The new guy

reverendryan

My first look at the new guys code turned this up:

switch(true) {
        case !decision.released:

And then while copying that to paste here, I noticed this pattern in that same ifcase block:

&& !!decision.viewed

I'm still trying to figure out if it's an extra ! or completely superfluous. Today is going to be a long day.

Arantor

I've seen !! in some cases, usually as a poor man's type coercion to boolean. Common in JavaScript.

aliceif

What language is it?

reverendryan

It is actually JavaScript, which I have to admit I'm not super familiar with. Point new guy.

RaceProUK

The switch (true) is still an abomination unto Chaos

Arantor

Indeed, though the fact elseif is not actually a construct in JS doesn't help either (you have to use else if, and then rely on the fact that 'the next statement after such a clause is the one that will be executed' unless you want to brace ALL the things)

Jaloopa

@Arantor said:

unless you want to brace ALL the things

Which is the proper and correct way to do any conditionals

Arantor

Like this?

if (condition)
{
    // do stuff
}
else
{
    if (condition)
    {
        // do stuff
    }
}

Jaloopa

well, since you're checking the same condition both times there, you can presumably lose the entire else block

Pendant braces - b

cartman82

if (condition) {
    // do stuff
}
else if (condition2) {
    // do stuff 2
}

Arantor

@Jaloopa said:

well, since you're checking the same condition both times there, you can presumably lose the entire else block

You realise that was illustrative rather than definitive. Flagged for whoosh.

Jaloopa

II was going for pendantry. Deliberately misunderstanding in order too be a dickweed

And although it's pretty nasty, I would be tempted to nest like that if I was forced to work in a language with no elseif semanntics

accalia

@Arantor said:

Common in JavaScript.

i use that one myself. but rarely. usually JS only cares if something is "truthy" or "falsy" but when i'm constructing things for serialization (particularly through a webservice) i add that just as a final make sure i can only send true or false to something that will freak out seeing an object where it expects a boolean.

Keith

@Jaloopa said:

II was going for pendantry.

You spelled "I" wrong.

Jaloopa

No, my keyboard did. I correct most random extra characters I see, but some slip through

Keith

@Jaloopa said:

II correct most random extra characters II see, but some slip through

FTFY.

Steve_The_Cynic

Well, I'm thoroughly gobsmacked by the level of purpose-free fucknuttery on this thread so far. Normally on these forums it takes two or three times that many posts to achieve that level. Disgratulations one and all.

boomzilla

@Jaloopa said:

well, since you're checking the same condition both times there, you can presumably lose the entire else block

Pendant braces - b

A thing of beauty...

accalia

hmm...... two flags from users and one from the mod that awarded the badge..... i think @boomzilla is liking his new found power. ;-)

boomzilla

@accalia said:

i think @boomzilla is liking his new found power.

Eh...not that new. Anyways, it's the sort of thing I would have flagged. Now I don't have make someone else clean up afterwards, though.

accalia

@boomzilla said:

Eh...not that new

no, i know.... but i missed my chance to make that "joke" when you were newly promoted.

JazzyJosh

@cartman82 said:

if (condition) {
// do stuff
} else if (condition2) {
// do stuff 2
}

FTFY

PJH

@Jaloopa said:

No, my keyboard did. I correct most random extra characters I see, but some slip through

Are you and Blakey sharing the same keyboard?....

accalia

@PJH said:

Are you and Blakey sharing the same keyboard?....

no, but i suspect he might be sharing a keyboard with a certain vixen... ;-)

PleegWat

@PJH said:

Are you and Blakey sharing the same keyboard?....

There must be an obvious explanation for that…

chubertdev

@RaceProUK said:

The switch (true) is still an abomination unto Chaos

It looks familiar.

dcon

@Arantor said:

I've seen !! in some cases, usually as a poor man's type coercion to boolean. Common in JavaScript.

Common in converting MS BOOL to bool (because warnings are at L4 and always treated as errors - well in my code. The company's, not so much...)

PleegWat

Also seen often in C code to convert pointers to bool; (int) is illegal and (NULL != ...) is significantly longer.

Bulb

@dcon said:

Common in converting MS BOOL to bool

@PleegWat said:

pointers to bool

That does not make it make sense in argument to f'ing logical operator that f'ing coerces it's arguments to f'ing booleans f'ing anyway though.

Vault_Dweller

switch(false) {
        case decision.released:

There you go. Much better

reverendryan

Thank you. I'll get that change committed ASAP.

dcon

@Bulb said:

That does not make it make sense in argument to f'ing logical operator that f'ing coerces it's arguments to f'ing booleans f'ing anyway though.

Sure it does. Unless you think warning c4800 shouldn't exist...

[code]
void func(bool b) {...}
...
int y = ...
func(y);
[/code]
[code]1>SomeRandomFile.cpp(170): warning C4800: 'int' : forcing value to bool 'true' or 'false' (performance warning)[/code]

CHUDbert

@Keith said:

You spelled "I" wrong.

I thought he spelled !! wrong.

Bulb

@dcon said:

void func(bool b) {...}

I said

@Bulb said:

argument to f'ing logical operator

and a function ain't one (the original post had the construct like something && !!that).

And for the record, yes, I do think that c4800 should not exist. In part because avoiding it using !!, and that's the only way, looks pretty silly and in part because it's actually pretty common for conversions, even implicit, in C++ to have runtime cost, so conversion to bool is not special in any way.

chubertdev

@Arantor said:

I've seen !! in some cases, usually as a poor man's type coercion to boolean. Common in JavaScript.

While reading about how poorly jQuery's [inArray][1] is named, I came across this gem:

Or if you want to get a bit fancy you can use the bitwise not (~) and logical not(!) operators to convert the result of the inArray function to a boolean value.
if(!!~jQuery.inArray("test", myarray)) {
    console.log("is in array");
} else {
    console.log("is NOT in array");
}
```</blockquote>

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18867599/jquery-inarray-how-to-use-it-right

  [1]: http://api.jquery.com/jquery.inarray/

riking

If compiler writers aren't perverts, then why do they keep talking about peepholes and sexts?

Onyx

@chubertdev said:

jQuery.inArray(), how to use it right?

Use .indexOf() and avoid jQuery dependency? Also, don't be confused about the 0 meaning it's actually in the array?

Or is there something magical that jQuery.inArray() does that I'm not aware of?

chubertdev

@Onyx said:

Use .indexOf() and avoid jQuery dependency? Also, don't be confused about the 0 meaning it's actually in the array?

Or is there something magical that jQuery.inArray() does that I'm not aware of?

Green pasture development would be awesome.