3 ms·

Hard disagree that it's "clearer". I have had to deal with a ton of bugs with people trying to be clever with the `break` logic, or forgetting to put `break` i

Hard disagree that it's "clearer". I have had to deal with a ton of bugs with people trying to be clever with the `break` logic, or forgetting to put `break` in there at all. if statements are dumber, and maybe arguably uglier, but I feel like they're also more clear, and people don't try and be clever with them.

cogman10 3y ago
Updates to languages (don't know where C# is on this) have different types of switch statements that eliminate the `break` problem. For example, with java there's enhanced switch that looks like this var val = switch(foo) { case 1, 2, 3 -> bar; case 4 -> baz; default -> { yield bat(); } } The C style switch break stuff is definitely a language mistake.
- wvenable 3y ago
  C# has both switch expressions like this and also break statements are not optional in traditional switch statements so it actually solves both problems. You can't get too clever with switch statements in C#. However most languages have pretty permissive switch statements just like C.
  - tombert 3y ago
    Yeah, fair, it's been awhile since I've done any C#, so my memory is a bit hazy with the details. I've been burned C with switch statements so I have a pretty strong distaste for them.
    - smaudet 3y ago
      I think using C as your language with which to judge language constructs is hardly fair - one of its main strengths has been as a fairly stable, unchanging code-to-compiler contract, i.e. little to none syntax change or improvements. So no offense, but I would revisit the wider world of language constructs before claiming that switch statements are "all bad". There are plenty of bad languages or languages with poor implementations of syntax, that do not make the fundamental language construct bad.
- neonsunset 3y ago
  C# has switch statements which are C/C++ style switches and switch expressions which are like Rust's match except no control flow statements inside: var len = slice switch { null => 0, "Hello" or "World" => 1, ['@', ..var tags] => tags.Length, ['{', ..var body, '}'] => body.Length, _ => slice.Length, }; (it supports a lot more patterns but that wouldn't fit)
- gloryjulio 3y ago
  This is just forcing return value. You either have to break or return at the branches. To me they all look equivalent
SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
I always set -Werror=implicit-fallthrough, among others. That prevents fallthrough unless explicitly annotated. Sadly these will forever remain optional warnings requiring specific compiler flags, since requiring them could break compiling broken legacy code.

cogman10 3y ago

Updates to languages (don't know where C# is on this) have different types of switch statements that eliminate the `break` problem. For example, with java there's enhanced switch that looks like this var val = switch(foo) { case 1, 2, 3 -> bar; case 4 -> baz; default -> { yield bat(); } } The C style switch break stuff is definitely a language mistake.

wvenable 3y ago
C# has both switch expressions like this and also break statements are not optional in traditional switch statements so it actually solves both problems. You can't get too clever with switch statements in C#. However most languages have pretty permissive switch statements just like C.
- tombert 3y ago
  Yeah, fair, it's been awhile since I've done any C#, so my memory is a bit hazy with the details. I've been burned C with switch statements so I have a pretty strong distaste for them.
  - smaudet 3y ago
    I think using C as your language with which to judge language constructs is hardly fair - one of its main strengths has been as a fairly stable, unchanging code-to-compiler contract, i.e. little to none syntax change or improvements. So no offense, but I would revisit the wider world of language constructs before claiming that switch statements are "all bad". There are plenty of bad languages or languages with poor implementations of syntax, that do not make the fundamental language construct bad.
neonsunset 3y ago
C# has switch statements which are C/C++ style switches and switch expressions which are like Rust's match except no control flow statements inside: var len = slice switch { null => 0, "Hello" or "World" => 1, ['@', ..var tags] => tags.Length, ['{', ..var body, '}'] => body.Length, _ => slice.Length, }; (it supports a lot more patterns but that wouldn't fit)
gloryjulio 3y ago
This is just forcing return value. You either have to break or return at the branches. To me they all look equivalent

SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago

I always set -Werror=implicit-fallthrough, among others. That prevents fallthrough unless explicitly annotated. Sadly these will forever remain optional warnings requiring specific compiler flags, since requiring them could break compiling broken legacy code.