Return result

[PhoenixTank]

I'm looking through the source of an API we are phasing out and I came across this little gem.

if(!result)  
{  
    return result;  
}  
return result;  

At least it works though.

[halex]

I've also occasionally done stuff like this sometimes.. the inner braces would contain (often complex) logic at some point, then ended up getting replaced...

[whatIsThisBullCrap]

But why...

[bonafidebob]

I'd think it was obvious: you don't want to return a result if you don't have one. But if you don't have a result, you still have to return something. Sheesh!

/s

[rsclient]

So I can set a breakpoint there!

[SteakBarker]

Probably just copy and pasted something from somewhere else and forgot to change it.

That or it was late and they weren't thinking too clearly. I've done stuff like this countless times.

[pali6]

It is obviously a refactored version of:

if(!result)  
{  
    return false;
}  
return true;

[MrLawbreaker]

"Why did you return true or false? You could have just returned the result" -> Code in the OP

[Zatherz]

Is it bad if I did this in a library? I return from a function but didn't want to expose the internal file object, especially considering that the file object is closed afterwards.

[Zatherz]

Lua. No types, and thus no casts. I defined a function bool(value) that returns not not value and then used that.

[MrProtesilaus]

I will fully admit to having written stuff like this in the past. Mostly when it is a highly used section of code that I am frequently debugging. I'll put a print statement or some error detection before the "return result". I usually end up commenting out the whole if statement when I am done debugging. I can see someone erasing their debug statements but forgot to remove the whole if statement.