Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
Ever since I first wrote
if ($a = 5) {
# do something with $a, e.g.
print "$a";
}
and went through the normal puzzling session of
why is the result always true
why is $a always 5
until I realized, I'd assigned 5 to $a, instead of performing a comparison.
So I decided to write that kind of condition above as
if (5 == $a)
in other words:
always place the constant value to the left side of the comparison operator, resulting in a compilation error, should you forget to add the second "=" sign.
I tend to call this defensive coding and tend to believe it's a cousin to defensive-programming, not on the algorithmic scale, but keyword by keyword.
What defensive coding practices have you developed?
One Week Later:
A big "thank you" to all who answered or might add another answer in the future.
Unfortunately (or rather fortunately!) there is no single correct answer. For that my question was to broad, asking more for opinions or learnings of experience, rather than facts.
Always use braces:
if(boolean)
oneliner();
nextLineOfCode();
is not the same as:
if(boolean)
{
oneliner();
}
nextLineOfCode();
If oneliner() is a #defined function, and it isn't defined then your next line of code suddenly becomes subject to the if(). Same thing applies to for loops etc. With braces then the next piece of code never unintentionally becomes conditional on the if/for etc.
The top 3 defensive coding practices I employ are
unit testing
unit testing
unit testing
There is no better defense for the quality of your code than a good unit test to back you up.
This is a simple and obvious one, but I NEVER EVER NEVER repeat the same string constant twice in my code, cause I KNOW that if I do I will be spelling one of them wrong :) Use constants, people!
Always put curly braces after an if/for/while ... even if there's only one single statement after. BTW D. Crockford thinks it's better too: Required blocks
When comparing a string with a constant, write
if ("blah".equals(value)){}
instead of
if (value.equals("blah")){}
to prevent a NullPointerException. But this is the only time I use the suggested coding-style (cause "if (a = 1)..." is not possible in Java).
One of the things I always try to remember when I am in the Javascript world is to always start the return value of a function on the same line as the return key word.
function one(){
return {
result:"result"
};
}
function two(){
return
{
result:"result"
};
}
These 2 functions will not return the same value. The first function will return an Object with a property results set to "result". The second function will return undefined. It's a really simple mistake and it happens because of Javascript's over-zealous Semi-Colon Insertion strategy. Semi-colons are semi-optional in Javascript and because of this the Javascript engine will add semi-coons where it thinks it's should be. Because return is actually a valid statement a semi-colon will be inserted after the return statement and the rest of the function will essentially be ignored.
From my blog:
Think positive and return early plus avoid deep nesting. Instead of
if (value != null) {
... do something with value ...
}
return
write
if (value == null) {
return
}
... do something with value ...
Avoid "string constants" (i.e. the same text in quotes in more than one place). Always define a real constant (with a name and an optional comment what it means) and use that.
Personally, I dislike this defensive style, it makes the code hard ro read.
VC compiler warning level 4 will spot this (possible) error.
"warning C4706: assignment within conditional expression"
You can enable just this specific compiler warning, at any level:
#pragma warning(3,4706)
Always initialize variables
Use const wherever I can (without using mutable)
Avoid bare dynamic allocation of memory or other resources
Always use curly braces
Code use-cases and tests for any class before coding implementation
Turn on as many useful warnings as I can (-Wall -Wextra -ansi -pedantic -Werror at a minimum)
Use the simplest tool that solves the problem (in my current environment, that's bash -> grep -> awk -> Python -> C++).
I stopped using languages where you can do
if a = 5: print a
This has saved me tons of headaches =).
On a more serious note... I now always write the curly braces right after I write my ifs and for loops, and then fill them in afterwards. This makes sure my brackets are always aligned.
Returning a copy of a mutable object, i.e. a copy of an array, not the mutable object itself.
Couple things:
Yes, the 1-line blocks. Use the braces... heck, most good IDE's will make em for you.
Comment your code after you write it, or re-read your comments if you did it ahead of time. Make sure your code still does what the comments say.
Unit testing is a great fallback to re-reading your code.
Always log an exception... or, NEVER catch an exception without saying so, at least in debug.
Avoid unnecessary test.
Example
if(bool == true)
Pointer checks if(pointer)
EDIT:
if(pointer) is not readable so nowadays I prefer if(NULL != pointer)
Installed Resharper ;)
Then I don't need to write "5 == a" to get warned if I did something wrong :)
Related
As every new programer starting in Go 1st think you see is, strict code format.
Means:
//Valid
func foo(){
}
//Invalid
func foo()
{
}
Same goes for if-else that else should be in same line where if ends, like:
//Valid
if{
}else{
}
//Invalid
if{
}
else{
}
we get below error:
syntax error: unexpected else, expecting }
I have checked the spec spec, but not able to find why.
The only explanation I'am getting is its mandatory.
Can anyone explain us why this is mandated does this have any reason? if any.
UPDATE
I think i have mention this already that "I know lang say so", Question is WHY?
Why to go this length to make it compile time error, what problems it was posing if we don't do this?
The language was designed as such and the reason is outlined in the FAQ.
https://golang.org/doc/faq
Why are there braces but no semicolons? And why can't I put the opening brace on the next line?
o uses brace brackets for statement
grouping, a syntax familiar to programmers who have worked with any
language in the C family. Semicolons, however, are for parsers, not
for people, and we wanted to eliminate them as much as possible. To
achieve this goal, Go borrows a trick from BCPL: the semicolons that
separate statements are in the formal grammar but are injected
automatically, without lookahead, by the lexer at the end of any line
that could be the end of a statement. This works very well in practice
but has the effect that it forces a brace style. For instance, the
opening brace of a function cannot appear on a line by itself.
Some have argued that the lexer should do lookahead to permit the
brace to live on the next line. We disagree. Since Go code is meant to
be formatted automatically by gofmt, some style must be chosen. That
style may differ from what you've used in C or Java, but Go is a
different language and gofmt's style is as good as any other. More
important—much more important—the advantages of a single,
programmatically mandated format for all Go programs greatly outweigh
any perceived disadvantages of the particular style. Note too that
Go's style means that an interactive implementation of Go can use the
standard syntax one line at a time without special rules.
Go inserts a ; at the end of lines ending in certain tokens including }.
Since if {...} else {...} is a single statement, you can't put a semicolon in the middle of it after the first closing brances i.e. }, hence the requirement to put } else { on one line is mandatory.
I hope it answers your question.
I'm trying to curb some of the bad habits of a self-proclaimed "senior programmer." He insists on writing If blocks like this:
if (expression) {}
else {
statements
}
Or as he usually writes it in classic ASP VBScript:
If expression Then
Else
statements
End If
The expression could be something as easily negated as:
if (x == 0) {}
else {
statements
}
Other than clarity of coding style, what other reasons can I provide for my opinion that the following is preferred?
if (x != 0) {
statements
}
Or even the more general case (again in VBScript):
If Not expression Then
statements
End If
Reasons that come to my mind for supporting your opinion (which I agree with BTW) are:
Easier to read (which implies easier to understand)
Easier to maintain (because of point #1)
Consistent with 'established' coding styles in most major programming languages
I have NEVER come across the coding-style/form that your co-worker insists on using.
I've tried it both ways. McConnell in Code Complete says one should always include both the then and the else to demonstrate that one has thought about both conditions, even if the operation is nothing (NOP). It looks like your friend is doing this.
I've found this practice to add no value in the field because unit testing handles this or it is unnecessary. YMMV, of course.
If you really want to burn his bacon, calculate how much time he's spending writing the empty statements, multiply by 1.5 (for testing) and then multiply that number by his hourly rate. Send him a bill for the amount.
As an aside, I'd move the close curly bracket to the else line:
if (expression) {
} else {
statements
}
The reason being that it is tempting to (or easy to accidentally) add some statement outside the block.
For this reason, I abhor single-line (bare) statements, of the form
if (expression)
statement
Because it can get fugly (and buggy) really fast
if (expression)
statement1
statement2
statement2 will always run, even though it might look like it should be subject to expression. Getting in the habit of always using brackets will kill this stumbling point dead.
Something like this (yes, this doesn't deal with some edge cases - that's not the point):
int CountDigits(int num) {
int count = 1;
while (num >= 10) {
count++;
num /= 10;
}
return count;
}
What's your opinion about this? That is, using function arguments as local variables.
Both are placed on the stack, and pretty much identical performance wise, I'm wondering about the best-practices aspects of this.
I feel like an idiot when I add an additional and quite redundant line to that function consisting of int numCopy = num, however it does bug me.
What do you think? Should this be avoided?
As a general rule, I wouldn't use a function parameter as a local processing variable, i.e. I treat function parameters as read-only.
In my mind, intuitively understandabie code is paramount for maintainability, and modifying a function parameter to use as a local processing variable tends to run counter to that goal. I have come to expect that a parameter will have the same value in the middle and bottom of a method as it does at the top. Plus, an aptly-named local processing variable may improve understandability.
Still, as #Stewart says, this rule is more or less important depending on the length and complexity of the function. For short simple functions like the one you show, simply using the parameter itself may be easier to understand than introducing a new local variable (very subjective).
Nevertheless, if I were to write something as simple as countDigits(), I'd tend to use a remainingBalance local processing variable in lieu of modifying the num parameter as part of local processing - just seems clearer to me.
Sometimes, I will modify a local parameter at the beginning of a method to normalize the parameter:
void saveName(String name) {
name = (name != null ? name.trim() : "");
...
}
I rationalize that this is okay because:
a. it is easy to see at the top of the method,
b. the parameter maintains its the original conceptual intent, and
c. the parameter is stable for the rest of the method
Then again, half the time, I'm just as apt to use a local variable anyway, just to get a couple of extra finals in there (okay, that's a bad reason, but I like final):
void saveName(final String name) {
final String normalizedName = (name != null ? name.trim() : "");
...
}
If, 99% of the time, the code leaves function parameters unmodified (i.e. mutating parameters are unintuitive or unexpected for this code base) , then, during that other 1% of the time, dropping a quick comment about a mutating parameter at the top of a long/complex function could be a big boon to understandability:
int CountDigits(int num) {
// num is consumed
int count = 1;
while (num >= 10) {
count++;
num /= 10;
}
return count;
}
P.S. :-)
parameters vs arguments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameter_(computer_science)#Parameters_and_arguments
These two terms are sometimes loosely used interchangeably; in particular, "argument" is sometimes used in place of "parameter". Nevertheless, there is a difference. Properly, parameters appear in procedure definitions; arguments appear in procedure calls.
So,
int foo(int bar)
bar is a parameter.
int x = 5
int y = foo(x)
The value of x is the argument for the bar parameter.
It always feels a little funny to me when I do this, but that's not really a good reason to avoid it.
One reason you might potentially want to avoid it is for debugging purposes. Being able to tell the difference between "scratchpad" variables and the input to the function can be very useful when you're halfway through debugging.
I can't say it's something that comes up very often in my experience - and often you can find that it's worth introducing another variable just for the sake of having a different name, but if the code which is otherwise cleanest ends up changing the value of the variable, then so be it.
One situation where this can come up and be entirely reasonable is where you've got some value meaning "use the default" (typically a null reference in a language like Java or C#). In that case I think it's entirely reasonable to modify the value of the parameter to the "real" default value. This is particularly useful in C# 4 where you can have optional parameters, but the default value has to be a constant:
For example:
public static void WriteText(string file, string text, Encoding encoding = null)
{
// Null means "use the default" which we would document to be UTF-8
encoding = encoding ?? Encoding.UTF8;
// Rest of code here
}
About C and C++:
My opinion is that using the parameter as a local variable of the function is fine because it is a local variable already. Why then not use it as such?
I feel silly too when copying the parameter into a new local variable just to have a modifiable variable to work with.
But I think this is pretty much a personal opinion. Do it as you like. If you feel sill copying the parameter just because of this, it indicates your personality doesn't like it and then you shouldn't do it.
If I don't need a copy of the original value, I don't declare a new variable.
IMO I don't think mutating the parameter values is a bad practice in general,
it depends on how you're going to use it in your code.
My team coding standard recommends against this because it can get out of hand. To my mind for a function like the one you show, it doesn't hurt because everyone can see what is going on. The problem is that with time functions get longer, and they get bug fixes in them. As soon as a function is more than one screen full of code, this starts to get confusing which is why our coding standard bans it.
The compiler ought to be able to get rid of the redundant variable quite easily, so it has no efficiency impact. It is probably just between you and your code reviewer whether this is OK or not.
I would generally not change the parameter value within the function. If at some point later in the function you need to refer to the original value, you still have it. in your simple case, there is no problem, but if you add more code later, you may refer to 'num' without realizing it has been changed.
The code needs to be as self sufficient as possible. What I mean by that is you now have a dependency on what is being passed in as part of your algorithm. If another member of your team decides to change this to a pass by reference then you might have big problems.
The best practice is definitely to copy the inbound parameters if you expect them to be immutable.
I typically don't modify function parameters, unless they're pointers, in which case I might alter the value that's pointed to.
I think the best-practices of this varies by language. For example, in Perl you can localize any variable or even part of a variable to a local scope, so that changing it in that scope will not have any affect outside of it:
sub my_function
{
my ($arg1, $arg2) = #_; # get the local variables off the stack
local $arg1; # changing $arg1 here will not be visible outside this scope
$arg1++;
local $arg2->{key1}; # only the key1 portion of the hashref referenced by $arg2 is localized
$arg2->{key1}->{key2} = 'foo'; # this change is not visible outside the function
}
Occasionally I have been bitten by forgetting to localize a data structure that was passed by reference to a function, that I changed inside the function. Conversely, I have also returned a data structure as a function result that was shared among multiple systems and the caller then proceeded to change the data by mistake, affecting these other systems in a difficult-to-trace problem usually called action at a distance. The best thing to do here would be to make a clone of the data before returning it*, or make it read-only**.
* In Perl, see the function dclone() in the built-in Storable module.
** In Perl, see lock_hash() or lock_hash_ref() in the built-in Hash::Util module).
Related Questions: Benefits of using short-circuit evaluation, Why would a language NOT use Short-circuit evaluation?, Can someone explain this line of code please? (Logic & Assignment operators)
There are questions about the benefits of a language using short-circuit code, but I'm wondering what are the benefits for a programmer? Is it just that it can make code a little more concise? Or are there performance reasons?
I'm not asking about situations where two entities need to be evaluated anyway, for example:
if($user->auth() AND $model->valid()){
$model->save();
}
To me the reasoning there is clear - since both need to be true, you can skip the more costly model validation if the user can't save the data.
This also has a (to me) obvious purpose:
if(is_string($userid) AND strlen($userid) > 10){
//do something
};
Because it wouldn't be wise to call strlen() with a non-string value.
What I'm wondering about is the use of short-circuit code when it doesn't effect any other statements. For example, from the Zend Application default index page:
defined('APPLICATION_PATH')
|| define('APPLICATION_PATH', realpath(dirname(__FILE__) . '/../application'));
This could have been:
if(!defined('APPLICATION_PATH')){
define('APPLICATION_PATH', realpath(dirname(__FILE__) . '/../application'));
}
Or even as a single statement:
if(!defined('APPLICATION_PATH'))
define('APPLICATION_PATH', realpath(dirname(__FILE__) . '/../application'));
So why use the short-circuit code? Just for the 'coolness' factor of using logic operators in place of control structures? To consolidate nested if statements? Because it's faster?
For programmers, the benefit of a less verbose syntax over another more verbose syntax can be:
less to type, therefore higher coding efficiency
less to read, therefore better maintainability.
Now I'm only talking about when the less verbose syntax is not tricky or clever in any way, just the same recognized way of doing, but in fewer characters.
It's often when you see specific constructs in one language that you wish the language you use could have, but didn't even necessarily realize it before. Some examples off the top of my head:
anonymous inner classes in Java instead of passing a pointer to a function (way more lines of code).
in Ruby, the ||= operator, to evaluate an expression and assign to it if it evaluates to false or is null. Sure, you can achieve the same thing by 3 lines of code, but why?
and many more...
Use it to confuse people!
I don't know PHP and I've never seen short-circuiting used outside an if or while condition in the C family of languages, but in Perl it's very idiomatic to say:
open my $filehandle, '<', 'filename' or die "Couldn't open file: $!";
One advantage of having it all in one statement is the variable declaration. Otherwise you'd have to say:
my $filehandle;
unless (open $filehandle, '<', 'filename') {
die "Couldn't open file: $!";
}
Hard to claim the second one is cleaner in that case. And it'd be wordier still in a language that doesn't have unless
I think your example is for the coolness factor. There's no reason to write code like that.
EDIT: I have no problem with doing it for idiomatic reasons. If everyone else who uses a language uses short-circuit evaluation to make statement-like entities that everyone understands, then you should too. However, my experience is that code of that sort is rarely written in C-family languages; proper form is just to use the "if" statement as normal, which separates the conditional (which presumably has no side effects) from the function call that the conditional controls (which presumably has many side effects).
Short circuit operators can be useful in two important circumstances which haven't yet been mentioned:
Case 1. Suppose you had a pointer which may or may not be NULL and you wanted to check that it wasn't NULL, and that the thing it pointed to wasn't 0. However, you must not dereference the pointer if it's NULL. Without short-circuit operators, you would have to do this:
if (a != NULL) {
if (*a != 0) {
⋮
}
}
However, short-circuit operators allow you to write this more compactly:
if (a != NULL && *a != 0) {
⋮
}
in the certain knowledge that *a will not be evaluated if a is NULL.
Case 2. If you want to set a variable to a non-false value returned from one of a series of functions, you can simply do:
my $file = $user_filename ||
find_file_in_user_path() ||
find_file_in_system_path() ||
$default_filename;
This sets the value of $file to $user_filename if it's present, or the result of find_file_in_user_path(), if it's true, or … so on. This is seen perhaps more often in Perl than C, but I have seen it in C.
There are other uses, including the rather contrived examples which you cite above. But they are a useful tool, and one which I have missed when programming in less complex languages.
Related to what Dan said, I'd think it all depends on the conventions of each programming language. I can't see any difference, so do whatever is idiomatic in each programming language. One thing that could make a difference that comes to mind is if you had to do a series of checks, in that case the short-circuiting style would be much clearer than the alternative if style.
What if you had a expensive to call (performance wise) function that returned a boolean on the right hand side that you only wanted called if another condition was true (or false)? In this case Short circuiting saves you many CPU cycles. It does make the code more concise because of fewer nested if statements. So, for all the reasons you listed at the end of your question.
The truth is actually performance. Short circuiting is used in compilers to eliminate dead code saving on file size and execution speed. At run-time short-circuiting does not execute the remaining clause in the logical expression if their outcome does not affect the answer, speeding up the evaluation of the formula. I am struggling to remember an example. e.g
a AND b AND c
There are two terms in this formula evaluated left to right.
if a AND b evaluates to FALSE then the next expression AND c can either be FALSE AND TRUE or FALSE AND FALSE. Both evaluate to FALSE no matter what the value of c is. Therefore the compiler does not include AND c in the compiled format hence short-circuiting the code.
To answer the question there are special cases when the compiler cannot determine whether the logical expression has a constant output and hence would not short-circuit the code.
Think of it this way, if you have a statement like
if( A AND B )
chances are if A returns FALSE you'll only ever want to evaluate B in rare special cases. For this reason NOT using short ciruit evaluation is confusing.
Short circuit evaluation also makes your code more readable by preventing another bracketed indentation and brackets have a tendency to add up.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
When have you run into syntax that might be dated, never used or just plain obfuscated that you couldn't understand for the life of you.
For example, I never knew that comma is an actual operator in C. So when I saw the code
if(Foo(), Bar())
I just about blew a gasket trying to figure out what was going on there.
I'm curious what little never-dusted corners might exist in other languages.
C++'s syntax for a default constructor on a local variable. At first I wrote the following.
Student student(); // error
Student student("foo"); // compiles
This lead me to about an hour of reading through a cryptic C++ error message. Eventually a non-C++ newbie dropped by, laughed and pointed out my mistake.
Student student;
This is always jarring:
std::vector <std::vector <int> >
^
mandatory space.
When using the System.DirectoryServices name space to bind to an ADAM (Active Directory Application Mode; now called AD LDS, I think), I lost an entire day trying to debug this simple code:
DirectoryEntry rootDSE = new DirectoryEntry(
"ldap://192.168.10.78:50000/RootDSE",
login,
password,
AuthenticationTypes.None);
When I ran the code, I kept getting a COMException with error 0x80005000, which helpfully mapped to "Unknown error."
I could use the login and password and bind to the port via ADSI Edit. But this simple line of code didn't work. Bizarre firewall permission? Something screwed in configuration? Some COM object not registered correctly? Why on earth wasn't it working?
The answer? It's LDAP://, not ldap://.
And this is why we drink.
C++
class Foo
{
// Lots of stuff here.
} bar;
The declaration of bar is VERY difficult to see. More commonly found in C, but especially annoying in C++.
Perl's syntax caused me a bad day a while ago:
%table = {
foo => 1,
bar => 2
};
Without proper warnings (which are unavailable on the platform I was using), this creates a one-element hash with a key as the given hash reference and value undef. Note the subtle use of {}, which creates a new hash reference, and not (), which is an array used to populate the %table hash.
I was shocked Python's quasi-ternary operator wasn't a syntax error the first time I saw it:
X if Y else Z
This is stupid and common, but this syntax:
if ( x = y ) {
// do something
}
Has caught me about three times in the past year in a couple of different languages. I really like the R language's convention of using <- for assignment, like this:
x <- y
If the x = y syntax were made to mean x == y, and x <- y to mean assignment, my brain would make a smoother transition to and from math and programming.
C/C++'s bitvector syntax. The worst part about this is trying to google for it simply based on the syntax.
struct C {
unsigned int v1 : 12;
unsigned int v2 : 1;
};
C#'s ?? operator threw me for a loop the first time I saw it. Essentially it will return the LHS if it's non-null and the RHS if the LHS is null.
object bar = null;
object foo = bar ?? new Student(); // gets new Student()
Powershell's function calling semantics
function foo() {
params ($count, $name);
...
}
foo (5, "name")
For the non powershellers out there. This will work but not how you expect it to. It actually creates an array and passes it as the first argument. The second argument has no explicit value. The correct version is
foo 5 "name"
The first time I saw a function pointer in C++ I was confused. Worse, because the syntax has no key words, it was really hard to look up. What exactly does one type into a search engine for this?
int (*Foo)(float, char, char);
I ended up having to ask the local C++ guru what it was.
VB's (yeah yeah, I have to use it) "And" keyword - as in:
If Object IsNot Nothing And Object.Property Then
See that Object.Property reference, after I've made sure the object isn't NULL? Well, VB's "And" keyword * does * not * block * further * evaluation and so the code will fail.
VB does have, however, another keyword - AndAlso:
If Object IsNot Nothing AndAlso Object.Property Then
That will work as you'd expect and not explode when run.
I was once very confused by some C++ code that declared a reference to a local variable, but never used it. Something like
MyLock &foo;
(Cut me some slack on the syntax, I haven't done C++ in nearly 8 years)
Taking that seemingly unused variable out made the program start dying in obscure ways seemingly unrelated to this "unused" variable. So I did some digging, and found out that the default ctor for that class grabbed a thread lock, and the dtor released it. This variable was guarding the code against simultaneous updates without seemingly doing anything.
Javascript: This syntax ...
for(i in someArray)
... is for looping through arrays, or so I thought. Everything worked fine until another team member dropped in MooTools, and then all my loops were broken because the for(i in ...) syntax also goes over extra methods that have been added to the array object.
Had to translate some scientific code from old FORTRAN to C. A few things that ruined my day(s):
Punch-card indentation. The first 6 characters of every line were reserved for control characters, goto labels, comments, etc:
^^^^^^[code starts here]
c [commented line]
Goto-style numbering for loops (coupled with 6 space indentation):
do 20, i=0,10
do 10, j=0,10
do_stuff(i,j)
10 continue
20 continue
Now imagine there are multiple nested loops (i.e., do 20 to do 30) which have no differentiating indentation to know what context you are in. Oh, and the terminating statements are hundreds of lines away.
Format statement, again using goto labels. The code wrote to files (helpfully referred to by numbers 1,2,etc). To write the values of a,b,c to file we had:
write (1,51) a,b,c
So this writes a,b,c to file 1 using a format statement at the line marked with label 51:
51 format (f10.3,f10.3,f10.3)
These format lines were hundreds of lines away from where they were called. This was complicated by the author's decision to print newlines using:
write (1,51) [nothing here]
I am reliably informed by a lecturer in the group that I got off easy.
C's comma operator doesn't seem very obscure to me: I see it all the time, and if I hadn't, I could just look up "comma" in the index of K&R.
Now, trigraphs are another matter...
void main() { printf("wat??!\n"); } // doesn't print "wat??!"
Wikipedia has some great examples, from the genuinely confusing:
// Will the next line be executed????????????????/
a++;
to the bizarrely valid:
/??/
* A comment *??/
/
And don't even get me started on digraphs. I would be surprised if there's somebody here who can fully explain C's digraphs from memory. Quick, what digraphs does C have, and how do they differ from trigraphs in parsing?
Syntax like this in C++ with /clr enabled. Trying to create a Managed Dictionary object in C++.
gcroot<Dictionary<System::String^, MyObj^>^> m_myObjs;
An oldie:
In PL/1 there are no reserved words, so you can define variables, methods, etc. with the same name as the language keywords.
This can be a valid line of code:
IF ELSE THEN IF ELSE THEN
(Where ELSE is a boolean, and IF and THEN are functions, obviously.)
Iif(condition, expression, expression) is a function call, not an operator.
Both sides of the conditional are ALWAYS evaluated.
It always ruines my day if I have to read/write some kind of Polish notation as used in a lot of HP calculators...
PHP's ternary operator associates left to right. This caused me much anguish one day when I was learning PHP. For the previous 10 years I had been programming in C/C++ in which the ternary operator associates right to left.
I am still a little curious as to why the designers of PHP chose to do that when, in many other respects, the syntax of PHP matches that C/C++ fairly closely.
EDIT: nowadays I only work with PHP under duress.
Not really obscure, but whenever I code too much in one language, and go back to another, I start messing up the syntax of the latter. I always chuckle at myself when I realize that "#if" in C is not a comment (but rather something far more deadly), and that lines in Python do not need to end in a semicolon.
While performing maintentnace on a bit of C++ code I once spotted that someone had done something like this:
for (i=0; i<10; i++)
{
MyNumber += 1;
}
Yes, they had a loop to add 1 to a number 10 times.
Why did it ruin my day? The perpetrator had long since left, and I was having to bug fix their module. I thought that if they were doing something like this, goodness knows what else I was going to encounter!
AT&T assembler syntax >:(
This counter-intuitive, obscure syntax has ruined many of my days, for example, the simple Intel syntax assembly instruction:
mov dword es:[ebp-5], 1 /* Cool, put the value 1 into the
* location of ebp minus five.
* this is so obvious and readable, and hard to mistake
* for anything else */
translates into this in AT&T syntax
movl $1, %es:-4(%ebp) /* huh? what's "l"? 4 bytes? 8 bytes? arch specific??
* wait, why are we moving 1 into -4 times ebp?
* or is this moving -4 * ebp into memory at address 0x01?
* oh wait, YES, I magically know that this is
* really setting 4 bytes at ebp-5 to 1!
More...
mov dword [foo + eax*4], 123 /* Intel */
mov $123, foo(, %eax, 4) /* AT&T, looks like a function call...
* there's no way in hell I'd know what this does
* without reading a full manual on this syntax */
And one of my favorites.
It's as if they took the opcode encoding scheme and tried to incorporate it into the programming syntax (read: scale/index/base), but also tried to add a layer of abstraction on the data types, and merge that abstraction into the opcode names to cause even more confusion. I don't see how anyone can program seriously with this.
In a scripting language (Concordance Programming Language) for stand alone database software (Concordance) used for litigation document review, arrays were 0 indexed while (some) string functions were 1 indexed. I haven't touched it since.
This. I had my run in with it more then once.
GNU extensions are often fun:
my_label:
unsigned char *ptr = (unsigned char *)&&my_label;
*ptr = 5; // Will it segfault? Finding out is half the fun...
The syntax for member pointers also causes me grief, more because I don't use it often enough than because there's anything really tricky about it:
template<typename T, int T::* P>
function(T& t)
{
t.*P = 5;
}
But, really, who needs to discuss the obscure syntax in C++? With operator overloading, you can invent your own!