To me this is a coding horror, and to you? [modified]
-
i would go with:
m_boolVar = intVar ? true : false;
That would be invalid in C# or Java. Even in C/C++ I would always query against a Boolean expression for conceptual clarity.
Kevin
-
First, let me say that the code excerpt below is not an egregious violation (and maybe not a violation at all), but it is a coding horror for my programming style and I am curious as to what the others here think about it. So, in reviewing a coworker's code I come across the following line:
m\_boolVar = (intVar == 0 ? false : true) ;Yes, parenthesization and spacing exactly as shown above. Were it my code, it would have been written as:
m\_boolVar = intVar != 0; // (corrected from == 0 by GDavy -- I typed too fast!...or if I was feeling in a bit more perverse mood:
m\_boolVar = !!intVar;There were much bigger fish to fry in this code, but there are times when I just can't let things like this go by. These things are like misspelled words that shout out at me from among the surrounding text.
modified on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 3:02 AM
I prefer your coworkers style . In terms of efficiency i doubt if there is any significant difference unless this is getting called repeatedly , and it is much much easier to read and understand than m_boolVar = intVar != 0; as this requires you to think about precedence. Just becasue you understand it does not mean that the maintenance programmer will . But at the end of the day its a style question , and nothing divides programmers more than that .
-
First, let me say that the code excerpt below is not an egregious violation (and maybe not a violation at all), but it is a coding horror for my programming style and I am curious as to what the others here think about it. So, in reviewing a coworker's code I come across the following line:
m\_boolVar = (intVar == 0 ? false : true) ;Yes, parenthesization and spacing exactly as shown above. Were it my code, it would have been written as:
m\_boolVar = intVar != 0; // (corrected from == 0 by GDavy -- I typed too fast!...or if I was feeling in a bit more perverse mood:
m\_boolVar = !!intVar;There were much bigger fish to fry in this code, but there are times when I just can't let things like this go by. These things are like misspelled words that shout out at me from among the surrounding text.
modified on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 3:02 AM
Now that I've gotten this off of my chest, I can admit to myself that it really was more of a style issue rather than a coding horror as modern compilers would probably generate similar, if not same, code for any of the alternatives. I probably should have posted it to Soap Box or Lounge, but it is what it is at this point. Thanks for all of your inputs. Some people agreed, some did not, and yet others were bored by the whole thing (in which case why did they even bother to reply?). Meanwhile, my style is best... :doh: ;)
-
First, let me say that the code excerpt below is not an egregious violation (and maybe not a violation at all), but it is a coding horror for my programming style and I am curious as to what the others here think about it. So, in reviewing a coworker's code I come across the following line:
m\_boolVar = (intVar == 0 ? false : true) ;Yes, parenthesization and spacing exactly as shown above. Were it my code, it would have been written as:
m\_boolVar = intVar != 0; // (corrected from == 0 by GDavy -- I typed too fast!...or if I was feeling in a bit more perverse mood:
m\_boolVar = !!intVar;There were much bigger fish to fry in this code, but there are times when I just can't let things like this go by. These things are like misspelled words that shout out at me from among the surrounding text.
modified on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 3:02 AM
-
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++?
-
geoffs wrote:
m_boolVar = !!intVar;
What is so perverse with that?
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.
:laugh: Ah, a man after my own heart! It is not perverse to me. In fact, I am quite at home with that syntax and like it. It is perverse because so many of my fellow programmers hate it and my use of it makes them froth at the mouth or sit there with a dumbfounded look because they don't understand what it is doing.
-
The first line. Your favorite style is worse, since you are using implicit casting and poor maintainable conventions. I refer to MISRA-C 2004.
If you are referring to the line:
boolVar = intVar != 0;
...then the folks at MISRA specifically allow for such usage within their MISRA-C 2004 guidelines under TC1. For further clarification, please refer to: Rule 12.6, effectively Boolean expressions in assignment?[^]
-
Thank you... for explaining in better terms what I was feeling when I made the original post.
-
:laugh: Ah, a man after my own heart! It is not perverse to me. In fact, I am quite at home with that syntax and like it. It is perverse because so many of my fellow programmers hate it and my use of it makes them froth at the mouth or sit there with a dumbfounded look because they don't understand what it is doing.
geoffs wrote:
because they don't understand what it is doing
I hate people who use C to program in Java.
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.
-
Amazing - CP is apparently not much different from Usenet. No matter how inoffensive a statement might be, you find someone who will take offense. How in heck can what I have stated in the previous message have caused someone to vote it down? :confused:
Let me get this right, you're asking about how stupidity can exist on the internet. The only type of question more likely to get a yes answer than 'can there be anyone on the web that stupid/ignorant/obnoxious' is 'can there be anything on the web that gross/perverse/obscene'.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
First, let me say that the code excerpt below is not an egregious violation (and maybe not a violation at all), but it is a coding horror for my programming style and I am curious as to what the others here think about it. So, in reviewing a coworker's code I come across the following line:
m\_boolVar = (intVar == 0 ? false : true) ;Yes, parenthesization and spacing exactly as shown above. Were it my code, it would have been written as:
m\_boolVar = intVar != 0; // (corrected from == 0 by GDavy -- I typed too fast!...or if I was feeling in a bit more perverse mood:
m\_boolVar = !!intVar;There were much bigger fish to fry in this code, but there are times when I just can't let things like this go by. These things are like misspelled words that shout out at me from among the surrounding text.
modified on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 3:02 AM
I see a lot of:
if (b1)
b2 = true;
else
b2 = false;and even some:
switch (b1)
{
case true:
b2 = true;
break;
case false:
b2 = false;
break;
} -
Your code is shorter, but the other one is easier to read. Your code is still pretty easy to read but I think readability is more important than conciseness. When you look at someone's or even your own code after a while (to find a bug or whatever), it's best if you can easily read and immediately grasp the function of the code. If everything is as concise as possibly, you often have hard to read code, which takes much longer to comprehend. So, writing easy to read code will save you time later.
Megidolaon wrote:
Your code is shorter, but the other one is easier to read.
Easy to read for someone who doesn't understand what booleans are, yes. I don't want someone coding for me who doesn't understand booleans - they probably don't understand much else, either. The third expression the original poster gives is the kind of thing that C programmers do all the time, but I don't think it's really appropriate for an application that has to be maintained by programmers of indeterminate skill. However, the first expression simply exposes the one who wrote it as ignorant.
-
It's just different styles of programming rather than a coding horror.
RugbyLeague wrote:
It's just different styles of programming rather than a coding horror.
If you coded "boolean_value == true" in my shop, I'd do my best to get you out of my shop as quickly as possible. Calling this convention a "style" is like calling a bum's rags "fashion."
-
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.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
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.
Are you serious?? Glad you're not in MY shop.
-
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, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I would have scoped it: m_boolVar = (intVar != 0);
Yeah, I do this, too. This is VERY readable to someone with sufficient competency in C# to be trusted with the maintenance of production code. The scoops highlight the boolean expression and make it a one-glance read; without the scoops, it requires a bit more concentration, which can be exhausting if you have to spend that bit of concentration 300 times while reading a single source file.
-
dighn wrote:
I think it's too trivial to fuss over.
If someone is wasting their time in writing such foolish expressions, and wasting my time by making me read it, it isn't trivial, not when I have to edit 200-300 lines of code before lunch.
-
i would go with:
m_boolVar = intVar ? true : false;
Swinefeaster wrote:
i would go with: m_boolVar = intVar ? true : false;
That combines the worst of expression one with the worst of expression three.
-
I prefer your coworkers style . In terms of efficiency i doubt if there is any significant difference unless this is getting called repeatedly , and it is much much easier to read and understand than m_boolVar = intVar != 0; as this requires you to think about precedence. Just becasue you understand it does not mean that the maintenance programmer will . But at the end of the day its a style question , and nothing divides programmers more than that .
Andrew Torrance wrote:
it is much much easier to read and understand than m_boolVar = intVar != 0; as this requires you to think about precedence.
If you have to think about precedence, you need to work on your skill set. I guarantee that if you were a junior I was mentoring, you wouldn't have to think about it by the time I got through with you.
-
Now that I've gotten this off of my chest, I can admit to myself that it really was more of a style issue rather than a coding horror as modern compilers would probably generate similar, if not same, code for any of the alternatives. I probably should have posted it to Soap Box or Lounge, but it is what it is at this point. Thanks for all of your inputs. Some people agreed, some did not, and yet others were bored by the whole thing (in which case why did they even bother to reply?). Meanwhile, my style is best... :doh: ;)
geoffs wrote:
Now that I've gotten this off of my chest, I can admit to myself that it really was more of a style issue rather than a coding horror as modern compilers would probably generate similar, if not same, code for any of the alternatives. I probably should have posted it to Soap Box or Lounge, but it is what it is at this point.
Don't let the idiots beat on you. It's not style, it's a clear indicator of someone uncomfortable with the language. Perhaps this is a minor thing, but I despise working with people (a) who are uncomfortable working with their language, (b) and who don't work like heck to GET comfortable.
-
geoffs wrote:
m_boolVar = !!intVar;
What is so perverse with that?
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.
leonej_dt wrote:
geoffs wrote: m_boolVar = !!intVar; What is so perverse with that?
Dependence on zero values being interpreted as false and non-zero as true is a particular feature of C-style languages. It confabulates boolean and integer types, which was OK in C (which has no native boolean type) but is highly inappropriate for any language that does support boolean.