On 09/09/2026 14:31, David Brown wrote:Here's a revision, where I take MORE THAN TEN SECONDS:On 09/09/2026 15:14, Lane W wrote:Agreed. It was poor, and there was still some duplication. It was also harder to tell whether the logic agreed with the original.David Brown wrote:>>C's include system works well when used in a sensible and disciplined manner, but unfortunately not all C programmers are sensible and disciplined.Agreed. Plus some C programmers use the switch keyword, which we all agree is BAD BAD BAD, right Janis and Keith?
>
>
In fact at work, I'm regularly known as __The Evil One__ because of my propensity to use the switch construct.
>
Every company brochure shows my position as Sauron in the company fables, with my signature golden ring. Pure evil, I guarantee it.
>
I can't understand where this martyr complex comes from. I saw your post about an alternative way to structure fir's code, and I thought it was a poor solution. That was not because it used "switch", or because /you/ wrote it, but simply because I did not think it was a clear or maintainable way to express the algorithm.
enum Dodges {
NEAT : 1
FLAWED : 2
BARELY : 3
UNSUCCESS : 4
};
enum Dodges d = UNSUCCESS;
if (dodge < 1)
d = BARELY;
if (dodge < 0.9)
d = FLAWED;
if (dodge < 0.5)
d = NEAT;
switch (d)
{
case NEAT:
slog("%s easily dodged attack...", being[k].name);
return 1;
case FLAWED:
slog("%s hardly dodged attack...", being[k].name);
return 1;
case BARELY:
slog("%s dodged attack...", being[k].name);
return 1;
default:
return -1; // not dodged.
}
WHERE IS THIS DUPLICATION?
WHERE ARE THESE SYNTAX ERRORS YOU NEVER EXPLICITLY STATE?
Am I cleared for Heaven now?
Can we get ten more people to hop on the bandwagon and RUDELY tell me how bad it is?
I gauged that RUDENESS is something you try to avoid here.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.