Does Objective-C evaluate every statement on an if... else if... block or does it evaluate each as it comes to them and then skip the remaining evaluations if a true condition has been found?
This is more of a pragmatic question related to performance than anything else.
And yes I do know that the content of the if block itself isn't executed, but I am referring to the actual statements that get evaluated.
Example
if ([condition A] == test) {
// Do something
} else if ([condition B] == test) {
// Do something
} else if ([condition C] == test) {
// Do something
} else {
// Do something because all other tests failed
}
So... if condition A is true, do conditions B and C get evaluated anyway?
If they do, then does using a switch statement perform the same way or does a switch only test each condition as it comes to it and then exits the evaluation because of the break?
My understanding is that on an if... else if... block, every condition is evaluated and therefore using a switch or nested if's (ugh - don't relish the thought there) might be faster on big evaluation operations on a lot of data (hundreds of thousands of items being checked against potentially a hundred statements).
Just curious :-)
No, if condition A is met, B and C are not evaluated. Indeed, they are part of the else-clauses that won't get executed then anyway.
Just a side note: if (condA || condB) or if (condA && condB) also evaluates lazily, i.e. in the first case condB is only evaluated if condA is false, in the second case when condA is true.
It only evaluates them as it comes to them. An if ... else if block is equivalent to if.. else {if...}. It behaves the same way as nested ifs, it's just formatted nicely and omits some braces.
Outside of the []'s objective-c behaves in exactly the same way that C does.
For if() ... else if() ... else ... chains that means each expression is evaluated until one evaluates to true and the block is entered. Basically
if (a) {
...
} else if (b) {
...
} else {
...
}
is interpreted as
if (a) {
...
} else {
if (b) {
...
} else {
...
}
}
Related
How to write Kotlin conditional
if (a) b else c
using when
when (a) {
true -> b
else -> c // or false -> c
}
as you see: if/else is easier to grasp in that particular case.
If a wouldn't just be a boolean, when may make more sense, e.g.:
when (a) {
is Scalable -> TODO("scale it")
else -> TODO("whatever makes sense")
}
New or other conditions can then easily be added... this however doesn't make much sense for simple boolean evaluations.
As you added a comment about readability and your sample shows just an assignment, maybe the following is more readable for you?
val c = if (x) "a"
else "b"
or if you want to simulate something similar as a ternary operator:
val c = x.takeIf { it }?.let { "a" }
?: "b"
I hope however that you get the point... if you just have a boolean use if/else. But if your condition is more complex, also something like takeIf might be helpful... (I am really sorry that I used x.takeIf { it } here... but it should rather be a demonstration of what is possible).
Is there a design pattern or methodology or language that allows you to write complex conditional logic beyond just nested Ifs?
At the very least, does this kind of question or problem have a name? I was unable to find anything here or through Google that described what I was trying to solve that wasn't just, replace your IF with a Switch statement.
I'm playing around with a script to generate a bunch of data. As part of this, I'd like to add in a lot of branching conditional logic that should provide variety as well as block off certain combinations.
Something like, If User is part of group A, then they can't be part of group B, and if they have Attribute C, then that limits them to characteristic 5 or 6, but nothing below or above that.
The answer is simple: refactoring.
Let's take an example (pseudo-code):
if (a) {
if (b) {
if (c) {
// do something
}
}
}
can be replaced by:
if (a && b && c) {
// do something
}
Now, say that a, b and c are complex predicates which makes the code hard to read, for example:
if (visitorIsInActiveTestCell(visitor) &&
!specialOptOutConditionsApply(request, visitor) &&
whatEverWeWantToCheckHere(bla, blabla)) {
// do something
}
we can refactor it as well and create a new method:
def shouldDoSomething(request, visitor, bla, blabla) {
return visitorIsInActiveTestCell(visitor) &&
!specialOptOutConditionsApply(request, visitor) &&
whatEverWeWantToCheckHere(bla, blabla)
}
and now our if condition isn't nested and becomes easier to read and understand:
if (shouldDoSomething(request, visitor, bla, blabla)) {
// do something
}
Sometimes it's not straightforward to extract such logic and refactor, and it may require taking some time to think about it, but I haven't yet ran into an example in which it was impossible.
All of the foregoing answers seem to miss the question.
One of the patterns that frequently occurs in hardware-interface looks like this:
if (something) {
step1;
if ( the result of step1) {
step2;
if (the result of step2) {
step3;
... and so on
}}}...
This structure cannot be collapsed into a logical conjunction, as each step is dependent on the result of the previous one, and may itself have internal conditions.
In assembly code, it would be a simple matter of test and branch to a common target; i.e., the dreaded "go to". In C, you end up with a pile of indented code that after about 8 levels is very difficult to read.
About the best that I've been able to come up with is:
while( true) {
if ( !something)
break;
step1
if ( ! result of step1)
break;
step2
if ( ! result of step2)
break;
step3
...
break;
}
Does anyone have a better solution?
It is possible you want to replace your conditional logic with polymorphism, assuming you are using an object-oriented language.
That is, instead of:
class Bird:
#...
def getSpeed(self):
if self.type == EUROPEAN:
return self.getBaseSpeed();
elif self.type == AFRICAN:
return self.getBaseSpeed() - self.getLoadFactor() * self.numberOfCoconuts;
elif self.type == NORWEGIAN_BLUE:
return 0 if isNailed else self.getBaseSpeed(self.voltage)
else:
raise Exception("Should be unreachable")
You can say:
class Bird:
#...
def getSpeed(self):
pass
class European(Bird):
def getSpeed(self):
return self.getBaseSpeed()
class African(Bird):
def getSpeed(self):
return self.getBaseSpeed() - self.getLoadFactor() * self.numberOfCoconuts
class NorwegianBlue(Bird):
def getSpeed():
return 0 if self.isNailed else self.getBaseSpeed(self.voltage)
# Somewhere in client code
speed = bird.getSpeed()
Taken from here.
I am developing an app where the user receives an overall score and are judged from that score and given a title. However, with the code I am using, the end result is always the same, no matter what score the subject gets. I dont know if this a math problem or a code problem, as it always comes up with the first option: You have no SWAG whatsoever...
if (totalScore<24) {
describe.text = #"You have no SWAG whatsoever...";
}
else if (25<totalScore<49) {
describe.text = #"You seem to be new to SWAG.";
}
else if (50<totalScore<74) {
describe.text = #"You have a bit of SWAG, not enough though.";
}
else if (75<totalScore<99) {
describe.text = #"You definately have SWAG!";
}
else if (totalScore == 100) {
describe.text = #"You are a GOD of SWAG.";
}
else if (25<totalScore<49) {
should be:
else if (25<totalScore && totalScore<49) {
The way you wrote it is parsed as if you'd written:
else if ((25<totalScore) < 49) {
25<totalScore will be either 1 or 0 depending on whether it's true or false. Either way, it's less than 49.
Also, all your comparisons should be <= rather than <. Otherwise, you're excluding all the boundary values.
building if in this way
if (25<totalScore<49) {...}
is risky.In reality you do something like
25<totalScore -> YES/NO (values will be casted from BOOL to int as 1/0)
and then you will do
0/1 < 49 which will be always true.
so in total your if is wrong.
Your first line of code looks right from what you have displayed so far? You need to output what total score is. You are maybe not setting it before running your code?
Failing that, are you sure its compiling properly? You need to use && in your subsequent if statements.
Also, you need to use <=, because at the moment, if the score is 24 it wont work.
I've responded to threads here (or at least commented) with answers containing code like this, but I'm wondering if it's good or bad form to write a series of if branches with one (or more) of the branches doing nothing in them, generally to eliminate checking for null in every branch.
An example (C# code):
if (str == null) { /* Do nothing */ }
else if (str == "SomeSpecialValue")
{
// ...
}
else if (str.Length > 1)
{
// ...
}
instead of:
if (str != null && str == "SomeSpecialValue")
{
// ...
}
else if (str != null && str.Length > 1)
{
// ...
}
And, of course, this is just an example, as I tend to use these with larger and more complex classes. And in most of these cases, a null value would indicate to do nothing.
For me, this reduces the complication of my code and makes sense when I see it. So, is this good or bad form (a code smell, even)?
I prefer doing it like this-
if (str != null)
{
if (str == "[NULL]")
{
// ...
}
else if (str.Length > 1)
{
// ...
}
}
I think you can always "reword" an if with an empty body into it's negation with a body, and that it looks better and makes more sense.
I would normally put a return or something like that in the first if:
void Foo()
{
if (str == null) { return; }
if (str == "SomeSpecialValue")
{
// ...
}
else if (str.Length > 1)
{
// ...
}
}
If you can't do this, because the function does something else after the if/else, I'd say it's time to refactor, and split the if/else part out into a separate function, from which you can return early.
It is indeed good to avoid the following, because it needlessly re-checks one of the conditions (the fact that the compiler will optimize this away is beside the point--it potentially makes more work for folks trying to read your code):
if (str != null && str == "SomeSpecialValue")
{
// ...
}
else if (str != null && str.Length > 1)
{
// ...
}
But it's also rather bizarre to do what you suggested, below:
if (str == null) { /* Do nothing */ }
else if (str == "SomeSpecialValue")
{
// ...
}
else if (str.Length > 1)
{
// ...
}
I say this is bizarre because it obfuscates your intent and defies the reader's expectations. If you check for a condition, people expect you to do something if it is satisfied--but you're not. This is because your intent is not to actually process the null condition, but rather to avoid a null pointer when you check the two conditions you're actually interested in. In effect, rather than having two conceptual states to handle, with a sanity provision (non-null input), it reads instead like you have three conceptual states to handle. The fact that, computationally, you could say there are three such states is beside the point--it's less clear.
The usual case approach in this sort of situation is as Oren A suggested--check for the null, and then check the other conditions within the result block:
if (str != null)
{
if (str == "SomeSpecialValue")
{
// ...
}
else if (str.Length > 1)
{
// ...
}
}
This is little more than a matter of readability-enhancing style, as opposed to an issue of code smell.
EDIT: However, if you're set on the do-nothing condition, I do very much like that you included a "do nothing" comment. Otherwise, folks might think you simply forgot to complete the code.
In this particular case I will return early and it makes code easier to read
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(str)) { return; }
I like to put an explicit return statement.
Yes it is a code smell.
One indication is that you thought to ask this question.
Another indication is that the code looks incomplete- as if something should belong there. It may be readable sure, but it feels off.
When reading that code, an outsider has to stop for a second and use brainpower to determine if the code is valid/complete/correct/as intended/adjective.
user359996 hit the nail on the head:
I say this is bizarre because it obfuscates your intent and defies the reader's expectations.
Your first example is perfectly readable to me -- doesn't smell at all.
It all depends on context. If putting an empty if statement makes the code more readable, then go for that.
It's readable, whether it is good or bad depends upon what you are trying to achieve - generally long nested "goes-on-forever" type if statements are bad. Don't forget about static string methods baked into the framework: string.IsNullOrEmpty() and string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace().
Your if (str == null) { /* Do nothing */ } line is unusual, but does have one positive point: it is letting other developers know up front that you are deliberately doing nothing for that case, with your long if/else if structure your intentions could become unclear if you changed it to
if (str != null)
{
/* carry on with the rest of the tests */
}
I found a comment today in a source file:
// - no longer compare BOOL against YES (dangerous!)
Is comparing BOOL against YES in Objective-C really that dangerous? And why is that?
Can the value of YES change during runtime? Maybe NO is always 0 but YES can be 1, 2 or 3 - depending on runtime, compiler, your linked frameworks?
The problem is that BOOL is not a native type, but a typedef:
typedef signed char BOOL;
#define YES (BOOL)1
#define NO (BOOL)0
As a char, its values aren't constrained to TRUE and FALSE. What happens with another value?
BOOL b = 42;
if (b)
{
// true
}
if (b != YES)
{
// also true
}
You should never compare booleans against anything in any of the C based languages. The right way to do it is to use either:
if (b)
or:
if (!b)
This makes your code much more readable (especially if you're using intelligently named variables and functions like isPrime(n) or childThreadHasFinished) and safe. The reason something like:
if (b == TRUE)
is not so safe is that there are actually a large number of values of b which will evaluate to true, and TRUE is only one of them.
Consider the following:
#define FALSE 0
#define TRUE 1
int flag = 7;
if (flag) printf ("number 1\n");
if (flag == TRUE) printf ("number 2\n");
You should get both those lines printed out if it were working as expected but you only get the first. That's because 7 is actually true if treated correctly (0 is false, everything else is true) but the explicit test for equality evaluates to false.
Update:
In response to your comment that you thought there'd be more to it than coder stupidity: yes, there is (but I still wouldn't discount coder stupidity as a good enough reason - defensive programming is always a good idea).
I also mentioned readability, which is rather high on my list of desirable features in code.
A condition should either be a comparison between objects or a flag (including boolean return values):
if (a == b) ...
if (c > d) ...
if (strcmp (e, "Urk") == 0) ...
if (isFinished) ...
if (userPressedEsc (ch)) ...
If you use (what I consider) an abomination like:
if (isFinished == TRUE) ...
where do you stop:
if (isFinished == TRUE) ...
if ((isFinished == TRUE) == TRUE) ...
if (((isFinished == TRUE) == TRUE) == TRUE) ...
and so on.
The right way to do it for readability is to just use appropriately named flag variables.
All this is true, but there are valid counter arguments that might be considered:
— Maybe we want to check a BOOL is actually YES or NO. Really, storing any other value than 0 or 1 in a BOOL is pretty incorrect. If it happens, isn't it more likely because of a bug somewhere else in the codebase, and isn't not explicitly checking against YES just masking this bug? I think this is way more likely than a sloppy programmer using BOOL in a non-standard way. So, I think I'd want my tests to fail if my BOOL isn't YES when I'm looking for truth.
— I don't necessarily agree that "if (isWhatever)" is more readable especially when evaluating long, but otherwise readable, function calls,
e.g. compare
if ([myObj doThisBigThingWithName:#"Name" andDate:[NSDate now]]) {}
with:
if (![myObj doThisBigThingWithName:#"Name" andDate:[NSDate now]]) {}
The first is comparing against true, the second against false and it's hard to tell the difference when quickly reading code, right?
Compare this to:
if ([myObj doThisBigThingWithName:#"Name" andDate:[NSDate now]] == YES) {}
and
if ([myObj doThisBigThingWithName:#"Name" andDate:[NSDate now]] == NO) {}
…and isn't it much more readable?
Again, I'm not saying one way is correct and the other's wrong, but there are some counterpoints.
When the code uses a BOOL variable, it is supposed to use such variable as a boolean. The compiler doesn't check if a BOOL variable gets a different value, in the same way the compiler doesn't check if you initialize a variable passed to a method with a value taken between a set of constants.