de Morgan Who?

Brady Kelly

I can hardly believe I was nearly stumped by this simple piece of logic; if the exception number says it's an object that already exists, and I want to ignore the error, don't re-throw. However, the 'phrasing' made it look funny.

            catch(SqlException sx)
            {
                // Ignore 'There is already an object named' exceptions.
                if ((!ignoreExisting) || (sx.Number != 2714))
                {
                    throw;
                }

Steve McLenithan

Mmm Discrete Structures... now that was a fun class:rolleyes:

// Steve McLenithan

Pete OHanlon

Brady Kelly wrote:

sx.Number != 2714

Ooh - I just love magic numbers. Now, move along to the coding horrors - move along. ;)

Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.

My blog | My articles

Brady Kelly

:laugh: You missed my comment clearly stating the meaning of the number. I do so hate:

            catch(SqlException sx)
            {
                // Ignore 'There is already an object named' exceptions.
                if (!sx.Message.ToLower().Contains("there is already an object named"))
                {
                    throw;
                }

Pits fall into Chuck Norris.

leppie

Brady Kelly wrote:

((!ignoreExisting) || (sx.Number != 2714))

= !(ignoreExisting && sx.Number == 2714)

(you actually have way too many braces ;P !ignoreExisting || sx.Number != 2714 would be sufficient)

xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 alpha 3 out now

Brady Kelly

Actually, you have too few braces; **(**!ignoreExisting || sx.Number != 2714**)** would be sufficient. :doh: I started with your first form of the expression, but C# requires the whole condition to be parenthesised, giving:

(!(ignoreExisting && sx.Number == 2714))

which I find rather ugly.

Pits fall into Chuck Norris.

PaulLinton

If the logic is difficult for the author to understand, have pity on anyone else who will read the code. How about if (!ignoreExisting) throw; if (sx.Number != 2714) throw; Personally, I find double negatives put my head in a spin, so I would go for if (obeyExisting) throw; for the first test.

Brady Kelly

It's not difficult for the author to understand, it was just initially difficult for the author to factor expression. I like you first suggestion however, and were the code less personal, and more didactic as much of my professional code is, I would go back and use that.

Pits fall into Chuck Norris.