Is the coder who wrote the following code (which I found earlier tucked away in a project) a genius who knows something I don't, or is it just as pointless as I suspect?

 

 

The FOR-CASE paradigm

blatant_mcfakename:

Is the coder who wrote the following code [...] a genius who knows something I don't [...]?

Yes! You obviously don't know about the famous for-case paradigm!

Also, maybe he refers to i in the deleted code. That would mean he avoids hard-coded values there.

blatant_mcfakename:

Is the coder who wrote the following code a genius who knows something I don't?

 

No.

He is an idiot who is unable to do a programming job.

If the code referred to i at any point apart from using it for loop control and in the switch then I could've possibly figured out what he was doing. The code doesn't do *anything* in either of the blocks which can't just be done sequentially and it's...well... just odd basically.

 It's still bugging me trying to figure out who wrote this and what was going through their mind at the point they did it.

 Maybe it's the end result of a series of revisions by different people? For example,maybe this loop was much longer and more complicated, but over time, it was simplified due to business logic until it got down to this.

SuperAnalyst:

 Maybe it's the end result of a series of revisions by different people? For example,maybe this loop was much longer and more complicated, but over time, it was simplified due to business logic until it got down to this.

If that's the case, then why did the last person 'simplifying' it not simplify it even further?

Several years ago (think VB3), I once wrote something which I call "brute force equality." I don't recall the exact syntax, but it essentially looked like this:

For i = 1 To 3
    If i = iFoobar Then
        ' lots of code using i
    End If
Next

 I don't remember how I ended up with this code, however. Maybe that 500-SLOC loop might have had something to do with it ...

PJH:

SuperAnalyst:

 Maybe it's the end result of a series of revisions by different people? For example,maybe this loop was much longer and more complicated, but over time, it was simplified due to business logic until it got down to this.

If that's the case, then why did the last person 'simplifying' it not simplify it even further?

Maybe he was in a programmer's union and it wasn't his stinkin' problem.

All I can think is that it was used as a really crazy 'goto' mechanism. E.g. within each case, you could set i to some other value to repeat steps or skip steps. That would be awesomely evil, in fact. I imagine there is something like that inside SSDS.

savar:

All I can think is that it was used as a really crazy 'goto' mechanism. E.g. within each case, you could set i to some other value to repeat steps or skip steps. That would be awesomely evil, in fact. I imagine there is something like that inside SSDS.

 

thou shalt not mention ssds in my pressence. - the 11th commandment

There is exactly one "okay" use case for that construct. Test code. When you have a suite of test functions that are "mostly" independent, having a test program with a main() with that loop can be useful for selectively calling the functions. The loop min value and max value should be variables that are set from command line and default to the entire list of cases. So in the general case you run the program with no parameters and all the test functions run. When you are having trouble with test function 12, you run the program setting the min and max value of i to 12 and it just runs function 12.

 Of course, since I'm talking about test code, you should never see that construct in your production code.

Now, when people talk derisively about the FOR-CASE paradigm, are they only referring to literal for() loops, or do foreach() loops follow under that umbrella, too? Because it seems like a FOREACH-CASE paradigm is actually ok. Of course, that may mean I'M TRWTF.

toth:

Now, when people talk derisively about the FOR-CASE paradigm, are they only referring to literal for() loops, or do foreach() loops follow under that umbrella, too? Because it seems like a FOREACH-CASE paradigm is actually ok. Of course, that may mean I'M TRWTF.

It depends.  If you're programming in Perl, and the foreach loop looks like this:

foreach(my $i=1; $i<=2; $i++)
{
 switch($i)
 {
   case 1 {
     # do something
     next; }
   case 2 {
     # do the next thing
     next; }
 }
}

Then not only is it wrong, but you're doing it more wrong than most people here could imagine (before this post, of course).  Same goes for:

foreach $i (1..2)
{
 switch($i)
 {
   case 1 {
     # do something
     next; }
   case 2 {
     # do the next thing
     next; }
 }
}

But, if the elements and/or order are uncertain, I think foreach-case may be ok.

tgape:

It depends.  If you're programming in Perl, and the foreach loop looks like this:

foreach(my $i=1; $i<=2; $i++)
{
 switch($i)
 {
   case 1 {
     # do something
     next; }
   case 2 {
     # do the next thing
     next; }
 }
}

Then not only is it wrong, but you're doing it more wrong than most people here could imagine (before this post, of course).  Same goes for:

foreach $i (1..2)
{
 switch($i)
 {
   case 1 {
     # do something
     next; }
   case 2 {
     # do the next thing
     next; }
 }
}

But, if the elements and/or order are uncertain, I think foreach-case may be ok.

That's what I figger. When I said "foreach loops" I meant "loops over an enumerable object that isn't (necessarily) a range of numbers".

toth:

figger

I don't think that's an actual word.

derula:

toth:

figger

I don't think that's an actual word.

Whut in tarnation are y'all talkin' about?

 

DaveK:

derula:

toth:

figger

I don't think that's an actual word.

Whut in tarnation r y'all talkin' aboot?

FTFY

derula:

DaveK:

derula:

toth:

figger

I don't think that's an actual word.

Whut in tarnation r y'all talkin' aboot?

FTFY

 

I didnt think DaveK was Canadian. Unless you're still being possessed by SpectateSwamp, derula.

derula:

toth:

figger

I don't think that's an actual word.

Git over here, you varmint, y'all be askin' for a good whuppin'.