get along with just one type each, which you could represent in Haskell with a big sum type. Every function handling a JavaScript (or whatever) value must be prepared to receive a number, a string, a function, a piece of the document object model, etc., and throw an exception if it gets something unexpected. People who program in typed languages like Haskell prefer to limit the number of unexpected things that can occur. They also like to express ideas using types, making types useful (and machine-checked) documentation. The closer the types come to representing the intended meaning, the more useful they are.
Because there are an infinite number of possible lists, and a finite number of possible values for the Maybe type. It perfectly represents one thing or the absence of something without any other possibility.
Several answers have mentioned exhaustiveness as a factor here. I think it is a factor, but not the biggest one, because there is a way to consistently treat lists as if they were Maybes, which the listToMaybe function illustrates:
listToMaybe :: [a] -> Maybe a
listToMaybe [] = Nothing
listToMaybe (a:_) = Just a
That's an exhaustive pattern match, which rules out any straightforward errors.
The factor I'd highlight as bigger is that by using the type that more precisely models the behavior of your code, you eliminate potential behaviors that would be possible if you used a more general alternative. Say for example you have some context in your code where you uses a type of the form a -> [b], though the only correct alternatives (given your program's specification) are empty or singleton lists. Try as hard as you may to enforce the convention that this context should obey that rule, it's still possible that you'll mess up and:
Somehow a function used in that context will produce a list of two or more items;
And somehow a function that uses the results produced in that context will observe whether the lists have two or more items, and behave incorrectly in that case.
Example: some code that expects there to be no more than one value will blindly print the contents of the list and thus print multiple items when only one was supposed to be.
But if you use Maybe, then there really must be either one value or none, and the compiler enforces this.
Even though isomorphic, e.g. QuickCheck will run slower because of the increase in search space.
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.
What are the best practices for defining constants in Clojure in terms of style, conventions, efficiency, etc.
For example, is this right?
(def *PI* 3.14)
Questions:
Should constants be capitalized in Clojure?
Stylistically, should they have the asterisk (*) character on one or both sides?
Any computational efficiency considerations I should be aware of?
I don't think there is any hard and fast rules. I usually don't give them any special treatment at all. In a functional language, there is less of a distinction between a constant and any other value, because things are more often pure.
The asterisks on both sides are called "ear muffs" in Clojure. They are usually used to indicate a "special" var, or a var that will be dynamically rebound using binding later. Stuff like out and in which are occasionally rebound to different streams by users and such are examples.
Personally, I would just name it pi. I don't think I've ever seen people give constants special names in Clojure.
EDIT: Mister Carper just pointed out that he himself capitalizes constants in his code because it's a convention in other languages. I guess this goes to show that there are at least some people who do that.
I did a quick glance through the coding standards but didn't find anything about it. This leads me to conclude that it's really up to you whether or not you capitalize them. I don't think anyone will slap you for it in the long run.
On the computational efficiency front you should know there is no such thing as a global constant in Clojure. What you have above is a var, and every time you reference it, it does a lookup. Even if you don't put earmuffs on it, vars can always be rebound, so the value could always change, so they are always looked up in a table. For performance critical loops this is most decidedly non-optimal.
There are some options like putting a let block around your critical loops and let the value of any "constant" vars so that they are not looked up. Or creating a no-arg macro so that the constant value is compiled into the code. Or you could create a Java class with a static member.
See this post, and the following discussion about constants for more info:
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/msg/78abddaee41c1227
The earmuffs are a way of denoting that a given symbol will have its own thread-local binding at some point. As such, it does not make sense to apply the earmuffs to your Pi constant.
*clojure-version* is an example of a constant in Clojure, and it's entirely in lower-case.
Don't use a special notation for constants; everything is assumed a constant unless specified otherwise.
See http://dev.clojure.org/display/community/Library+Coding+Standards
Clojure has a variety of literals such as:
3.14159
:point
{:x 0
:y 1}
[1 2 3 4]
#{:a :b :c}
The literals are constant. As far as I know, there is no way to define new literals. If you want to use a new constant, you can effectively generate a literal in the code at compile-time:
(defmacro *PI* [] 3.14159265358979323)
(prn (*PI*))
In Common Lisp, there's a convention of naming constants with plus signs (+my-constant+), and in Scheme, by prefixing with a dollar sign ($my-constant); see this page. Any such convention conflicts with the official Clojure coding standards, linked in other answers, but maybe it would be reasonable to want to distinguish regular vars from those defined with the :const attribute.
I think there's an advantage to giving non-function variables of any kind some sort of distinguishing feature. Suppose that aside from variables defined to hold functions, you typically only use local names defined by function parameters, let, etc. If you nevertheless occasionally define a non-function variable using def, then when its name appears in a function definition in the same file, it looks to the eye like a local variable. If the function is complex, you may spend several seconds looking for the name definition within the function. Adding a distinguishing feature like earmuffs or plus signs or all uppercase, as appropriate to the variable's use, makes it obvious that the variable's definition is somewhere else.
In addition, there are good reasons to give special constants like pi a special name, so no one has to wonder whether pi means, say, "print-index", or the i-th pizza, or "preserved interface". Of course I think those variables should have more informative names, but lots of people use cryptic, short variable names, and I end up reading their code. I shouldn't have to wonder whether pi means pi, so something like PI might make sense. None would think that's a run of the mill variable in Clojure.
According to the "Practical Clojure" book, it should be named *pi*