I would like to perform the following:
if(x == true)
{
// do this on behalf of x
// do this on behalf of x
// do this on behalf of x
}
Using a conditional operator, is this correct?
x == true ? { /*do a*/, /*do b*/, /*do c*/ } : y == true ? ... ;
Is this malformed?
I am not nesting more than one level with a conditional operator.
The expressions I intend to use are highly terse and simple making a conditional operator, in my opinion, worth using.
P.S. I am not asking A. Which I should use? B. Which is better C. Which is more appropriate
P.S. I am asking how to convert an if-else statement to a ternary conditional operator.
Any advice given on this question regarding coding standards etc. are simply undesired.
Don't compare booleans to true and false. There's no point because they're true or false already! Just write
if (x)
{
// do this on behalf of x
// do this on behalf of x
// do this on behalf of x
}
Your second example doesn't compile because you use { and }. But this might
x ? ( /*do a*/, /*do b*/, /*do c*/ ) : y ? ... ;
but it does depend on what /*do a*/ etc are.
Using comma operator to string different expressions together is within the rules of the language, but it makes the code harder to read (because you have to spot the comma, which isn't always easy, especially if the expression isn't really simple.
The other factor is of course that you can ONLY do this for if (x) ... else if(y) ... type conditionals state.
Sometimes, it seems like people prefer "short code" from "readable code", which is of course great if you are in a competition of "who can write this in the fewest lines", but for everything else, particularly code that "on show" or shared with colleagues that also need to understand it - once a software project gets sufficiently large, it usually becomes hard to understand how the code works WITHOUT obfuscation that makes the code harder to read. I don't really see any benefit in using conditional statements in the way your second example described. It is possible that the example is bad, but generally, I'd say "don't do that".
Of course it works (with C++11). I have not tried a solution but following Herb Sutters way you can use ether a function call or a lambda which is immediately executed:
cond ?
[&]{
int i = some_default_value;
if(someConditionIstrue)
{
Do some operations ancalculate the value of i;
i = some calculated value;
}
return i;
} ()
:
somefun() ;
I have not tried to compile it but here you have an result whih is either computed with an lambda or an normal function.
Related
I am always in the habit of using if, else-if statement instead of multiple if statements.
Example:
int val = -1;
if (a == b1) {
return c1;
} else if (a == b2) {
return c2;
} ...
...
} else {
return c11;
}
How does it compare to example 2:
if (a == b1) {
return c1;
}
if (a == b2) {
return c2;
}
....
if (a == b11) {
return c11;
}
I know functionality wise they are the same. But is it best practice to do if else-if, or not? It's raised by one of my friends when I pointed out he could structure the code base differently to make it cleaner. It's already a habit for me for long but I have never asked why.
if-elseif-else statements stop doing comparisons as soon as it finds one that's true. if-if-if does every comparison. The first is more efficient.
Edit: It's been pointed out in comments that you do a return within each if block. In these cases, or in cases where control will leave the method (exceptions), there is no difference between doing multiple if statements and doing if-elseif-else statements.
However, it's best practice to use if-elseif-else anyhow. Suppose you change your code such that you don't do a return in every if block. Then, to remain efficient, you'd also have to change to an if-elseif-else idiom. Having it be if-elseif-else from the beginning saves you edits in the future, and is clearer to people reading your code (witness the misinterpretation I just gave you by doing a skim-over of your code!).
What about the case where b1 == b2? (And if a == b1 and a == b2?)
When that happens, generally speaking, the following two chunks of code will very likely have different behavior:
if (a == b1) {
/* do stuff here, and break out of the test */
}
else if (a == b2) {
/* this block is never reached */
}
and:
if (a == b1) {
/* do stuff here */
}
if (a == b2) {
/* do this stuff, as well */
}
If you want to clearly delineate functionality for the different cases, use if-else or switch-case to make one test.
If you want different functionality for multiple cases, then use multiple if blocks as separate tests.
It's not a question of "best practices" so much as defining whether you have one test or multiple tests.
The are NOT functionally equivalent.
The only way it would be functionally equivalent is if you did an "if" statement for every single possible value of a (ie: every possibly int value, as defined in limits.h in C; using INT_MIN and INT_MAX, or equivalent in Java).
The else statement allows you to cover every possible remaining value without having to write millions of "if" statements.
Also, it's better coding practice to use if...else if...else, just like how in a switch/case statement, your compiler will nag you with a warning if you don't provide a "default" case statement. This prevents you from overlooking invalid values in your program. eg:
double square_root(double x) {
if(x > 0.0f) {
return sqrt(x);
} else if(x == 0.0f) {
return x;
} else {
printf("INVALID VALUE: x must be greater than zero");
return 0.0f;
}
}
Do you want to type millions of if statements for each possible value of x in this case? Doubt it :)
Cheers!
This totally depends on the condition you're testing. In your example it will make no difference eventually but as best practice, if you want ONE of the conditions to be eventually executed then you better use if else
if (x > 1) {
System.out.println("Hello!");
}else if (x < 1) {
System.out.println("Bye!");
}
Also note that if the first condition is TRUE the second will NOT be checked at all but if you use
if (x > 1) {
System.out.println("Hello!");
}
if (x < 1) {
System.out.println("Bye!");
}
The second condition will be checked even if the first condition is TRUE. This might be resolved by the optimizer eventually but as far as I know it behaves that way. Also the first one is the one is meant to be written and behaves like this so it is always the best choice for me unless the logic requires otherwise.
if and else if is different to two consecutive if statements. In the first, when the CPU takes the first if branch the else if won't be checked. In the two consecutive if statements, even if the the first if is checked and taken, the next if will also be check and take if the the condition is true.
I tend to think that using else if is easier more robust in the face of code changes. If someone were to adjust the control flow of the function and replaces a return with side-effect or a function call with a try-catch the else-if would fail hard if all conditions are truly exclusive. It really depends to much on the exact code you are working with to make a general judgment and you need to consider the possible trade-offs with brevity.
With return statements in each if branch.
In your code, you have return statements in each of the if conditions. When you have a situation like this, there are two ways to write this. The first is how you've written it in Example 1:
if (a == b1) {
return c1;
} else if (a == b2) {
return c2;
} else {
return c11;
}
The other is as follows:
if (a == b1) {
return c1;
}
if (a == b2) {
return c2;
}
return c11; // no if or else around this return statement
These two ways of writing your code are identical.
The way you wrote your code in example 2 wouldn't compile in C++ or Java (and would be undefined behavior in C), because the compiler doesn't know that you've covered all possible values of a so it thinks there's a code path through the function that can get you to the end of the function without returning a return value.
if (a == b1) {
return c1;
}
if (a == b2) {
return c2;
}
...
if (a == b11) {
return c11;
}
// what if you set a to some value c12?
Without return statements in each if branch.
Without return statements in each if branch, your code would be functionally identical only if the following statements are true:
You don't mutate the value of a in any of the if branches.
== is an equivalence relation (in the mathematical sense) and none of the b1 thru b11 are in the same equivalence class.
== doesn't have any side effects.
To clarify further about point #2 (and also point #3):
== is always an equivalence relation in C or Java and never has side effects.
In languages that let you override the == operator, such as C++, Ruby, or Scala, the overridden == operator may not be an equivalence relation, and it may have side effects. We certainly hope that whoever overrides the == operator was sane enough to write an equivalence relation that doesn't have side effects, but there's no guarantee.
In JavaScript and certain other programming languages with loose type conversion rules, there are cases built into the language where == is not transitive, or not symmetric. (In Javascript, === is an equivalence relation.)
In terms of performance, example #1 is guaranteed not to perform any comparisons after the one that matches. It may be possible for the compiler to optimize #2 to skip the extra comparisons, but it's unlikely. In the following example, it probably can't, and if the strings are long, the extra comparisons aren't cheap.
if (strcmp(str, "b1") == 0) {
...
}
if (strcmp(str, "b2") == 0) {
...
}
if (strcmp(str, "b3") == 0) {
...
}
I prefer if/else structures, because it's much easier to evaluate all possible states of your problem in every variation together with switches. It's more robust I find and quicker to debug especially when you do multiple Boolean evaluations in a weak-typed environment such as PHP, example why elseif is bad (exaggerated for demonstration):
if(a && (c == d))
{
} elseif ( b && (!d || a))
{
} elseif ( d == a && ( b^2 > c))
{
} else {
}
This problem has beyond 4^2=16 boolean states, which is simply to demonstrate the weak-typing effects that makes things even worse. It isn't so hard to imagine a three state variable, three variable problem involved in a if ab elseif bc type of way.
Leave optimization to the compiler.
In most cases, using if-elseif-else and switch statements over if-if-if statements is more efficient (since it makes it easier for the compiler to create jump/lookup tables) and better practice since it makes your code more readable, plus the compiler makes sure you include a default case in the switch. This answer, along with this table comparing the three different statements was synthesized using other answer posts on this page as well as those of a similar SO question.
I think these code snippets are equivalent for the simple reason that you have many return statements. If you had a single return statements, you would be using else constructs that here are unnecessary.
Your comparison relies on the fact that the body of the if statements return control from the method. Otherwise, the functionality would be different.
In this case, they perform the same functionality. The latter is much easier to read and understand in my opinion and would be my choice as which to use.
They potentially do different things.
If a is equal to b1 and b2, you enter two if blocks. In the first example, you only ever enter one. I imagine the first example is faster as the compiler probably does have to check each condition sequentially as certain comparison rules may apply to the object. It may be able to optimise them out... but if you only want one to be entered, the first approach is more obvious, less likely to lead to developer mistake or inefficient code, so I'd definitely recommend that.
CanSpice's answer is correct. An additional consideration for performance is to find out which conditional occurs most often. For example, if a==b1 only occurs 1% of the time, then you get better performance by checking the other case first.
Gir Loves Tacos answer is also good. Best practice is to ensure you have all cases covered.
Newbie here and I just want to know should I use ELSE IF for something like below:
(function)
IF x==1
IF x==2
IF x==3
That is the way I am using, because the x will not be anything else. However, I think that if the x is equal to 1, the program still gonna run through the following codes (which turn out to be FALSE FALSE FALSE ...). Should I use ELSE IF so it won't have to run the rest? Will that help the performance?
Why don't I want to use ELSE IF? because I'd like each code block (IF x==n) to be similar, not like this:
IF x==1
ELSE IF x==2
ELSE IF x==3
(each ELSE IF block is part of the block above it)
But the program will repeatedly call this function so I am worried about the performance or delay.
Short answer: If you do not need to handle a case where multiple conditions might be true at the same time, always use
if (condition) {
//do something
}
else if (other_condition) {
//do something else
}
else { //in all other conditions
//default behaviour
}
Long answer:
As others have already stated, performance is not really a big concern (unless you are writing production code for enterprise software targeted at colossal businesses). In case performance is indeed crucial though, you should go for the above format anyway. So that might be a good practice/habit to get used to (especially if you are now starting your code journey)
Switch could be an alternative, but since you haven't specified the language I would avoid suggesting it since, in some languages, it defaults to fall-through (which might get you where you started in the first place and confuse you even more)
Performance might not be a concern. But keep in mind that logic errors are a huge enemy to programming, and your solution is prone to them if you don't actually need it to be able to match more than one cases. Consider the following case.
if (x == 1) {
x = x + 1
}
if (x == 2) {
x = x + 2
}
if (x >= 3) {
print("Error: x should only be 1 or 2!")
}
In this case, you would expect that if x >= 3 you would warn about an error in value since you only had in mind handling the values 1 or 2. Actually though, even if the value of x is 1 or 2 (which you have considered to be valid) the same error message would be printed!. That's because you have allowed the possibility of more than one conditions being checked and the respective code block being executed each time. Note that this is an oversimplified example. In times, this can be a great pain! Especially if you collaborate with others and you share the code and you are aiming for expendable and maintainable code.
To conclude, do not use a simpler solution if you haven't thought it through. Go for the complete one instead and take in mind all possible outcomes (usually the worst case scenarios and even future features and code).
Best Regards!
If the value being tested is expected to be able to match multiple in a single calling, then test each (IF, IF, ...).
If the value is expected to only match one, then check for it and stop if you find it (IF, ELSE IF, ELSE IF...).
If the values are expected to be one of a known set, then go right to it (switch).
Assuming this is javascript, but this should be about the same for anything else.
The code inside the if statement will only be run if the condition you provide it is true. For example, if you declare x = 1, we could have something like:
function something() {
if(x == 1) {
//do this
}
if(x == 2) {
//do that
}
if(x == 3) {
//do this and that
}
The first block would be run and everything else is ignored. An else-if statement will run if the first if statement is false.
function something() {
if(x == 1) {
//do this
}
else if(x == 2) {
//do that
}
So if x == 1 was false, the next statement would be evaluated.
As for performance, the difference is way too little for you to care about. If you have many conditions you need to test, you may want to look into a switch statement.
I have a Heaviside step function centered on unity for any data type, which I've encoded using:
template <typename T>
int h1(const T& t){
if (t < 1){
return 0;
} else if (t >= 1){
return 1;
}
}
In code review, my reviewer told me that there is not an explicit return on all control paths. And the compiler does not warn me either. But I don't agree; the conditions are mutually exclusive. How do I deal with this?
It depends on how the template is used. For an int, you're fine.
But, if t is an IEEE754 floating point double type with a value set to NaN, neither t < 1 nor t >= 1 are true and so program control reaches the end of the if block! This causes the function to return without an explicit value; the behaviour of which is undefined.
(In a more general case, where T overloads the < and >= operators in such a way as to not cover all possibilities, program control will reach the end of the if block with no explicit return.)
The moral of the story here is to decide on which branch should be the default, and make that one the else case.
Just because code is correct, that doesn't mean it can't be better. Correct execution is the first step in quality, not the last.
if (t < 1) {
return 0;
} else if (t >= 1){
return 1;
}
The above is "correct" for any datatype of t than has sane behavior for < and >=. But this:
if (t < 1) {
return 0;
}
return 1;
Is easier to see by inspection that every case is covered, and avoids the second unneeded comparison altogether (that some compilers might not have optimized out). Code is not only read by compilers, but by humans, including you 10 years from now. Give the humans a break and write more simply for their understanding as well.
As noted, some special numbers can be both < and >=, so your reviewer is simply right.
The question is: what made you want to code it like this in the first place? Why do you even consider making life so hard for yourself and others (the people that need to maintain your code)? Just the fact that you are smart enough to deduce that < and >= should cover all cases doesn't mean that you have to make the code more complex than necessary. What goes for physics goes for code too: make things as simple as possible, but not simpler (I believe Einstein said this).
Think about it. What are you trying to achieve? Must be something like this: 'Return 0 if the input is less than 1, return 1 otherwise.' What you've done is add intelligence by saying ... oh but that means that I return 1 if t is greater or equal 1. This sort of needless 'x implies y' is requiring extra think work on behalf of the maintainer. If you think that is a good thing, I would advise to do a couple of years of code maintenance yourself.
If it were my review, I'd make another remark. If you use an 'if' statement, then you can basically do anything you want in all branches. But in this case, you do not do 'anything'. All you want to do is return 0 or 1 depending on whether t<1 or not. In those cases, I think the '?:' statement is much better and more readable than the if statement. Thus:
return t<1 ? 0 : 1;
I know the ?: operator is forbidden in some companies, and I find that a horrible thing to do. ?: usually matches much better with specifications, and it can make code so much easier to read (if used with care) ...
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Why there is a need of 3 different loops : "while", "do-while", and "for" to exist in c/c++, especially when each of them gives you power to do almost anything that the other 2 can do? Other languages lack one or the other.
Is it just for ease of use or to make the code look better in cases, or are there any special purposes that are served by any one of them specifically that can't be accomplished so easily with the other two? If yes, then please mention.
P.S. - In general, do a language support many iteration syntax just to enhance readability?
It's not just readability, it's also the closely-related but distinct maintainability, and concision, and scoping (esp. for files, locks, smart pointers etc.), and performance....
If we consider the for loop, it:
allows some variables to be defined - in the for loop's own scope - and initialised,
tests a control expression before entering the loop each time (including the first), and
has a statement that gets executed after each iteration and before re-testing the control expression, assuming no break/return/throw/exit/failed assert etc., and regardless of whether the last statement in the body executed or whether a continue statement executed; this statement is traditionally reserved for logically "advancing" some state "through" the processing, such that the next test of the control expression is meaningful.
That's very flexible and given the utility of more localised scopes to ensure earlier destructor invocation, can help ensure locks, files, memory etc. are released as early as possible - implicitly when leaving the loop.
If we consider a while loop...
while (expression to test)
...
...it's functionally exactly equivalent to...
for ( ; expression to test; )
...
...but, it also implies to the programmer that there are no control variables that should be local to the loop, and that either the control "expression to test" inherently "progresses" through a finite number of iterations, loops forever if the test expression is hardcoded true, or more complicated management of "progress" had to bed itself controlled and coordinated by the statements the while controls.
In other words, a programmer seeing while is automatically aware that they need to study the control expression more carefully, then possibly look more widely at both the surrounding scope/function and the contained statements, to understand the loop behaviour.
So, do-while? Well, writing code like this is painful and less efficient:
bool first_time = true;
while (first_time || ...)
{
first_time = false;
...
}
// oops... first_time still hanging around...
...compared to...
do
...
while (...);
Examples
While loop:
int i = 23;
while (i < 99)
{
if (f(i)) { ++i; continue; }
if (g(i)) break;
++i;
}
// oops... i is hanging around
For loop:
for (int i = 23; i < 99; ++i)
{
if (f(i)) continue;
if (g(i)) break;
}
Well, C++ has goto and you can use it to implement all three loops, but it doesn't mean that they should be removed. Actually it just increases readability. Of course you could implement any of them yourself.
Some loops are easiest to write using for, some are easiest to write using while, and some are easiest to write using do-while. So the language provides all three.
We have things things like the += operator for the same reason; += doesn't do anything that you can't do with plain +, but using it (where appropriate) can make your code a bit more readable.
In general, when presented with different language constructs that accomplish similar purposes, you should choose the one that more clearly communicates the intended purpose of the code you are writing. It is a benefit that C provides four distinct structured iteration devices to use, as it provides a high chance you can clearly communicate the intended purpose.
for ( initialization ; condition ; iteration-step ) body
This form communicates how the loop will start, how it will adjust things for the next iteration, and what is the condition to stay within the loop. This construct lends itself naturally for doing something N times.
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) {
/* ... */
}
while ( condition ) body
This form communicates simply that you wish to continue to perform the loop while the condition remains true. For loops where the iteration-step is implicit to the way the loop works, it can be a more natural way to communicate the intention of the code:
while (std::cin >> word) {
/* ... */
}
do body while ( condition )
This form communicates that the loop body will execute at least once, and then continues while the condition remains true. This is useful for situations where you have already determined that you need to execute the body, so you avoid a redundant looking test.
if (count > 0) {
do {
/* ... */
} while (--count > 0);
} else {
puts("nothing to do");
}
The fourth iteration device is ... recursion!
Recursion is another form of iteration that expresses that the same function can be used to work on a smaller part of the original problem. It is a natural way to express a divide and conquer strategy to a problem (like binary searching, or sorting), or to work on data structures that self-referential (such as lists or trees).
struct node {
struct node *next;
char name[32];
char info[256];
};
struct node * find (struct node *list, char *name)
{
if (list == NULL || strcmp(name, list->name) == 0) {
return list;
}
return find(list->next, name);
}
For example
int f(int a) {
...
return a > 10;
}
is that considered acceptable (not legal, I mean is it ``good code''), or should it always be in a conditional, like this
int f(int a) {
...
if (a > 10)
return 1;
else
return 0;
}
It would be acceptable - if your return type was bool.
This is absolutely acceptable! In fact, Joel mentioned this on the latest stackoverflow podcast. He said it was the one thing he's had to show almost every programmer that starts at Fog Creek.
return a > 10 ? 1 : 0;
... makes more sense because you're returning an int, not a bool.
The first case is perfectly good, far better than the second, IMHO. As a matter of readability, I personally would do
return (a > 10);
but that is a minor nit, and not one everyone would agree on.
I don't see anything wrong with it. If anything it's more concise and I think most developers with moderate experience would prefer it.
The first is much preferable to me, since it is more concise. (And it avoids multiple returns:)
I'd rather write bool f(int); and the first form as bool is the boolean type in C++. If I really need to return an int, I'd write something like
int f(int) {
...
const int res = (i>42) ? 1 : 0;
return res;
}
I'd never understood why people write
if (expr == true)
mybool = true ;
else
mybool = false;
instead of the plain
mybool = expr;
Boolean algebra is a tool that any developer should be able to handle instinctively
Moreover, I'd rather define a named temporary as some debuggers don't handle function return values very well.
I think its perfectly acceptable, provided that you ensure that you make an extra effort to maintain readability. Like I would make sure that the method name is very unambiguous and you use good variable names.
The second alternative that you provided I think is almost worse because it involves a branch statement and multiple return statements and these things increase the complexity of the method while themselves reducing its readability.
Not only is that syntax 100% acceptable, you should also feel free to use boolean expressions outside of if statements, i.e. int x = i && ( j || k ); (or returning values like that).
I think part of it has to do with the style and culture of the language. The first example you have written is what would be expected from an experienced C programmer. They would much rather strangle themselves than put in an unnecessary block of statements.
I think it is perfectly acceptable when the language allows it and the usage is part of the paradigm of that language
I just tried three different variants with GCC:
int one(int x) { return (x > 42) ? 1 : 0; }
int two(int x) { return x > 42; }
int thr(int x) { if (x > 42) return 1; else return 0; }
As soon as you enable some optimization, the generated code for all of them is the same. So you should use the variant that is easiest to read.
I'll typically do the former over the latter.