Cobra Forums

Posted: **Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:00 pm**

Sometimes I wish there would be a 'break from if' statement.
the same idea of what you have with branches, only arbitrary predicate.
for example if you have some code after the "if-else ladder", or you just prefer one return statement for the whole function, but you don't want your code to go deep in ifs.
one option is to use early return, and keep shallow "if ... return, if ... return", taking into account that subsequent ifs are already elses to the first, since it has a return statement there.

I think an additional construct that jumps to the result could make code more readable. (kind of like what is done with require and ensure, pre and post code)

I know this is a somewhat exotic feature request.
what do you think?
examples can follow if you desire. (I have a real one too)

Posted: **Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:45 am**

I think you'll need examples to show exactly what you want and why.

Posted: **Sat Feb 01, 2014 5:33 am**

I'm guessing its this sort of thing

Code: Select all: block: if conda doA doB else if condB doBA doBB break if condC doCA doCB break doSomethingElse

Actioned now using a subroutine

def doX
    if .condA
        .doA
        .doB
    else if .condB
        .doBA
        .doBB
        return
    if .condC
        .doCA
        .doCB
       return
    .doSomethingElse

or with some temp vars and conditions

if .condA
   .doA
   .doB
else if condB
   .doBA
   .doBB
   ret1 = true
if ret1, return
if condC
    .doCA
    .doCB
   ret2 = true
if ret2, return
.doSomethingElse

Posted: **Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:37 am**

before I know how it should look, does anyone think it's a good idea. I am not sure myself.
to explain, the idea was to have a block of code, inside a function, that would get executed last and return the value.
similar to ensure, the section could be called 'post'. after a function changes some variables, it may call e.g. 'finish' then the code would continue from the post section, do something with the variables and return the value.
this "do something with the variables" is supposedly common to all the cases. thus refactoring further.

def someMethod(x as int, y as int) as Tuple<of int,int,int>
    d as int
    if x < y
        d = 2*x
        finish
    if 2*y > x**2
        d = 8*y - 3*x
        finish
    if ... (x10)
        .....
    post
        res = Tuple<of int,int,int>(x,y,d)
        # maybe something else
        return res

looking at it, it looks very similar to branching cases, only with an arbitrary condition.

Posted: **Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:10 pm**

How does it differ from try..finally ?

Posted: **Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:47 am**

Charles wrote:How does it differ from try..finally ?

it's almost identical, except for returning results.
to be honest, I am not sure it's a good idea. it introduces a new code-flow structure.
it may be going towards pattern matching.

what do you think, and does it look/smell good, if this would have been a type of branching.

branch a,b,c # all the variables that participate
    on a < b <= c
        .do1
    on a**2 - c > 0
        .do2
    on c > a
        .do3(c)

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:41 pm**

just try-finally wont get you the step-over-some-code effect
need to throw and catch as well

def someMethod(x as int, y as int) as Tuple<of int,int,int>
    d as int
    try
        if x < y
            d = 2*x
            # what goes here
        if 2*y > x**2
            d = 8*y - 3*x
            # what goes here?
        if ... (x10)
            .....
    finally
        res = Tuple<of int,int,int>(x,y,d)
        # maybe something else
        return res

would have to do sommat like

def someMethod(x as int, y as int) as Tuple<of int,int,int>
    d as int
    jumpNormalFlow = AbortCodeFlowException() # special purpose exc
    try
        if x < y
            d = 2*x
            throw jumpNormalFlow
        if 2*y > x**2
            d = 8*y - 3*x
            throw jumpNormalFlow
        if ... (x10)
            .....
    catch AbortCodeFlowException
        pass # swallow exception cos we just want the aborted execution flow
   finally
     res = Tuple<of int,int,int>(x,y,d)
        # maybe something else
        return res

Generally not reccommended

Its actually just a forward goto :shock:

def someMethod(x as int, y as int) as Tuple<of int,int,int>
    d as int
    if x < y
        d = 2*x
        goto finish
    if 2*y > x**2
        d = 8*y - 3*x
        goto finish
    if ... (x10)
        .....
    finish:  # invented format for a label
        res = Tuple<of int,int,int>(x,y,d)
        # maybe something else
        return res

Can do this now with an infinite loop with one pass and judicious escaping:

def someMethod(x as int, y as int) as Tuple<of int,int,int>
    d as int
    while not onepassDone
        onepassDone = true # exit at end of loop
        if x < y
            d = 2*x
            break
        if 2*y > x**2
            d = 8*y - 3*x
            break
        if ... (x10)
            .....

     res = Tuple<of int,int,int>(x,y,d)
        # maybe something else
        return res

? Formalise perhaps as an explicit block thats escapable?

def someMethod(x as int, y as int) as Tuple<of int,int,int>
    d as int
    block   # new keyword denoting an anonymous block of code
        if x < y
            d = 2*x
            break # break out of the nearest enclosing block
       if 2*y > x**2
            d = 8*y - 3*x
            break
        if ... (x10)
            .....
    
    res = Tuple<of int,int,int>(x,y,d)
    # maybe something else
    return res

Which is clearer?
How necessary/useful/commonly used is this actually?

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:37 am**

hopscc wrote:Its actually just a forward goto

Yeah, I think this is what that would boil down to. Sometimes I miss goto statements. Simpler days...okay maybe not all the time

http://xkcd.com/292/

Kobi, you want a way to bail out from a deeply nested if but always calling some common code before returning; that way you can have a single return statement in the method, right?

It's ultimately a style issue. I used to be very anti-multiple return statements but eventually my taste changed when I kept having to go very deep in if statements and write redundant code or helper methods in else clauses.

I'm not sure it makes sense to have this as a language feature because you generally don't realize you need this kind of construct until it's too late (i.e. the code is probably already in need of restructuring by that point).

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2014 3:03 am**

I'm not sure it makes sense to have this as a language feature

Me neither,
Well there are ways of doing this now - but they are relatively ugly - perhaps thats a good thing
perhaps if the situation is common enough or the structure useful enough then having a specific feature would both make
use more acceptable and more obvious ( clarify intent...)

I've wondered a couple of times of the utility of an anon block tho...
Obvious other uses:

constrain variable dcl to a more limited scope
holder for anon code (to ref for lambdas, closures and anon functions)

Posted: **Mon Feb 10, 2014 3:35 pm**

hopscc wrote:just try-finally wont get you the step-over-some-code effect
need to throw and catch as well

Or slap some "else" keywords before all those "if"s inside the "try" that came before the "finally". Unless I'm reading that example poorly.

Like nerdzero, I will "return" where needed. On a related note, I will use nested methods, often with similar names and the "if...return" in the nested method:

class A

    def foo(i as int) as int
        # <set up code here>
        r = _foo(i)
        # <finishing up code here>
        return r

    def _foo(i as int) as int
        if ...
            return ...
        if ...
            return ...
        if ...
            return ...          
        return 2 * i

Cobra Forums

break from if

break from if

Re: break from if

Re: break from if

Re: break from if

Re: break from if

Re: break from if

Re: break from if

Re: break from if

Re: break from if

Re: break from if