MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

davidfor · 05-05-2014, 05:53 AM

chaley: I like it. My vote goes for the first version. The second version is a lot more flexible, but I think the first is much simpler to read and understand. With the second I know I would mess up the arguments and spend hours trying to sort out. And if I didn't put them in order, I would miss a range somewhere.

I sort of like the idea of having it as:

Code:

first_matching_compare(v, val1, lt1, val2, lt2,  ..., ltn, elseval)

That reads to me as: val1 if v<lt1, val2 if lt1<=v<lt2, val3 if lt2<=v<lt3 and so on until elseval if v>=ltn. But, I think that would be inconsistent with the other template functions.

05-05-2014, 05:53 AM	#15
davidfor Grand Sorcerer Posts: 24,905 Karma: 47303824 Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Sydney, Australia Device: Kobo:Touch,Glo, AuraH2O, GloHD,AuraONE, ClaraHD, Libra H2O; tolinoepos	chaley: I like it. My vote goes for the first version. The second version is a lot more flexible, but I think the first is much simpler to read and understand. With the second I know I would mess up the arguments and spend hours trying to sort out. And if I didn't put them in order, I would miss a range somewhere. I sort of like the idea of having it as: Code: first_matching_compare(v, val1, lt1, val2, lt2, ..., ltn, elseval) That reads to me as: val1 if v<lt1, val2 if lt1<=v<lt2, val3 if lt2<=v<lt3 and so on until elseval if v>=ltn. But, I think that would be inconsistent with the other template functions.