Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: fir Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: else ladders practice Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2024 15:17:30 +0100 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <3deb64c5b0ee344acd9fbaea1002baf7302c1e8f@i2pn2.org> <78eabb4054783e30968ae5ffafd6b4ff2e5a5f17@i2pn2.org> <6724CFD2.4030607@grunge.pl> <2491a699388b5891a49ef960e1ad8bb689fdc2ed@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 14:17:10 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="459878"; 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: <2491a699388b5891a49ef960e1ad8bb689fdc2ed@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 3837 Lines: 81 fir wrote: > 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 > im surprised that it work, but in fact i meant that this syntax is old c compatible but sych thing like {printf("ONE"), printf("TWO"), printf("THREE")} [2] shouldn evaluate al just the one is selected like in array tab[23] not eveluates something other than tab[23]