2 ms·

How about: for (;;) { if (argc > 1) puts(argv[1]); else puts("y"); } ? You said "it’s about duplicating logic that should inherently

How about: for (;;) { if (argc > 1) puts(argv[1]); else puts("y"); } ? You said "it’s about duplicating logic that should inherently be the same", but that is exactly how it is more explicit, by having this duplication. I assume your problem is with the two "puts()"?

layer8 1y ago
Your proposal is a bit better than the original, although it still duplicates the puts (imagine a variant where you’d want to handle I/O errors), and some will be bothered by the fact that the same unchanging condition is being retested in each loop iteration (the compiler may even warn about it). But still, I don’t see why you wouldn’t first name what you want to output before starting the outputting. If anything, I’d place the whole output loop in a separate function and have two calls to that function. Nevertheless, it’s even better to express in code the fact that the program doesn’t want to make a distinction between a literal “y” and an argument “y”, by consolidating them into the same variable. Another way to do this would be to have a static default argument array containing the “y”, and for example having: if (argc <= 1) { argv = default_argv; } for (;;) { puts(argv[1]); } This would make explicit the fact thst the argument-less invocation is merely a shortcut for an invocation with an argument and doesn’t otherwise provide any new or different behavior. Though I think the separate variable (what) is clearly preferable.
- johnisgood 1y ago
  I have made the decision to use your "what" method many times before, but in this particular case I do not see the reason to do that, and perhaps this is what I have an issue with. There are many cases in which I would definitely use "what".
williamdclt 1y ago
That's a whole lot less efficient than both other options, the condition will be checked at every loop, that's not cheap
- johnisgood 1y ago
  Oh, I know. :P

layer8 1y ago

Your proposal is a bit better than the original, although it still duplicates the puts (imagine a variant where you’d want to handle I/O errors), and some will be bothered by the fact that the same unchanging condition is being retested in each loop iteration (the compiler may even warn about it). But still, I don’t see why you wouldn’t first name what you want to output before starting the outputting. If anything, I’d place the whole output loop in a separate function and have two calls to that function. Nevertheless, it’s even better to express in code the fact that the program doesn’t want to make a distinction between a literal “y” and an argument “y”, by consolidating them into the same variable. Another way to do this would be to have a static default argument array containing the “y”, and for example having: if (argc <= 1) { argv = default_argv; } for (;;) { puts(argv[1]); } This would make explicit the fact thst the argument-less invocation is merely a shortcut for an invocation with an argument and doesn’t otherwise provide any new or different behavior. Though I think the separate variable (what) is clearly preferable.

johnisgood 1y ago
I have made the decision to use your "what" method many times before, but in this particular case I do not see the reason to do that, and perhaps this is what I have an issue with. There are many cases in which I would definitely use "what".

williamdclt 1y ago

That's a whole lot less efficient than both other options, the condition will be checked at every loop, that's not cheap

johnisgood 1y ago
Oh, I know. :P