In some Julia code when can see conditional expression such as
if val !== nothing
dosomething()
end
where val is a variable of type Union{Int,Nothing}
What is the difference between conditons val !== nothing and val != nothing?
First of all, it is generally advisable to use isnothing to compare if something is nothing. This particular function is efficient, as it is soley based on types (#edit isnothing(nothing)):
isnothing(::Any) = false
isnothing(::Nothing) = true
(Note that nothing is the only instance of the type Nothing.)
In regards to your question, the difference between === and == (and equally !== and !=) is that the former checks whether two things are identical whereas the latter checks for equality. To illustrate this difference, consider the following example:
julia> 1 == 1.0 # equal
true
julia> 1 === 1.0 # but not identical
false
Note that the former one is an integer whereas the latter one is a floating point number.
What does it mean for two things to be identical? We can consult the documentation of the comparison operators (?===):
help?> ===
search: === == !==
===(x,y) -> Bool
≡(x,y) -> Bool
Determine whether x and y are identical, in the sense that no program could distinguish them. First the types
of x and y are compared. If those are identical, mutable objects are compared by address in memory and
immutable objects (such as numbers) are compared by contents at the bit level. This function is sometimes
called "egal". It always returns a Bool value.
Sometimes, comparing with === is faster than comparing with == because the latter might involve a type conversion.
The answer chosen here states that it checks if the array is not empty. And if it is not empty, that means the code should be executed.
How to check if array is null or empty?
However, I am seeing the opposite. When I use if (!array.count) with a non empty array, the code within is not executed. If I use if (array.count) with a non empty array, the code within is executed. What am I missing here?
The code in that answer is correct for the question being asked. It's the text in the answer that is confusing. The goal of that question is to see if an array is "empty". The accepted answer has the code:
if (!array || !array.count){
}
The text in that answer states:
That checks if array is not nil, and if not - check if it is not empty.
But that if statement actually means "if the array is nil or the array count is zero, do something". So it's the exact opposite.
So the code is correct but the text is wrong (or at least misleading).
Back to your own question.
if (array.count) {
// same as array.count != 0
// array is not empty (non-zero count)
}
or:
if (!array.count) {
// same as !(array.count != 0) or array.count == 0
// array is empty (zero count)
}
Remember, in C, C++, Objective-C, an if statement is treated as "true" if the expression evaluates to a non-zero value and "false" is it evaluates to zero. And the use of ! at the start negates the "true" to "false" or the "false" to "true".
What are the benefits and drawbacks of the ?: operator as opposed to the standard if-else statement. The obvious ones being:
Conditional ?: Operator
Shorter and more concise when dealing with direct value comparisons and assignments
Doesn't seem to be as flexible as the if/else construct
Standard If/Else
Can be applied to more situations (such as function calls)
Often are unnecessarily long
Readability seems to vary for each depending on the statement. For a little while after first being exposed to the ?: operator, it took me some time to digest exactly how it worked. Would you recommend using it wherever possible, or sticking to if/else given that I work with many non-programmers?
I would basically recommend using it only when the resulting statement is extremely short and represents a significant increase in conciseness over the if/else equivalent without sacrificing readability.
Good example:
int result = Check() ? 1 : 0;
Bad example:
int result = FirstCheck() ? 1 : SecondCheck() ? 1 : ThirdCheck() ? 1 : 0;
This is pretty much covered by the other answers, but "it's an expression" doesn't really explain why that is so useful...
In languages like C++ and C#, you can define local readonly fields (within a method body) using them. This is not possible with a conventional if/then statement because the value of a readonly field has to be assigned within that single statement:
readonly int speed = (shiftKeyDown) ? 10 : 1;
is not the same as:
readonly int speed;
if (shifKeyDown)
speed = 10; // error - can't assign to a readonly
else
speed = 1; // error
In a similar way you can embed a tertiary expression in other code. As well as making the source code more compact (and in some cases more readable as a result) it can also make the generated machine code more compact and efficient:
MoveCar((shiftKeyDown) ? 10 : 1);
...may generate less code than having to call the same method twice:
if (shiftKeyDown)
MoveCar(10);
else
MoveCar(1);
Of course, it's also a more convenient and concise form (less typing, less repetition, and can reduce the chance of errors if you have to duplicate chunks of code in an if/else). In clean "common pattern" cases like this:
object thing = (reference == null) ? null : reference.Thing;
... it is simply faster to read/parse/understand (once you're used to it) than the long-winded if/else equivalent, so it can help you to 'grok' code faster.
Of course, just because it is useful does not mean it is the best thing to use in every case. I'd advise only using it for short bits of code where the meaning is clear (or made more clear) by using ?: - if you use it in more complex code, or nest ternary operators within each other it can make code horribly difficult to read.
I usually choose a ternary operator when I'd have a lot of duplicate code otherwise.
if (a > 0)
answer = compute(a, b, c, d, e);
else
answer = compute(-a, b, c, d, e);
With a ternary operator, this could be accomplished with the following.
answer = compute(a > 0 ? a : -a, b, c, d, e);
I find it particularly helpful when doing web development if I want to set a variable to a value sent in the request if it is defined or to some default value if it is not.
A really cool usage is:
x = foo ? 1 :
bar ? 2 :
baz ? 3 :
4;
Sometimes it can make the assignment of a bool value easier to read at first glance:
// With
button.IsEnabled = someControl.HasError ? false : true;
// Without
button.IsEnabled = !someControl.HasError;
I'd recommend limiting the use of the ternary(?:) operator to simple single line assignment if/else logic. Something resembling this pattern:
if(<boolCondition>) {
<variable> = <value>;
}
else {
<variable> = <anotherValue>;
}
Could be easily converted to:
<variable> = <boolCondition> ? <value> : <anotherValue>;
I would avoid using the ternary operator in situations that require if/else if/else, nested if/else, or if/else branch logic that results in the evaluation of multiple lines. Applying the ternary operator in these situations would likely result in unreadable, confusing, and unmanageable code. Hope this helps.
The conditional operator is great for short conditions, like this:
varA = boolB ? valC : valD;
I use it occasionally because it takes less time to write something that way... unfortunately, this branching can sometimes be missed by another developer browsing over your code. Plus, code isn't usually that short, so I usually help readability by putting the ? and : on separate lines, like this:
doSomeStuffToSomething(shouldSomethingBeDone()
? getTheThingThatNeedsStuffDone()
: getTheOtherThingThatNeedsStuffDone());
However, the big advantage to using if/else blocks (and why I prefer them) is that it's easier to come in later and add some additional logic to the branch,
if (shouldSomethingBeDone()) {
doSomeStuffToSomething(getTheThingThatNeedsStuffDone());
doSomeAdditionalStuff();
} else {
doSomeStuffToSomething(getTheOtherThingThatNeedsStuffDone());
}
or add another condition:
if (shouldSomethingBeDone()) {
doSomeStuffToSomething(getTheThingThatNeedsStuffDone());
doSomeAdditionalStuff();
} else if (shouldThisOtherThingBeDone()){
doSomeStuffToSomething(getTheOtherThingThatNeedsStuffDone());
}
So, in the end, it's about convenience for you now (shorter to use :?) vs. convenience for you (and others) later. It's a judgment call... but like all other code-formatting issues, the only real rule is to be consistent, and be visually courteous to those who have to maintain (or grade!) your code.
(all code eye-compiled)
One thing to recognize when using the ternary operator that it is an expression not a statement.
In functional languages like scheme the distinction doesn't exists:
(if (> a b) a b)
Conditional ?: Operator
"Doesn't seem to be as flexible as the if/else construct"
In functional languages it is.
When programming in imperative languages I apply the ternary operator in situations where I typically would use expressions (assignment, conditional statements, etc).
While the above answers are valid, and I agree with readability being important, there are 2 further points to consider:
In C#6, you can have expression-bodied methods.
This makes it particularly concise to use the ternary:
string GetDrink(DayOfWeek day)
=> day == DayOfWeek.Friday
? "Beer" : "Tea";
Behaviour differs when it comes to implicit type conversion.
If you have types T1 and T2 that can both be implicitly converted to T, then the below does not work:
T GetT() => true ? new T1() : new T2();
(because the compiler tries to determine the type of the ternary expression, and there is no conversion between T1 and T2.)
On the other hand, the if/else version below does work:
T GetT()
{
if (true) return new T1();
return new T2();
}
because T1 is converted to T and so is T2
If I'm setting a value and I know it will always be one line of code to do so, I typically use the ternary (conditional) operator. If there's a chance my code and logic will change in the future, I use an if/else as it's more clear to other programmers.
Of further interest to you may be the ?? operator.
The advantage of the conditional operator is that it is an operator. In other words, it returns a value. Since if is a statement, it cannot return a value.
There is some performance benefit of using the the ? operator in eg. MS Visual C++, but this is a really a compiler specific thing. The compiler can actually optimize out the conditional branch in some cases.
The scenario I most find myself using it is for defaulting values and especially in returns
return someIndex < maxIndex ? someIndex : maxIndex;
Those are really the only places I find it nice, but for them I do.
Though if you're looking for a boolean this might sometimes look like an appropriate thing to do:
bool hey = whatever < whatever_else ? true : false;
Because it's so easy to read and understand, but that idea should always be tossed for the more obvious:
bool hey = (whatever < whatever_else);
If you need multiple branches on the same condition, use an if:
if (A == 6)
f(1, 2, 3);
else
f(4, 5, 6);
If you need multiple branches with different conditions, then if statement count would snowball, you'll want to use the ternary:
f( (A == 6)? 1: 4, (B == 6)? 2: 5, (C == 6)? 3: 6 );
Also, you can use the ternary operator in initialization.
const int i = (A == 6)? 1 : 4;
Doing that with if is very messy:
int i_temp;
if (A == 6)
i_temp = 1;
else
i_temp = 4;
const int i = i_temp;
You can't put the initialization inside the if/else, because it changes the scope. But references and const variables can only be bound at initialization.
The ternary operator can be included within an rvalue, whereas an if-then-else cannot; on the other hand, an if-then-else can execute loops and other statements, whereas the ternary operator can only execute (possibly void) rvalues.
On a related note, the && and || operators allow some execution patterns which are harder to implement with if-then-else. For example, if one has several functions to call and wishes to execute a piece of code if any of them fail, it can be done nicely using the && operator. Doing it without that operator will either require redundant code, a goto, or an extra flag variable.
With C# 7, you can use the new ref locals feature to simplify the conditional assignment of ref-compatible variables. So now, not only can you do:
int i = 0;
T b = default(T), c = default(T);
// initialization of C#7 'ref-local' variable using a conditional r-value⁽¹⁾
ref T a = ref (i == 0 ? ref b : ref c);
...but also the extremely wonderful:
// assignment of l-value⁽²⁾ conditioned by C#7 'ref-locals'
(i == 0 ? ref b : ref c) = a;
That line of code assigns the value of a to either b or c, depending on the value of i.
Notes
1. r-value is the right-hand side of an assignment, the value that gets assigned.
2. l-value is the left-hand side of an assignment, the variable that receives the assigned value.
I found this code on another thread.
def is_number? string
true if Float(string) rescue false
end
Instead of using a method to return true or false, I'd like to do this "is_numeric" test in one line, in an if statement. Can someone explain if this is possible? I'm getting errors at the moment both when the string variable is null and when it contains non-numeric characters.
if Float(string)
* do something
else
* do something else
end
if Float() is pointless code, since Float() will either return a truthy value or raise an error (based on my limited look at the source code - as of writing, you can follow the code path from line #2942). I'd suggest you're asking the wrong question/looking at the problem wrong (it'd be helpful to know what you're actually trying to achieve).
To do something with Float() on one line and avoid breaking code, use rescue as a statement modifier, as has been done in the is_number? method posted.
Float(string) rescue 0.0 # trying to emulate String#to_f!
Ensuring the phone number is 10 digits, numbers only, is quite simple.
PHONE_NUM_LENGTH = 10
string.length == PHONE_NUM_LENGTH && string.count('0-9') == PHONE_NUM_LENGTH
will return the true/false value representing this check. This is more efficient than a Regex.
The first part,
string.length == PHONE_NUM_LENGTH
checks whether the string is 10 characters long. The second,
string.count('0-9') == PHONE_NUM_LENGTH
checks whether it has exactly 10 numeric characters.
I get the warning Comparison of unsigned expression >=0 is always true
In this line:return status != nil && status.length >= 0 && status.length <= 140;
So I am not sure if this sounds stupid or not but should I just delete that expression then>
Thanks!
Remove just this part of a check — status.length >= 0. Actually this part of a check will be optimized by compiler and removed automatically as it not make sense. Removing it form a code will help you to get rid from this warning.
Yes - since length returns an unsigned integer, it will always be 'greater than or equal to 0'. You can delete the status.length >= 0 portion of the conditional.
If you want to make sure that you don't have a zero-length string, then you should use the condition status.length > 0.
Otherwise, you can remove that condition, as others have mentioned.
You must have written a statement which can never be executed
I am having this because i do something like this..
if (textField.text.length < 0) //wrong logic
textField's text length can never be less than 0 . It must be at least 0.
Whenever complier see such kind of logical error which can never be possible (executed) . It generates this kind of Warning. If anyone is having this error so properly check your logic .