Thought about programming
-
This is not a question about how to do something, per say, but is a question of opinion. Still, if anyone feels this post is ill placed, let me know, and I'll move it. :) I noticed a language on SourceForget the other day called Nice, that had an interesting feature called Tuples. Essentially, it allowed you to do this:
(int, int) FooBar()
{
return 5, 10;
}My question is what do you think about this in a language. Most of our languages have thus far only supported a single return value, where as Nice allows an arbitrary number of values to be returned. Thoughts? Jamie Nordmeyer Portland, Oregon, USA
Eh, what's wrong with:
struct blah_t { int i; int j; };
blah_t FooBar()
{
blah_t ret = {5,10};
return ret;
}or for that matter,
void FooBar(int& i, int &j)
{
i = 5; j = 10;
}Granted, Nice sounds concise, but it seems unnecessary given how often such a thing is necessary.
---
Shog9 Life seems pretty easy when it's from my easy chair And you're burnin up inside and no one cares...
-
This is not a question about how to do something, per say, but is a question of opinion. Still, if anyone feels this post is ill placed, let me know, and I'll move it. :) I noticed a language on SourceForget the other day called Nice, that had an interesting feature called Tuples. Essentially, it allowed you to do this:
(int, int) FooBar()
{
return 5, 10;
}My question is what do you think about this in a language. Most of our languages have thus far only supported a single return value, where as Nice allows an arbitrary number of values to be returned. Thoughts? Jamie Nordmeyer Portland, Oregon, USA
You can do this in C# this way:
int[] FooBar()
{
return new int[] { 5, 10 };
}or this way:
int FooBar(out int retval2)
{
retval2 = 10;
return 5;
}I see dumb people
-
Eh, what's wrong with:
struct blah_t { int i; int j; };
blah_t FooBar()
{
blah_t ret = {5,10};
return ret;
}or for that matter,
void FooBar(int& i, int &j)
{
i = 5; j = 10;
}Granted, Nice sounds concise, but it seems unnecessary given how often such a thing is necessary.
---
Shog9 Life seems pretty easy when it's from my easy chair And you're burnin up inside and no one cares...
Shog9 wrote: Granted, Nice sounds concise, but it seems unnecessary given how often such a thing is necessary. That was my thought too. // Fazlul >
-
Eh, what's wrong with:
struct blah_t { int i; int j; };
blah_t FooBar()
{
blah_t ret = {5,10};
return ret;
}or for that matter,
void FooBar(int& i, int &j)
{
i = 5; j = 10;
}Granted, Nice sounds concise, but it seems unnecessary given how often such a thing is necessary.
---
Shog9 Life seems pretty easy when it's from my easy chair And you're burnin up inside and no one cares...
Shog9 wrote: Eh, what's wrong with... both are forcing you to work around limitations of the language. what you really want to do is "return 2 values". it's similar to the way you can do "OO" in plain C by clever use of function pointers and structures to simulate objects. but, it's nothing like C++, where OO is built-in. -c
There's one easy way to prove the effectiveness of 'letting the market decide' when it comes to environmental protection. It's spelt 'S-U-V'. --Holgate, from Plastic
-
Shog9 wrote: Eh, what's wrong with... both are forcing you to work around limitations of the language. what you really want to do is "return 2 values". it's similar to the way you can do "OO" in plain C by clever use of function pointers and structures to simulate objects. but, it's nothing like C++, where OO is built-in. -c
There's one easy way to prove the effectiveness of 'letting the market decide' when it comes to environmental protection. It's spelt 'S-U-V'. --Holgate, from Plastic
Chris Losinger wrote: both are forcing you to work around limitations of the language. Well, yeah, and C# lets you do properties with get and set methods automatically called at appropriate times. But how much of this is a big advantage? Can you provide an example where code clarity is increased significantly by being able to return two values?
---
Shog9 Life seems pretty easy when it's from my easy chair And you're burnin up inside and no one cares...
-
Eh, what's wrong with:
struct blah_t { int i; int j; };
blah_t FooBar()
{
blah_t ret = {5,10};
return ret;
}or for that matter,
void FooBar(int& i, int &j)
{
i = 5; j = 10;
}Granted, Nice sounds concise, but it seems unnecessary given how often such a thing is necessary.
---
Shog9 Life seems pretty easy when it's from my easy chair And you're burnin up inside and no one cares...
_(int, int) FooBar(){ return 5, 10;}_is not the same as Shog9 wrote:_void FooBar(int& i, int &j){ i = 5; j = 10;}_Regardz Colin J DaviesSonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
_(int, int) FooBar(){ return 5, 10;}_is not the same as Shog9 wrote:_void FooBar(int& i, int &j){ i = 5; j = 10;}_Regardz Colin J DaviesSonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin Davies wrote: not the same No, but one could replace the other without too much trouble. If performance was an issue, the first method - or inlining - could be used.
---
Shog9 Life seems pretty easy when it's from my easy chair And you're burnin up inside and no one cares...
-
This is not a question about how to do something, per say, but is a question of opinion. Still, if anyone feels this post is ill placed, let me know, and I'll move it. :) I noticed a language on SourceForget the other day called Nice, that had an interesting feature called Tuples. Essentially, it allowed you to do this:
(int, int) FooBar()
{
return 5, 10;
}My question is what do you think about this in a language. Most of our languages have thus far only supported a single return value, where as Nice allows an arbitrary number of values to be returned. Thoughts? Jamie Nordmeyer Portland, Oregon, USA
Jamie Nordmeyer wrote: My question is what do you think about this in a language. I think it's a darn useful feature. Some might think "How often would I use it?" But if it was added to C++ I'm sure I'd find more and more uses for it. The best way to find out how useful something is, isn't to add it, but to remove it. :-) Maybe, I should use the Boost version. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: both are forcing you to work around limitations of the language. Well, yeah, and C# lets you do properties with get and set methods automatically called at appropriate times. But how much of this is a big advantage? Can you provide an example where code clarity is increased significantly by being able to return two values?
---
Shog9 Life seems pretty easy when it's from my easy chair And you're burnin up inside and no one cares...
int Foo(thing &a, thing &b, thing &c, thing inputThing)
{
...
return 0;
}in C++ anyway, it's not obvious if a, b and c are output, or if they are simply passed by reference to avoid unnecessary overhead. yes, adding "const" to them would clarify status as input-only, but const-correctness is something i don't see a lot of. if C++ allowed something like:
int,thing[] Foo(thing inputThing)
{return 0, {a, b, c};
}it would be obvious that a, b and c are outputs. C# definitely improves on the clarity aspect with the "out", "ref", etc. keywords, but it still isn't ideal. -c
There's one easy way to prove the effectiveness of 'letting the market decide' when it comes to environmental protection. It's spelt 'S-U-V'. --Holgate, from Plastic
-
Jamie Nordmeyer wrote: My question is what do you think about this in a language. I think it's a darn useful feature. Some might think "How often would I use it?" But if it was added to C++ I'm sure I'd find more and more uses for it. The best way to find out how useful something is, isn't to add it, but to remove it. :-) Maybe, I should use the Boost version. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin Davies wrote: The best way to find out how useful something is, isn't to add it, but to remove it. True, that. :) One of the things i miss most in VB are C's +=, *=, &= etc. operators... Never something i would have wanted prior to using C, but sure conspicuous when absent now...!
---
Shog9 Life seems pretty easy when it's from my easy chair And you're burnin up inside and no one cares...
-
This is not a question about how to do something, per say, but is a question of opinion. Still, if anyone feels this post is ill placed, let me know, and I'll move it. :) I noticed a language on SourceForget the other day called Nice, that had an interesting feature called Tuples. Essentially, it allowed you to do this:
(int, int) FooBar()
{
return 5, 10;
}My question is what do you think about this in a language. Most of our languages have thus far only supported a single return value, where as Nice allows an arbitrary number of values to be returned. Thoughts? Jamie Nordmeyer Portland, Oregon, USA
Isn't this what STL pair is all about. Neville Franks, Author of ED for Windows. www.getsoft.com Make money with our new Affilate program
-
int Foo(thing &a, thing &b, thing &c, thing inputThing)
{
...
return 0;
}in C++ anyway, it's not obvious if a, b and c are output, or if they are simply passed by reference to avoid unnecessary overhead. yes, adding "const" to them would clarify status as input-only, but const-correctness is something i don't see a lot of. if C++ allowed something like:
int,thing[] Foo(thing inputThing)
{return 0, {a, b, c};
}it would be obvious that a, b and c are outputs. C# definitely improves on the clarity aspect with the "out", "ref", etc. keywords, but it still isn't ideal. -c
There's one easy way to prove the effectiveness of 'letting the market decide' when it comes to environmental protection. It's spelt 'S-U-V'. --Holgate, from Plastic
Chris Losinger wrote: const-correctness is something i don't see a lot of. Sad but true. Well, as Colin suggested, this may be one of those things that would prove to be useful once possible. "How to return multiple values" certainly seems to be a common question for those learning to program, so perhaps it's intuitiveness would make it worthwhile...
---
Shog9 Life seems pretty easy when it's from my easy chair And you're burnin up inside and no one cares...
-
Interesting. I'll have to read that more fully when I get the time. Thanks. :) Jamie Nordmeyer Portland, Oregon, USA
An example from the site: tuple add_multiply_divide(int a, int b) { return make_tuple(a+b, a*b, double(a)/double(b)); }
-
Isn't this what STL pair is all about. Neville Franks, Author of ED for Windows. www.getsoft.com Make money with our new Affilate program
pair will get you 2. how do you do 3, 10 or 50? -c
There's one easy way to prove the effectiveness of 'letting the market decide' when it comes to environmental protection. It's spelt 'S-U-V'. --Holgate, from Plastic
-
This is not a question about how to do something, per say, but is a question of opinion. Still, if anyone feels this post is ill placed, let me know, and I'll move it. :) I noticed a language on SourceForget the other day called Nice, that had an interesting feature called Tuples. Essentially, it allowed you to do this:
(int, int) FooBar()
{
return 5, 10;
}My question is what do you think about this in a language. Most of our languages have thus far only supported a single return value, where as Nice allows an arbitrary number of values to be returned. Thoughts? Jamie Nordmeyer Portland, Oregon, USA
Yup, sounds good. Only would need it once in a blue moon. I would rather have the compiler vendors spending time working on a better compiler than the standards group sitting around trying to justify their existence. IMHO, C/C++ has really come to the end of their extensible lifetime. It really needs to be rebuilt from the ground up and not have new features just hacked onto it. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
pair will get you 2. how do you do 3, 10 or 50? -c
There's one easy way to prove the effectiveness of 'letting the market decide' when it comes to environmental protection. It's spelt 'S-U-V'. --Holgate, from Plastic
Chris Losinger wrote: pair will get you 2. how do you do 3, 10 or 50? I thought he only wanted 2. Someone else mentioned boost tupples. In my vast experience a pair is the most common requirement here by far.:) Neville Franks, Author of ED for Windows. www.getsoft.com Make money with our new Affilate program
-
pair will get you 2. how do you do 3, 10 or 50? -c
There's one easy way to prove the effectiveness of 'letting the market decide' when it comes to environmental protection. It's spelt 'S-U-V'. --Holgate, from Plastic
-
Yup, sounds good. Only would need it once in a blue moon. I would rather have the compiler vendors spending time working on a better compiler than the standards group sitting around trying to justify their existence. IMHO, C/C++ has really come to the end of their extensible lifetime. It really needs to be rebuilt from the ground up and not have new features just hacked onto it. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
Tim Smith wrote: IMHO, C/C++ has really come to the end of their extensible lifetime. It really needs to be rebuilt from the ground up and not have new features just hacked onto it. Hear, hear. Brandon
-
Chris Losinger wrote: both are forcing you to work around limitations of the language. Well, yeah, and C# lets you do properties with get and set methods automatically called at appropriate times. But how much of this is a big advantage? Can you provide an example where code clarity is increased significantly by being able to return two values?
---
Shog9 Life seems pretty easy when it's from my easy chair And you're burnin up inside and no one cares...
Shog9 wrote: C# lets you do properties with get and set methods automatically called at appropriate times. But how much of this is a big advantage? I think "properties" let us write code in a more "human readable" fashion. Compare the two sets of statements below:
myForm.BackColor = red; Color clr = myForm.BackColor;andmyForm.setBackColor(red); Color clr = myForm.getBackColor();But I agree, these choices are merely based on convenience, that's all.