|
right, but in the OP i limited i to the loop scope, but yeah.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
if code is hard to write, it should be hard to read. 
i'm a sucker for symmetry.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
I have even encountered this in pseudocode, where the author could easily have added a break to his made-up exposition-purposes-only language but chose a more obfuscated way instead.
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer break statements. It is not suitable for big projects it might be confusing. I try my level best to write clean code!
|
|
|
|
|
Because the second fragment duplicates knowledge of the loop's termination condition. You have to remember to adjust it in two places. The first fragment is therefore more robust.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
yep. although there are cases where I'll modify i inside the loop for other reasons. Like if I have to add or remove items while enumerating (it happens with complicated algos)
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
That makes sense, especially given the type of algorithms you deal with in parsers and data structures.
In the course of developing several large, complex applications, I've learned that having pieces of code that must stay in sync logically or follow the same algorithm is a failure point. Refactoring can help if i makes sense to move things into a method, and then have each location invoke the method. The hard part there can be figuring out a name for the thing: "CheckToSeeIfMessageNeededAtThreadExit" is ugly  .
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
right. Extract Method is one of my favorite refactoring tools
I don't use incredibly long names for private methods. I'll abbreviate something like the above to _CheckMessageThread()
Public members i usually go all out, and give it a really long name if it needs one.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Yours is BS because it will execute everything after the if.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
It was sample code. Normally you'd account for that when you put actual code in there, but without putting anything in there, it's not for me to know where the actual break should happen. However, it was sort of written with the idea that it would follow the main loop logic, kind of like the break example would.
Of course the control flow is slightly different, but it's not irreconcilably different.
if you need something to go after the conditional check, you'd wrap whatever went after the break in the one example in an else block instead.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeas it the simpliest possible 5 lines code. In real life you would probably have another couple of hundreds lines of similar mess entagled there, with some poor soul wondering why is this piece of crap executing when it was not supposed to.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
 it's funny cuz it's true.
For the record, I'm not endorsing the method i described, I'm simply being facetious about it. I think it's silly. A break statement is much clearer, which was kind of the point of my OP.
Sometimes you need break. Or a continue. Or even a goto (which i can give a solid use case for - in this case making the code MORE readable)
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, here a piece of advice: never exit conditionally a for cycle. if you need to do that, use while or do until.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
i think it depends on the situation
for example
public int IndexOf(T item)
{
var ic = Count;
var i = 0;
for(;i<ic;++i)
{
if(Equals(item,this[i]))
return i;
}
return -1;
}
That's very clear even without comments
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
i=-1
do i++ until Equals(item,this[i])
return i
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
i mean yeah. That's a little less clear to me though. I avoid do loops usually because the conditional can get confusing if you're used to regular for loops. It takes me a second to work out what's going on, like when exactly the condition exits.
It's not big deal, it's just my preference.
I think my code is clearer.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
It is simpler and I actually use pretty much exactly the same code when it is that simple. When you have more than a page of lines within that loop a sudden exit is not what I would do. And a sudden conditional exit with break or return might be even ok. Putting the i to the max and then exit in that manner is something I would never do.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
well to each their own. probably it also has to do with my C++ background which influences a lot of my code. Not that C++ has different flow constructs, it's just that
a) i learned these habits a long time ago and the industry changes
b) C++ development is a different animal, and control flow is all over the place generally and for loops are used for almost everything except while(true) although some people go for(;;). It's not uncommon even to do stuff like for(current=firstNode;null!=current;current=current.nextNode) if(current->key==key) break; to traverse a linked list for example.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
A purist should be worried about touching control variables. Hmmm.
Jordan
|
|
|
|
|
break is (of course) superfluous - but why not try something that suggests the intention of your loop?
for(int i = 0;i<arr.Length && arr[i]!=valueToFind;i++)
{
}
... or (because I don't like "empty" constructs) ...
int i = 0;
while (i<arr.Length && arr[i]!=valueToFind)
i++;
|
|
|
|
|
I fixed your mistake, you didn't put some space after semi-colons in the for statement.
Book[] arr = books;
for(int i = 0; i<arr.Length; i++)
{
int books_index = i;
Book book = arr[books_index];
if(book.name == find_book) {
return books_index;
}
else if(book.name != find_book) {
continue;
}
else {
found_flag = false;
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Why not? What is the net value gain by the alternative you show?
|
|
|
|
|
there is none
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Those two code snippets don't do the same thing. The first doesn't change arr, the second does.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
