Someone please help me ....

Chris Meech

It would have been clearer if the if ( ... ) had been expanded upon. You know something like this,

if ( i == 0 && *outcallRecvCount != 0 )
*outcallRecvCount = 0;
else
if ( i != *outcallRecvCount )
*outcallRecvCount = i;

There that's much clearer and couldn't possibly be considered a horror. :cool:

Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]

CPallini

That's legitimate, because the author needed

*outcallRecvCount = 0;

instead of

*outcallRecvCount = 0 ;

on

i==0

:-D

If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles]

geoffs

Lovely! :doh: What is even more disgusting is that I've seen similar code in the product I am working on. You know, things like:

if (thisBoolVar == true)
{
thatBoolVar = true;
}
else
{
thatBoolVar = false;
}

It is quite painful to have to be in areas of this code...

BillW33

And people ( especially non-programmers/managers ) don't understand why I say that just because it seems to work doesn't mean that it is good code. :) Bill W

geoffs

Very true. However, I don't want to make it seem like all managers are lumped into the non-programmer's category. Every so often, in some companies more than others, you'll have managers that are technically savvy and do understand the realities of the code base. It's a pleasure to work with these managers, even if they can't fix the world (because of the dictates of managers above them, etc).

BillW33

I have to admit that is true. Some managers do understand, usually the ones that were programmers themselves, but sometimes the non-programmers do "get it". Bill W

Joe Woodbury

There's a slim chance that the author was trimming some code now and had reason to believe additional code would be added. (Though a comment to that effect would have been useful.)

Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke

Lonny clark

You must be new to this coding thing... you will see stuff that's far worse.

Yusuf

My first manager was technically savvy. He was a software engineer and has written many of the earlier versions of the software. It was lovely technical discussion. But he sucked as a manager / leader, just following orders from the top X| He would come and tell us what is going to happen and expresses his frustration and disagreements. poor fella, can't he fix the world? :rolleyes:

Yusuf

Paul Conrad

:~ pretty much sums it up.

"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham

dojohansen

Well, IF the variable did change the code would make a bit more sense.... I believe what he meant was the pattern if (someCondition) doSomething(); else doExactlyTheSameThing();

dojohansen

Oh I see it's the space before the semi-colon...

dojohansen

We can build upon this!

try
{
if (thisBoolVar == true? true : false)
{
thatBoolVar = (thisBoolVar != false? true : false);
}
else
{
thatBoolVar = (thisBoolVar == false? false : true);
}
}
catch {}

if (thatBoolVar != thisBoolVar) ...

CPallini

Exactly. :-D

If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles]

leonej_dt

Resign now. Don't expose yourself to such level of idiocy, unless you really need the money. And if you can't resign, ensure you make your coworker feel "proud" enough of his achievement to never do such a thing again! Ok, don't be too harsh.

To those who understand, I extend my hand. To the doubtful I demand: Take me as I am. Not under your command, I know where I stand. I won't change to fit yout plan. Take me as I am.

cpkilekofp

BadKarma wrote:

But then they should have protected it with CRITICAL_SECTIONS

There is only one situation where I would expect to see code like this: when one wants to set a breakpoint at i == 0 in the debugger, and one doesn't want to slow execution within the debugger by creating a conditional breakpoint.

cpkilekofp

CIDev wrote:

And people ( especially non-programmers/managers ) don't understand why I say that just because it seems to work doesn't mean that it is good code.

Sometimes, when I tell a manager about the Obscure C contest, tne light goes on :laugh:

cpkilekofp

Monty2 wrote:

if(i==0)
*outcallRecvCount = 0;
else
*outcallRecvCount = i ;

Actually, I use constructs similar to this while debugging. Conditional breakpoints can be very expensive in time when one is running a source-level debugger. To avoid dying of old age while the program executes in the debugger, I'll create an if-block like this, then set an unconditional breakpoint on, say, the *outcallRevCount = 0 line; that way, the debugger runs much faster, and I get the debugger to stop when i == 0. Leaving it in production code, however, is sloppy to say the least.

BillW33

For those who don't know The International Obfuscated C Code Contest (IOCCC) is located at: http://www.ioccc.org/main.html[^] Bill W