Cosmetic vs More Efficient
-
The difference may be slight but one of the conundrums I find myself in is using a ternary operator to handle a default vs non-default assignment. Simplified:
function whatEver(inVal=NULL) { // here, NULL is a default value for a function argument
// This ?
if(inVal==NULL)
inVal = internalDefault;// or this?
inVal = (inVal==NULL)?internalDefault:inVal;} // function whatEver(inVal=NULL)
The first should be a touch more efficient as it only does an assignment when necessary, but generally an insignificant difference. So - what would you do, and, do you ever pause and consider it before choosing?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Make it sexy. Keep code as clean and readable as possible. In the grand scheme of things, the compiler will make it efficient whatever the way you write it.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
-
The difference may be slight but one of the conundrums I find myself in is using a ternary operator to handle a default vs non-default assignment. Simplified:
function whatEver(inVal=NULL) { // here, NULL is a default value for a function argument
// This ?
if(inVal==NULL)
inVal = internalDefault;// or this?
inVal = (inVal==NULL)?internalDefault:inVal;} // function whatEver(inVal=NULL)
The first should be a touch more efficient as it only does an assignment when necessary, but generally an insignificant difference. So - what would you do, and, do you ever pause and consider it before choosing?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
if(inVal==NULL)
{
inVal = internalDefault;
}Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
The difference may be slight but one of the conundrums I find myself in is using a ternary operator to handle a default vs non-default assignment. Simplified:
function whatEver(inVal=NULL) { // here, NULL is a default value for a function argument
// This ?
if(inVal==NULL)
inVal = internalDefault;// or this?
inVal = (inVal==NULL)?internalDefault:inVal;} // function whatEver(inVal=NULL)
The first should be a touch more efficient as it only does an assignment when necessary, but generally an insignificant difference. So - what would you do, and, do you ever pause and consider it before choosing?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
I like the question colon, you can use it inline like
printf("You have " + count + " new email" + (count <> 1 ? "s" : "" ));
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
-
I like the question colon, you can use it inline like
printf("You have " + count + " new email" + (count <> 1 ? "s" : "" ));
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
This is a problem for internationalisation (== i18n). Not all languages behave like English re plurals.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
This is a problem for internationalisation (== i18n). Not all languages behave like English re plurals.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
Twas just the easiest example I could think of.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
-
The difference may be slight but one of the conundrums I find myself in is using a ternary operator to handle a default vs non-default assignment. Simplified:
function whatEver(inVal=NULL) { // here, NULL is a default value for a function argument
// This ?
if(inVal==NULL)
inVal = internalDefault;// or this?
inVal = (inVal==NULL)?internalDefault:inVal;} // function whatEver(inVal=NULL)
The first should be a touch more efficient as it only does an assignment when necessary, but generally an insignificant difference. So - what would you do, and, do you ever pause and consider it before choosing?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
I usually write:
void whatEver (int inval = internalDefault)
I want to let users see what the function does in case of a NULL value. Otherwise I would have to document what happens when parameter is NULL.
function whatever(inval=NULL)is simply not C/C++.Quote:
do you ever pause and consider it before choosing
I consider every line in my programs. This would be no exception. EDIT: Note that in C++ default value is written in the header file or wherever the function is declared not in the implementation as your code seems to suggest.
Mircea
-
The difference may be slight but one of the conundrums I find myself in is using a ternary operator to handle a default vs non-default assignment. Simplified:
function whatEver(inVal=NULL) { // here, NULL is a default value for a function argument
// This ?
if(inVal==NULL)
inVal = internalDefault;// or this?
inVal = (inVal==NULL)?internalDefault:inVal;} // function whatEver(inVal=NULL)
The first should be a touch more efficient as it only does an assignment when necessary, but generally an insignificant difference. So - what would you do, and, do you ever pause and consider it before choosing?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
I rarely use the ternary operator unless something happens in both situations. I'd write it the first way, and even on one line unless the assignment seemed a likely spot for a breakpoint.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. -
The difference may be slight but one of the conundrums I find myself in is using a ternary operator to handle a default vs non-default assignment. Simplified:
function whatEver(inVal=NULL) { // here, NULL is a default value for a function argument
// This ?
if(inVal==NULL)
inVal = internalDefault;// or this?
inVal = (inVal==NULL)?internalDefault:inVal;} // function whatEver(inVal=NULL)
The first should be a touch more efficient as it only does an assignment when necessary, but generally an insignificant difference. So - what would you do, and, do you ever pause and consider it before choosing?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
May I inquire why you would not write "whatEver(inVal=internalDefault)" - Cheerio
-
The difference may be slight but one of the conundrums I find myself in is using a ternary operator to handle a default vs non-default assignment. Simplified:
function whatEver(inVal=NULL) { // here, NULL is a default value for a function argument
// This ?
if(inVal==NULL)
inVal = internalDefault;// or this?
inVal = (inVal==NULL)?internalDefault:inVal;} // function whatEver(inVal=NULL)
The first should be a touch more efficient as it only does an assignment when necessary, but generally an insignificant difference. So - what would you do, and, do you ever pause and consider it before choosing?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Yeah, no, I don't use the ternary operator for that.
-
The difference may be slight but one of the conundrums I find myself in is using a ternary operator to handle a default vs non-default assignment. Simplified:
function whatEver(inVal=NULL) { // here, NULL is a default value for a function argument
// This ?
if(inVal==NULL)
inVal = internalDefault;// or this?
inVal = (inVal==NULL)?internalDefault:inVal;} // function whatEver(inVal=NULL)
The first should be a touch more efficient as it only does an assignment when necessary, but generally an insignificant difference. So - what would you do, and, do you ever pause and consider it before choosing?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
May I inquire why you would not write "whatEver(inVal=internalDefault)" - Cheerio
Because of this:
whatEver(NULL); -
Because of this:
whatEver(NULL);I meant to agree w/ Monsieur Mircea Neacsu - Professional Profile[^] in his post The Lounge[^] I simply do not understand the purpose of passing in a value only to discard and replace it. In hopes of becoming a better programmer or is it "coder" or is it "app author" I now know it is not "progamer" a full and lengthy explanation would be most appreciated. I am afraid I am too dim witted to understand how your brief quote "whatEver(NULL)" is an explanation as to why one would not declare it as Monsier Mircea Neacsu suggested. I await your kind reply. - Cheerio
-
The difference may be slight but one of the conundrums I find myself in is using a ternary operator to handle a default vs non-default assignment. Simplified:
function whatEver(inVal=NULL) { // here, NULL is a default value for a function argument
// This ?
if(inVal==NULL)
inVal = internalDefault;// or this?
inVal = (inVal==NULL)?internalDefault:inVal;} // function whatEver(inVal=NULL)
The first should be a touch more efficient as it only does an assignment when necessary, but generally an insignificant difference. So - what would you do, and, do you ever pause and consider it before choosing?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
I think, because the THEN branch is short, the second is more natural. EDIT: I turns into mess when the same condition evaluated many times in the "sentence". Natural languages and regexp have simple backreference to solve the problem.
-
I meant to agree w/ Monsieur Mircea Neacsu - Professional Profile[^] in his post The Lounge[^] I simply do not understand the purpose of passing in a value only to discard and replace it. In hopes of becoming a better programmer or is it "coder" or is it "app author" I now know it is not "progamer" a full and lengthy explanation would be most appreciated. I am afraid I am too dim witted to understand how your brief quote "whatEver(NULL)" is an explanation as to why one would not declare it as Monsier Mircea Neacsu suggested. I await your kind reply. - Cheerio
Function logic is really strange, but in any case, with your suggestion, result of whatEver(NULL) call is: inVal is not replaced by internalDefault and remains null, which will cause exception when this pointer is dereferenced.
-
Function logic is really strange, but in any case, with your suggestion, result of whatEver(NULL) call is: inVal is not replaced by internalDefault and remains null, which will cause exception when this pointer is dereferenced.
Thank you for your reply but doesn't the original code of Monsieur Mircea Neacsu as shown below merely replace
inValw/internalDefaultwheninValisNULL?function whatEver(inVal=NULL) { // here, NULL is a default value for a function argument
// This ?
if(inVal==NULL)
inVal = internalDefault;// or this?
inVal = (inVal==NULL)?internalDefault:inVal;} // function whatEver(inVal=NULL)
-
The difference may be slight but one of the conundrums I find myself in is using a ternary operator to handle a default vs non-default assignment. Simplified:
function whatEver(inVal=NULL) { // here, NULL is a default value for a function argument
// This ?
if(inVal==NULL)
inVal = internalDefault;// or this?
inVal = (inVal==NULL)?internalDefault:inVal;} // function whatEver(inVal=NULL)
The first should be a touch more efficient as it only does an assignment when necessary, but generally an insignificant difference. So - what would you do, and, do you ever pause and consider it before choosing?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
I prefer
if(inVal==NULL) inVal = internalDefault;
Why waste a line of screen space. It's easy enough to read. Though I actually prefer the declaration assign the argument w/ the valid default value as in
return_type whatEver(arg_type inVal=internalDefault);
I simply do not understand the logic of assigning a value to an argument only to immediately discard and replace it. I would be happy to learn of same. Incidentally I learned from a previous post or article I don't recall which to write e.g.
void foobar(int arg)
{
if(arg != valid_value) return;
// remainder of function performs logic for valid argument
}instead of
void foobar(int arg)
{
if(arg == valid_value)
{
// block performs logic for valid argument
}
}so as to minimize the number of indented blocks even though in previous times I preferred minimizing the number of
returnstatements. I find minimizing the number of indented blocks to be easier to understand. - Cheerios -
The difference may be slight but one of the conundrums I find myself in is using a ternary operator to handle a default vs non-default assignment. Simplified:
function whatEver(inVal=NULL) { // here, NULL is a default value for a function argument
// This ?
if(inVal==NULL)
inVal = internalDefault;// or this?
inVal = (inVal==NULL)?internalDefault:inVal;} // function whatEver(inVal=NULL)
The first should be a touch more efficient as it only does an assignment when necessary, but generally an insignificant difference. So - what would you do, and, do you ever pause and consider it before choosing?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Comments below assume C#, capabilities / syntax in other languages may vary. My preference is, if
internalDefaultis not a compile-time constant, to overload the function e.g.void whatEver() => whatEver(internalDefault);
void whatEver(sometype inVal) { /* ... */ }or (assuming
internalDefaultis a compile-time constant)void whatEver(sometype inVal = internalDefault) { /* ... */ }
Better than null would be to use
default(type) e.g.void whatEver(sometype inVal = default(sometype) { /* ... */ }
But in all of theses you should still check that inVal is not null. Alternatively, you can use the null coalescing operator e.g.
void whatEver(sometype inVal = null) // or void whatEver(sometype inVal = internalDefault)
{
inval = inval ?? internalDefault;
}One day, perhaps, there will be a null coalescing assignment operator so you can do
inVal ??= internalDefault;
- this is a feature that I have wanted in JavaScript since JS1.1 (c 1998) to change having code like
myvar = myvar || somedefault;
into
myvar ||= somedefault;
-
I usually write:
void whatEver (int inval = internalDefault)
I want to let users see what the function does in case of a NULL value. Otherwise I would have to document what happens when parameter is NULL.
function whatever(inval=NULL)is simply not C/C++.Quote:
do you ever pause and consider it before choosing
I consider every line in my programs. This would be no exception. EDIT: Note that in C++ default value is written in the header file or wherever the function is declared not in the implementation as your code seems to suggest.
Mircea
This was not intended to be a C++ only question. The C++ on the top of the block is incidental to my picking a code block (should have used plain code).
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
I rarely use the ternary operator unless something happens in both situations. I'd write it the first way, and even on one line unless the assignment seemed a likely spot for a breakpoint.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.That's pretty much my attitude. One place that's essentially always the ternary operator (for me) is testing for incoming arguments in a php file
$aVal = isset($_REQUEST['val']) ))?isset($_REQUEST['val']:some_default;
There could be a flock of these, one after the other, to handle potential incoming values so (at least) I don't get undefined errors. Further handling of default may occur later on (like not use the value). Because it's always the way I do the checking for this particular file type it falls back to being easy reading. Within the body it's not, however, the default way of doing it.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
That's pretty much my attitude. One place that's essentially always the ternary operator (for me) is testing for incoming arguments in a php file
$aVal = isset($_REQUEST['val']) ))?isset($_REQUEST['val']:some_default;
There could be a flock of these, one after the other, to handle potential incoming values so (at least) I don't get undefined errors. Further handling of default may occur later on (like not use the value). Because it's always the way I do the checking for this particular file type it falls back to being easy reading. Within the body it's not, however, the default way of doing it.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
I don't know PHP, but that looks like a good usage after squinting at it and reading your explanation.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.
