|
if (foo)
{
DoSomething();
}
or:
MaybeDoSomething(foo);
...
MaybeDoSomething(bool foo)
{
if (foo)
{
}
}
eh?
|
|
|
|
|
Depends on context. Can you not avoid the if entirely?  Is that called in a tight loop?
As presented, I'd stick with the first example.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, maybe this is a trick question, but ...
I read and understood the first one immediately.
About as quickly as I read it.
The second one...I'm still not exactly sure about it.
I guess it's all a state of mind.
If you like objective, try #1.
If you like subjective, try #2.
|
|
|
|
|
second one.
reduces the amount of potential if statements to just one.
first one is easier to understand and read, I admit.
|
|
|
|
|
The first
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
|
|
|
|
|
I would normally use (1), but if there were many such usages, I might consider (2).
The advantage of (2) is that if it turns out that the conditional must be modified, it only need be done in one place:
Marc Clifton wrote:
MaybeDoSomething(foo);
...
void MaybeDoSomething(bool foo)
{
if (foo)
{
}
}
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
foo ? DoSomething() : ;
Simpler is better!
|
|
|
|
|
This isn't the obfuscated C contest, and there is no prize for using the minimal number of keystrokes.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Obfuscated is when you use partial template specialization for the task! 
|
|
|
|
|
it wasn't me, i swear!
*hides*
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not a fan of the second form. If the condition was something else, sure. But otherwise I say: the shorter a boolean lives, the better. Ideally they don't even become "reified": just an ephemeral condition that is used immediately when created, never stored in a variable. Boolean variables are a plague.
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer the former, why make the call if there's a problem?
The less you need, the more you have.
Why is there a "Highway to Hell" and only a "Stairway to Heaven"? A prediction of the expected traffic load?
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
What if (no pun intended), the "if" actually required more complex logic, including perhaps some nested stuff, like:
if (foo != null)
{
var data = GetSomeData(foo.SomeValue);
if (data has some specific value/s)
{
DoSomething();
}
}
From an aesthetic point of view, I dislike putting all that into the main method, hence why I've got a couple "Maybe..." methods because the above scenario matches in pseudo-code what I'm actually having to deal with.
|
|
|
|
|
True there are always exceptions but for the simple example you gave I still prefer the former for the less complicated logic.
The less you need, the more you have.
Why is there a "Highway to Hell" and only a "Stairway to Heaven"? A prediction of the expected traffic load?
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: What if (no pun intended), the "if" actually required more complex logic, including perhaps some nested stuff
This is a different question. The original question is very simplistic.
If we were discussing a real scenario, I'd ask what is the conditional logic, how many times will it be repeated and in what context(s), how large is the function in which it's called, etc.
But for this simplistic scenario, I'd use #1 because it is not efficient -- either in coding and probably execution -- to call a function for no useful reason.
|
|
|
|
|
If the test is complex and gets used more than once, there's an argument for giving the test its own method. That way the test is isolated, and can be changed later, but it's not hidden away in the MaybeDoSomething method. So you might end up with
if (TestIfWeNeedToDoSomething( ... ))
{
DoSomething();
}
// lots of code follows.
if (TestIfWeNeedToDoSomething( ... )) // again
{
DoSomething();
}
and so on. A little inelegant, though.
|
|
|
|
|
That is a different situation than posed. The overhead of a function call could be justified in this case.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with all the others: first version is what I'd use.
It's easier to read, more efficient, and potentially means you don't have to carry the "decision variable(s)" through to the called method.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
the first. Almost without exception always.
Even if the logic starts to get complex. It will still be understandable to read. PAinful potentially. but the second is harder to read and the more complex it gets the better in comparison to the first, but the first will always be more readable.
IMO. ymmv. and all that quid pro quo that goes with all that.
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Both have a usage. If it's code that is going to be reused somewhere else, version 2. If it's lots of crazy complicated code, version 2. If it's pretty simple and not reused, version 1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed! 
|
|
|
|
|
To me, it mainly depends on whether foo is incidental to (option #1), sufficient for (option #2), or necessary for (option #3) the execution of DoSomething(). Option #3 would be refactoring DoSomething() to include foo so not always an option.
So if foo gatekeeps the execution of DoSomething() in this one spot but not others then it's incidental. If foo gatekeeps DoSomething() in a lot of spots but not all then it's sufficient. If foo always gatekeeps DoSomething() then it's necessary.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
