# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|
1 | ecnerwala | 3648 |
2 | Benq | 3580 |
3 | orzdevinwang | 3570 |
4 | cnnfls_csy | 3569 |
5 | Geothermal | 3568 |
6 | tourist | 3565 |
7 | maroonrk | 3530 |
8 | Radewoosh | 3520 |
9 | Um_nik | 3481 |
10 | jiangly | 3467 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | maomao90 | 174 |
2 | awoo | 164 |
2 | adamant | 164 |
4 | TheScrasse | 159 |
4 | nor | 159 |
6 | maroonrk | 156 |
7 | -is-this-fft- | 150 |
8 | SecondThread | 147 |
9 | orz | 146 |
10 | pajenegod | 145 |
Name |
---|
code: https://paste.ubuntu.com/25515182/
Why wouldn't lessThan be a < b + eps and lessThanEqual be a <= b + eps?
In your code (and in code in the post) there are a lot of constructions like this:
Do you know that they should be written like this:?
And what's wrong? It's more readable than
return A == B
It's code with excess branching, it can't be more readable. When you use if-else, it means that you have some different behaviour based on the condition. But when you need just return result of condition, like in these cases with a simple comparison, you should write as it is:
return condition;
.It's really a basic and famous example of how you can make your code dirtier with such return true/false and I don`t understand how you can say that it is more readable.
It's really a basic and famous example how to write beautiful and readable code:
I bet you will write
return very_long_condition_1 || very_long_condition_2
and someone will refactor it eventually.At first,
A == B
is not a very_long_condition.At second, I will not.
The post and code from the comment have only single-comparison conditions. So it's a very bad attempt from you to try say that I can't balance between shortness and readability in that way =)
I always like Sarcasm public.