Nesting level: 9001

[Lost User]

Yes, and I can't remember why I wrote it this way. It should never even have happened in the first place.

[PIEBALDconsult]

So what's the alternative?

[Lost User]

Well I could have done this:

if (width <= 11 && height <= 4)
{
size = 29;
Spread(width, 15, 16, xpos, ypos);
}
else if (width <= 13 && height <= 5)
{
size = 30;
Spread(width, 13, 14, xpos, ypos);
}
else if (width <= 15 && height <= 6)
{
size = 31;
Spread(width, 11, 12, xpos, ypos);
}
else if (width <= 18 && height <= 7)
{
size = 32;
Spread(width, 9, 10, xpos, ypos);
}
else if (width <= 19 && height <= 8)
{
size = 33;
Spread(width, 9, 9, xpos, ypos);
}
else if (width <= 21 && height <= 10)
{
size = 34;
Spread(width, 8, 7, xpos, ypos);
}
else
{
size = 34;
SpreadCompressed(width, width > 21, height > 10, xpos, ypos);
}

Not great either, but still better I would say. At least the width and height requirements are actually grouped together with what should happen if they're met, instead of in a weird inverted way moved as far apart as possible.

[AspDotNetDev]

It's over 9,000!!!!!! I assume you have been waiting for that. ;)

Thou mewling ill-breeding pignut!

[Sander Rossel]

harold aptroot wrote:

code I wrote a long time ago

You dare admit that here? ;p Although I must admit I've written something like five nested if's just today... :-O

It's an OO world.

public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{
public void DoWork(){ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}

[JackDingler]

Perhaps a map with a key class for width and height, and a value class for the passed parameters. Use std::map::upper_bound() to find the element you're looking for.... then it'll be dynamic with no hard coding...

[Oscar0]

How about something along the lines of:

size = 29;
if(width > 11 || height > 4) size++;
if(width > 13 || height > 5) size++;
if(width > 15 || height > 6) size++;
if(width > 18 || height > 7) size++;
if(width > 19 || height > 8) size++;
if(width > 21 || height > 10) size++;

switch(size) {
case 29: Spread(width, 15, 16, xpos, ypos); break;
case 30: Spread(width, 13, 14, xpos, ypos); break;
case 31: Spread(width, 11, 12, xpos, ypos); break;
case 32: Spread(width, 9, 10, xpos, ypos); break;
case 33: Spread(width, 9, 9, xpos, ypos); break;
case 34: Spread(width, 8, 7, xpos, ypos); break;
case 35: SpreadCompressed(width, width > 21, height > 10, xpos, ypos); break;
}

[Lost User]

There is no size 35 though, so I'm afraid case 34 would have to be a bit ugly..

[englebart]

Is size used elsewhere? I would have probably calculated a widthSize and a heightSize separately and then size = max(widthSize, heightSize) This approach basically replaces six || operators with one compare in the max() function. You could have used an array, switch statement, collection or even if statements for calculating/looking up widthSize and heightSize. switch would probably be most readable (and fastest for these datapoints).

[Oscar0]

Then I would amend it to:

size = 29;
if(width > 11 || height > 4) size++;
if(width > 13 || height > 5) size++;
if(width > 15 || height > 6) size++;
if(width > 18 || height > 7) size++;
if(width > 19 || height > 8) size++;
if(width > 21 || height > 10) size++;

switch(size) {
case 29: Spread(width, 15, 16, xpos, ypos); break;
case 30: Spread(width, 13, 14, xpos, ypos); break;
case 31: Spread(width, 11, 12, xpos, ypos); break;
case 32: Spread(width, 9, 10, xpos, ypos); break;
case 33: Spread(width, 9, 9, xpos, ypos); break;
case 34: Spread(width, 8, 7, xpos, ypos); break;
case 35:
SpreadCompressed(width, width > 21, height > 10, xpos, ypos);
size--; //back to 34 for you
break;