Possible Duplicate:
Inadvertent use of = instead of ==
C++ Compilers let your know via warnings that you wrote
if( a = b ) { //...
and that it might be a mistake, that you certainly wanted to write
if( a == b ) { //...
But is there a case where the warning should be ignored because it's a good way to use this "feature"? I don't see any code clarity reason possible so is there a case where its useful?
while ( (line = readNextLine()) != EOF) {
processLine();
}
while( (l = getline()) != EOF){
printf("%s\n", l);
}
This is of course the simplest example, there are lots of times when this is useful. The primary thing to remember is that (a = true) returns true, just as (a = false) returns false.
void some( int b ) {
int a = 0;
if( a = b ) {
// or do something with a
// knowing that is not 0
}
// b remains the same
}
Two possible reasons:
Assign & Check
The = operator (when not overriden) normally returns the value that it assigned. This is to allow statements such as a=b=c=3. In the context of your question, it also allows you to do something like this:
bool global;//a global variable
//a function
int foo(bool x){
//assign the value of x to global
//if x is equal to true, return 4
if (global=x)
return 4;
//otherwise return 3
return 3;
}
...which is equivalent to but shorter than:
bool global;//a global variable
//a function
int foo(bool x){
//assign the value of x to global
global=x;
//if x is equal to true, return 4
if (global==true)
return 4;
//otherwise return 3
return 3;
}
Also, it should be noted (as stated by Billy ONeal in a comment below) that this can also work when the left-hand argument of the = operator is actually a class with a conversion operator specified for a type which can be coerced (implicitly converted) to a bool. In other words, (a=b) will evaulate to true or false if a is of a type which can be coerced to a boolean value.
So the following is a similar situation to the above, except the left-hand argument to = is an object and not a bool:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Foo {
public:
operator bool (){ return true; }
Foo(){}
};
int main(){
Foo a;
Foo b;
if (a=b)
cout<<"true";
else
cout<<"false";
}
//output: true
Note: At the time of this writing, the code formatting above is bugged. My code (check the source) actually features proper indenting, shift operators and line spacing. The <'s are supposed to be <'s, and there aren't supposed to be enourmous gaps between each line.
Overridden = operator
Since C++ allows the overriding of operators, sometimes = will be overriden to do something other than what it does with primitive types. In these cases, the performing the = operation on an object could return a boolean (if that's how the = operator was overridden for that object type).
So the following code would perform the = operation on a with b as an argument. Then it would conditionally execute some code depending on the return value of that operation:
if (a=b){
//execute some code
}
Here, a would have to be an object and b would be of the correct type as defined by the overriding of the = operator for objects of a's type. To learn more about operator overriding, see this wikipedia article which includes C++ examples: Wikipedia article on operator overriding
Going straight to the question, and as a personal opinion, I really don't think there's a case where this is a good idea.
I mean, I know that with this syntax you can avoid putting an extra line in your code, but I think it takes away some readability from the code.
This syntax is very useful for things like the one suggested by @Steven Schlansker, but using it directly as a condition isn't a good idea.
Just my two cents ...
But is there a case where the warning should be ignored because it's a good way to use this "feature"? I don't see any code clarity reason possible so is there a case where its useful?
The warning can be suppressed by placing an extra parentheses around the assignment. That sort of clarifies the programmer's intent. Common cases I've seen that would match the (a = b) case directly would be something like:
if ( (a = expression_with_zero_for_failure) )
{
// do something with 'a' to avoid having to reevaluate
// 'expression_with_zero_for_failure' (might be a function call, e.g.)
}
else if ( (a = expression2_with_zero_for_failure) )
{
// do something with 'a' to avoid having to reevaluate
// 'expression2_with_zero_for_failure'
}
// etc.
As to whether writing this kind of code is useful enough to justify the common mistakes that beginners (and sometimes even professionals in their worst moments) encounter when using C++, it's difficult to say. It's a legacy inherited from C and Stroustrup and others contributing to the design of C++ might have gone a completely different, safer route had they not tried to make C++ backwards compatible with C as much as possible.
Personally I think it's not worth it. I work in a team and I've encountered this bug several times before. I would have been in favor of disallowing it (requiring parentheses or some other explicit syntax at least or else it's considered a build error) in exchange for lifting the burden of ever encountering these bugs.
This is a consequence of basic feature of the C language:
The value of an assignment operation is the assigned value itself.
The fact that you can use that "return value" as the condition of an if() statement is incidental.
By the way, this is the same trick that allows this crazy conciseness:
void strcpy(char *s, char *t)
{
while( *s++ = *t++ );
}
Of course, the while exits when the nullchar in t is reached, but at the same time it is copied to the destination s string.
Whether it is a good idea, usually not, as it reduce code readability and is prone to errors.
You could use to test if a function returned any error
if (error_no = some_function(...)) {
//handle error
}
Assuming that some_function returns the error code in case of an error or zero otherwise
Note that this answer is about C++ (I started writing this answer before the tag "C" was added).
Still, after reading Jens Gustedt's comment, I realized it was not the first time I wrote this kind of answer. Truth is, this question is a duplicate of another, to which I gave the following answer:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/399792/inadvertent-use-of-instead-of/400644#400644
So, I'll shamelessly quote myself here to add an important info: if is not about comparison. It's about evaluation.
This difference is very important because it means anything can be inside the parentheses of a if as long as it can be evaluated to a boolean. And this is a good thing.
Now, limiting the language by forbidding =, where all other operators are authorized, is a dangerous exception for the language, an exception whose use would be far from certain, and whose drawbacks would be numerous indeed.
For those who are unneasy with the = typo, then there are solutions (see Alternatives below...).
The problem is that you're taking the problem upside down. The "if" notation is not about comparing two values like in some other languages.
The C/C++ if instruction waits for any expression that will evaluate to either a boolean, or a null/non-null value. This expression can include two values comparison, and/or can be much more complex.
For example, you can have:
if(i >> 3)
{
std::cout << "i is less than 8" << std::endl
}
Which proves that, in C/C++, the if expression is not limited to == and =. Anything will do, as long as it can be evaluated as true or false (C++), or zero non-zero (C/C++).
Back to the non-quoted answer.
The following notation:
if(MyObject * p = findMyObject())
{
// uses p
}
enables the user to declare and then use p inside the if. It is a syntactic sugar... But an interesting one. For example, imagine the case of an XML DOM-like object whose type is unknown well until runtime, and you need to use RTTI:
void foo(Node * p_p)
{
if(BodyNode * p = dynamic_cast<BodyNode *>(p_p))
{
// this is a <body> node
}
else if(SpanNode * p = dynamic_cast<SpanNode *>(p_p))
{
// this is a <span> node
}
else if(DivNode * p = dynamic_cast<DivNode *>(p_p))
{
// this is a <div> node
}
// etc.
}
RTTI should not be abused, of course, but this is but one example of this syntactic sugar.
Another use would be to use what is called C++ Variable Injection. In Java, there is this cool keyword:
synchronized(p)
{
// Now, the Java code is synchronized using p as a mutex
}
In C++, you can do it, too. I don't have the exact code in mind (nor the exact DDJ's article where I discovered it), but this simple define should be enough for demonstration purposes:
#define synchronized(lock) \
if (auto_lock lock_##__LINE__(lock))
synchronized(p)
{
// Now, the C++ code is synchronized using p as a mutex
}
(Note that this macro is quite primitive, and should not be used as is in production code. The real macro uses a if and a for. See sources below for a more correct implementation).
This is the same way, mixing injection with if and for declaration, you can declare a primitive foreach macro (if you want an industrial-strength foreach, use boost's).
Your problem is a typo, and there are multiple ways to limit its frequency in your code. The most important one is to make sure the left-hand-side operand is constant.
For example, this code won't compile for multiple reasons:
if( NULL = b ) // won't compile because it is illegal
// to assign a value to r-values.
Or even better:
const T a ;
// etc.
if( a = b ) // Won't compile because it is illegal
// to modify a constant object
This is why in my code, const is one of the most used keyword you'll find. Unless I REALLY want to modify a variable, it is declared const and thus, the compiler protects me from most errors, including the typo error that motivated you to write this question.
But is there a case where the warning should be ignored because it's a good way to use this "feature"? I don't see any code clarity reason possible so is there a case where its useful?
As shown in the examples above, there are multiple valid uses for the feature you used in your question.
My own code is a magnitude cleaner and clearer since I use the code injection enabled by this feature:
void foo()
{
// some code
LOCK(mutex)
{
// some code protected by a mutex
}
FOREACH(char c, MyVectorOfChar)
{
// using c
}
}
... which makes the rare times I was confronted to this typo a negligible price to pay (and I can't remember the last time I wrote this type without being caught by the compiler).
I finally found the articles I've had read on variable injection. Here we go !!!
If one fears being victim of the =/== typo, then perhaps using a macro could help:
#define EQUALS ==
#define ARE_EQUALS(lhs,rhs) (lhs == rhs)
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
int a = 25 ;
double b = 25 ;
if(a EQUALS b)
std::cout << "equals" << std::endl ;
else
std::cout << "NOT equals" << std::endl ;
if(ARE_EQUALS(a, b))
std::cout << "equals" << std::endl ;
else
std::cout << "NOT equals" << std::endl ;
return 0 ;
}
This way, one can protect oneself from the typo error, without needing a language limitation (that would cripple language), for a bug that happens rarely (i.e. almost never, as far as I remember it in my code)
Although the construct is perfectly legal syntax and YOUR intent may truly be as show below:
if( (a = b) != 0 ) {
...
}
Don't leave the "!= 0" part out.
The person looking at the code 6 months, 1 year, 5 years from now, at first glance, is simply going to believe the code contains a "classic bug" written by a jr. programmer and will try to "fix" it. The construct above CLEARLY indicates your intent and will be optimized out by the compiler. This would be especially embarrassing if YOU are that person.
Your other option is to heavily it with comments. But the above is self-documenting code, which is better.
Lastly, my preference is to do this:
a = b;
if( a != 0 ) {
...
}
This is about a clear as the code can get. If there is a performance hit, it is virtually zero.
This isn't actually a deliberate feature of C, but a consequence of two other features:
Assignment returns the assigned value
This is useful for performing multiple assignments like a = b = 0, or loops like while ((n = getchar()) != EOF).
Numbers and pointers have truth values
C originally didn't have a bool type until the 1999 standard, so it used int to represent boolean values. Backwards compatibility requires C and C++ to allow non-bool expressions in if, while, and for.
So, if a = b has a value and if is lenient about what values it accepts, then if (a = b) works. But I'd recommend using if ((a = b) != 0) instead to discourage anyone from "fixing" it.
Never!
The exceptions cited don't generate he compiler warning. In cases where the compiler generates the warning, it is never a good idea.
There's an aspect of this that hasn't been mentioned: C doesn't prevent you from doing anything it doesn't have to. It doesn't prevent you from doing it because C's job is to give you enough rope to hang yourself by. To not think that it's smarter than you. And it's good at it.
A common example where it is useful might be:
do {
...
} while (current = current->next);
You should explicitly write the checking statment on a better coding manner, avoiding the assign & check approach. Example:
if ((fp = fopen("filename.txt", "wt")) != NULL) {
// do something with fp
}
RegEx sample
RegEx r;
if(((r = new RegEx("\w*)).IsMatch()) {
// ... do something here
}
else if((r = new RegEx("\d*")).IsMatch()) {
// ... do something here
}
asign a value test
int i = 0;
if((i = 1) == 1) {
// 1 is equal to i that was assigned to a int value 1
}
else {
// ?
}
My fav is:
if (CComQIPtr<DerivedClassA> a = BaseClassPtr)
{
...
}
else if (CComQIPtr<DerivedClassB> b = BaseClassPtr)
{
...
}