The Weird and The Wonderful

Jon McKee wrote:

seems like the purpose of this rule (from some short googling) is to reduce conditional nesting and/or cyclomatic complexity.

static void Main(string[] args)
{
    if (args.Length == 0)
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Please provide 1 argument to indicate the command you want to run.\nUsage: getInfo <command-name>");
        return;
    }
    
    foreach (string arg in args)
    {
        Console.WriteLine(arg.ToLowerInvariant() switch
        {
            "os" => $"OS : {Environment.OSVersion}",
            "pwd" => $"The current directory is: {Environment.CurrentDirectory}",
            "cl" => $"Command line was: {Environment.CommandLine}",
            "sysdir" => $"System dir: {Environment.SystemDirectory}",
            "mname" => $"Machine name: {Environment.MachineName}",
            _ => $"Unknown command: '{arg}'",
        });
    }
}

Richard Deeming wrote:

I don't like the args.Length < 1 test

Bernhard Hiller wrote:

Here's a hammer. Now you have to use it, even when there's no nail.

M.D.V.

If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.

Greg Utas wrote:

Because of pre-fetching, many CPUs perform better when the non-jump case is taken. If the tool is guessing that the non-jump case is actually the rare one, it might be making the suggestion on those grounds.

Greg Utas wrote:

worked on a product where the tags <usual> and <rare> could be used to tag code paths to assist the compiler with optimization.

StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(120);

var sb = new StringBuilder(120);

StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(120);

if (condition1)
{
    Something1();
    if (condition2)
    {
        Something2();
        if (condition3)
        {
            Something3();
            if (condition4)
            {
                Something4();
                if (condition5)
                {
                    Something(5);
                }
                else 
                {
                    return;
                }
            }
            else 
            {
                return;
            }
        }
        else 
        {
            return;
        }
    }
    else 
    {
        return;
    }
}
else 
{
    return;
}

if (!condition1)
{
    return;
}
Something1();

if (!condition2)
{
    return;
}
Something2();

if (!condition3)
{
    return;
}
Something3();

if (!condition4)
{
    return;
}
Something4();

if (!condition5)
{
    return;
}
Something5();

if (test1)
{
   dosomething1();
   if (test2)
   {
      dosomething2();
      if (test3)
      {
         dosomething3();
         /* etc */
      }
      else
         return;
   }
   else
      return;
}
else
   return;

bool OK = test1;

if (OK)
{
   dosomething1();
   OK = test2;
}

if (OK)
{
   dosomething2();
   OK = test3;
}

if (OK)
{
   dosomething3();
   /* etc */
}

return;

bool OK = test1;
if (OK)
   dosomething1();

OK &= test2;
if (OK)
   dosomething2();

OK &= test3;
if (OK)
   dosomething3();

/* etc */

return;

bool _ =
   test1 && dosomething1()
   && test2 && dosomething2()
   && test3 && dosomething3()
   && etc;

return;

raddevus wrote:

Is this a close summary to what you are saying?