Switch boolean.... (reinventing if, unnecessarily)

Kirk 10389821

Code Reviews Code Reviews Code Reviews Here is a great rule. When someone gets multiple "mandatory" changes needing to be made as a result of a Code Review. Then you must review weekly, ALL of their code. This continues until they no longer require "mandatory" changes for a few weeks in a row. The goals are: 1) Slow them down 2) Get them to proactively ask people how they should code/name something 3) Show them the right way (for your group) to do things Our Code Reviews have 3 Comment Levels: - Mandatory: We will not let this stand in production, must be rewritten - Suggested: We are not thrilled, but if you can "really" defend it. - Noted: We are just making a note, take it or leave it (Variable names, Variable comments) Make Code Reviews fun. Friday starting at lunch time with pizza brought in. It helps you to detach from the depth of coding for the weekend. Besides, Code Reviews are how Good Developers help new Developers!

Jeremy Falcon

Totally agree.

Jeremy Falcon

Richard Deeming

Scott Corbett wrote:

A switch will continue to fall through until you get to a break statement or the end of the switch (i.e. the default case.)

Not in C# - every case is required to have a terminating statement (break, goto, return or throw).

switch (C# Reference)[^]:

Unlike C++, C# does not allow execution to continue from one switch section to the next. ... C# requires the end of switch sections, including the final one, to be unreachable. That is, unlike some other languages, your code may not fall through into the next switch section.

"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

Basketcase Software

Couldn't resist:

void EnableFromValue(bool enabled)
{
FirstControl.Enabled = enabled;
SecondControl.Enabled = enabled;
...
}

ttennebb

I believe a switch is just a calculated jump statement. It doesn't work it's way through all the previous possibilities. Yes. Once calculated, the program goes to the break statement then jumps out appropriately. Switch statements are quite fast. In this case, I don't see advantage either way as an if statement is very simple too.

Javier jimenez Rico

it is simple : void EnableFromValue(bool ?enabled) { FirstControl.Enabled=enabled.HasValue?enabled.Value:false; SecondControl.Enabled=enabled.HasValue?enabled.Value:false; }

Member 11594914

This works for me FirstControl.Enabled = SecondControl.Enabled = (enabled) ? false : true;

Bruce Patin

I have code like that. It is the "..." that is significant. For some objects, you can't just set enable = false, you have to do other things. And, in some cases, one switch branch will enable some fields and disable others.

Bruce Patin

I have code like that, but sometimes it is not so simple. Not all objects have an "enabled" property, and sometimes I may need to enable some and disable others. Keeping the switch, or at least an "if ... else" structure, makes for more clarity, just in case these oddball things are necessary.

DanKorn

LOL! I recently went through my company's entire code base to purge out constructs such as "? true : false". Even more fun were comparisons such as "if (some_int_var == TRUE)". That's great unless, say "TRUE" is defined as 1 and your variable is set to -1.

jibalt

So do other things in the switch, but set the common values just once outside the switch ... duh. It's the DRY principle, and duplicating the code in each branch of the switch is not only stupid, but error prone.

Member 11594914

Look. this construct is a perfect alternating on/off switch. I've used it exclusively over past 10 years. There is no valid reason not to use it, especially if you favor Clean, concise, easy to understand code. Different strokes ... Tony d

DanKorn

No, "? false : true" is still superfluous. Just use ! (the not operator). It's certainly more concise, and I would argue, even cleaner and easier to understand. FirstControl.Enabled = SecondControl.Enabled = !enabled;

Member 11594914

Hey Dan love the use of Boolean operators. Used them extensively in the old mainframe days when storage was measured in megabytes. When working with 16mb system storage every byte counted. Here's an old trick to save bytes a *-6, ctr. Used this in 360/370 mainframes since adding the opcode (numeric value of 1) would save 1 byte. nice chatting with a knowledgeable tech

cramotowski

FirstControl.Enabled = SecondControl.Enabled = enabled;

Al Chak

If you are sure that the function argument named enabled is bool forever? If yes than there is no reason for the switch. If chacne to change the argument type is exist so - I would add into the switch

default:
FirstControl.Enabled = enabled;
SecondControl.Enabled = enabled; // :laugh:

Simon ORiordan from UK

Well I kind of assumed you knew how to write a switch.

Richard Deeming

Al Chak wrote:

If chacne to change the argument type is exist so - I would add into the switch

There's no reason to add a switch statement now just in case the argument type changes in six months. Add the switch when you need it - ie: when the argument type changes. :)

"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

Scott Corbett

You're right about the switch case and fall through. Been spending too much time playing with C++ lately. My apologies.

Scott E. Corbett

chaosworrier_oz

If it is not break-en, don't switch it? [[Thank you, I'm here all week; try the veal...]] Chaos.