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.
NOTE: I've seen the post What is the cin analougus of scanf formatted input? before asking the question and the post doesn't solve my problem here. The post seeks for C++-way to do it, but as I mentioned already, it is inconvenient to just use C++-way to do it sometimes and I have clear examples for that.
I am trying to read data from an istream object, and sometimes it is inconvenient to just use C++-style ways such as operator>>, e.g. the data are in special form 123:456 so you have to imbue to make ':' as space (which is very hacky, as opposed to %d:%d in scanf), or 00123 where you want to read as string and convert decimal instead of octal (as opposed to %d in scanf), and possibly many other cases.
The reason I chose istream as interface is because it can be derived and therefore more flexible. For example, we can create in-memory streams, or some customized streams that generated on the fly, etc. C-style FILE*, on the other hand, is very limited, at least in a standard-compliant way, on creating customized streams.
So my questions is, is there a way to do scanf-like data extraction on istream object? I think fscanf internally read character by character from FILE* using fgetc, while istream also provides such interface. So it is possible by just copying and pasting the code of fscanf and replace the FILE* with the istream object, but that's very hacky. Is there a smarter and cleaner way, or is there some existing work on this?
Thanks.
You should never, under any circumstances, use scanf or its relatives for anything, for three reasons:
Many format strings, including for instance all the simple uses of %s, are just as dangerous as gets.
It is almost impossible to recover from malformed input, because scanf does not tell you how far in characters into the input it got when it hit something unexpected.
Numeric overflow triggers undefined behavior: yes, that means scanf is allowed to crash the entire program if a numeric field in the input has too many digits.
Prior to C++11, the C++ specification defined istream formatted input of numbers in terms of scanf, which means that last objection is very likely to apply to them as well! (In C++11 the specification is changed to use strto* instead and to do something predictable if that detects overflow.)
What you should do instead is: read entire lines of input into std::string objects with getline, hand-code logic to split them up into fields (I don't remember off the top of my head what the C++-string equivalent of strsep is, but I'm sure it exists) and then convert numeric strings to machine numbers with the strtol/strtod family of functions.
I cannot emphasize this enough: THE ONLY 100% RELIABLE WAY TO CONVERT STRINGS TO NUMBERS IN C OR C++, unless you are lucky enough to have a C++ runtime that is already C++11-conformant in this regard, IS WITH THE strto* FUNCTIONS, and you must use them correctly:
errno = 0;
result = strtoX(s, &ends, 10); // omit 10 for floats
if (s == ends || *ends || errno)
parse_error();
(The OpenBSD manpages, linked above, explain why you have to do this fairly convoluted thing.)
(If you're clever, you can use ends and some manual logic to skip that colon, instead of strsep.)
I do not recommend you to mix C++ input output and C input output. No that they are really incompatible but they could just plain interoperate wrong.
For example Oracle docs recommend not to mix it http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/servers-storage-dev/mixingcandcpluspluscode-305840.html
But no one stops you from reading data into the buffer and parsing it with standard c functions like sscanf.
...
string curString;
int a, b;
...
std::getline(inputStream, curString);
int sscanfResult == sscanf(curString.cstr(), "%d:%d", &a, &b);
if (2 != sscanfResult)
throw "error";
...
But it won't help in some situations when your stream is just one long contiguous sequence of symbols(like some string turned into memory stream).
Making your own fscanf from scratch or porting(?) the original CRT function actually isn't the worst possible idea. Just make sure you have tested it thoroughly(low level custom char manipulation was always a source of pain in C).
I've never really tried the boost\spirit and such parsing infrastructure could really be an overkill for your project. But boost libraries are usually well tested and designed. You could at least try to use it.
Based on #tmyklebu's comment, I implemented streamScanf which wraps istream as FILE* via fopencookie: https://github.com/likan999/codejam/blob/master/Common/StreamScanf.cpp
For example
I have char str[1024];
And I will do memset(str,0,1024); later
Is this okay,?
OR
i need to do this:
char* str = new char[1024];
thanks.
Both allocate space so either will work with memset. The difference between the two is in where the space is allocated.
char str[1024];
Allocates the string on the stack and will go away once it's out of scope.
char* str = new char[1024];
Allocates the string on the heap and will be around forever until you delete[] it.
As #HostileFork already pointed out, you probably want std::string here. If whatever you're doing isn't particularly string-like, then you may want std::vector<char> str(1024); instead.
Either way, you it's quite certain you don't want new char[1024] (a leftover from an early era of C++ that probably wouldn't be in the language at all if other facilities were present) and probably don't want char str[1024]; either, though there's at least some possibility that this one isn't an egregious mistake.
Direct answer: no.
Better answer: don't use memset in C++. Honestly you probably shouldn't be using memset in C either, at least not for all the things it's commonly used for. In C++ especially though, setting all bytes to 0 is not always the right way to "blank" a variable....even an array. This is technically true of C as well but memset has decades of abuse behind it...nobody's going to make an implementation that behaves differently.
Storing strings in character arrays and setting them with memset is not idiomatic C++.
(Note: I sure do use the word idiomatic a lot.)
Speaking of what a broken record I am, I plead with you to read this short paper by Bjarne Stroustrup:
Learning Standard C++ As a New Language
Don't be (too) afraid to show StackOverflow veterans more context of the question you're dealing with, because you might be surprised at the cool re-imaginations and improvements on your code they suggest...
To make this more of an answer, your declaration should probably read:
std::string str;
You don't have to manage the size, and you may return it by value to a calling scope (or not).
I just read about the FastFormat C++ i/o formatting library, and it seems too good to be true: Faster even than printf, typesafe, and with what I consider a pleasing interface:
// prints: "This formats the remaining arguments based on their order - in this case we put 1 before zero, followed by 1 again"
fastformat::fmt(std::cout, "This formats the remaining arguments based on their order - in this case we put {1} before {0}, followed by {1} again", "zero", 1);
// prints: "This writes each argument in the order, so first zero followed by 1"
fastformat::write(std::cout, "This writes each argument in the order, so first ", "zero", " followed by ", 1);
This looks almost too good to be true. Is there a catch? Have you had good, bad or indifferent experiences with it?
Is there a 'catch' with FastFormat?
Last time I checked, there was one annoying catch:
You can only use either the narrow string version or the wide string version of this library. (The functions for wchar_t and char are the same -- which type is used is a compile time switch.)
With iostreams, stdio or Boost.Format you can use both.
Found one "catch", though for most people it will never manifest. From the project page:
Atomic operation. It doesn't write out statement elements one at a time, like the IOStreams, so has no atomicity issues
The only way I can see this happening is if it buffers the whole write() call's output itself, then writes it out to the ostream in one step. This means it needs to allocate memory, and if an object passed into the write() call produces a lot of output (several megabytes or more), it can consume up to twice that much memory in internal buffers (assuming it uses the grow-a-buffer-by-doubling-its-size-each-time trick).
If you're just using it for logging, and not, say, dumping huge amounts of XML, you'll never see this problem.
The only other "catch" I'm seeing is:
Highly portable. It will work with all good modern C++ compilers; it even works with Visual C++ 6!
So it won't work with an old C++ compiler, like cfront, whereas iostreams is backward compatible to the late 80's. Again, I'd be surprised if anyone ever had a problem with this.
Although FastFormat is a good library there are a number of issues with it:
Limited formatting support, in particular the following features are not supported:
Leading zeros (or any other non-space padding)
Octal/hexadecimal encoding
Runtime width/alignment specification
The library is quite big for a relatively small task of formatting and has even bigger dependency (STLSoft).
It looks pretty interesting indeed! Good tip regardless, and +1 for that!
I've been playing with it for a bit. The main drawback I see is that FastFormat supports less formatting options for the output. This is I think a direct consequence of the way the higher typesafety is achieved, and a good tradeoff depending on your circumstances.
If you look in detail at his performance benchmark page, you'll notice that good old C printf-family functions are still winning on Linux. In fact, the only test case where they perform poorly is the test case that should be static string concatenations, where I would expect printf to be wasteful. Moreover, GCC provides static type-checking on printf-style function calls, so the benefit of type-safety is reduced. So: if you are running on Linux and if you need the absolute best performance, FastFormat is probably not the optimal solution.
The library depends on a couple of environment variables, as mentioned in the docs.
That might be no biggie to some people, but I'd prefer my code to be as self-contained as possible. If I check it out from source control, it should work and compile. It won't, if it requires you to set environment variables.