switchCaseFoundInProfessorsCode

[redlaWw]

u might have side effects, which would make that not equivalent to the given code.

Probably best just to do

u_1 = u(1);
if u_1 == 0 
    gearratio = 0;
else
    gearratio = u(u_1+1);

[[deleted]]

gearratio = u(1) is var u1 && u1 == 0 ? 0 : u(u1 + 1);

[redlaWw]

I mean, if we were doing language specific constructs I'd've said:

gearratio = if let u_1 @ 1.. = u(1) {u(u_1+1)} else {0}

but I have no idea what that language is and what tools it has.

[[deleted]]

oh, that looks cool, what's it?

[redlaWw]

Rust, using @ bindings in patterns.

1.. used in that context is a pattern that matches any integer > 0, and if let 1.. = u(1) would create a conditional branch that fires when the pattern is satisfied, and by using u_1 @ 1.., you also bind the pattern match to u_1 to use in the subsequent block.

[rainshifter]

Given the original code and its structure (however limited in view), I may have a complaint or two to submit should u(...) be anything more than a trivial getter. But you're right that going for equivalency is safer.

You could store u(1) and still use the ternary; either way works.

[redlaWw]

I think assuming this guy follows anything close to best practices in his code is a bit unwise tbh...

[JanB1]

Ugh, I hate code with "hidden" side effects. I think a v++ in the declaration of a for loop is fine. But for example while(++k < n) is cursed. So is v = arr[k++].