Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: fir <fir@grunge.pl>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: else ladders practice
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2024 15:08:45 +0100
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2491a699388b5891a49ef960e1ad8bb689fdc2ed@i2pn2.org>
References: <3deb64c5b0ee344acd9fbaea1002baf7302c1e8f@i2pn2.org> <vg0t3j$2ruor$1@dont-email.me> <78eabb4054783e30968ae5ffafd6b4ff2e5a5f17@i2pn2.org> <vg2g37$37mh3$1@dont-email.me> <6724CFD2.4030607@grunge.pl> <vg2llt$38ons$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 14:08:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="459122"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="+ydHcGjgSeBt3Wz3WTfKefUptpAWaXduqfw5xdfsuS0";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/27.0 SeaMonkey/2.24
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vg2llt$38ons$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3396
Lines: 72

Bart wrote:
> On 01/11/2024 12:55, fir wrote:
>> Bart wrote:
>>> On 01/11/2024 11:32, fir wrote:
>>>> Bart wrote:
>>>>> ral clear patterns here: you're testing the same variable 'n' against
>>>>> several mutually exclusive alternatives, which also happen to be
>>>>> consecutive values.
>>>>>
>>>>> C is short of ways to express this, if you want to keep those
>>>>> 'somethings' as inline code (otherwise arrays of function pointers or
>>>>> even label pointers could be use
>>>>
>>>> so in short this groupo seem to have no conclusion but is tolerant
>>>> foir various approaches as it seems
>>>>
>>>> imo the else latder is like most proper but i dont lkie it optically,
>>>> swich case i also dont like (use as far i i remember never in my code,
>>>> for years dont use even one)
>>>>
>>>> so i persnally would use bare ifs and maybe elses ocasionally
>>>> (and switch should be mended but its fully not clear how,
>>>>
>>>> as to those pointer tables im not sure but im like measurad it onece
>>>> and it was (not sure as to thsi as i dont remember exactly) slow maybe
>>>> dependant on architecture so its noth wort of use (if i remember
>>>> correctly)
>>>
>>> Well, personally I don't like that repetition, that's why I mentioned
>>> the patterns. You're writing 'n' 5 times, '==' 5 times, and you're
>>> writing out the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
>>>
>>> I also don't like the lack of exclusivity.
>>>
>>> However I don't need to use C. If those 'somethings' were simple, or
>>> were expressions, I could use syntax like this:
>>>
>>>     (n | s1, s2, s3, s4, s5)
>>>
>>
>> on a C ground more suitable is
>>
>> {s1,s2,s3,s4,s5)[n]
>>
>> //which is just array indexing
>
> No, it's specifically not array indexing, as only one of s1 - s5 is
> evaluated, or nothing is when n is not in range, eg. n is 100.
>
> You could try something like that in C:
>
>      int x;
>
>      x = ((int[]){(puts("a"),10), (puts("b"),20), (puts("c"), 30),
> (puts("d"),40)})[3];
>
>      printf("X=%d\n", x);
>
> The output is:
>
>     a
>     b
>     c
>     d
>     X=40
>
> Showing that all elements are evaluated first. If index is 100, the
> result is also undefined.
>
>
:-O
what is this, first time i see such thing