To me this is a coding horror, and to you? [modified]

[geoffs]

I agree that it leans more towards the stylistic category rather than coding horror. That's why after I'd posted I wondered if I shouldn't have more appropriately posted this in the Soap Box. Oh well...

[GDavy]

geoffs wrote:

as you get older

Don't worry about it, I can have that too, and I'm not that old yet (little over 30). And luckily not everything I think is being translated into what I'm typing ;) As to your original post, I completely agree with you. I have the unlucky position to have to tackle code that has multiple gems like these. Is the logical expression that difficult to read for some that they have to literally assign a 'true' or 'false'? Or perhaps the coder fears that the logical expression returns a different kind of bool than true or false? I myself find it bad code-practice.

[geoffs]

I am in complete agreement with you that the verbosity of the line of code that didn't sit well with me would surely tend to slow any reader down. When I am being asked to review hundreds or thousands of lines of code I would rather be slowed down for consideration of the correctness of the solution for the problem rather than issues of coding style like this. BTW, the issue of being tired and thus not typing what the mind was thinking is an issue that can result in mistypes regardless of how the line was coded. It is often best to not program when exhausted (and obviously to not post to Code Project when same).

[geoffs]

Hey, I am really getting to like you... :-D

[QuiJohn]

geoffs wrote:

Yeah, thanks, I typed too fast. Sometimes (as you get older) what you are thinking doesn't quite translate into what you are typing!

Which can also happen when coding, and the original version would be less prone to this kind of error. Although I wouldn't have done it that way either. I find your last solution to be way more of a horror than the original though. I also like putting parentheses around something like "Foo = (Bar != 0)" as it makes it visually more obvious what is going on.

---

He said, "Boy I'm just old and lonely, But thank you for your concern, Here's wishing you a Happy New Year." I wished him one back in return.

[geoffs]

David Kentley wrote:

I find your last solution to be way more of a horror than the original though.

I did use the word perverse with regards to the last solution. But sometimes I feel that way. I must disagree with you with regard to the first version as I feel that it is just as prone, if not more so, to errors from mistyping.

[Lost User]

Oh, yes, I remember those days. Comments were out of the question since your source / the interpreter /the compiler had to fit into those 4 kb. And the same went for longer variable names, if the language supported them at all. But since then we literally got a million times as much memory at our disposal. Priorities have changed and now I also prefer clarity.

A while ago he asked me what he should have printed on my business cards. I said 'Wizard'. I read books which nobody else understand. Then I do something which nobody understands. After that the computer does something which nobody understands. When asked, I say things about the results which nobody understand. But everybody expects miracles from me on a regular basis. Looks to me like the classical definition of a wizard.

[geoffs]

Certainly true. I think the real issue is whether or not the original line has any more clarity than the one I prefer coded up. IMO it does not. What part of "logical expression yielding a boolean result" is tough for any programmer to read and understand? At some point, verbosity for clarity's sake can become ridiculous.

modified on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 11:02 AM

[BillW33]

I have to agree. m_boolVar = intVar != 0; is much clearer and easier to read, IMO. Bill W

[Lost User]

In fact I just had the very same situation today. A call to a SAP-Websewrvice yielded an integer as result. The function in which the web method was called was required by an interface to return a boolean value for success or failure. In my case it came down to something like this:

...

ReturnValue = SAPWebserviceProxy.Z_XXXXXX(...);
ErrorFlag = IsError(ReturnValue);
if(ErrorFlag)
{
LogSAPError(ReturnValue);
}
else
{
LogSuccess(.....);
}

return ErrorFlag;

This is by no means great code, but at least everybody should be able to see what's going on. It's alwys a little awkward, no matter what you do.

A while ago he asked me what he should have printed on my business cards. I said 'Wizard'. I read books which nobody else understand. Then I do something which nobody understands. After that the computer does something which nobody understands. When asked, I say things about the results which nobody understand. But everybody expects miracles from me on a regular basis. Looks to me like the classical definition of a wizard.

[geoffs]

I would have no problems with how you coded that up.

[Rage]

For embedded people, this is the misra conform code :

if (0!=intVar)
m_boolVar=true;
else
m_boolVar=false;

Your first example breaks at least three rules.

[Nemanja Trifunovic]

geoffs wrote:

but it is a coding horror for my programming style and I am curious as to what the others here think about it.

As you said - it is a horror for your programming style. Different people use different styles, and as long as the code is correct and reasonably readable there is no point in discussing it.

Programming Blog utf8-cpp

[Paul Conrad]

It's questionable. Depends on how much readability is necessary.

"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

[realJSOP]

I would have scoped it:

m_boolVar = (intVar != 0);

"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

[dighn]

I think it's too trivial to fuss over.

[geoffs]

Which example are you pointing at? The original line of code that I didn't like, or my preferred coding style? Also, which MISRA guidelines are you utilizing... MISCRA-C 1998, MISRA-C 2004, MISRA-C++?

[Swinefeaster]

i would go with:

m_boolVar = intVar ? true : false;

[Lost User]

Thanks :) In any case, a simple method like

public static bool IsError(int ResultValue)
{
// 0 = success
// 1 = some error
// 2 = serious error
// 3 = ....
return ResultValue != 0;
}

will do the trick nicely. Such methods may appear a bit ridiculous as well, but actually the compiler should inline them when optimizing the code. And in cases when the return values represent not only success or failure, but also warnings, correctable errors, critical errors, fatal errors and who knows what else, a method to classify the result is much better than dealing with this redundantly in the code every time it's needed.

A while ago he asked me what he should have printed on my business cards. I said 'Wizard'. I read books which nobody else understand. Then I do something which nobody understands. After that the computer does something which nobody understands. When asked, I say things about the results which nobody understand. But everybody expects miracles from me on a regular basis. Looks to me like the classical definition of a wizard.

[Kevin McFarlane]

I use the style of your second example though usually with brackets around the expression. m_boolVar = (intVar != 0); However, recently I've been moving towards dispensing with the brackets too, partly prompted by my refactoring tool.

Kevin