Using Else with blank If

[John R Shaw]

jhwurmbach wrote:

But then, the whole VB code gives me a screaming fit anyway.

I know the feeling. ;)

INTP "Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence."Edsger Dijkstra

[Shog9 0]

You might still have trouble in C, if you run up against code that uses other non-zero values for "true"...

----

It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.

--Raymond Chen on MSDN

[AncientCodeslinger]

If that's how you use booleans, you might as well just use an integer set to 1 or 0 or a string set to "Y" or "N" (or "True" or "False"). How about: somethingIsWrong = (type <> "GOOD" AndAlso type <> "Cool") With a variable name that clearly expresses the condition represented by the boolean, the comparison to True or False becomes clearly redundant.

[Graham Bradshaw]

Well, if the condition is to test the equality of two variables,

bool b;

if (x = y)
{
b = true;
}
else
{
b = false;
}

will give you a compiler warning, and

bool b = (x = y);

will not. (Note the assignment vs equality test bug)

[Kevin McFarlane]

It's also quite common. I often find myself starting with the first one, then after testing, stepping through, etc., I refactor to the second.

Kevin

[Kevin McFarlane]

The reason for the first is that some people have a fixation about negative conditionals, such that they will try and avoid them at all costs - such as the cost you describe!

Kevin

[Kevin McFarlane]

jhwurmbach wrote:

But then, the whole VB code gives me a screaming fit anyway.

But you see such style in the C-family languages too, though it's probably less common.

Kevin

[Roger Bamforth]

That's a good point and is actually something that had never occurred to me. However, whether or not you get a warning depends upon the types of x, y and b is not as simple as it seems. It is probably also language and compiler dependant. e.g in Visual C++

bool x = true;
bool y = true;
bool b = (x = y);

gives no warning, as you say, but

int x = true;
int y = true;
bool b = (x = y);

does generate a warning (forcing an int to be a bool) and

int x = true;
int y = true;
BOOL b = (x = y);

doesn't.

Regards - Roger

[Ennis Ray Lynch Jr]

If there is a complicated method and I want to indicate that I did indeed accomodate both possibilities I will, ocassionaly, leave a blank if. However, I almost never check a boolean variable against a boolean and instead prefer : if(isFlagSet){ //Some commented out code or not about //Why not used } else if(!isFlagSet){ //Some Actual code ... } else{ //File Not Found } Just kidding with the File not found!

---

File Not Found

[peterchen]

boolean = True but that's a boolean expression again, which could be true.. or false. So to make absoultely clear you want b = true to be true (not false), you write If (boolean = True) = True lather, rinse, repeat :rolleyes:

---

Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us!

[D111]

Shouldn't it be: bool b = (x == y); ---------- bool b = (x = y); would set x to y and then b to x

--- The sum of the intelligence of the world is constant. The total number of people is always increasing.