I've been doing a massive code review and one pattern I notice all over the place is this:
public bool MethodName()
{
bool returnValue = false;
if (expression)
{
// do something
returnValue = MethodCall();
}
else
{
// do something else
returnValue = Expression;
}
return returnValue;
}
This is not how I would have done this I would have just returned the value when I knew what it was. which of these two patterns is more correct?
I stress that the logic always seems to be structured such that the return value is assigned in one plave only and no code is executed after it's assigned.
A lot of people recommend having only one exit point from your methods. The pattern you describe above follows that recommendation.
The main gist of that recommendation is that if ou have to cleanup some memory or state before returning from the method, it's better to have that code in one place only. having multiple exit points leads to either duplication of cleanup code or potential problems due to missing cleanup code at one or more of the exit points.
Of course, if your method is couple of lines long, or doesn't need any cleanup, you could have multiple returns.
I would have used ternary, to reduce control structures...
return expression ? MethodCall() : Expression;
I suspect I will be in the minority but I like the style presented in the example. It is easy to add a log statement and set a breakpoint, IMO. Plus, when used in a consistent way, it seems easier to "pattern match" than having multiple returns.
I'm not sure there is a "correct" answer on this, however.
Some learning institutes and books advocate the single return practice.
Whether it's better or not is subjective.
That looks like a part of a bad OOP design. Perhaps it should be refactored on the higher level than inside of a single method.
Otherwise, I prefer using a ternary operator, like this:
return expression ? MethodCall() : Expression;
It is shorter and more readable.
Return from a method right away in any of these situations:
You've found a boundary condition and need to return a unique or sentinel value: if (node.next = null) return NO_VALUE_FOUND;
A required value/state is false, so the rest of the method does not apply (aka a guard clause). E.g.: if (listeners == null) return null;
The method's purpose is to find and return a specific value, e.g.: if (nodes[i].value == searchValue) return i;
You're in a clause which returns a unique value from the method not used elsewhere in the method: if (userNameFromDb.equals(SUPER_USER)) return getSuperUserAccount();
Otherwise, it is useful to have only one return statement so that it's easier to add debug logging, resource cleanup and follow the logic. I try to handle all the above 4 cases first, if they apply, then declare a variable named result(s) as late as possible and assign values to that as needed.
They both accomplish the same task. Some say that a method should only have one entry and one exit point.
I use this, too. The idea is that resources can be freed in the normal flow of the program. If you jump out of a method at 20 different places, and you need to call cleanUp() before, you'll have to add yet another cleanup method 20 times (or refactor everything)
I guess that the coder has taken the design of defining an object toReturn at the top of the method (e.g., List<Foo> toReturn = new ArrayList<Foo>();) and then populating it during the method call, and somehow decided to apply it to a boolean return type, which is odd.
Could also be a side effect of a coding standard that states that you can't return in the middle of a method body, only at the end.
Even if no code is executed after the return value is assigned now it does not mean that some code will not have to be added later.
It's not the smallest piece of code which could be used but it is very refactoring-friendly.
Delphi forces this pattern by automatically creating a variable called "Result" which will be of the function's return type. Whatever "Result" is when the function exits, is your return value. So there's no "return" keyword at all.
function MethodName : boolean;
begin
Result := False;
if Expression then begin
//do something
Result := MethodCall;
end
else begin
//do something else
Result := Expression;
end;
//possibly more code
end;
The pattern used is verbose - but it's also easier to debug if you want to know the return value without opening the Registers window and checking EAX.
Related
The documentation for gather/take mentions
Binding to a scalar or sigilless container will also force laziness.
However,
my \result = gather { for 1..3 { take $_² } };
say result.is-lazy # OUTPUT: «False»
Same happens if you use a scalar, and binding using := Is there some way to create implicitly lazy gather/take statements?
Update: It's actually lazy, only it does not respond to the is-lazy method in the expected way:
my $result := gather { for 1..3 { say "Hey"; take $_² } };
say $result[0] # OUTPUT: «Hey1»
So the question is "What are the conditions for is-lazy to consider things actually lazy?"
I think the problem is really that you cannot actually tell what's going on inside a gather block. So that's why that Seq object tells you it is not lazy.
Perhaps it's more a matter of documentation: if is-lazy returns True, then you can be sure that the Seq (well, in fact its underlying Iterator) is not going to end by itself. If is-lazy returns False, it basically means that we cannot be sure.
One could argue that in that case is-lazy should return the Bool type object, which will also be interpreted as being false (as all type objects are considered to be False in boolean context). But that would at least give some indication that it is really undecided / undecidable.
I have a method drive that goes like this:
public double drive(double milesTraveled, double gasUsed)
{
gasInTank -= gasUsed;
return totalMiles += milesTraveled;
}
I know I can't return multiple values from a method, but that's kind of what I need to do because I need both of these values in my main method, and as it is now it's obviously only returning the one. I can't think of anything that would work. Sorry if this is a super beginner question. What can I do to get both values to return from the method?
You can return multiple value from a function. To do this You can use structure.
In the structure you can keep required field and can return structure variable after operation.
You can also make a class for the required field if You are using OOPS supporting language but Structure is best way.
In most languages you can only return a single value from a method. That single value could be a complex type, such as a struct, array or object.
Some languages also allow you to define output parameters or pass in pointers or references to outside storage locations. These kinds of parameters also allow you to return additional values from your method.
not sure, but can you take array of your values?
array[0]=gasInTank;
array[0] -= gasUsed;
array[1]=milesTraveled;
array[1] -= milesTraveled;
return array;
I've seen classes where constants are passed to methods, I guess its done to define some kind of setting in that function. I cant find it anywhere now to try to find out the logic, so I though I could ask here. How and why do you use this concept and where can I find more information about it?
The example below is written in PHP, but any language that handles constants would do I guess..
// Declaring class
class ExampleClass{
const EXAMPLE_CONST_1 = 0;
const EXAMPLE_CONST_2 = 1;
function example_method($constant(?)){
if($constant == ExampleClass::EXAMPLE_CONST_1)
// do this
else if($constant == ExampleClass::EXAMPLE_CONST_2)
// do that
}
}
// Using class
$inst = new ExampleClass();
$inst->example_method(ExampleClass::EXAMPLE_CONST_1);
To me its more clear to pass "ExampleClass::EXAMPLE_CONST_1" than to just pass "1", but it's that the only reason to pass constant?
Simply passing 1 doesn't say much. By having a constant you can have a description about the settings in the name.
example:
constant RAIN = 1;
method setWeather(RAIN);
Atleast that's how and why I use it.
It is always a good idea to avoid literals being passed around. By assigning a name, anyone reading your code has a chance to understand what that value means - a number has no meaning. It might also help you maintaining your code: If for some requirement the value has to be changed, you can easily do it in one place, instead of checking each and every value occurrence.
I'm using Entity Framework and I have a custum IQueryProvider. I use the Execute method so that I can modify the result (a POCO) of a query after is has been executed. I want to do the same for collections. The problem is that the Execute method is only called for single result.
As described on MSDN :
The Execute method executes queries that return a single value
(instead of an enumerable sequence of values). Expression trees that
represent queries that return enumerable results are executed when
their associated IQueryable object is enumerated.
Is there another way to accomplish what I want that I missed?
I know I could write a specific method inside a repository or whatever but I want to apply this to all possible queries.
This is true that the actual signature is:
public object Execute(Expression expression)
public TResult Execute<TResult>(Expression expression)
However, that does not mean that the TResult will always be a single element! It is the type expected to be returned from the expression.
Also, note that there are no constraints over the TResult, not even 'class' or 'new()'.
The TResult is a MyObject when your expression is of singular result, like .FirstOrDefault(). However, the TResult can also be a double when you .Avg() over the query, and also it can be IEnumerable<MyObject> when your query is plain .Select.Where.
Proof(*) - I've just set a breakpoint inside my Execute() implementation, and I've inspected it with Watches:
typeof(TResult).FullName "System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable`1[[xxxxxx,xxxxx]]"
expression.Type.FullName "System.Linq.IQueryable`1[[xxxxxx,xxxxx]]"
I admit that three overloads, one object, one TResult and one IEnumerable<TResult> would probably be more readable. I think they did not place three of them as extensibility point for future interfaces. I can imagine that in future they came up with something more robust than IEnumerable, and then they'd need to add another overload and so on. With simple this interface can process any type.
Oh, see, we now also have IQueryable in addition to IEnumerable, so it would need at least four overloads:)
The Proof is marked with (*) because I have had a small bug/feature in my IQueryProvider's code that has is obscuring the real behavior of LINQ.
LINQ indeed calls the generic Execute only for singular cases. This is a shortcut, an optimization.
For all other cases, it ... doesn't call Execute() it at all
For those all other cases, the LINQ calls .GetEnumerator on your custom IQueryable<> implementation, that what happens is dictated by .. simply what you wrote there. I mean, assuming that you actually provided custom implementations of IQueryable. That would be strange if you did not - that's just about 15 lines in total, nothing compared to the length of custom provider.
In the project where I got the "proof" from, my implementation looks like:
public System.Collections.IEnumerator GetEnumerator()
{
return Provider.Execute<IEnumerable>( this.Expression ).GetEnumerator();
}
public IEnumerator<TOut> GetEnumerator()
{
return Provider.Execute<IEnumerable<TOut>>( this.Expression ).GetEnumerator();
}
of course, one of them would be explicit due to name collision. Please note that to fetch the enumerator, I actually call the Execute with explicitely stated TResult. This is why in my "proof" those types occurred.
I think that you see the "TResult = Single Element" case, because you wrote i.e. something like this:
public IEnumerator<TOut> GetEnumerator()
{
return Provider.Execute<TOut>( this.Expression ).GetEnumerator();
}
Which really renders your Execute implementation without choice, and must return single element. IMHO, this is just a bug in your code. You could have done it like in my example above, or you could simply use the untyped Execute:
public System.Collections.IEnumerator GetEnumerator()
{
return ((IEnumerable)Provider.Execute( this.Expression )).GetEnumerator();
}
public IEnumerator<TOut> GetEnumerator()
{
return ((IEnumerable<TOut>)Provider.Execute( this.Expression )).GetEnumerator();
}
Of course, your implementation of Execute must make sure to return proper IEnumerables for such queries!
Expression trees that represent queries that return enumerable results are executed when their associated IQueryable object is enumerated.
I recommend enumerating your query:
foreach(T t in query)
{
CustomModification(t);
}
Your IQueryProvider must implement CreateQuery<T>. You get to choose the implemenation of the resulting IQueryable. If you want that IQueryable to do something to each row when enumerated, you get to write that implementation.
The final answer is that it's not possible.
I have a problem with code contracts and linq. I managed to narrow the issue to the following code sample. And now I am stuck.
public void SomeMethod()
{
var list = new List<Question>();
if (list.Take(5) == null) { }
// resharper hints that condition can never be true
if (list.ForPerson(12) == null) { }
// resharper does not hint that condition can never be true
}
public static IQueryable<Question> ForPerson(this IQueryable<Question> source, int personId)
{
if(source == null) throw new ArgumentNullException();
return from q in source
where q.PersonId == personId
select q;
}
What is wrong with my linq chain? Why doesn't resharper 'complain' when analyzing the ForPerson call?
EDIT: return type for ForPerson method changed from string to IQueryable, which I meant. (my bad)
Reshaper is correct that the result of a Take or Skip is never null - if there are no items the result is an IEnumerable<Question> which has no elements. I think to do what you want you should check Any.
var query = list.Take(5);
if (!query.Any())
{
// Code here executes only if there were no items in the list.
}
But how does this warning work? Resharper cannot know that the method never returns null from only looking at the method definition, and I assume that it does not reverse engineer the method body to determine that it never returns null. I assume therefore that it has been specially hard-coded with a rule specifying that the .NET methods Skip and Take do not return null.
When you write your own custom methods Reflector can make assumptions about your method behaviour from the interface, but your interface allows it to return null. Therefore it issues no warnings. If it analyzed the method body then it could see that null is impossible and would be able to issue a warning. But analyzing code to determine its possible behaviour is an incredibly difficult task and I doubt that Red Gate are willing to spend the money on solving this problem when they could add more useful features elsewhere with a much lower development cost.
To determine whether a boolean expression can ever return true is called the Boolean satisfiability problem and is an NP-hard problem.
You want Resharper to determine whether general method bodies can ever return null. This is a generalization of the above mentioned NP-hard problem. It's unlikely any tool will ever be able to do this correctly in 100% of cases.
if(source == null) throw new ArgumentNullException();
That's not the code contract way, do you instead mean:
Contract.Require(source != null);