for those of you purists that don't like break, continue and goto
-
Throw doesn't belong to the control flow. Oh, maybe I'm a bit purist after all.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
i mean, i agree that it shouldn't, but it causes control flow changes and can be used that way. but like i said, i agree. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
GuyThiebaut wrote:
I can see the possibility of arguing it either way.
My guess is that would put you in the minority. As for me, I prefer the break, but then I have no qualms about continue, return, goto, or other "out of band" control flow - pretty much except "throw" which I never use as a control flow statement (though I've been forced to use catch for that occasionally due to Other People's Code - *sideeyes Microsoft's HttpWebRequest class*) i just try to keep the out of band stuff near the top of my scope where people can see it.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
GuyThiebaut wrote:
I can see the possibility of arguing it either way.
My guess is that would put you in the minority. As for me, I prefer the break, but then I have no qualms about continue, return, goto, or other "out of band" control flow - pretty much except "throw" which I never use as a control flow statement (though I've been forced to use catch for that occasionally due to Other People's Code - *sideeyes Microsoft's HttpWebRequest class*) i just try to keep the out of band stuff near the top of my scope where people can see it.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
honey the codewitch wrote:
My guess is that would put you in the minority.
I agree, my experience is that as a generalisation us developers have very strong opinions. At the age of 49 I have found that I no longer have the desire to get into arguments over this sort of thing - as in six months time the 'best practise' recommendation will in all likelihood have switched.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
If you enjoy pain try mixing throw with interop. (sure way to properly destroy documents and pst files.)
Message Signature (Click to edit ->)
oooh. Another place i like to throw is in static constructors, just to get absolutely everyone's BAC up. :laugh: I'm kidding. I'm not a sadist.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
why do this?
for(int i = 0;i
instead offor(int i = 0;i
hengh?? why you still use break?
:laugh:
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
honey the codewitch wrote:
My guess is that would put you in the minority.
I agree, my experience is that as a generalisation us developers have very strong opinions. At the age of 49 I have found that I no longer have the desire to get into arguments over this sort of thing - as in six months time the 'best practise' recommendation will in all likelihood have switched.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
an ironic amen to that. I'm a bit younger, but grew tired of the holy rolling, compounded with me leaving the field and no longer being required to write "team" code, I can just do my own thing As a result I've become a bit more buddhist when it comes to most things coding. There are still certain hills I'll die on though, I admit.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
ugh, VB. I use goto in some of my code. Perfectly acceptable place to use GOTO - generated state machine code:
public static bool AcceptsByte(Grimoire.ParseContext pc)
{
pc.EnsureStarted();
if (-1 == pc.Current) return false;
if ((48 == pc.Current))
{
pc.Advance();
goto AcceptsByte_s1;
}
if ((49 == pc.Current))
{
pc.Advance();
goto AcceptsByte_s2;
}
if ((50 == pc.Current))
{
pc.Advance();
goto AcceptsByte_s4;
}
if ((51 <= pc.Current && 57 >= pc.Current))
{
pc.Advance();
goto AcceptsByte_s3;
}
return false;
AcceptsByte_s1:
if (-1 == pc.Current) return true;
return -1 == pc.Advance();
AcceptsByte_s2:
if (-1 == pc.Current) return true;
if ((48 <= pc.Current && 57 >= pc.Current))
{
pc.Advance();
goto AcceptsByte_s3;
}
return -1 == pc.Advance();
AcceptsByte_s3:
if (-1 == pc.Current) return true;
if ((48 <= pc.Current && 57 >= pc.Current))
{
pc.Advance();
goto AcceptsByte_s1;
}
return -1 == pc.Advance();
AcceptsByte_s4:
if (-1 == pc.Current) return true;
if ((48 <= pc.Current && 52 >= pc.Current))
{
pc.Advance();
goto AcceptsByte_s3;
}
if ((53 == pc.Current))
{
pc.Advance();
goto AcceptsByte_s5;
}
if ((54 <= pc.Current && 57 >= pc.Current))
{
pc.Advance();
goto AcceptsByte_s1;
}
return -1 == pc.Advance();
AcceptsByte_s5:
if (-1 == pc.Current) return true;
if ((48 <= pc.Current && 52 >= pc.Current))
{
pc.Advance();
goto AcceptsByte_s1;
}
return -1 == pc.Advance();
}but then I wouldn't write that code by hand. Too error prone.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
what's cool about that code though? It's directly translatable from visual graphs of the state objects it represents. I use graphviz to visualize them, and you can see right in the graph where the code matches up. It's beautiful - a 1:1 translation. So the code actually is human readable, you just need the map (the visual graph) for it.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
i mean, i agree that it shouldn't, but it causes control flow changes and can be used that way. but like i said, i agree. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
I've seen MS themselves doing it. Sometimes when external code that you don't have control over lacks certain functionality, it might be your only choice. (been there, done that. X| )
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
I've seen MS themselves doing it. Sometimes when external code that you don't have control over lacks certain functionality, it might be your only choice. (been there, done that. X| )
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
right? that's why i *never* throw! kidding! but in seriousness I take great pains to prevent the users of my code from having to catch exceptions on failure if they don't want them. Like I'll provide TryXXXX to complement XXXX Pck: Code Roundup and Quick Start Guide[^] In PCK I have an elaborate error handling system whereby it finds errors and continues processing only (optionally) throwing an exception at the end with ALL the errors it encountered. Otherwise they're reported as "messages" with different severity/errorlevels probably the most elaborate exception handling i've had to do in managed code.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
why do this?
for(int i = 0;i
instead offor(int i = 0;i
hengh?? why you still use break?
:laugh:
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
Depending on the length of the array, just let it loop :D I rarely use break or continue (break slightly more often, but probably only a handful in my entire career). I've never used goto, except to mock you I think :D I'd use FirstOrDefault here (which probably uses a break, I don't know). This kind of functionality is embedded in .NET, so why would I write my own? But if I had to pick, I'd choose the break, which far more clearly communicates intent than i=arr.Length;.
honey the codewitch wrote:
} // braces copyright Sander Rossel
So proud of my honeycode the witch :D
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
Depending on the length of the array, just let it loop :D I rarely use break or continue (break slightly more often, but probably only a handful in my entire career). I've never used goto, except to mock you I think :D I'd use FirstOrDefault here (which probably uses a break, I don't know). This kind of functionality is embedded in .NET, so why would I write my own? But if I had to pick, I'd choose the break, which far more clearly communicates intent than i=arr.Length;.
honey the codewitch wrote:
} // braces copyright Sander Rossel
So proud of my honeycode the witch :D
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
if code is hard to write, it should be hard to read. :laugh: i'm a sucker for symmetry.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
why do this?
for(int i = 0;i
instead offor(int i = 0;i
hengh?? why you still use break?
:laugh:
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
At times, the purpose of the search might be just to find the index of the valueToFind. Break keeps the index safe?
(JS)
var arr =[0,1,2,3,4,5];
var valueToFind = 3;for(i=0;i
right, but in the OP i limited
ito the loop scope, but yeah.When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
why do this?
for(int i = 0;i
instead offor(int i = 0;i
hengh?? why you still use break?
:laugh:
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
I prefer break statements. It is not suitable for big projects it might be confusing. I try my level best to write clean code!
-
why do this?
for(int i = 0;i
instead offor(int i = 0;i
hengh?? why you still use break?
:laugh:
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
Because the second fragment duplicates knowledge of the loop's termination condition. You have to remember to adjust it in two places. The first fragment is therefore more robust.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Because the second fragment duplicates knowledge of the loop's termination condition. You have to remember to adjust it in two places. The first fragment is therefore more robust.
Software Zen:
delete this;yep. although there are cases where I'll modify i inside the loop for other reasons. Like if I have to add or remove items while enumerating (it happens with complicated algos)
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
why do this?
for(int i = 0;i
instead offor(int i = 0;i
hengh?? why you still use break?
:laugh:
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
It was sample code. Normally you'd account for that when you put actual code in there, but without putting anything in there, it's not for me to know where the actual break should happen. However, it was sort of written with the idea that it would follow the main loop logic, kind of like the break example would. Of course the control flow is slightly different, but it's not irreconcilably different. if you need something to go after the conditional check, you'd wrap whatever went after the break in the one example in an else block instead.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
It was sample code. Normally you'd account for that when you put actual code in there, but without putting anything in there, it's not for me to know where the actual break should happen. However, it was sort of written with the idea that it would follow the main loop logic, kind of like the break example would. Of course the control flow is slightly different, but it's not irreconcilably different. if you need something to go after the conditional check, you'd wrap whatever went after the break in the one example in an else block instead.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
