|
i always name my private members with leading underscores to avoid collisions in derived classes for reasons having to do with a limitation of .NET's metadata**
Even when those members are themselves classes, if they are not to be accessed outside the class they are declared in they are effectively private, and so they get their leading underscore.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you realize I regularly wake up screaming from bad nightmares about your lack of braces and leading underscores?
If I come across as grumpy it's because I'm tired and it's all your fault.
I'm too tired to even get up and get my torch and pitchfork... 
|
|
|
|
|
I have a reason for everything i do.
The leading underscores are to prevent potential name collisions in derived classes.
The lack of braces is to drive you to drink.
Everything has a purpose.
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: to drive you to drink.
I don't drink and drive, but if you're driving I'm drinking all night long! 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: lack of braces and leading underscores
At least they still use braces on loops.
for(int ic=Count,i=0;i<ic;++i)
{
foreach(var kvp in this[i])
{
if (!nts.Contains(kvp.Value.Left))
nts.Add(kvp.Value.Left);
}
}
Personally I do this:
for(int ic=Count,i=0;i<ic;++i)
foreach(var kvp in this[i])
if (!nts.Contains(kvp.Value.Left))
nts.Add(kvp.Value.Left);
Now tremble before me 
Really though, I only do it to force a mindfulness of what you're doing if you modify it. Adding braces effectively changes what the statement is saying. Braces: for(x) do zero or more statements; no braces: for(x) do exactly one statement.
|
|
|
|
|
That's exactly what I do and what i am being disciplined for.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
honestly i think the only reason the braces are around that is because i removed some 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yea, that's the main downside to it but on the flip-side you can accidentally add code inside a brace that isn't meant to be looped (albeit probably less common). For instance if braces weren't indented properly due to either a mistake or auto-formatting.
Sander Rossel wrote: I want to think about what my code is doing and should be doing
Debatable topic for sure but I would argue braces vs no braces is exactly a specification of what the code should or should not be doing on a static basis. Similar to the .NET Contracts API.
|
|
|
|
|
Jon McKee wrote: on the flip-side you can accidentally add code inside a brace that isn't meant to be looped (albeit probably less common)
Much less common, so much more preferred in my opinion 
People do make mistakes with braces, but usually only when it's deeply nested with many many braces, which isn't something you should have anyway.
Jon McKee wrote: braces vs no braces is exactly a specification of what the code should or should not be doing on a static basis
Only as you said, should do one thing vs. should do x things, but that's something that changes with specs, and both can be easily changed.
The difference is that when the specs are changed to "if x do y and now also z" the code with braces is almost certain to be changed correctly, but without braces that change is more likely to cause a bug.
It's not even entirely true, because if that one statement is a function call it could still be doing a gazillion things in that function
Another example of how it could cause a bug is the following:
if (x)
AlwaysDoThis(); And what about this?
if (x)
if (y)
DoSomething();
else
DoSomethingElse();Is that an else for x or y?
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Only as you said, should do one thing vs. should do x things, but that's something that changes with specs, and both can be easily changed.
The difference is that when the specs are changed to "if x do y and now also z" the code with braces is almost certain to be changed correctly, but without braces that change is more likely to cause a bug.
If going from a single statement to a block of statements, extracting those statements into a function or expressing it as a block with {} should be done. But I do see where this argument has traction. I don't personally think it's compelling though.
Solution: comment out the if statement too.
AlwaysDoThis();
Braces have an issue here as well:
if (x)
{
}
AlwaysDoThis();
Now you've got an empty check just wasting time. And it does nothing so you'll only ever fix it if you manually stumble across it in the code-base. Both of these examples are mistakes of not commenting out the code only coupled to DoSomething().
if (x)
{
if (y)
DoSomething();
else
DoSomethingElse();
}
I agree with you here. With nested elses it's much clearer to add braces. Also without the braces, as you alluded to, one has to know the else binds to its closest if - something a dev might reasonably not know.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd rather have an empty check wasting time (and we're talking nanoseconds here, hardly ever a big deal) than suddenly have AlwaysDoThis only execute if the if statement is true, which is an actual bug that users are going to see and feel.
Of course, also commenting out the if statement is a simple solution, but maybe only after that bug has gone to production.
Now, if you have automated tests with sufficient coverage and testing processes to find these bugs before they're released, the damage is nothing more than wasted time and effort.
Experience learns that tests aren't always sufficient and that code like that does find its way into production.
In fact, according to this blog[^] a single line if statement caused a bug in Apple's TLS code!
So, I'd rather always use braces and minimize the risk of bugs in production, which is far more serious than one or two extra lines of code
|
|
|
|
|
here's why I don like braces everywhere
}
}
}
}
}
}
++i;
}
}
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Your code shouldn't be so nested in the first place.
I get it, it happens.
How I solve such code is as follows:
void ProcessThing(Thing thingy)
{
try
{
ProcessFoos(thingy.Foos);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
}
void ProcessFoos(List<Foo> foos)
{
foreach (var foo in foos)
{
ProcessBars(foo.Bars);
}
}
void ProcessBars(List<Bar> bars)
{
foreach (var bar in bars)
{
ProcessStuff(bar.Stuff);
}
}
You get the idea, same for if statements and switches.
It's not even that bad, it's quite readable, it's maintainable (you'll always know where the bars are processed) and it saves you from nesting so many levels in one code block.
|
|
|
|
|
That doesn't work when you're "lalring" - there is simply too much state to pass between the methods, and a bunch of methods with lots of ref parameters doesn't do anyone any favors.
Factoring is great when it works, but it's not the solution to everything.
Here's what I'm up against. This is the problem, broken down for mortals:
LALR(1) Parsing[^]
I based all of my code off of this. Scary, I know. But I verified that it works using Gold Parser's tools.
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 can't read and understand all of that, show me some code instead!
Oh... But it'll be C++, right? 
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a private method that computes the LR Item sets (one of the first steps at the link). In C#
it may as well be in C++. All LRItem is is basically a "tuple" (string Left, IList<string> Right, int RightIndex) except it implements value semantics (they can be compared)
static void _FillLRClosureInPlace(CfgDocument cfg,IProgress<CfgLalr1Progress> progress, ICollection<LRItem> result)
{
var done = false;
while (!done)
{
done = true;
var l = result.ToArray();
for (var i = 0; i < l.Length; ++i)
{
if(null!=progress)
progress.Report(new CfgLalr1Progress(CfgLalr1Status.ComputingClosure, i));
var item = l[i];
var next = item.RightIndex < item.Rule.Right.Count ? item.Rule.Right[item.RightIndex] : null;
if (item.RightIndex < item.Rule.Right.Count)
{
if (cfg.IsNonTerminal(next))
{
for (int jc = cfg.Rules.Count, j = 0; j < jc; ++j)
{
var r = cfg.Rules[j];
if (r.Left == next)
{
var lri = new LRItem(r, 0);
if (!result.Contains(lri))
{
done = false;
result.Add(lri);
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
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.
modified 16-Aug-19 17:24pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a few questions:
1. Why use ++i rather than i++? i++ is far more common so I had to stop and think about what you were doing (it seems in this context ++i and i++ are the same).
2. Do you favor a for loop over foreach because of performance?
3. Why do you take an ICollection as parameter and immediately call ToArray? Most of the time, the implementation is an IList as well, and in that case you wouldn't need ToArray because it also supports indexing.
So without knowing anything about the code I've rewritten it a bit.
I couldn't test it, but I think it does the same as the original code, but with less nesting.
I've also got rid of the single line if-statement without braces by using progress?.Report.
And I've introduced a new single line if-statement by getting done = true; out of the if.
If this were my code I'd probably go even further by putting the remaining code inside the for loop in it's own method too.
Anyway, it's all a matter of style, I know plenty of people who'd prefer a single method, and maybe these extra method calls slow down your code to much, but here's how I'd handle it anyway
The comments in the code are specifically just for you 
static void _FillLRClosureInPlace(CfgDocument cfg, IProgress<CfgLalr1Progress> progress, ICollection<LRItem> result)
{
var done = false;
while (!done)
{
done = true;
var l = result.ToArray();
for (var i = 0; i < l.Length; i++)
{
progress?.Report(new CfgLalr1Progress(CfgLalr1Status.ComputingClosure, i));
var item = l[i];
var next = item.RightIndex < item.Rule.Right.Count ? item.Rule.Right[item.RightIndex] : null;
if (item.RightIndex < item.Rule.Right.Count && cfg.IsNonTerminal(next))
{
done = HandleRules(cfg, next, result);
}
}
}
}
private static bool HandleRules(CfgDocument cfg, object next, ICollection<LRItem> result)
{
bool done = true;
for (int j = 0; j < cfg.Rules.Count; j++)
{
var r = cfg.Rules[j];
done = HandleRule(r, next, result);
}
return done;
}
private static bool HandleRule(Rule r, object next, ICollection<LRItem> result)
{
bool done = true;
if (r.Left == next)
{
var lri = new LRItem(r, 0);
done = result.Contains(lri);
if (!done)
{
result.Add(lri);
}
}
return done;
}
|
|
|
|
|
1. They are not the same. One is prefix and the other is postfix for a couple of reasons. But it *would* be the same here, sort of. Except in C++, i++ creates a copy of I, whereas ++i is just the simple asm "inc ax" basically. i++ isn't quite as efficient.
I code in C++, so this is habit. In fact I want to call this ++C You'll find others with C++ backgrounds sometimes use ++i too.
2. Yes I really like foreach, and I use it a lot. But not if I don't have to. Frankly, if it didn't create an object on the heap every foreach, I'd probably use it almost everywhere.
3. Because look carefully. In that loop I'm modifying the passed in collection. I work only on a copy. You cannot modify a collection you are currently enumerating. Hence I must make a copy, enumerate that and work on result. Also note that's in a loop. I create this copy each time around, because I must.
And a note on your code.
for(var i = 0;i<list.Count;++i); is somewhat less efficient than
for(int ic=list.Count,i=0;i<ic;++i); because you're calling Count on every iteration when you don't have to.
alse HandleRules is unnecessary. Literally all you factored was the loop itself.
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.
modified 17-Aug-19 9:26am.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: Because look carefully. In that loop I'm modifying the passed in collection.
The passed in collection isn't the Rules, right?
You're using the Count of rules, but you're adding to result.
In any case, I'd either use Count directly, like I did, or create the variable out of the for statement for readability.
I didn't know i++ created a copy where ++i doesn't (I know pre- and postfix, and that they're more efficient than i += 1, but not their inner workings).
That said, I always use i += 1 because the i++ is something for C(++)'s
honey the codewitch wrote: Yes I really like foreach, and I use it a lot. But not if I don't have to.
I use foreach always, except when I can't (because I need that index) 
C++ vs. C# I guess.
honey the codewitch wrote: alse HandleRules is unnecessary
Except to get out of that nasty seven times nesting
It also reads a bit better, in my opinion, as it's clear that we're handling the rules in the for loop (which isn't directly clear in the original).
One level of nesting could easily be eliminated by taking two if's and combining them with &&.
honey the codewitch wrote: Literally all you factored was the loop itself.
Well, what did you expect, that was the code I was given.
To me, it's more readable with less nesting.
I wish I could do something about the while loop, but that would require a lot more in-depth knowledge on what you're doing.
Personally, I (almost) never need while loops, so I'm pretty sure you could somehow do without.
You're dealing with difficult logic in a difficult language.
You were complaining about the many nestings that you couldn't change because of the many states you keep, and for that I've given you one solution in this particular method.
Whether you like the solution and if it meets your (performance) requirements is up to you
|
|
|
|
|
What I meant by HandleRules is unnecessary is it would make more sense to combine handlerules and handlerule into one method.
I need the while loop because I don't know how many times in advance I will be iterating.
The break condition can't be known in advance. I have to keep iterating until there are no more unique LRItem lists to add, and you don't know that point until you hit it.
This is exactly what a while loop was invented for. If you haven't needed one you haven't been iterating over things with no fixed/knowable ending condition. There's a math for this. "While" is a necessary iteration construct, short of using goto instead. "for/foreach" *isn't* - they can be done by a "while", if that makes sense.
As far as copying the array, I'm not copying an array of rules there. I'm copying the item sets.
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'm really not sure what you mean.
You don't have a break condition, and in any case even with HandleRule and HandleRules you're looping as often as when you combine them...
The done variable is always true and doesn't get set until the most inner loop, so it's safe to declare that in those methods and set it to true by default, then set it and return it to the caller.
It is possible that done is overwritten if the loop isn't at an end yet, but that's possible in the original code too.
Usually, my logic applies to all items in a list so I rarely need a while.
My logic is usually business logic though, and very few business have while logic.
while (form.Color == Colors.Yellow)...
No, foreach (Form form in yellowForms) 
Maybe because my apps don't need those few extra milliseconds so I get to filter my yellow forms beforehand 
|
|
|
|
|
done gets set to false in the innermost if it ends up adding a unique itemset to the result.
If it makes it to the end and hasn't added a unique itemset to the result the loop will break.
the done variable is the break condition - or the exit condition if you prefer.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I get that.
But as far as I can tell, it hasn't changed in my code, even with those two methods 
|
|
|
|
|
nah, it needs to be changed. You're overwriting done either way, and that won't work. I can fix it, but basically, you still have to keep the done var in the outer code
and then do
if(!HandleRules(cfg,next,result))
done=false;
but yeah basically otherwise your code works
Still if I was going to do that, I'd probably just do a lambda against a foreach over rules instead of making a whole new routine.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
