“No-else-after-return” considered harmful

Re:“No-else-after-return” considered harmful by philwelch on Sunday August 30, 2009 @10:55PM (#795323)

You'd be right, of course, but the original article concedes this point. He's talking about situations like

  if (a < b)
    return a
  return b

vs.

  if (a < b)
    return a
  else
    return b

  return ( (a < b) ? a : b)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“No-else-after-return” considered harmful by neilc on Sunday August 30, 2009 @11:16PM (#795348)

What is the distinction between those two situations? (i.e. those in which the article "concedes the point"?)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“No-else-after-return” considered harmful by nkurz on Monday August 31, 2009 @12:09AM (#795411)

Presuming this is a genuine question: the difference is whether one goes on to do more work after the 'guard' return, or whether one is just choosing which value to return.

I think the style guide is being silly, and there is no simple rule that says "always use an else" or "never use an else". I'd see "Avoid unnecessary indentation" as a better rule.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“No-else-after-return” considered harmful by philwelch on Monday August 31, 2009 @12:50AM (#795456)

One's an early return due to error, one's a conditional return value.

[ Parent | on HN ]