I've heard from a couple of people that using the operators "?:" instead of using "if/else" is bad coding practice and should be avoided unless it makes the code MUCH clearer. Others I have talked to say that everybody uses them. Anyone know which one is true?
I wouldn't say BAD always...
It tends to be less readable at first glance, especially when nested, but it has advantages (namely the fact that it not only executes but returns it's expression)
?: can be used in places where if else cant be used. For instance inside a member initialisation list.
Free the weed!! Class B to class C is not good enough!!
And the FAQ is here :- http://faq.cprogramming.com/cgi-bin/smartfaq.cgi
If you think they aren't useful it's just because you haven't tried them. The simplicity and readability can hardly be ignored. I especially like them in return statements.
return ( !bad() && a_ok) ? true : false;
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
I agree completely. They're really nice for return values. On that note, they're often handy just for general value assignments. It's clean and compact:
I know which one I prefer in this case. Beyond that, they can be a great deal of fun.Code:if( someTest ) { myVar = firstValue; } else { myVar = secondValue; } myVar = someTest ? firstValue : secondValue;
return st1 ? sv1 : st2 ? sv2 : st3 ? sv3 : sv4;
Quzah.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
Interseting Quzah. I've never used the nested variety. A little unsightly, but interesting.
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
Originally posted by Sebastiani
return ( !bad() && a_ok) ? true : false;
Why do you code like that?
Why not:
Code:return !bad && a_ok;
Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling
I definately find them useful and use them often within my code. I was just told by a few people that coding standards consider them as unsightly as 'goto' statements, unless they greatly improve readibility. I'm glad that it appears this isn't true
I know it was a bad example. In practice I would have just used the inherent boolean nature of the comparison...but it was late.Originally posted by Sang-drax
Why do you code like that?
Why not:
Code:return !bad && a_ok;
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
>But I found that ?: cant be used with cout, is that right?
nope.. it can be used with cout.
cout<<(isGood()? "it's good" : "it's not so good")<<endl;
If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrariwise, what it is, it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?
every so often you'll need a cast when you're talking about a cout because of course cout::operator << is only overloaded for so many types. But it can definitely be used
"You are stupid! You are stupid! Oh, and don't forget, you are STUPID!" - Dexter
Does a ternary operator statement execute faster than a similar if statement?
which would be faster?:
FillYourBrain.alive? GreetFill() : BuryFill();
if(FillYourBrain.alive)
GreetFill();
else
BuryFill();
I don't like the nested ternary operators, if/else seems more appropriate (easier to read)
Originally posted by quzah
return st1 ? sv1 : st2 ? sv2 : st3 ? sv3 : sv4;
explain please, lol
Shadow, your example probably compiles exactly the same. Just a guess really but either way I would use the one that felt more readable for that particular instance.
"You are stupid! You are stupid! Oh, and don't forget, you are STUPID!" - Dexter
