Re: else ladders practice

Bart wrote:

On 01/11/2024 11:32, fir wrote:

Bart wrote:

ral clear patterns here: you're testing the same variable 'n' against
several mutually exclusive alternatives, which also happen to be
consecutive values.
>
C is short of ways to express this, if you want to keep those
'somethings' as inline code (otherwise arrays of function pointers or
even label pointers could be use

>
so in short this groupo seem to have no conclusion but is tolerant
foir various approaches as it seems
>
imo the else latder is like most proper but i dont lkie it optically,
swich case i also dont like (use as far i i remember never in my code,
for years dont use even one)
>
so i persnally would use bare ifs and maybe elses ocasionally
(and switch should be mended but its fully not clear how,
>
as to those pointer tables im not sure but im like measurad it onece
and it was (not sure as to thsi as i dont remember exactly) slow maybe
dependant on architecture so its noth wort of use (if i remember
correctly)

>
Well, personally I don't like that repetition, that's why I mentioned
the patterns. You're writing 'n' 5 times, '==' 5 times, and you're
writing out the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
>
I also don't like the lack of exclusivity.
>
However I don't need to use C. If those 'somethings' were simple, or
were expressions, I could use syntax like this:
>
    (n | s1, s2, s3, s4, s5)
>

on a C ground more suitable is
{s1,s2,s3,s4,s5)[n]
//which is just array indexing, and could use also like
{
{0,0,0,0,0}
{0,1,1,1,0}
{1,1,1,1,1}
{0,1,1,1,0}
{0,0,1,0,0}} [j][i]
anmd so on
(already wrote on thsi once)
bot for general switch something more is needed probably
i could cnsider something like
n -1-> /*something / -2-> /*something / -3-> /*something /
but i dont know (this above line seem not quite good

If they were more elaborate statements, I would use a heavier syntax,
but still one where 'n' is only written once, and I don't need to repeat
'=='.
>
In the C version, you could mistakenly write 'm' instead of 'n', or '='
instead of '=='; it's more error prone, and a compiler might not be able
to detect it.
>
In the C, you could probably do something like this:
>
   #define or else if
>
   if (x == a) {}
   or (x == b) {}
   or (x == c) {}
>
>