Making it look difficult
-
Since I've hit the motherload recently, i might as well share it.
bool PaulaClass::DeleteIgnoredABC(const string& a, const string& b, const string& c)
{
bool retw = false;
string *valueStr = 0;try
{
valueStr = new string(a+b+c);if(iDeleteIgnoredABC.contains(valueStr))
retw = true;
else
retw = false;
}
catch(...)
{
delete valueStr;
valueStr = 0;
}delete valueStr;
valueStr = 0;return retw;
}Can in fact be written as (why noone has noticed this yet? i don't know):
bool PaulaClass::DeleteIgnoredABC(const string& a, const string& b, const string& c)
{
return iDeleteIgnoredABC.contains(a+b+c); // why even use a function?
}
-
Someone needs to sit that person down for a little one-on-one. It looks like there is paranoia of everything throwing an exception when obviously Contains won't do that.
-
It's completely error proof!
-
@GuntherVB said:
valueStr = new string(a+b+c);
looks like the author came from Java. He might not know you can have an object on the stack.
