Special Case

[PIEBALDconsult]

Hey now, maybe it was originally written with constants or enumerations. :~

[Sentenryu]

yeah, sure, increment a enumeration...

I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)

[RobCroll]

That is funny++.

"You get that on the big jobs."

[hollysong]

Interesting :) But i can not imagine the reason of the code. Can you give the full scope of code? Thinking but nothing find about the code :)

[YvesDaoust]

A nice piece indeed. Here is a slightly more defensive version that makes sure the sign is properly handled:

if (i < 0)
return 1 - abs(i);
else if (i == 0)
return 1;
else if (i > 0)
return 1 + abs(i);

(with the added benefit that out-of-range values are left unchanged)

[Andrei Straut]

return (i < 0) ? (1 - abs(i)) : ((i == 0) ? 1 : 1 + abs(i));

Here. Shorter now, and less obvious to spot. The benefits of multiple ternaries :-D :-D

[YvesDaoust]

Right. This allows us to move the common constant in front and factor out the abs call:

return 1 + abs(i) * ((i < 0) ? - 1 : ((i == 0) ? 0 : + 1));

But how do we make the i > 0 case explicit ??? Maybe

return 1 + abs(i) * ((i < 0) ? - 1 : ((i == 0) ? 0 : ((i > 0) ? + 1 : abort(), 0)));

[Andrei Straut]

And even better, we can abstract away the "1", who knows, maybe its value will change somewhere in the future:

final int _CONST = 1;
return _CONST + abs(i) * ((i < 0) ? - _CONST : ((i == 0) ? 0 : ((i > 0) ? + _CONST : abort(), 0)));

Can I have that mind bleach now, please? :-D

[AshenFlowersFalling]

Came across this piece of solid-gold coding in Android the other day, in good old SurfaceFlinger.cpp:

if (mCurrentState.orientation != orientation) {
if (uint32_t(orientation)<=eOrientation270 || orientation==42) {
mCurrentState.orientationType = flags;
mCurrentState.orientation = orientation;
setTransactionFlags(eTransactionNeeded);
mTransactionCV.wait(mStateLock);
} else {
orientation = BAD_VALUE;
}
}

Sometimes I just don't know what to think any more. :D

+++DIVIDE BY CUCUMBER ERROR+++

[YvesDaoust]

Sure.

return -~i;

[VallarasuS]

Guess the author is afraid of "AddWithZeroException" :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Regards Vallarasu S | FSharpMe.blogspot.com

[Andrei Straut]

Well, just hold your phone at 42 degrees :-D. And also, there were worse f'ups: (Steve Jobs "Don't hold it that way", anyone?) Actually, there were none :confused:

[ASkoro]

Hey but what about i being sqrt(2)???

[sergiogarcianinja]

I just tried your method, and my compiler is generating a error about a method must return a value, so I fixed it. There is a version without bugs, hope it helps:

if (i < 0)
return 1 - abs(i);
else if (i == 0)
return 1;
else if (i > 0)
return 1 + abs(i);

[sergiogarcianinja]

I a very humble opinion, I think the original developer cared about performance. There is a big and ugly monster living in or closes that will eat us if we write less performing code. The problem is, that almost all developers don't understand about performance and do wrong things. Here, I think he/she are trying to avoid a sum using a comparison. In some cases, like division, it will be a great code.

[YvesDaoust]

Function will return sqrt(2) + 1

[ASkoro]

And for sqrt(-2)????

[YvesDaoust]

SquareRootException + 1

[Lost User]

For the sake of learning here, why do some of the examples use the abs function in their answers. Why not just i++?

[thoiness]

Rewritten:

return (i == 0) ? 1 : i++;

In division, specifically in the denominator, this code eliminates the divide by zero issue. I think the OP (original programmer) had good intentions.