Related
Is somewhere exists programming languages with auto-updatable variables.
For example:
a = 100
b = a * 3 + 1 // 301
c = sin(b) + a // 99.1428
After modifying 'a': a = 105, corresponding variables automatically recalculated:
b: 316
c: 104.3053
If such languages exists, what approaches are used to implement this behavior?
What you want is deferred evaluation. It's common in spreadsheet applications. I think the R language also allows for something like that.
You can implement it in almost any language.
The usual approach is that you define a terminator class (say Number) and override the operators (if the language supports it, like c++, C# or python) to return nodes in an tree. So a * 3 + 1 will be equivalent to something like (b = Sum(Mult(a, Number(3)), Number(1)). Once you have something like this you can change the value of a with an accessor and then request the top node to be reevaluated, which gives you the value you need.
There are probably a couple of implementations already out there. It's not hard to implement, but it'a bit tedious to define all the classes and implicit conversions needed. It get's more complicated if you want to optimize the evaluation.
You might want to take a look at Functional Reactive Programming in general, and Elm in particular, which provide that kind of computational style in a functional programming environment.
I was looking at some Ruby code somewhere, and I saw the following line:
def do_something a, b, c, &callback
xyz = a + b + c
callback.call(xyz)
end
and then when it was called, they did something like this:
do_something a, b, c do |xyz|
puts xyz
end
Is this better practice to use this sort of callback as opposed to just returning the value made by the function? I can understand why it would be done if there are multiple values that need to be transferred, but this one has just one return.
Analysis
There is insufficient information in your original post to determine if this is useful or not. The intent of your first example seems to be that the method will be passed a block, which is then called as a Proc inside the method rather than yielded back to the block. There might be a valid use case for this, but your given example isn't one of them.
If the block is already there, why not just yield to the block? And what happens if no block is given?
Passing Proc or lambda objects around can certainly be a useful technique in certain cases, but unless it simplifies your code or makes it more readable you are creating additional complexity. The examples in your original post don't make a valid case for why it might be needed. Even if you update your post with better examples, "Is a Proc object necessary?" is almost certainly a subjective question based on the needs of the larger program.
Unless you need the features of a Proc or lambda (e.g. you need a closure or access to a specific Binding) then you are generally better off yielding to a block or returning a value. Your mileage may certainly vary.
Yield or Return
In the general case, you can choose to yield to a block or return a value depending on whether or not a block was given. For example:
def do_something(a, b, c)
xyz = a + b + c
block_given? ? yield(xyz) : xyz
end
Unless you need to pass around a closure, this is likely to be a more useful technique. However, as previously stated, your mileage (and code base) may vary.
I would call this bad practice since this method requires a block (you'll get a NoMethodError without one). It can be useful to have a mechanism for immediately passing the return value to a block, but I wouldn't make it mandatory.
A simple improvement would be to make the block optional
def do_something a, b, c
xyz = a + b + c
return yield(xyz) if block_given?
xyz
end
I've got some symbols which should are non-commutative, but I don't want to have to remember which expressions have this behaviour whilst constructing equations.
I've had the thought to use MakeExpression to act on the raw boxes, and automatically uplift multiply to non-commutative multiply when appropriate (for instance when some of the symbols are non-commutative objects).
I was wondering whether anyone had any experience with this kind of configuration.
Here's what I've got so far:
(* Detect whether a set of row boxes represents a multiplication *)
Clear[isRowBoxMultiply];
isRowBoxMultiply[x_RowBox] := (Print["rowbox: ", x];
Head[ToExpression[x]] === Times)
isRowBoxMultiply[x___] := (Print["non-rowbox: ", x]; False)
(* Hook into the expression maker, so that we can capture any \
expression of the form F[x___], to see how it is composed of boxes, \
and return true or false on that basis *)
MakeExpression[
RowBox[List["F", "[", x___, "]"]], _] := (HoldComplete[
isRowBoxMultiply[x]])
(* Test a number of expressions to see whether they are automatically \
detected as multiplies or not. *)
F[a]
F[a b]
F[a*b]
F[a - b]
F[3 x]
F[x^2]
F[e f*g ** h*i j]
Clear[MakeExpression]
This appears to correctly identify expressions that are multiplication statements:
During evaluation of In[561]:= non-rowbox: a
Out[565]= False
During evaluation of In[561]:= rowbox: RowBox[{a,b}]
Out[566]= True
During evaluation of In[561]:= rowbox: RowBox[{a,*,b}]
Out[567]= True
During evaluation of In[561]:= rowbox: RowBox[{a,-,b}]
Out[568]= False
During evaluation of In[561]:= rowbox: RowBox[{3,x}]
Out[569]= True
During evaluation of In[561]:= non-rowbox: SuperscriptBox[x,2]
Out[570]= False
During evaluation of In[561]:= rowbox: RowBox[{e,f,*,RowBox[{g,**,h}],*,i,j}]
Out[571]= True
So, it looks like it's not out of the questions that I might be able to conditionally rewrite the boxes of the underlying expression; but how to do this reliably?
Take the expression RowBox[{"e","f","*",RowBox[{"g","**","h"}],"*","i","j"}], this would need to be rewritten as RowBox[{"e","**","f","**",RowBox[{"g","**","h"}],"**","i","**","j"}] which seems like a non trivial operation to do with the pattern matcher and a rule set.
I'd be grateful for any suggestions from those more experienced with me.
I'm trying to find a way of doing this without altering the default behaviour and ordering of multiply.
Thanks! :)
Joe
This is not a most direct answer to your question, but for many purposes working as low-level as directly with the boxes might be an overkill. Here is an alternative: let the Mathematica parser parse your code, and make a change then. Here is a possibility:
ClearAll[withNoncommutativeMultiply];
SetAttributes[withNoncommutativeMultiply, HoldAll];
withNoncommutativeMultiply[code_] :=
Internal`InheritedBlock[{Times},
Unprotect[Times];
Times = NonCommutativeMultiply;
Protect[Times];
code];
This replaces Times dynamically with NonCommutativeMultiply, and avoids the intricacies you mentioned. By using Internal`InheritedBlock, I make modifications to Times local to the code executed inside withNoncommutativeMultiply.
You now can automate the application of this function with $Pre:
$Pre = withNoncommutativeMultiply;
Now, for example:
In[36]:=
F[a]
F[a b]
F[a*b]
F[a-b]
F[3 x]
F[x^2]
F[e f*g**h*i j]
Out[36]= F[a]
Out[37]= F[a**b]
Out[38]= F[a**b]
Out[39]= F[a+(-1)**b]
Out[40]= F[3**x]
Out[41]= F[x^2]
Out[42]= F[e**f**g**h**i**j]
Surely, using $Pre in such manner is hardly appropriate, since in all your code multiplication will be replaced with noncommutative multiplication - I used this as an illustration. You could make a more complicated redefinition of Times, so that this would only work for certain symbols.
Here is a safer alternative based on lexical, rather than dynamic, scoping:
ClearAll[withNoncommutativeMultiplyLex];
SetAttributes[withNoncommutativeMultiplyLex, HoldAll];
withNoncommutativeMultiplyLex[code_] :=
With ## Append[
Hold[{Times = NonCommutativeMultiply}],
Unevaluated[code]]
you can use this in the same way, but only those instances of Times which are explicitly present in the code would be replaced. Again, this is just an illustration of the principles, one can extend or specialize this as needed. Instead of With, which is rather limited in its ability to specialize / add special cases, one can use replacement rules which have similar semantics.
If I understand correctly, you want to input
a b and a*b
and have MMA understand automatically that Times is really a non commutative operator (which has its own -separate - commutation rules).
Well, my suggestion is that you use the Notation package.
It is very powerful and (relatively) easy to use (especially for a sophisticated user like you seem to be).
It can be used programmatically and it can reinterpret predefined symbols like Times.
Basically it can intercept Times and change it to MyTimes. You then write code for MyTimes deciding for example which symbols are non commuting and then the output can be pretty formatted again as times or whatever else you wish.
The input and output processing are 2 lines of code. That’s it!
You have to read the documentation carefully and do some experimentation, if what you want is not more or less “standard hacking” of the input-output jobs.
Your case seems to me pretty much standard (again: If I understood well what you want to achieve) and you should find useful to read the “advanced” pages of the Notation package.
To give you an idea of how powerful and flexible the package is, I am using it to write the input-output formatting of a sizable package of Category Theory where noncommutative operations abound. But wait! I am not just defining ONE noncommutative operation, I am defining an unlimited number of noncommutative operations.
Another thing I did was to reinterpret Power when the arguments are categories, without overloading Power. This allows me to treat functorial categories using standard mathematics notation.
Now my “infinite” operations and "super Power" have the same look and feel of standard MMA symbols, including copy-paste functionality.
So, this doesn't directly answer the question, but it's does provide the sort of implementation that I was thinking about.
So, after a bit of investigation and taking on board some of #LeonidShifrin's suggestions, I've managed to implement most of what I was thinking of. The idea is that it's possible to define patterns that should be considered to be non-commuting quantities, using commutingQ[form] := False. Then any multiplicative expression (actually any expression) can be wrapped with withCommutativeSensitivity[expr] and the expression will be manipulated to separate the quantities into Times[] and NonCommutativeMultiply[] sub-expressions as appropriate,
In[1]:= commutingQ[b] ^:= False;
In[2]:= withCommutativeSensitivity[ a (a + b + 4) b (3 + a) b ]
Out[1]:= a (3 + a) (a + b + 4) ** b ** b
Of course it's possible to use $Pre = withCommutativeSensitivity to have this behaviour become default (come on Wolfram! Make it default already ;) ). It would, however, be nice to have it a more fundamental behaviour though. I'd really like to make a module and Needs[NonCommutativeQuantities] at the beginning of any note book that is needs it, and not have all the facilities that use $Pre break on me (doesn't tracing use it?).
Intuitively I feel that there must be a natural way to hook this functionality into Mathematica on at the level of box parsing and wire it up using MakeExpression[]. Am I over extending here? I'd appreciate any thoughts as to whether I'm chasing up a blind alley. (I've had a few experiments in this direction, but always get caught in a recursive definition that I can't work out how to break).
Any thoughts would be gladly received,
Joe.
Code
Unprotect[NonCommutativeMultiply];
ClearAll[NonCommutativeMultiply]
NonCommutativeMultiply[a_] := a
Protect[NonCommutativeMultiply];
ClearAll[commutingQ]
commutingQ::usage = "commutingQ[\!\(\*
StyleBox[\"expr\", \"InlineFormula\",\nFontSlant->\"Italic\"]\)] \
returns True if expr doesn't contain any constituent parts that fail \
the commutingQ test. By default all objects return True to \
commutingQ.";
commutingQ[x_] := If[Length[x] == 0, True, And ## (commutingQ /# List ## x)]
ClearAll[times2, withCommutativeSensitivity]
SetAttributes[times2, {Flat, OneIdentity, HoldAll}]
SetAttributes[withCommutativeSensitivity, HoldAll];
gatherByCriteria[list_List, crit_] :=
With[{gathered =
Gather[{#, crit[#1]} & /# list, #1[[2]] == #2[[2]] &]},
(Identity ## Union[#[[2]]] -> #[[1]] &)[Transpose[#]] & /# gathered]
times2[x__] := Module[{a, b, y = List[x]},
Times ## (gatherByCriteria[y, commutingQ] //.
{True -> Times, False -> NonCommutativeMultiply,
HoldPattern[a_ -> b_] :> a ## b})]
withCommutativeSensitivity[code_] := With ## Append[
Hold[{Times = times2, NonCommutativeMultiply = times2}],
Unevaluated[code]]
This answer does not address your question but rather the problem that leads you to ask that question. Mathematica is pretty useless when dealing with non-commuting objects but since such objects abound in, e.g., particle physics, there are some usefull packages around to deal with the situation.
Look at the grassmanOps package. They have a method to define symbols as either commuting or anti-commuting and overload the standard NonCommutativeMultiply to handle, i.e. pass through, commuting symbols. They also define several other operators, such as Derivative, to handle anti-commuting symbols. It is probably easily adapted to cover arbitrary commutation rules and it should at the very least give you an insigt into what things need to be changed if you want to roll your own.
I'm in love with Ruby. In this language all core functions are actually methods. That's why I prefer postfix notation – when the data, which I want to process is placed left from the body of anonymous processing function, for example: array.map{...}. I believe, that it has advantages in how easy is this code to read.
But Mathetica, being functional (yeah, it can be procedural if you want) dictates a style, where Function name is placed left from the data. As we can see in its manuals, // is used only when it's some simple Function, without arguments, like list // MatrixForm. When Function needs a lot of arguments, people who wrote manuals, use syntax F[data].
It would be okay, but my problem is the case F[f,data], for example Do[function, {x, a, b}]. Most of Mathematica functions (if not all) have arguments in exactly this order – [function, data], not [data, function]. As I prefer to use pure functions to keep namespace clean instead of creating a lot of named functions in my notebook, the argument function can be too big – so big, that argument data would be placed on the 5-20th line of code after the line with Function call.
This is why sometimes, when evil Ruby nature takes me under control, I rewrite such functions in postfix way:
Because it's important for me, that pure function (potentially big code) is placed right from processing data. Yeah I do it and I'm happy. But there are two things:
this causes Mathematica's highlighting parser problem: the x in postfix notation is highlighted with blue color, not turquoise;
everytime when I look into Mathematica manuals, I see examples like this one: Do[x[[i]] = (v[[i]] - U[[i, i + 1 ;; n]].x[[i + 1 ;; n]])/ U[[i, i]], {i, n, 1, -1}];, which means... hell, they think it's easy to read/support/etc.?!
So these two things made me ask this question here: am I so bad boy, that use my Ruby-style, and should I write code like these guys do, or is it OK, and I don't have to worry, and should write as I like to?
The style you propose is frequently possible, but is inadvisable in the case of Do. The problem is that Do has the attribute HoldAll. This is important because the loop variable (x in the example) must remain unevaluated and be treated as a local variable. To see this, try evaluating these expressions:
x = 123;
Do[Print[x], {x, 1, 2}]
(* prints 1 and 2 *)
{x, 1, 2} // Do[Print[x], #]&
(* error: Do::itraw: Raw object 123 cannot be used as an iterator.
Do[Print[x], {123, 1, 2}]
*)
The error occurs because the pure function Do[Print[x], #]& lacks the HoldAll attribute, causing {x, 1, 2} to be evaluated. You could solve the problem by explicitly defining a pure function with the HoldAll attribute, thus:
{x, 1, 2} // Function[Null, Do[Print[x], #], HoldAll]
... but I suspect that the cure is worse than the disease :)
Thus, when one is using "binding" expressions like Do, Table, Module and so on, it is safest to conform with the herd.
I think you need to learn to use the styles that Mathematica most naturally supports. Certainly there is more than one way, and my code does not look like everyone else's. Nevertheless, if you continue to try to beat Mathematica syntax into your own preconceived style, based on a different language, I foresee nothing but continued frustration for you.
Whitespace is not evil, and you can easily add line breaks to separate long arguments:
Do[
x[[i]] = (v[[i]] - U[[i, i + 1 ;; n]].x[[i + 1 ;; n]]) / U[[i, i]]
, {i, n, 1, -1}
];
This said, I like to write using more prefix (f # x) and infix (x ~ f ~ y) notation that I usually see, and I find this valuable because it is easy to determine that such functions are receiving one and two arguments respectively. This is somewhat nonstandard, but I do not think it is kicking over the traces of Mathematica syntax. Rather, I see it as using the syntax to advantage. Sometimes this causes syntax highlighting to fail, but I can live with that:
f[x] ~Do~ {x, 2, 5}
When using anything besides the standard form of f[x, y, z] (with line breaks as needed), you must be more careful of evaluation order, and IMHO, readability can suffer. Consider this contrived example:
{x, y} // # + 1 & ## # &
I do not find this intuitive. Yes, for someone intimate with Mathematica's order of operations, it is readable, but I believe it does not improve clarity. I tend to reserve // postfix for named functions where reading is natural:
Do[f[x], {x, 10000}] //Timing //First
I'd say it is one of the biggest mistakes to try program in a language B in ways idiomatic for a language A, only because you happen to know the latter well and like it. There is nothing wrong in borrowing idioms, but you have to make sure to understand the second language well enough so that you know why other people use it the way they do.
In the particular case of your example, and generally, I want to draw attention to a few things others did not mention. First, Do is a scoping construct which uses dynamic scoping to localize its iterator symbols. Therefore, you have:
In[4]:=
x=1;
{x,1,5}//Do[f[x],#]&
During evaluation of In[4]:= Do::itraw: Raw object
1 cannot be used as an iterator. >>
Out[5]= Do[f[x],{1,1,5}]
What a surprise, isn't it. This won't happen when you use Do in a standard fashion.
Second, note that, while this fact is largely ignored, f[#]&[arg] is NOT always the same as f[arg]. Example:
ClearAll[f];
SetAttributes[f, HoldAll];
f[x_] := Print[Unevaluated[x]]
f[5^2]
5^2
f[#] &[5^2]
25
This does not affect your example, but your usage is close enough to those cases affected by this, since you manipulate the scopes.
Mathematica supports 4 ways of applying a function to its arguments:
standard function form: f[x]
prefix: f#x or g##{x,y}
postfix: x // f, and
infix: x~g~y which is equivalent to g[x,y].
What form you choose to use is up to you, and is often an aesthetic choice, more than anything else. Internally, f#x is interpreted as f[x]. Personally, I primarily use postfix, like you, because I view each function in the chain as a transformation, and it is easier to string multiple transformations together like that. That said, my code will be littered with both the standard form and prefix form mostly depending on whim, but I tend to use standard form more as it evokes a feeling of containment with regards to the functions parameters.
I took a little liberty with the prefix form, as I included the shorthand form of Apply (##) alongside Prefix (#). Of the built in commands, only the standard form, infix form, and Apply allow you easily pass more than one variable to your function without additional work. Apply (e.g. g ## {x,y}) works by replacing the Head of the expression ({x,y}) with the function, in effect evaluating the function with multiple variables (g##{x,y} == g[x,y]).
The method I use to pass multiple variables to my functions using the postfix form is via lists. This necessitates a little more work as I have to write
{x,y} // f[ #[[1]], #[[2]] ]&
to specify which element of the List corresponds to the appropriate parameter. I tend to do this, but you could combine this with Apply like
{x,y} // f ## #&
which involves less typing, but could be more difficult to interpret when you read it later.
Edit: I should point out that f and g above are just placeholders, they can, and often are, replaced with pure functions, e.g. #+1& # x is mostly equivalent to #+1&[x], see Leonid's answer.
To clarify, per Leonid's answer, the equivalence between f#expr and f[expr] is true if f does not posses an attribute that would prevent the expression, expr, from being evaluated before being passed to f. For instance, one of the Attributes of Do is HoldAll which allows it to act as a scoping construct which allows its parameters to be evaluated internally without undo outside influence. The point is expr will be evaluated prior to it being passed to f, so if you need it to remain unevaluated, extra care must be taken, like creating a pure function with a Hold style attribute.
You can certainly do it, as you evidently know. Personally, I would not worry about how the manuals write code, and just write it the way I find natural and memorable.
However, I have noticed that I usually fall into definite patterns. For instance, if I produce a list after some computation and incidentally plot it to make sure it's what I expected, I usually do
prodListAfterLongComputation[
args,
]//ListPlot[#,PlotRange->Full]&
If I have a list, say lst, and I am now focusing on producing a complicated plot, I'll do
ListPlot[
lst,
Option1->Setting1,
Option2->Setting2
]
So basically, anything that is incidental and perhaps not important to be readable (I don't need to be able to instantaneously parse the first ListPlot as it's not the point of that bit of code) ends up being postfix, to avoid disrupting the already-written complicated code it is applied to. Conversely, complicated code I tend to write in the way I find easiest to parse later, which, in my case, is something like
f[
g[
a,
b,
c
]
]
even though it takes more typing and, if one does not use the Workbench/Eclipse plugin, makes it more work to reorganize code.
So I suppose I'd answer your question with "do whatever is most convenient after taking into account the possible need for readability and the possible loss of convenience such as code highlighting, extra work to refactor code etc".
Of course all this applies if you're the only one working with some piece of code; if there are others, it is a different question alltogether.
But this is just an opinion. I doubt it's possible for anybody to offer more than this.
For one-argument functions (f#(arg)), ((arg)//f) and f[arg] are completely equivalent even in the sense of applying of attributes of f. In the case of multi-argument functions one may write f#Sequence[args] or Sequence[args]//f with the same effect:
In[1]:= SetAttributes[f,HoldAll];
In[2]:= arg1:=Print[];
In[3]:= f#arg1
Out[3]= f[arg1]
In[4]:= f#Sequence[arg1,arg1]
Out[4]= f[arg1,arg1]
So it seems that the solution for anyone who likes postfix notation is to use Sequence:
x=123;
Sequence[Print[x],{x,1,2}]//Do
(* prints 1 and 2 *)
Some difficulties can potentially appear with functions having attribute SequenceHold or HoldAllComplete:
In[18]:= Select[{#, ToExpression[#, InputForm, Attributes]} & /#
Names["System`*"],
MemberQ[#[[2]], SequenceHold | HoldAllComplete] &][[All, 1]]
Out[18]= {"AbsoluteTiming", "DebugTag", "EvaluationObject", \
"HoldComplete", "InterpretationBox", "MakeBoxes", "ParallelEvaluate", \
"ParallelSubmit", "Parenthesize", "PreemptProtect", "Rule", \
"RuleDelayed", "Set", "SetDelayed", "SystemException", "TagSet", \
"TagSetDelayed", "Timing", "Unevaluated", "UpSet", "UpSetDelayed"}
Is it cool?
IMO one-liners reduces the readability and makes debugging/understanding more difficult.
Maximize understandability of the code.
Sometimes that means putting (simple, easily understood) expressions on one line in order to get more code in a given amount of screen real-estate (i.e. the source code editor).
Other times that means taking small steps to make it obvious what the code means.
One-liners should be a side-effect, not a goal (nor something to be avoided).
If there is a simple way of expressing something in a single line of code, that's great. If it's just a case of stuffing in lots of expressions into a single line, that's not so good.
To explain what I mean - LINQ allows you to express quite complicated transformations in relative simplicity. That's great - but I wouldn't try to fit a huge LINQ expression onto a single line. For instance:
var query = from person in employees
where person.Salary > 10000m
orderby person.Name
select new { person.Name, person.Deparment };
is more readable than:
var query = from person in employees where person.Salary > 10000m orderby person.Name select new { person.Name, person.Deparment };
It's also more readabe than doing all the filtering, ordering and projection manually. It's a nice sweet-spot.
Trying to be "clever" is rarely a good idea - but if you can express something simply and concisely, that's good.
One-liners, when used properly, transmit your intent clearly and make the structure of your code easier to grasp.
A python example is list comprehensions:
new_lst = [i for i in lst if some_condition]
instead of:
new_lst = []
for i in lst:
if some_condition:
new_lst.append(i)
This is a commonly used idiom that makes your code much more readable and compact. So, the best of both worlds can be achieved in certain cases.
This is by definition subjective, and due to the vagueness of the question, you'll likely get answers all over the map. Are you referring to a single physical line or logical line? EG, are you talking about:
int x = BigHonkinClassName.GetInstance().MyObjectProperty.PropertyX.IntValue.This.That.TheOther;
or
int x = BigHonkinClassName.GetInstance().
MyObjectProperty.PropertyX.IntValue.
This.That.TheOther;
One-liners, to me, are a matter of "what feels right." In the case above, I'd probably break that into both physical and logic lines, getting the instance of BigHonkinClassName, then pulling the full path to .TheOther. But that's just me. Other people will disagree. (And there's room for that. Like I said, subjective.)
Regarding readability, bear in mind that, for many languages, even "one-liners" can be broken out into multiple lines. If you have a long set of conditions for the conditional ternary operator (? :), for example, it might behoove you to break it into multiple physical lines for readability:
int x = (/* some long condition */) ?
/* some long method/property name returning an int */ :
/* some long method/property name returning an int */ ;
At the end of the day, the answer is always: "It depends." Some frameworks (such as many DAL generators, EG SubSonic) almost require obscenely long one-liners to get any real work done. Othertimes, breaking that into multiple lines is quite preferable.
Given concrete examples, the community can provide better, more practical advice.
In general, I definitely don't think you should ever "squeeze" a bunch of code onto a single physical line. That doesn't just hurt legibility, it smacks of someone who has outright disdain for the maintenance programmer. As I used to teach my students: always code for the maintenance programmer, because it will often be you.
:)
Oneliners can be useful in some situations
int value = bool ? 1 : 0;
But for the most part they make the code harder to follow. I think you only should put things on one line when it is easy to follow, the intent is clear, and it won't affect debugging.
One-liners should be treated on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes it can really hurt readability and a more verbose (read: easy-to-follow) version should be used.
There are times, however when a one-liner seems more natural. Take the following:
int Total = (Something ? 1 : 2)
+ (SomethingElse ? (AnotherThing ? x : y) : z);
Or the equivalent (slightly less readable?):
int Total = Something ? 1 : 2;
Total += SomethingElse ? (AnotherThing ? x : y) : z;
IMHO, I would prefer either of the above to the following:
int Total;
if (Something)
Total = 1;
else
Total = 2;
if (SomethingElse)
if (AnotherThing)
Total += x;
else
Total += y;
else
Total += z
With the nested if-statements, I have a harder time figuring out the final result without tracing through it. The one-liner feels more like the math formula it was intended to be, and consequently easier to follow.
As far as the cool factor, there is a certain feeling of accomplishment / show-off factor in "Look Ma, I wrote a whole program in one line!". But I wouldn't use it in any context other than playing around; I certainly wouldn't want to have to go back and debug it!
Ultimately, with real (production) projects, whatever makes it easiest to understand is best. Because there will come a time that you or someone else will be looking at the code again. What they say is true: time is precious.
That's true in most cases, but in some cases where one-liners are common idioms, then it's acceptable. ? : might be an example. Closure might be another one.
No, it is annoying.
One liners can be more readable and they can be less readable. You'll have to judge from case to case.
And, of course, on the prompt one-liners rule.
VASTLY more important is developing and sticking to a consistent style.
You'll find bugs MUCH faster, be better able to share code with others, and even code faster if you merely develop and stick to a pattern.
One aspect of this is to make a decision on one-liners. Here's one example from my shop (I run a small coding department) - how we handle IFs:
Ifs shall never be all on one line if they overflow the visible line length, including any indentation.
Thou shalt never have else clauses on the same line as the if even if it comports with the line-length rule.
Develop your own style and STICK WITH IT (or, refactor all code in the same project if you change style).
.
The main drawback of "one liners" in my opinion is that it makes it hard to break on the code and debug. For example, pretend you have the following code:
a().b().c(d() + e())
If this isn't working, its hard to inspect the intermediate values. However, it's trivial to break with gdb (or whatever other tool you may be using) in the following, and check each individual variable and see precisely what is failing:
A = a();
B = A.b();
D = d();
E = e(); // here i can query A B D and E
B.C(d + e);
One rule of thumb is if you can express the concept of the one line in plain language in a very short sentence. "If it's true, set it to this, otherwise set it to that"
For a code construct where the ultimate objective of the entire structure is to decide what value to set a single variable, With appropriate formatting, it is almost always clearer to put multiple conditonals into a single statement. With multiple nested if end if elses, the overall objective, to set the variable...
" variableName = "
must be repeated in every nested clause, and the eye must read all of them to see this.. with a singlr statement, it is much clearer, and with the appropriate formatting, the complexity is more easily managed as well...
decimal cost =
usePriority? PriorityRate * weight:
useAirFreight? AirRate * weight:
crossMultRegions? MultRegionRate:
SingleRegionRate;
The prose is an easily understood one liner that works.
The cons is the concatenation of obfuscated gibberish on one line.
Generally, I'd call it a bad idea (although I do it myself on occasion) -- it strikes me as something that's done more to impress on how clever someone is than it is to make good code. "Clever tricks" of that sort are generally very bad.
That said, I personally aim to have one "idea" per line of code; if this burst of logic is easily encapsulated in a single thought, then go ahead. If you have to stop and puzzle it out a bit, best to break it up.