Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. for loop

for loop

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
question
14 Posts 10 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • S Smart Not Clever

    How this happend to you ever? In the Programing world you use break to break out of a loop but in the real world you need a break to really continue.

    N Offline
    N Offline
    NormDroid
    wrote on last edited by
    #4

    :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

    All right, you guys, I got eight crates of Ipecac from Mort. All on my tab. Now, whoever goes the longest without puking gets the last piece of pie in the fridge.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • S Smart Not Clever

      How this happend to you ever? In the Programing world you use break to break out of a loop but in the real world you need a break to really continue.

      M Offline
      M Offline
      Mark_Wallace
      wrote on last edited by
      #5

      Smart-Not-Clever wrote:

      n the real world you need a break to really continue.

      What's she done?

      I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • B Brady Kelly

        I normally take a very hard look at a for loop that needs a break, wondering who and why TF wrote such a thing.

        M Offline
        M Offline
        Mark_Wallace
        wrote on last edited by
        #6

        Think of it as a switch with an iterable. It has to break the iteration when it's finished doing what it has to do, or a millisecond or two of time will be lost forever.

        I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • B Brady Kelly

          I normally take a very hard look at a for loop that needs a break, wondering who and why TF wrote such a thing.

          C Offline
          C Offline
          CPallini
          wrote on last edited by
          #7

          I suppose that is in the same set of 'never use goto' and 'no multiple return'. That's a rather dogmatic approach that may work possibly with newbies, in my humble opinion. :)

          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]

          T 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • S Smart Not Clever

            How this happend to you ever? In the Programing world you use break to break out of a loop but in the real world you need a break to really continue.

            A Offline
            A Offline
            Abhinav S
            wrote on last edited by
            #8

            Loopy. :)

            Me, I'm dishonest. And a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest.
            Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for...

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • B Brady Kelly

              I normally take a very hard look at a for loop that needs a break, wondering who and why TF wrote such a thing.

              H Offline
              H Offline
              Harvey Saayman
              wrote on last edited by
              #9

              With linq to sql I do this with foreach loops for performance reasons... Allow me to elaborate with two examples: Option A:

              var queryResult = (from i in ctx.SomeTable
              where i.ID == 42
              select i);

              //
              // Only continue if queryResult has an item
              if (queryResult.Count() > 0)
              {
              //
              // Do some work
              }

              Option B:

              var queryResult = (from i in ctx.SomeTable
              where i.ID == 42
              select i);

              //
              // Only continue if queryResult has an item
              bool ItemExsists = false;
              foreach (var i in queryResult)
              {
              ItemExsists = true;
              break;
              }

              if (ItemExsists)
              {
              //
              // Do Some Work
              }

              queryResult.Count() is dead frign slow when all your interested in knowing is if there is at least one result in the collection. Option B isn't very pretty, but it works better than option A speed wise.

              Harvey Saayman - South Africa Software Developer .Net, C#, SQL you.suck = (you.Occupation == jobTitles.Programmer && you.Passion != Programming) 1000100 1101111 1100101 1110011 100000 1110100 1101000 1101001 1110011 100000 1101101 1100101 1100001 1101110 100000 1101001 1101101 100000 1100001 100000 1100111 1100101 1100101 1101011 111111

              B 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • H Harvey Saayman

                With linq to sql I do this with foreach loops for performance reasons... Allow me to elaborate with two examples: Option A:

                var queryResult = (from i in ctx.SomeTable
                where i.ID == 42
                select i);

                //
                // Only continue if queryResult has an item
                if (queryResult.Count() > 0)
                {
                //
                // Do some work
                }

                Option B:

                var queryResult = (from i in ctx.SomeTable
                where i.ID == 42
                select i);

                //
                // Only continue if queryResult has an item
                bool ItemExsists = false;
                foreach (var i in queryResult)
                {
                ItemExsists = true;
                break;
                }

                if (ItemExsists)
                {
                //
                // Do Some Work
                }

                queryResult.Count() is dead frign slow when all your interested in knowing is if there is at least one result in the collection. Option B isn't very pretty, but it works better than option A speed wise.

                Harvey Saayman - South Africa Software Developer .Net, C#, SQL you.suck = (you.Occupation == jobTitles.Programmer && you.Passion != Programming) 1000100 1101111 1100101 1110011 100000 1110100 1101000 1101001 1110011 100000 1101101 1100101 1100001 1101110 100000 1101001 1101101 100000 1100001 100000 1100111 1100101 1100101 1101011 111111

                B Offline
                B Offline
                Brady Kelly
                wrote on last edited by
                #10

                A foreach loop is more like a while loop than a for loop, so you have more slack to use break. Then, what about Option C?

                if (queryResult.Any())
                {
                //do some work.
                }

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • B Brady Kelly

                  I normally take a very hard look at a for loop that needs a break, wondering who and why TF wrote such a thing.

                  E Offline
                  E Offline
                  Ed Poore
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #11

                  I often use break when there's one exception to the rule which is the loop condition. Including that extra exception into the loop declaration just makes it unclearer in my mind.

                  B 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • C CPallini

                    I suppose that is in the same set of 'never use goto' and 'no multiple return'. That's a rather dogmatic approach that may work possibly with newbies, in my humble opinion. :)

                    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]

                    T Offline
                    T Offline
                    Todd Smith
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #12

                    I like to add a goto inside my empty exceptions which then jump to a switch statement with multiple returns.

                    Todd Smith

                    C 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • E Ed Poore

                      I often use break when there's one exception to the rule which is the loop condition. Including that extra exception into the loop declaration just makes it unclearer in my mind.

                      B Offline
                      B Offline
                      Brady Kelly
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #13

                      I always make exceptions as well. Exceptions rule.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • T Todd Smith

                        I like to add a goto inside my empty exceptions which then jump to a switch statement with multiple returns.

                        Todd Smith

                        C Offline
                        C Offline
                        CPallini
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #14

                        So you are not a newbie. :)

                        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]

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        Reply
                        • Reply as topic
                        Log in to reply
                        • Oldest to Newest
                        • Newest to Oldest
                        • Most Votes


                        • Login

                        • Don't have an account? Register

                        • Login or register to search.
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        0
                        • Categories
                        • Recent
                        • Tags
                        • Popular
                        • World
                        • Users
                        • Groups