This question already has answers here:
Declaring and initializing a variable in a Conditional or Control statement in C++
(9 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I want to create an if where a variable is declared, assigned and checked. If the variable's value is acceptable, I want to use it inside if body. Here's an example of how I thought I could do that:
if ((int result = Foo()) != 0) {
// use result
}
I assumed that Foo() returns some value, which is assigned to result, and returned by assignment operator =, and finally checked against 0 in != 0. Unfortunately, it results in a compilation error:
main.cpp:31:10: error: expected primary-expression before ‘int’
if ((int i = Foo()) != 0)
^
main.cpp:31:10: error: expected ‘)’ before ‘int’
Why is this error happening? And what ways could there be to fix it?
The logic is supported, but declaring a variable within an if statement and using it this way is not. The reason is related to the fact that an initializer works differently than a regular assignment, but working around this is easy and trivial.
Just do something like this instead.
int result;
if ((result = Foo()) != 0) {
// use result
}
Your reasoning seems to be based on the assumption that = in
if ((int result = Foo()) != 0)
is an assignment operator and that int result = Foo() is "just an expression" that evaluates to something.
This is not true.
The int result = Foo() part is not an expression in C++. It is a declaration with an initializer. The = in initializer syntax is not an assignment operator at all. It is just a syntactic element that coincidentally uses the same character as assignment operator. The int result = Foo() is not an expression and it does not "evaluate" to any result.
Because if the above, support for something like
if (int result = Foo())
requires special treatment, which severely limits the flexibility of this syntax. What you tried in your code goes outside the bounds of what's allowed by that special treatment.
Bjarne uses this construct as a scope restrictor in 6.3.2.1 The C++ programming language as a recommendation.
Use:
if (int result = Foo()) {
// use non-zero result
}
It is particularly useful with pointers
if (Foo* result = GetFoo()) {
// use valid Foo
}
The !=0 part is redundant as truthiness is !=0.
The extended construct with the comparison is not allowed.
Further discussion of this construct from here
It fails because it's illegal. It's also ugly. #Jonathan Wood suggested declaring the variable outside the if. I suggest calling Foo outside, too:
int result = Foo();
if(result!=0) ...
The (x=f())!=y construct, while legal as an if condition, only makes sense in a loop, where
`while((c=getchar())!='\n)
... do something with c ...
Is the shorter and nicer equivalent of
c = getchar();
while(c!='\n')
{
...
c = getchar(c);
}
It saves writing the call to getchar() twice. It saves nothing when used in an if, so there's no point in using it.
Try this:
if ( int i = (Foo() != 0) ? Foo() : 0 ){
cout << "Hello. Number i = " << i;
}
Related
Out of curiosity I started wondering if it's possible to have a ternary expression that, if it evaluates to false, does nothing in the false branch.
Ie is there a way to write something like this:
variable = (someBool) ? i : <do nothing>;
As opposed to:
if (someBool) {
variable = i;
}
I tried ((void)0) or while(false){}; as no-op but the compiler expects an expression.
UPDATE:
I realized the question lost some meaning because I tried to make the code easier. The initial idea I had was to initialize a static var with a ternary - using the static var itself as the condition:
static int var = (var != 0) ? var = 1 : (var already initialized, do nothing);
This is assuming that uninitialized variables are initialized to 0 which is not always true (or never in release builds, not quite sure). So maybe it's a hypothetical question.
how about short-circuit?
int variable = 0;
bool cond = true; // or false
(cond && (variable = 42));
printf("%d\n", variable);
How about this:
variable = (someBool) ? i : variable ;
Though I would personally prefer the original if statement
Compilers not only expect expression, but the expression the returns type on the left side (the type of variable whatever is it). So, no you can not do that. It's not conditional execution, but variable member assignment.
These are completely different things.
In second example :
if (someBool) {
variable = i;
}
you do not assign anything, but simply execute based on condition. So in your case, where you don't want to do anything (not assign anything), the way to go is conditional execution so use simply the second case.
The format of the conditional expression is
<expression> ? <expression> : <expression>
In other words, it must have some expression.
Addressing your edit: in C99 variables of static scope are initialised to 0. However, I have never really trusted that because I've been programming in C since the K&R days.
Anyway, just initialise the variable. As the variable is static, it's only going to happen once during the whole execution time of the program.
You could do:
variable = !someBool ?: i;
Since the ?: will no-op when the if expression is true but assign i if it's false.
Note: This has only been tested in Obj-C
How about
(someBool) ? (variable = i) : NULL;
For C# says:
Syntax:
condition ? first_expression : second_expression;
And it says about first_expression and second_expression:
Either the type of first_expression and second_expression must be the same, or an implicit conversion must exist from one type to the other.
If you were to evaluate a nullable object type instead of bool, you could always write:
variable = myVar ?? i;
Hacky/cludgey/impractical - probably all 3, but for the sake of this question it's a way of omitting an 'else'.
Try: null lambda.
auto null_lambda = [](){return;};
int a = 1;
int b = 2;
vector<int> c;
a > c ? b = c.push_back(b) : null_lambda();
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Why can't variables defined in a conditional be constructed with arguments?
Consider this simple example:
/*1*/ int main() {
/*2*/ for (int i(7); i;){break;}
/*3*/ if (int i(7)) {}
/*4*/ }
Why line-2 compiles just fine, whilst line-3 gives the error? This is little strange to me why if-statement is in this aspect treated worse than for-loop?
If this is compiler specific - I tested with gcc-4.5.1:
prog.cpp: In function 'int main()':
prog.cpp:3:7: error: expected primary-expression before 'int'
prog.cpp:3:7: error: expected ')' before 'int'
I was inspired by this question
[UPDATE]
I know this compiles just fine:
/*1*/ int main() {
/*2*/ for (int i = 7; i;){break;}
/*3*/ if (int i = 7) {}
/*4*/ }
[UPDATE2]
It seems to be purely academic question - but this could be extremely important for such types as std::unique_ptr<> which cannot be copied:
#include <memory>
int main() {
if (std::unique_ptr<int> i = new (std::nothrow) int(7)) {
}
if (std::unique_ptr<int> i(new (std::nothrow) int(7))) {
}
}
Neither of these two kinds are allowed. Not sure about new C++11 syntax {}?
The C++ standard doesn't provide a rationale but I would suspect that using the constructor notation could cause some inconsistencies. For example, since function declarations aren't allowed in the if statement, the most vexing parse would actually mean what was intended. For example:
int f(); // function declaration (simple form or the most vexing parse)
if (int f()) { // illegal in C++ but, when allowed, would be a zero-initialized int
}
In C++ 2011 you can use brace-initialization:
if (int x{f()}) {
...
}
Unfortunately, brace-initialization doesn't always mean the same thing as using constructor notation (I think it's called direct-initialization).
With respect to the update: you can use one of these:
if (std::unique_ptr<int> p = std::unique_ptr<int>(new int(1))) { ... }
if (auto p = std::unique_ptr<int>(new int(2))) { ... }
if (std::unique_ptr<int>{new int(3)}) { ... }
It seems there are plenty of options :-)
In terms of syntax, the reason is simple.
The first element of the for statement are statements. Statements can create variables as well as initialize them. The if conditional is a condition. The spec does define that a condition can create a variable, but only by = initialization.
Be glad the spec even allows you to create variables in an if at all. It has to have special grammar to even allow that ("condition" being different from "expression"), and that was probably something inherited from C.
That being said, C++11 does define a condition as being able to initialize a declaration with a braced-init-list (spec-speak for "initializer list"). So it should be legal. But since VS2012 doesn't support initializer lists yet...
I tried the following:
if(int i=6+4==10)
cout << "works!" << i;
if(int i=6+4,i==10)
cout << "doesn't even compile" << i;
The first works fine while the second doesn't compile. Why is this?
EDIT: Now I know that the first one may not work as I intend it to. The value of i inside the if scope will be 1, not 10. (as pointed out by one of the comments on this question).
So is there a way to initialize and use a variable inside of an if statement at the same time similar to for(int i=0;i<10;i++)? So that you could produce something like if((int i=6+4)==10) (which will not compile) where the value of I inside the if scope would be 10?
I know you could declare and initialize I before the if statement but is there a way to do this within the statement itself?
To give you an idea why I think this would be usefull.
if(int v1=someObject1.getValue(), int v2=someObject2.getValue(), v1!=v2)
{
//v1 and v2 are visible in this scope
//and can be used for further calculation without the need to call
//someObject1.getValue() und someObject2.getValue() again.
}
//if v1==v2 there is nothing to be done which is why v1 und v2
//only need to be visible in the scope of the if.
The expression used as an initializer expression must be an assignment-expression so if you want to use a comma operator you must parenthesize the initializer.
E.g. (not that what you are attempting makes much sense as 6 + 4 has no side effects and the value is discarded and i == 10 uses the uninitialized value of i in its own initializer.)
if (int i = (6 + 4, i == 10)) // behaviour is undefined
Did you really mean something like this?
int i = 6 + 4;
if (i == 10)
When using the form of if that declares a new variable the condition checked is always the value of the initialized variable converted to bool. If you want the condition to be an expression involving the new variable you must declare the variable before the if statement and use the expression that you want to test as the condition.
E.g.
int i;
if ((i = 6 + 4) == 10)
I doubt seriously either example works to do anything useful. All that it does is evaluate to "true" in a complicated fashions.
But the reason the second one doesn't compile is that it's interpreted as two declarations: int i = 6+4; int i==10 and int i==10 isn't valid because that's an equality operator, not an assignment.
There are different alternatives, because what you want cannot be done (you cannot mix the comma operator with declarations). You could, for example, declare the variable outside of the if condition:
int i = 6+4;
if ( i == 10 ) ...
Or you can change the value of i to be 0 instead of 10 and recalculate i inside the else block:
if ( int i = (6+4)-10 ) ; else {
i += 10;
// ...
}
Much simpler, don't declare the variable at all, since you know the value inside the loop:
if ( (6+4)==10 ) {
int i = 10;
// ...
}
Unless of course you need the value of i in the case where it is not 10, in which case the second option is the most appropriate.
As of C++17 what you were trying to do is finally possible:
if (int i=6+4; i==10)
cout << "works, and i is " << i << endl;
Note the use of ; of instead of , to separate the declaration and the actual condition.
(I don't have a serious need for this answer, I am just inquisitive.)
Can every if-else construct be replaced by an equivalent conditional expression using the conditional operator ?:?
Does every if-else constructs can be replaced by an equivalent conditional expression using conditional operator?
No, you've asked this backwards. The "bodies" of if/else contain statements, and it is not possible to turn every statement into an expression, such as try, while, break statements, as well as declarations. Many "statements" are really expressions in disguise, however:
++i;
blah = 42;
some_method(a,b,c);
All of these are statements which consist of one expression (increment, assignment, function-call, respectively) and could be turned into expressions within a conditional.
So, let's reverse the question, since it sounds like you really want to know how equivalent if/else statements are to ternary conditional expressions: Can every conditional expression be replaced by equivalent if/else statements? Almost all, yes. A common example is return statements:
return cond ? t : f;
// becomes:
if (cond) return t;
else return f;
But also other expressions:
n = (cond ? t : f);
// becomes:
if (cond) n = t;
else n = f;
Which starts to point to where conditional expressions cannot be easily replaced: initializations. Since you can only initialize an object once, you must break up an initialization that uses a conditional into using an explicit temporary variable instead:
T obj (cond ? t : f);
// becomes:
SomeType temp;
if (cond) temp = t;
else temp = f;
T obj (temp);
Notice this is much more tedious/cumbersome, and requires something type-dependent if SomeType cannot be default-constructed and assigned.
On the surface of it, no. The conditional operator is an expression (that is, it has a value), while if/else is a statement (thus has no value). They fulfill different "needs" within the language syntax.
However, since you can ignore expression values, and since any expression can be turned into a statement by adding a semicolon, you can essentially emulate if/else with a conditional expression and two auxiliary functions:
// Original code:
if (condition) {
// block 1
}
else {
// block 2
}
// conditional expression replacement:
bool if_block() {
// block 1
return true;
}
bool else_block() {
// block 2
return true;
}
// Here's the conditional expression. bool value discarded:
condition ? if_block() : else_block();
However, having said that, I'm not sure it's anything more than a curiosity...
No, of course not. For reasons already mentioned, and more!
#include <cstdlib>
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
if(int i = std::rand() % 2)
{
std::cout << i << " is odd" << std::endl;
}
else
{
std::cout << i << " is even" << std::endl;
}
}
Check out where is is declared. It's not an often used technique, but it can be used in situations like COM where every call returns HRESULT which is (almost always) zero on success (S_OK), non-zero on failure, so you might write something like:
if(HRESULT hr = myInterface->myMethod())
{
_com_raise_error(hr);
}
The ternary operator can't do anything analogous.
if( cond )
break;
else
a=b;
can not always be replaced by ?: operator. You can often (if not always) rethink your whole code to provide for this substitute, but generally you can't put anything that controls execution into ?:. break, return, loops, throw, etc.
In principle, yes:
if (A) B; else C
becomes
try {
A ? throw TrueResult() : throw FalseResult();
// or: throw A ? TrueResult() : FalseResult();
} catch (TrueResult) {
B;
} catch (FalseResult) {
C;
}
Compared to using procedures (which are more natural), this allows break, continue, return etc. It requires evaluation of A doesn't end with TrueResult/FalseResult but if you use those exceptions only to simulate if, it won't be a problem.
Using the conditional operator results in an expression and both potential results of the conditional operator must be 'compatible' (convertible to the same type).
An if-else construct need not even 'return' any type much less the same one from both branches.
The conditional operator expects to have both of the items following the ? be rvalues (since the result of a conditional operator is itself an rvalue) - so while I'm not entirely an expert on the C/C++ standards, my intuition would be that the following would be disallowed (or failing that, extremely poor coding style...):
(condition) ? return x : return y;
whereas the if-else version would be quite standard:
if(condition) return x;
else return y;
Now, that said, could you take any program and write a similarly functioning program that didn't use if-else? Sure, you probably could. Doesn't mean it would be a good idea, though. ;)
GCC has statement expression, using it you can rewrite if statements to equivalent ?: expressions:
if (<expression>)
<statement1>
else
<statement2>
EDIT: The void casts serves two purpose. The subexpressions in ?: must have the same type, and without the void cast the compiler may print warning: statement with no effect.
(<expression>)? (void)({<statement1>}) : (void)({<statement2>});
I'm currently working with the Diab 4.4 C++ compiler. It's a total POS, non ANSI-compliant, and I've found problems with it in the past.
I'm wondering if the following problem is an issue with the compiler, or a shortcoming in my knowledge of C++
I realize that the form of x = x && y; will short-circuit the y part if x is false. What the compiler is doing is short-circuiting in the case of x = x && y(); where y() is a non-const function.
class A
{
int _a;
A(int a) { _a = a; }
bool someFunction() { _a = 0; return true; }
};
main(...)
{
A obj = A(1);
bool retval = false;
retval = retval && A.someFunction();
/* What is the value of A._a here? */
}
What seems wrong to me is the fact that the compiler is doing this short-circuiting even though someFunction() is not a const function. If it's not const, is the compiler overstepping its bounds by skipping A.someFunction() when retval is false?
Also, I realize this issue can be avoided by writing retval = A.someFunction() && retval; but I'd really like to know why this is happening.
Short circuiting applies to all expressions, regardless of const-ness. Skipping the call to someFunction() is correct.
The && and || operators are defined to evaluate lazily, this is the way the language works. If you want the side effects to always happen, invoke the function first and stash the result, or refactor the function to split the work from the state query.
As others have explained, || and && always perform short-circuit evaluation.
Also note that short-circuit evaluation can be very useful, since it lets you write code like this:
retval = obj_pointer && obj_pointer->SomeBooleanMethod();
Without short-circuit evaluation, this would crash on a NULL pointer.
It doesn't matter if the second operand to && is const or not. After the first operand evaluates to false the return value is known, so there's no reason to evaluate the second operand.
If the function has side effects that require it to be executed, put it first.
Short-circuit evaluation has nothing to do with const or non-const. It happens no matter what.
The statement A() && B(); will do exactly what if (A()) B(); does (although it isn't a perfect substitute, as the second one allows an else). This is sometimes used to change a statement into an expression (such as when writing a macro, or embedding it in another statement).
The && operator is also called the shortcut operator, which means it only evaluates the second part if the first part returned true. That's the main difference between && and &:
value = func1() && func2(); // evaluates func2() only if func1() returns true
value = func1() & func2(); // evaluates both func1() and func2()
For && operator,
1 && X = X
0 && X = 0
so in case first var is 0, compiler will evaluate the expression to 0, no question, what ever the X is.
Compiler will ignore the X part as it wont impact the result. Here X can be any thing function/variable/expression.....