- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
-
Error'd
- Most Recent Articles
- Stop Poking Me!
- Operation Erred Successfully
- A Dark Turn
- Nothing Doing
- Home By Another Way
- Coast Star
- Forsooth
- Epic
- Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Other Series
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
why don't we use the operator and combine with real functionality.
Pseudo:
Today.day.startswith('S') ? while ( do something) : for (::) {do something);
so depending on the day we either use a while or a for loop... simple as that
Admin
It's funny, because in good languages you will get a warning that the result of the expression was not assigned to anything :-) And yes, I think this is also a shortcoming of C/C+ where this was also possible traditionally without a warning.
Admin
I'm not a fan of the ternary, I find the syntax requires a bit too much effort to read. While the second example isn't great, I find it easier to read. Although, it'd just be easier and more legible to throw it in a quick 'IF' statement instead - it'll all compile down to the same underlying code anyhow, so why not make it easier for the reader to parse?
Admin
Admin
I always put brackets around the condition, it lets you see there's something going on:
ie.
let val = (arr.length>0)? arr[0].id : 0;
instead of
let val = arr.length>0?arr[0].id:0;
Admin
This line is self contradictory. "It gets abused" is most definitely something wrong with it, except that it can also be said of almost any part of any programming language. It's just easier with ternaries. (And that is truly something wrong with it.)
In pretty much all C-ish languages, assignment is an expression, not a statement. (Small exception for idiots who declare their class-specific
operator =(...)
methods as returningvoid
.) It's just an expression with a side-effect.Yes, I agree,
x = 5;
is a statement, but it is a statement in the same way thatx+5;
andx;
and5;
are statements.Admin
Key point: more legible by humans. The compiler doesn't care.
And this goes back to what I've said before on this site: 90% of what programmers do is communicating with other human beings. Those other human beings might be managers, salesmen, technical writers, and so on, but above all, it is the programmers' colleagues.
Um. Including the programmers themselves, six months (or twelve years!) later...
Admin
Basically they're using the ternary operator as a shorthand for if/else...
Admin
The language itself is abusive if it allows the use of statements as expressions in the first place. More concerningly, any sane dev tasked with implementing a parser for such a language should reasonably print the language specs and shove them up the ass of whoever designed the language, because that's the kind of shit for which the syntax analysis code is bound to be a complete WTF.
In fact, many programming languages are a WTF. Try writing a JavaScript parser for example. Seriously, grab the specs, and try writing one. You'll understand the true meaning of M̸̛̝͕̝̭̂̆̀̈́͋̊̕͝A̴̡͈̫̓̾͒̋D̴̛͓̘̜̰̱̪͑̅̑͌̂̀͠N̵̨̼̜̩̣͇̮̪̫̗̦̭͔͊̃́̽̎́̍̓ͅͅĘ̸̰̘͍͕̙̘̺͔̫̲̎̽͊͐̕͘S̷̳̟͋̾̈́̀̐͂̍̌̏̽̄̓̆̚͝S̸͔͎̬͓͇̻̮͓̩̪͊͐̋̇͒͂̚ͅ.
Admin
Just because something gets frequently used in ways we dislike does not mean it is bad. No matter what hateful banhappy pundits like Dijxtra would want us to believe.
In truth, any tool can be abused. And thus they all will be. That is just human nature. Indeed, the more a tool is abused the more valuable it is. For use and thus abuse of a tool is proof of its power and utility.
An axe can be used to chop wood to warm your children or to chop children to warm your heart. But all either proves is that it's a good, sharp axe.
Admin
And in a very similar vein nothing other than coding practice stops a C# programmer from building side-effects into property getter.
Admin
Playing Devil's advocate here: is this bad style, or is the programmer displaying a better-than-average understanding of expression side-effects?
Admin
I've taken to always formatting ternaries similar to match statements:
Hopefully that formats correctly...
Addendum 2024-08-08 10:05: It formatted correctly, woohoo?
Addendum 2024-08-08 10:05: *woohoo! -_-
Admin
Why not both? To me, the cleverest code I've come across is also by far the hardest for humans to read and understand.
Admin
Both examples in the article are wrong. They depend on optimizations in modern compilers.
AFAIK the C standard doesn't (or at least didn't several years ago) tell that the unused expression should not be evaluated, and clearly specifies that in those cases the order of evaluation is undefined (the second expression can be evaluated before the first one).
In the first example, you end up accessing a[0].id even when the array is empty. But even worse, in the second one, on top of that, you may end assigning null to the variable and then overwriting it with the value read from a[0].id, even if the array is empty.
Admin
No, the conditional operator has always been defined to short-circuit by the C standards. It must only evaluate the appropriate branch:
Admin
"case 0" will fall through to the default because there's no "break".
Admin
If you're really clever, you (ab)use the ternary operator to swap out the left-hand-side of your assignment.
Admin
Abuse comes in many flavors of all languages. I think some of it is a misunderstanding by the programmer of the capabilities of the language and any functions that might be available in built-in and additional libraries, but a lot is just stupidity. We also need to define what "abuse" means, because "abusing statements" can be, assuming id[] is defined, changing:
for (int x=0; x<=10; x++) { id[x]=x; }
to:
id[1]=1; id[2]=2; ... id[10]=10;
There may not be readability issues here, but certainly by today's definition, this is "abuse of statements" in its own right. This is another case of:
statement works ? use ternary in an unconventional but functional way : find another way to get famous on TDWTF
Admin
My first reaction: That compiles?! My second reaction: That shouldn't be allowed to compile! (I believe in warning = error. The pickier the compiler the fewer bugs there will be to hunt.)
I agree with tom103 that they're using it as an if..else but I wouldn't even call it a shortcut. Fewer characters but far less readable. And I generally agree with konnichimade on formatting, but I'll do a single line if both cases are trivial or one case is just the default.
A useful thread, though--I never knew the unused branch could execute.
Admin
Your two statements are slightly different in meaning because the second doesn't set index 0.
This is also why I'm a fan of having functions for this. No one gets confused or worries about the performance of:
Everyone just knows this will set
id
to the numbers 0 to 10 in order, but it also greatly reduces the room for error by writing new code to do something so simple.Admin
Ah, the sweet wails of mediocre programmers who believe that a programming language should always come down to their preconceptions. In the 70s–80s you would have grumbled, as so many did, about "x = x + 1".
Admin
Absent further context, there is no benefit to repeating the assignment in this expression, nor to using a conditional expression rather than an if statement given that it is repeated
To the broader point, C and derivatives have features that, when you know how to use them, make it easier to write the code that you need. As Kernighan made clear in his "Tutorial Reference on B", these features were not mistakes. Those who avoid them are handicapping themselves and have no business complaining that the language holds them back.
Admin
How many kids have you chopped?
Admin
I don't have this book anymore, but I'm sure that in "The Elements of Programming Style" one of the rules is "Write clearly, don't be too clever".
Admin
Admin
I guess I'm the only one who has written things like:
Admin
I don't think this is true. In the expression/statement
this is an expression whose value is thrown away. The standard says that the ternary operator will evalute the 1st expression and then evaluate EITHER the 2nd expression OR the 3rd one (caps mine). So it will evaluate
and then EITHER
tempVariable = arr[0].id
OR
tempVariable = null;
There's no UB in that. Not much sanity admittedly, but no UB
PS I happen to like the perl postfix conditionals. It can make some things much easier to read, as it can matches more closely what you'd say in english ("turn the light on unless it's daytime" for instance)
Admin
"Um. Including the programmers themselves, six months (or twelve years!) later..."
Try 20 years later. Don't ask...
Admin
More than I would have wished but less than I wish I had.
Admin
Admittedly, I forgot index 0. That's my error; I meant to include it. But I don't think that sidetracks my point.
Perhaps the right way to do it? But again, this wouldn't allow "abuse of statements", and people do what they do because it's what they know. On another note, we had a web developer who would do things like this in javascript, where html is a text string that will become the content on the page:
var TOTAL = parent.pay_rate * pay_period_hours; html += 'parent.pay_rate * pay_period_hours';
So, he made a statement, then he made another statement, and in the end he said, "IDC if you can read it or follow it or even understand it, but at least you'll talk about me for awhile after I'm gone."
Admin
Ternary expressions can be formatted to be easily readable, but usually - including the examples in the original post - they are formatted in a way that reminds me of Obfuscated c contests. (Youngsters look that up, and understand why you should not write obfuscated software. It develops a skill without real-world uses, at the risk of interfering with the style you should be learning for any real software.)
I'll accept a difficult to read ternary for the purpose of delivering one value that depends on a conditional to a larger expression, since doing that with if-else may become even muddier. But IMHO, to use the ternary in a one-line format as an "if - else", throwing away the resulting value, is obfuscated c.
Admin
"Intriguing title! 'Tern on the Flames' sounds like it has a unique and captivating story or concept. I’m excited to learn more about what this is all about and what inspired it. Thanks for sharing—looking forward to diving into it!"
Admin
For fans and haters of the ternary operator, may I recommend the conditional calculation operators in Tutor, a language used back in the 70s and early 80s for educational computing.
It had a series of conditional forms for various operations. For instance:
calcs EXPRESSION , VAR⇐ value if expression is negative, value if expression=0, value if expression=1, ...
(that fancy assignment arrow was one character on a dedicated key, IIRC)
For example, the following computes N-5*y (note multiplication is implied for adjacent values) and sets the "bin" value to 37 if the result is negative, to 5.2 if the result is zero, to y-cubed plus 2 (note exponentiation is indicted by superscripts in the program text) if the result is 1, no change if the result is 2 (nothing between commas means keep original value) and 2÷N otherwise (grade-school division operator was also on its own dedicated key).
calcs N-5y , bin⇐37 , 5.2 , y³+2 , , 2÷N
"calcc" was worse as each option was its own assignment statement possibly to different variables.
https://codex.retro1.org/plato:tutor:conditional_calc_commands
Admin
While I still dislike the order if the expressions, I increasingly come to like the use of keywords for the ternary operator in Python... Makes it much easier to see.
And actually, in this case, even the "the cond else" order if the expression improves readability I guess: Common default case first, then the expressions relating to "what if not".
Admin
easy