In the documentation of compareTo function, I read:
Returns zero if this object is equal to the specified other object, a
negative number if it's less than other, or a positive number if it's
greater than other.
What does this less than or greater than mean in the context of strings? Is -for example- Hello World less than a single character a?
val epicString = "Hello World"
println(epicString.compareTo("a")) //-25
Why -25 and not -10 or -1 (for example)?
Other examples:
val epicString = "Hello World"
println(epicString.compareTo("HelloWorld")) //-55
Is Hello World less than HelloWorld? Why?
Why it returns -55 and not -1, -2, -3, etc?
val epicString = "Hello World"
println(epicString.compareTo("Hello World")) //55
Is Hello World greater than Hello World? Why?
Why it returns 55 and not 1, 2, 3, etc?
I believe you're asking about the implementation of compareTo method for java.lang.String. Here is a source code for java 11:
public int compareTo(String anotherString) {
byte v1[] = value;
byte v2[] = anotherString.value;
if (coder() == anotherString.coder()) {
return isLatin1() ? StringLatin1.compareTo(v1, v2)
: StringUTF16.compareTo(v1, v2);
}
return isLatin1() ? StringLatin1.compareToUTF16(v1, v2)
: StringUTF16.compareToLatin1(v1, v2);
}
So we have a delegation to either StringLatin1 or StringUTF16 here, so we should look further:
Fortunately StringLatin1 and StringUTF16 have similar implementation when it comes to compare functionality:
Here is an implementation for StringLatin1 for example:
public static int compareTo(byte[] value, byte[] other) {
int len1 = value.length;
int len2 = other.length;
return compareTo(value, other, len1, len2);
}
public static int compareTo(byte[] value, byte[] other, int len1, int len2) {
int lim = Math.min(len1, len2);
for (int k = 0; k < lim; k++) {
if (value[k] != other[k]) {
return getChar(value, k) - getChar(other, k);
}
}
return len1 - len2;
}
As you see, it iterated over the characters of the shorter string and in case the charaters in the same index of two strings are different it returns the difference between them. If during the iterations it doesn't find any different (one string is prefix of another) it resorts to the comparison between the length of two strings.
In your case, there is a difference in the first iteration already...
So its the same as `"H".compareTo("a") --> -25".
The code of "H" is 72
The code of "a" is 97
So, 72 - 97 = -25
Short answer: The exact value doesn't have any meaning; only its sign does.
As the specification for compareTo() says, it returns a -ve number if the receiver is smaller than the other object, a +ve number if the receiver is larger, or 0 if the two are considered equal (for the purposes of this ordering).
The specification doesn't distinguish between different -ve numbers, nor between different +ve numbers — and so neither should you. Some classes always return -1, 0, and 1, while others return different numbers, but that's just an implementation detail — and implementations vary.
Let's look at a very simple hypothetical example:
class Length(val metres: Int) : Comparable<Length> {
override fun compareTo(other: Length)
= metres - other.metres
}
This class has a single numerical property, so we can use that property to compare them. One common way to do the comparison is simply to subtract the two lengths: that gives a number which is positive if the receiver is larger, negative if it's smaller, and zero of they're the same length — which is just what we need.
In this case, the value of compareTo() would happen to be the signed difference between the two lengths.
However, that method has a subtle bug: the subtraction could overflow, and give the wrong results if the difference is bigger than Int.MAX_VALUE. (Obviously, to hit that you'd need to be working with astronomical distances, both positive and negative — but that's not implausible. Rocket scientists write programs too!)
To fix it, you might change it to something like:
class Length(val metres: Int) : Comparable<Length> {
override fun compareTo(other: Length) = when {
metres > other.metres -> 1
metres < other.metres -> -1
else -> 0
}
}
That fixes the bug; it works for all possible lengths.
But notice that the actual return value has changed in most cases: now it only ever returns -1, 0, or 1, and no longer gives an indication of the actual difference in lengths.
If this was your class, then it would be safe to make this change because it still matches the specification. Anyone who just looked at the sign of the result would see no change (apart from the bug fix). Anyone using the exact value would find that their programs were now broken — but that's their own fault, because they shouldn't have been relying on that, because it was undocumented behaviour.
Exactly the same applies to the String class and its implementation. While it might be interesting to poke around inside it and look at how it's written, the code you write should never rely on that sort of detail. (It could change in a future version. Or someone could apply your code to another object which didn't behave the same way. Or you might want to expand your project to be cross-platform, and discover the hard way that the JavaScript implementation didn't behave exactly the same as the Java one.)
In the long run, life is much simpler if you don't assume anything more than the specification promises!
Structured programming languages typically have a few control structures, like while, if, for, do, switch, break, and continue that are used to express high-level structures in source code.
However, there are many other control structures that have been proposed over the years that haven't made their way into modern programming languages. For example, in Knuth's paper "Structured Programming with Go To Statements," page 275, he references a control structure that looks like a stripped-down version of exception handling:
loop until event1 or event2 or ... eventN
/* ... */
leave with event1;
/* ... */
repeat;
then event1 -> /* ... code if event1 occurred ... */
event2 -> /* ... code if event2 occurred ... */
/* ... */
eventN -> /* ... code if eventN occurred ... */
fi;
This seems like a useful structure, but I haven't seen any languages that actually implement it beyond as a special case of standard exception handling.
Similarly, Edsger Dijkstra often used a control structure in which one of many pieces of code is executed nondeterministically based on a set of conditions that may be true. You can see this on page 10 of his paper on smoothsort, among other places. Sample code might look like this:
do
/* Either of these may be chosen if x == 5 */
if x <= 5 then y = 5;
if x >= 5 then y = 137;
od;
I understand that historically C influenced many modern languages like C++, C#, and Java, and so many control structures we use today are based on the small set offered by C. However, as evidenced by this other SO question, we programmers like to think about alternative control structures that we'd love to have but aren't supported by many programming languages.
My question is this - are there common languages in use today that support control structures radically different from the C-style control structures I mentioned above? Such a control structure doesn't have to be something that can't be represented using the standard C structures - pretty much anything can be encoded that way - but ideally I'd like an example of something that lets you approach certain programming tasks in a fundamentally different way than the C model allows.
And no, "functional programming" isn't really a control structure.
Since Haskell is lazy, every function call is essentially a control structure.
Pattern-matching in ML-derived languages merges branching, variable binding, and destructuring objects into a single control structure.
Common Lisp's conditions are like exceptions that can be restarted.
Scheme and other languages support continuations which let you pause and resume or restart a program at any point.
Perhaps not "radically different" but "asynchronous" control structures are fairly new.
Async allows non-blocking code to be executed in parallel, with control returning to the main program flow once completed. Although the same could be achieved with nested callbacks, doing anything non-trivial in this way leads to fugly code very quickly.
For example in the upcoming versions of C#/VB, Async allows calling into asynchronous APIs without having to split your code across multiple methods or lambda expressions. I.e. no more callbacks. "await" and "async" keywords enable you to write asynchronous methods that can pause execution without consuming a thread, and then resume later where it left off.
// C#
async Task<int> SumPageSizesAsync(IList<Uri> uris)
{
int total = 0;
var statusText = new TextBox();
foreach (var uri in uris)
{
statusText.Text = string.Format("Found {0} bytes ...", total);
var data = await new WebClient().DownloadDataTaskAsync(uri);
total += data.Length;
}
statusText.Text = string.Format("Found {0} bytes total", total);
return total;
}
(pinched from http://blogs.msdn.com/b/visualstudio/archive/2011/04/13/async-ctp-refresh.aspx)
For Javascript, there's http://tamejs.org/ that allows you to write code like this:
var res1, res2;
await {
doOneThing(defer(res1));
andAnother(defer(res2));
}
thenDoSomethingWith(res1, res2);
C#/Python iterators/generators
def integers():
i = 0
while True:
yield i
i += 1
(I don't know a lot about the subject so I marked this a wiki)
Haskell's Pattern Matching.
Plain example:
sign x | x > 0 = 1
| x == 0 = 0
| x < 0 = -1
or, say, Fibonacci, which looks almost identical to the math equation:
fib x | x < 2 = 1
| x >= 2 = fib (x - 1) + fib (x - 2)
I found myself confronted with an interview question where the goal was to write a sorting algorithm that sorts an array of unsorted int values:
int[] unsortedArray = { 9, 6, 3, 1, 5, 8, 4, 2, 7, 0 };
Now I googled and found out that there are so many sorting algorithms out there!
Finally I could motivate myself to dig into Bubble Sort because it seemed pretty simple to start with.
I read the sample code and came to a solution looking like this:
static int[] BubbleSort(ref int[] array)
{
long lastItemLocation = array.Length - 1;
int temp;
bool swapped;
do
{
swapped = false;
for (int itemLocationCounter = 0; itemLocationCounter < lastItemLocation; itemLocationCounter++)
{
if (array[itemLocationCounter] > array[itemLocationCounter + 1])
{
temp = array[itemLocationCounter];
array[itemLocationCounter] = array[itemLocationCounter + 1];
array[itemLocationCounter + 1] = temp;
swapped = true;
}
}
} while (swapped);
return array;
}
I clearly see that this is a situation where the do { //work } while(cond) statement is a great help to be and prevents the use of another helper variable.
But is this the only case that this is more useful or do you know any other application where this condition has been used?
In general:
use do...while when you want the body to be executed at least once.
use while... when you may not want the body to be executed at all.
EDIT: I'd say the first option comes up about 10% of the time and the second about 90%. You can always re-factor to use either, in either circumstance. Use the one that's closest to what you want to say.
do...while guarantees that the body of code inside the loop executes at least once. This can be handy under certain conditions; when coding a REPL loop, for example.
Anytime you need to loop through some code until a condition is met is a good example of when to use do...while or while...
A good example of when to use do...while or while... is if you have a game or simulation where the game engine is continuously running the various components until some condition occurs like you win or lose.
Of course this is only one example.
The above posts are correct regarding the two conditional looping forms. Some languages have a repeat until form instead of do while. Also there's a minimalist view where only the necessary control structures should exist in a language. The while do is necessary but the do while isn't. And as for bubble sort you'll want to avoid going there as it's the slowest of the commonly known sorting algorithms. Look at selection sort or insertion sort instead. Quicksort and merge sort are fast but are hard to write without using recursion and perform badly if you happen to chose a poor pivot value.
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.
I'm personally an advocate of the ternary operator: () ? :
I do realize that it has its place, but I have come across many programmers that are completely against ever using it, and some that use it too often.
What are your feelings on it? What interesting code have you seen using it?
Use it for simple expressions only:
int a = (b > 10) ? c : d;
Don't chain or nest ternary operators as it hard to read and confusing:
int a = b > 10 ? c < 20 ? 50 : 80 : e == 2 ? 4 : 8;
Moreover, when using ternary operator, consider formatting the code in a way that improves readability:
int a = (b > 10) ? some_value
: another_value;
It makes debugging slightly more difficult since you can not place breakpoints on each of the sub expressions. I use it rarely.
I love them, especially in type-safe languages.
I don't see how this:
int count = (condition) ? 1 : 0;
is any harder than this:
int count;
if (condition)
{
count = 1;
}
else
{
count = 0;
}
I'd argue that ternary operators make everything less complex and more neat than the alternative.
Chained I'm fine with - nested, not so much.
I tend to use them more in C simply because they're an if statement that has value, so it cuts down on unnecessary repetition or variables:
x = (y < 100) ? "dog" :
(y < 150) ? "cat" :
(y < 300) ? "bar" : "baz";
rather than
if (y < 100) { x = "dog"; }
else if (y < 150) { x = "cat"; }
else if (y < 300) { x = "bar"; }
else { x = "baz"; }
In assignments like this, I find it's less to refactor, and clearer.
When I'm working in ruby on the other hand, I'm more likely to use if...else...end because it's an expression too.
x = if (y < 100) then "dog"
elif (y < 150) then "cat"
elif (y < 300) then "bar"
else "baz"
end
(Although, admittedly, for something this simple, I might just use the ternary operator anyway.)
The ternary ?: operator is merely a functional equivalent of the procedural if construct. So as long as you are not using nested ?: expressions, the arguments for/against the functional representation of any operation applies here. But nesting ternary operations can result in code that is downright confusing (exercise for the reader: try writing a parser that will handle nested ternary conditionals and you will appreciate their complexity).
But there are plenty of situations where conservative use of the ?: operator can result in code that is actually easier to read than otherwise. For example:
int compareTo(Object object) {
if((isLessThan(object) && reverseOrder) || (isGreaterThan(object) && !reverseOrder)) {
return 1;
if((isLessThan(object) && !reverseOrder) || (isGreaterThan(object) && reverseOrder)) {
return -1;
else
return 0;
}
Now compare that with this:
int compareTo(Object object) {
if(isLessThan(object))
return reverseOrder ? 1 : -1;
else(isGreaterThan(object))
return reverseOrder ? -1 : 1;
else
return 0;
}
As the code is more compact, there is less syntactic noise, and by using the ternary operator judiciously (that is only in relation with the reverseOrder property) the end result isn't particularly terse.
It's a question of style, really; the subconscious rules I tend to follow are:
Only evaluate 1 expression - so foo = (bar > baz) ? true : false, but NOT foo = (bar > baz && lotto && someArray.Contains(someValue)) ? true : false
If I'm using it for display logic, e.g. <%= (foo) ? "Yes" : "No" %>
Only really use it for assignment; never flow logic (so never (foo) ? FooIsTrue(foo) : FooIsALie(foo) ) Flow logic in ternary is itself a lie, ignore that last point.
I like it because it's concise and elegant for simple assignment operations.
Like so many opinion questions, the answer is inevitably: it depends
For something like:
return x ? "Yes" : "No";
I think that is much more concise (and quicker for me to parse) than:
if (x) {
return "Yes";
} else {
return "No";
}
Now if your conditional expression is complex, then the ternary operation is not a good choice. Something like:
x && y && z >= 10 && s.Length == 0 || !foo
is not a good candidate for the ternary operator.
As an aside, if you are a C programmer, GCC actually has an extension that allows you to exclude the if-true portion of the ternary, like this:
/* 'y' is a char * */
const char *x = y ? : "Not set";
Which will set x to y assuming y is not NULL. Good stuff.
In my mind, it only makes sense to use the ternary operator in cases where an expression is needed.
In other cases, it seems like the ternary operator decreases clarity.
I use the ternary operator wherever I can, unless it makes the code extremely hard to read, but then that's usually just an indication that my code could use a little refactoring.
It always puzzles me how some people think the ternary operator is a "hidden" feature or is somewhat mysterious. It's one of the first things I learnt when I start programming in C, and I don't think it decreases readability at all. It's a natural part of the language.
By the measure of cyclomatic complexity, the use of if statements or the ternary operator are equivalent. So by that measure, the answer is no, the complexity would be exactly the same as before.
By other measures such as readability, maintainability, and DRY (don't repeat yourself), either choice may prove better than the other.
I use it quite often in places where I'm constrained to work in a constructor - for example, the new .NET 3.5 LINQ to XML constructs - to define default values when an optional parameter is null.
Contrived example:
var e = new XElement("Something",
param == null ? new XElement("Value", "Default")
: new XElement("Value", param.ToString())
);
or (thanks asterite)
var e = new XElement("Something",
new XElement("Value",
param == null ? "Default"
: param.ToString()
)
);
No matter whether you use the ternary operator or not, making sure your code is readable is the important thing. Any construct can be made unreadable.
I agree with jmulder: it shouldn't be used in place of a if, but it has its place for return expression or inside an expression:
echo "Result: " + n + " meter" + (n != 1 ? "s" : "");
return a == null ? "null" : a;
The former is just an example, and better internationalisation and localisation support of plural should be used!
If you're using the ternary operator for a simple conditional assignment I think it's fine. I've seen it (ab)used to control program flow without even making an assignment, and I think that should be avoided. Use an if statement in these cases.
(Hack of the day)
#define IF(x) x ?
#define ELSE :
Then you can do if-then-else as expression:
int b = IF(condition1) res1
ELSE IF(condition2) res2
ELSE IF(conditions3) res3
ELSE res4;
I think the ternary operator should be used when needed. It is obviously a very subjective choice, but I find that a simple expression (specially as a return expression) is much clearer than a full test. Example in C/C++:
return (a>0)?a:0;
Compared to:
if(a>0) return a;
else return 0;
You also have the case where the solution is between the ternary operator and creating a function. For example in Python:
l = [ i if i > 0 else 0 for i in lst ]
The alternative is:
def cap(value):
if value > 0:
return value
return 0
l = [ cap(i) for i in lst ]
It is needed enough that in Python (as an example), such an idiom could be seen regularly:
l = [ ((i>0 and [i]) or [0])[0] for i in lst ]
this line uses properties of the logical operators in Python: they are lazy and returns the last value computed if it is equal to the final state.
I've seen such beasts like (it was actually much worse since it was isValidDate and checked month and day as well, but I couldn't be bothered trying to remember the whole thing):
isLeapYear =
((yyyy % 400) == 0)
? 1
: ((yyyy % 100) == 0)
? 0
: ((yyyy % 4) == 0)
? 1
: 0;
where, plainly, a series of if-statements would have been better (although this one's still better than the macro version I once saw).
I don't mind it for small things like:
reportedAge = (isFemale && (Age >= 21)) ? 21 + (Age - 21) / 3 : Age;
or even slightly tricky things like:
printf ("Deleted %d file%s\n", n, (n == 1) ? "" : "s");
I like using the operator in debug code to print error values so I don't have to look them up all the time. Usually I do this for debug prints that aren't going to remain once I'm done developing.
int result = do_something();
if( result != 0 )
{
debug_printf("Error while doing something, code %x (%s)\n", result,
result == 7 ? "ERROR_YES" :
result == 8 ? "ERROR_NO" :
result == 9 ? "ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND" :
"Unknown");
}
I almost never use the ternary operator, because whenever I do use it, it always makes me think a lot more than I have to later when I try to maintain it.
I like to avoid verbosity, but when it makes the code a lot easier to pick up, I will go for the verbosity.
Consider:
String name = firstName;
if (middleName != null) {
name += " " + middleName;
}
name += " " + lastName;
Now, that is a bit verbose, but I find it a lot more readable than:
String name = firstName + (middleName == null ? "" : " " + middleName)
+ " " + lastName;
Or:
String name = firstName;
name += (middleName == null ? "" : " " + middleName);
name += " " + lastName;
It just seems to compress too much information into too little space, without making it clear what's going on. Every time I saw the ternary operator used, I have always found an alternative that seemed much easier to read... then again, that is an extremely subjective opinion, so if you and your colleagues find ternary very readable, go for it.
I like them. I don't know why, but I feel very cool when I use the ternary expression.
I treat ternary operators a lot like GOTO. They have their place, but they are something which you should usually avoid to make the code easier to understand.
Well, the syntax for it is horrid. I find functional ifs very useful, and they often makes code more readable.
I would suggest making a macro to make it more readable, but I'm sure someone can come up with a horrible edge case (as there always is with C++).
I typically use it in things like this:
before:
if(isheader)
drawtext(x, y, WHITE, string);
else
drawtext(x, y, BLUE, string);
after:
drawtext(x, y, isheader == true ? WHITE : BLUE, string);
As others have pointed out they are nice for short simple conditions. I especially like them for defaults (kind of like the || and or usage in JavaScript and Python), e.g.
int repCount = pRepCountIn ? *pRepCountIn : defaultRepCount;
Another common use is to initialize a reference in C++. Since references have to be declared and initialized in the same statement you can't use an if statement.
SomeType& ref = pInput ? *pInput : somethingElse;
I like Groovy's special case of the ternary operator, called the Elvis operator: ?:
expr ?: default
This code evaluates to expr if it's not null, and default if it is. Technically it's not really a ternary operator, but it's definitely related to it and saves a lot of time/typing.
I recently saw a variation on ternary operators (well, sort of) that make the standard "() ? :" variant seem to be a paragon of clarity:
var Result = [CaseIfFalse, CaseIfTrue][(boolean expression)]
or, to give a more tangible example:
var Name = ['Jane', 'John'][Gender == 'm'];
Mind you, this is JavaScript, so things like that might not be possible in other languages (thankfully).
Only when:
$var = (simple > test ? simple_result_1 : simple_result_2);
KISS.
For simple if cases, I like to use it. Actually it's much easier to read/code for instance as parameters for functions or things like that. Also to avoid the new line I like to keep with all my if/else.
Nesting it would be a big no-no in my book.
So, resuming, for a single if/else I'll use the ternary operator. For other cases, a regular if/else if/else (or switch).
For simple tasks, like assigning a different value depending on a condition, they're great. I wouldn't use them when there are longer expressions depending on the condition though.
If you and your workmates understand what they do and they aren't created in massive groups I think they make the code less complex and easier to read because there is simply less code.
The only time I think ternary operators make code harder to understand is when you have more than three or foyr in one line. Most people don't remember that they are right based precedence and when you have a stack of them it makes reading the code a nightmare.
As so many answers have said, it depends. I find that if the ternary comparison is not visible in a quick scan down the code, then it should not be used.
As a side issue, I might also note that its very existence is actually a bit of an anomaly due to the fact that in C, comparison testing is a statement. In Icon, the if construct (like most of Icon) is actually an expression. So you can do things like:
x[if y > 5 then 5 else y] := "Y"
... which I find much more readable than a ternary comparison operator. :-)
There was a discussion recently about the possibility of adding the ?: operator to Icon, but several people correctly pointed out that there was absolutely no need because of the way if works.
Which means that if you could do that in C (or any of the other languages that have the ternary operator), then you wouldn't, in fact, need the ternary operator at all.