C / C++ / MFC

15-Jun-09 5:10

vikasvds wrote:
I am very sorry for my re-post.

Ok, but have you begun to understand that OOD/OOP has solutions to writing conditional code?

molesworth12-Jun-09 4:30

molesworth

12-Jun-09 4:30

You probably need to take a step back, and think about what you're trying to achieve, and lay it out in a more logical pattern. Perhaps you can convert the value 'n' into a unique parameter for a switch statement.

There's also nothing wrong with using "else" so I'm not sure why you'd want to avoid it...

There are three kinds of people in the world - those who can count and those who can't...

led mike12-Jun-09 4:35

12-Jun-09 4:35

molesworth wrote:
There's also nothing wrong with using "else" so I'm not sure why you'd want to avoid it...

Here are some quotes from Kent Beck in his book Implementation Patterns[^]

If/then and switch statements are the simplest form of instance –specific behavior….
The more paths through a program the less likely the program is to be correct….The proliferation of conditionals reduces reliability….This problem is compounded when conditionals are duplicated.

These problems can all be eliminated by converting the conditional logic to messages, either with subclasses or delegation.

molesworth12-Jun-09 6:19

molesworth

12-Jun-09 6:19

led mike wrote:
The more paths through a program the less likely the program is to be correct

Aye, that's very true, and anything that can reduce complexity will also reduce the likelihood of bugs, and improve readability and, more importantly, testability.

However, sometimes there's no way to improve on an if/else construct, and when used sensibly they're the right tools for the job. When you get into a morass of nested if/elseif/elseif... blocks, then you certainly do introduce problems.

Sheesh! Next thing you'll be telling me "goto" is a bad idea Smile | :)

There are three kinds of people in the world - those who can count and those who can't...

CPallini12-Jun-09 6:42

12-Jun-09 6:42

I wouldn't subclass a if.
Big Grin | :-D

If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.

This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke

[My articles]

led mike12-Jun-09 8:23

12-Jun-09 8:23

Why not? It's simple

class MyIf : public if
{
};

IT'S FRIDAY!!!!! Beer | [beer]

CPallini12-Jun-09 22:39

12-Jun-09 22:39

And now saturday here Beer | [beer]

:pizza:

:whisky:

led mike15-Jun-09 5:08

15-Jun-09 5:08

Wow, why would someone vote this a '1'? OMG | :OMG:

CPallini15-Jun-09 8:39

15-Jun-09 8:39

~~I suppose it is a personal attack against pizza , so, basically, ignorance...~~

[added]

led mike wrote:
Wow, why would someone vote this a '1'?

...when is available a really idiotic post to target [^]? Laugh | :laugh:

[/added]

Lutosław12-Jun-09 8:31

Lutosław

12-Jun-09 8:31

molesworth wrote:

There's also nothing wrong with using "else" so I'm not sure why you'd want to avoid it...

Adding elses to this code would dramatically change it's flow. Note that for n in a range (1,10) all callfuncs would be called.

Greetings - Jacek Gajek

CPallini12-Jun-09 5:46

12-Jun-09 5:46

Have you something personal against if-else?

vikasvds15-Jun-09 2:32

vikasvds

15-Jun-09 2:32

CPallini wrote:
Have you something personal against if-else?

Yes, i don't like if-else
I hate them Dead | X|

vicky

CPallini15-Jun-09 2:59

15-Jun-09 2:59

Try

#define WHATEVER_YOU_LIKE_AS_IF     if
#define WHATEVER_YOU_LIKE_AS_ELSE   else

and then, for instance

WHATEVER_YOU_LIKE_AS_IF (i>0 && i<10)
//..
WHATEVER_YOU_LIKE_AS_ELSE WHATEVER_YOU_LIKE_AS_IF (i>11 && i<20)
//..
//...

Arun Singh K13-Jun-09 1:18

Arun Singh K

13-Jun-09 1:18

You can try something like this

int func1()
{
return 0;
}
int func2()
{
return 0;
}

typedef int (*funcptr)();
struct condition
{
int low;
int high;
funcptr func;
};

condition arr[] = {
{ 10, 20, func1 },
{ 20, 30, func2 } // Can add more data here
};

int n=17;

for (int i=0;i<2;++i)
{
if (n > arr[i].low && n < arr[i].high)
{
arr[i].func();
// If you want you can break here
}
}

-Arun

vikasvds14-Jun-09 21:30

vikasvds

14-Jun-09 21:30

Thank you very much all of your response,

The approach Arun has suggested is i think the way i was looking for as best and fasted approach.

Thanks Arun to help me suggesting this approach, it's really nice and definitely fastest method uses full potential of C/C++ language.

Thanks again.
Vikas

vicky