Bug of the day
-
Yes, but I've always hated doing those, unless you write it on a single line:
if condition then DoSomething() else DoOtherThing();
That's the only way in my mind to avoid stupid mistakes like this:
if condition then
DoThing1();
DoThing2();
DoThing3();
MainStuff();DoThing2()andDoThing3()look like they're part of theif, but they're not. I do the same thing in C-style languages. If anif-statement occupies more than one line, it gets braced.Software Zen:
delete this;Gary Wheeler wrote:
if condition then DoThing1(); DoThing2(); DoThing3(); MainStuff();
Yeah that's one of my all-time favorites. It usually starts out like:
if(_condition_) DoThing1();And then someone comes along later and adds DoThing2(), and the compiler silently chuckles to itself and lets the code do a lot of Thing2. Personally, I like to always use curly braces to block off code for that very reason, even if it's only one statement. If I see something like that with one statement, I'll add the braces so it's clear when someone comes along and changes it. Putting it all on one line works fine as well, but I like to always create a code block because it makes it easier to add statements later. And really, what's the point of keeping it on one line? But I know a lot of programmers have an irrational fear of vertical space :)
-
if(SomeThing == SomeOtherThing); { DoSomeThing; } This one has been sitting in the codebase for a couple of years... :(( At least it did SomeThing...
I bet that in DoSomeThing there is logic to handle the strange case when the if condition is not firing properly. :rolleyes:
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
-
I usually prefer:
if (42 == ComputeSomeThing(x)) {
//...
}This one avoids the
=against==pit. Another thing I do: my IDE is configured to show operators (like '(){};,+-=...') in color, so they are a bit harder to miss (like the original example). There are two other tools that can help with this: compiler warnings, and static code analysis. JM2B,Pablo. "Accident: An inevitable occurrence due to the action of immutable natural laws." (Ambrose Bierce, circa 1899).
Pablo Aliskevicius wrote:
This one avoids the
=against==pit.LOL, that one kills me, because I'm constantly switching back and forth between C# and VB :((
-
It seems that problem is in semicolon after "if" statement. DoSomeThing will be fired any time the code executes.
-
Wich compiler ?
while (*dest++ = *source++);
is completely correct, isn't it ?
Klaus-Werner Konrad wrote:
Wich compiler?
FTFY: Witch compiler Actually, in this case the C# produces three useless wormings: both for the "while(...);" (an empty statment), "x=y" (an assigment instead of a comparison) and the "*" (an "unsafe" code), does it?
Greetings - Jacek
-
Does that even compile? /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
No, it doesn't. But that's just the bug: it doesn't compile! [EDIT] I'm sorry, I didn't see the semicolon after the
ifstatement. That's the bug! :doh:The quick red ProgramFOX jumps right over the
Lazy<Dog>. My latest article: Understand how bitwise operators work (C# and VB.NET examples) My group: C# Programmers Group -
Klaus-Werner Konrad wrote:
Wich compiler?
FTFY: Witch compiler Actually, in this case the C# produces three useless wormings: both for the "while(...);" (an empty statment), "x=y" (an assigment instead of a comparison) and the "*" (an "unsafe" code), does it?
Greetings - Jacek
Thanks for the correction. My example was - as a reply to the mention of C, of course a C code snippet, and is the full working function body for strcpy(). Of course, it's unsafe - but lightning fast :-)
-
Klaus-Werner Konrad wrote:
Wich compiler?
FTFY: Witch compiler Actually, in this case the C# produces three useless wormings: both for the "while(...);" (an empty statment), "x=y" (an assigment instead of a comparison) and the "*" (an "unsafe" code), does it?
Greetings - Jacek
They're not useless warnings, they're warning you that you did something unintended. Actually this wouldn't compile at all in C#, even with unsafe mode turned on, because the result type isn't boolean. It's a classic and well known piece of C code, and I think you only got a warning for the empty loop body (and if you did if(a = 3) by accident you were just screwed, hence writing if(3 == a) instead which is an error if you screw it up).
-
Thanks for the correction. My example was - as a reply to the mention of C, of course a C code snippet, and is the full working function body for strcpy(). Of course, it's unsafe - but lightning fast :-)
-
They're not useless warnings, they're warning you that you did something unintended. Actually this wouldn't compile at all in C#, even with unsafe mode turned on, because the result type isn't boolean. It's a classic and well known piece of C code, and I think you only got a warning for the empty loop body (and if you did if(a = 3) by accident you were just screwed, hence writing if(3 == a) instead which is an error if you screw it up).
-
if(SomeThing == SomeOtherThing); { DoSomeThing; } This one has been sitting in the codebase for a couple of years... :(( At least it did SomeThing...
Ooh, nasty! Couldn't see it at first.
Check out my latest article: Celerity: How it was all done. A complete how-to on our sensor-driven head-tracking virtual reality tunnel game in C#.
-
if(SomeThing == SomeOtherThing); { DoSomeThing; } This one has been sitting in the codebase for a couple of years... :(( At least it did SomeThing...
Delphi4ever wrote:
if(SomeThing == SomeOtherThing);
I remember years ago spending a few hours debugging why (in C++):
for (int i=0; i<10; i++);
DoSomething();where DoSomething executed only once. I only had to learn that lesson once! :rolleyes: Marc
Testers Wanted!
Latest Article: User Authentication on Ruby on Rails - the definitive how to
My Blog -
I've worked with people who did this:
if condition
DoSomething();
else
{
DoOtherThing1();
DoOtherThing2();
}or
if condition
{
DoSomething1();
DoSomething2();
}
else
DoOtherThing();Both of which give me the creeping heebie-jeebies.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
It's valid syntax, and if you're confident that you'll never ever forget to add or remove braces appropriately, go for it.
Software Zen:
delete this;