Special Case
-
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
Sure.
return -~i;
-
Just a quick one, but amused me when I saw it in code today.
if (i == 0)
return 1;
else
return i + 1;Guess the author is afraid of "AddWithZeroException" :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Regards Vallarasu S | FSharpMe.blogspot.com
-
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+++
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:
-
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)
-
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)
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); -
Just a quick one, but amused me when I saw it in code today.
if (i == 0)
return 1;
else
return i + 1;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.
-
Function will return
sqrt(2) + 1 -
Function will return
sqrt(2) + 1 -
SquareRootException + 1 -
Just a quick one, but amused me when I saw it in code today.
if (i == 0)
return 1;
else
return i + 1; -
For the sake of learning here, why do some of the examples use the abs function in their answers. Why not just i++?
-
For the sake of learning here, why do some of the examples use the abs function in their answers. Why not just i++?
-
And for sqrt(-1/64) do we get indigestion tablets?
-
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.
-
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);Sorry, I fail to see how you fixed it. Computers aren't very good at determining there is an unreachable path. Put an unconditional return 1 - abs(i) + abs(i); after all the if statements should fix it. (Especially if i is uint. Checking for negative numbers is really interesting in that case.)
-
For the sake of learning here, why do some of the examples use the abs function in their answers. Why not just i++?
MehGerbil wrote:
Why not just i++?
For one thing that would be the same as returning i. (Unless the i was passed with ref. Then you get two values for the price of one.)
MehGerbil wrote:
For the sake of learning here
That's rich. Trying to learn better coding by studying poor code harder.
-
MehGerbil wrote:
Why not just i++?
For one thing that would be the same as returning i. (Unless the i was passed with ref. Then you get two values for the price of one.)
MehGerbil wrote:
For the sake of learning here
That's rich. Trying to learn better coding by studying poor code harder.
-
For the sake of learning here, why do some of the examples use the abs function in their answers. Why not just i++?
-
It should be 'return i + 1'. ++i is a wasteful update of the variable i, assuming it's local (there's some serious issues if it isn't anyway), and i++ is just wrong because it returns i (before the statement) and not i + 1.