Python has an interesting for statement which lets you specify an else clause.
In a construct like this one:
for i in foo:
if bar(i):
break
else:
baz()
the else clause is executed after the for, but only if the for terminates normally (not by a break).
I wondered if there was an equivalent in C++? Can I use for ... else?
A simpler way to express your actual logic is with std::none_of:
if (std::none_of(std::begin(foo), std::end(foo), bar))
baz();
If the range proposal for C++17 gets accepted, hopefully this will simplify to:
if (std::none_of(foo, bar)) baz();
std::none_of accepts const iterator in this case.. –
Overstride If doesn't mind using goto also can be done in following way. This one saves from extra if check and higher scope variable declaration.
for(int i = 0; i < foo; i++)
if(bar(i))
goto m_label;
baz();
m_label:
...
bar(i) and baz() –
Soosoochow goto also produces jump instructions and does not alter predictability. –
Michalemichalski goto you can eliminate a branch. And in the link if you check the answers will see that one solution to branch prediction is removing the branch altogether. But still I see no more necessity of the arguing on the matter. Thanks for all responses. –
Hoffert goto is a branch (possibly an unconditional one). The only instance of removing branches code I could find in the answers doesn't use goto. If you want to argue that goto allows replacing conditional branches with unconditional ones, please give an example because so far it sounds like cargo cult. –
Michalemichalski int t = (data[c] - 128) >> 31; sum += ~t & data[c];. Of course goto is a branch such as break. I have removed second branch which is a conditional one that you can see in other answers. –
Hoffert goto either. I'm aware of branch prediction and its effects and no not dispute them. What I'm asking is how goto helps avoid branch mispredictions. –
Michalemichalski if check will increase the chance of branch mis-prediction (as well as correct prediction). In some cases where code optimization is important goto is still a good practice for experienced ones. @MatthiasB is right where you are coding for an user application in big project with many people that understandably of code is more important than optimization. –
Hoffert goto isn't outdated in C. –
Insectarium A simpler way to express your actual logic is with std::none_of:
if (std::none_of(std::begin(foo), std::end(foo), bar))
baz();
If the range proposal for C++17 gets accepted, hopefully this will simplify to:
if (std::none_of(foo, bar)) baz();
std::none_of accepts const iterator in this case.. –
Overstride This is my rough implementation in C++:
bool other = true;
for (int i = 0; i > foo; i++) {
if (bar[i] == 7) {
other = false;
break;
}
} if(other)
baz();
i > foo? Shouldn't it be i < foo? –
Shulock Yes you can achieve the same effect by:
auto it = std::begin(foo);
for (; it != std::end(foo); ++it)
if(bar(*it))
break;
if(it == std::end(foo))
baz();
end()). –
Michalemichalski i probably never is an integer. It's more like C++11 for (auto i : foo). –
Michalemichalski for(auto it = begin(something); it != end(something); ++i) ... if (it == end(something))`... Also please remember, that everytime you do postfix incrementation unecessary, a kitten dies. –
Voiceless i++ would be so bad in a forloop? It's got exactly the same functionality as ++i there. I personally think i++ looks better, because it's got the part that changes the variable after the variable name itself, just like where +=1 comes after i in the normal i+=1, etc. In cases where it doesn't matter to the outcome of the code, I always use i++. –
Ostrander i++ can be significantly slower, as it involves creating a new object; it is a bad habit to use it and you won't find it in decent code in place where ++i can be used instead. Personally, it forces me unecessarilly to slow down and think if there is was a reason to use it, or is it just sloppy code. Even if for a second, it might be annoying. –
Voiceless i++ could be slower in some situations, but in a forloop it makes no difference if you've got a modern enough compiler (which is what I'm taking from that SO link), so I would still prefer i++ because of those things I said. So, to fix your original statement: "Everytime you do postfix incrementation unnecessarily, your compiler turns it into exactly the same as prefix incrementation." –
Ostrander int. Also see comments below, you will find all the reasons why ++i should be used as default. And IMHO, for sake of consistency, the same should be used for primitive types, like int. –
Voiceless You could use a lambda function for this:
[&](){
for (auto i : foo) {
if (bar(i)) {
// early return, to skip the "else:" section.
return;
}
}
// foo is exhausted, with no item satisfying bar(). i.e., "else:"
baz();
}();
This should behave exactly like Python's "for..else", and it has some advantages over the other solutions:
But... I'd use the clunky flag variable, myself.
I am not aware of an elegant way to accomplish this in C/C++ (not involving a flag variable). The suggested other options are much more horrible than that...
To answer @Kerrek SB about real life usages, I found a few in my code (simplified snippets)
Example 1: typical find/fail
for item in elements:
if condition(item):
do_stuff(item)
break
else: #for else
raise Exception("No valid item in elements")
Example 2: limited number of attempts
for retrynum in range(max_retries):
try:
attempt_operation()
except SomeException:
continue
else:
break
else: #for else
raise Exception("Operation failed {} times".format(max_retries))
any and map or an iterator comprehension. –
Cinchonize for (int retrynum = 0; ; ++retrynum) { try { attempt_operation(); } catch (const SomeException&) { if (retrynum == max_retries) throw ...; } }. Not sure which I prefer. –
Matriarchy any() construction there is not way to recover which element fulfilled the condition" - that's part of the self-documenting beauty of it - the code reader knows up front that it doesn't matter which element matches whenever any is used, while find_if implies it may matter. Good programmers will pick accordingly. –
Matriarchy Something like:
auto it = foo.begin(), end = foo.end();
while ( it != end && ! bar( *it ) ) {
++ it;
}
if ( it != foo.end() ) {
baz();
}
should do the trick, and it avoids the unstructured break.
break is fine IMHO, and in any case that change is completely orthogonal to the actual meat (it != foo.end()). –
Michalemichalski while; I'll fix it. –
Russell There is no such language construct in C++, but, thanks to the "magic" of the preprocessor, you can make one for yourself. For example, something like this (C++11):
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
#define FOR_EACH(e, c, b) auto e = c.begin(); for (; e != c.end(); ++e) {b} if (e == c.end()) {}
int main()
{
vector<int> v;
v.push_back(1);
v.push_back(2);
FOR_EACH(x, v, {
if (*x == 2) {
break;
}
cout << "x = " << *x << " ";
})
else {
cout << "else";
}
return 0;
}
This should output x = 1 else.
If you change if (*x == 2) { to if (*x == 3) {, the output should be x = 1 x = 2.
If you don't like the fact that a variable is added in the current scope, you can change it slightly:
#define FOR_EACH(e, c, b, otherwise) {auto e = c.begin(); for (; e != c.end(); ++e) {b} if (e == c.end()) {} otherwise }
then use would be:
FOR_EACH(x, v, {
if (*x == 2) {
break;
}
cout << "x = " << *x << " ";
},
else {
cout << "else";
})
It's not perfect, of course, but, if used with care, will save you some amount of typing and, if used a lot, would become a part of the project's "vocabulary".
x will be left behind after the else statement. There isn't a nice way to get around this one... –
Kicker It's not only possible in C++, it's possible in C. I'll stick with C++ to make the code comprehensible though:
for (i=foo.first(); i != NULL || (baz(),0); i = i.next())
{
if bar(i):
break;
}
I doubt I'd let that through a code review, but it works and it's efficient. To my mind it's also clearer than some of the other suggestions.
There probably isn't a single solution that fits best all problems. In my case a flag variable and a range-based for loop with an auto specifier worked best. Here's an equivalent of the code in question:
bool none = true;
for (auto i : foo) {
if (bar(i)) {
none = false;
break;
}
}
if (none) baz();
It is less typing than using iterators. Especially, if you use the for loop to initialize a variable, you may use that instead of the boolean flag.
Thanks to auto typing it is better than std::none_of, if you want to inline the condition rather than call bar() (and if you are not using C++14).
I had a situation where both conditions occurred, the code looked something like this:
for (auto l1 : leaves) {
for (auto x : vertices) {
int l2 = -1, y;
for (auto e : support_edges[x]) {
if (e.first != l1 && e.second != l1 && e.second != x) {
std::tie(l2, y) = e;
break;
}
}
if (l2 == -1) continue;
// Do stuff using vertices l1, l2, x and y
}
}
No need for iterators here, because v indicates whether break occurred.
Using std::none_of would require specifying the type of support_edges[x] elements explicitly in arguments of a lambda expression.
Direct answer: no, you probably can't, or it is compiler-based, at best. BUT here's a hack of a macro that kind of works!
A few notes:
I usually program with Qt, so I'm used to having a foreach loop, and never have to deal with iterators directly.
I tested this with Qt's compiler (v 5.4.2) but it should work. This is gross for several reasons, but generally does what you'd want. I don't condone coding like this, but there's no reason it shouldn't work as long as you're careful with the syntax.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#define for_else(x, y) __broke__ = false; for(x){y} if (__broke__) {}
#define __break__ __broke__ = true; break
bool __broke__; // A global... wah wah.
class Bacon {
public:
Bacon(bool eggs);
inline bool Eggs() {return eggs_;}
private:
bool eggs_;
};
Bacon::Bacon(bool eggs) {
eggs_ = eggs;
}
bool bar(Bacon *bacon) {
return bacon->Eggs();
}
void baz() {
std::cout << "called baz\n";
}
int main()
{
std::vector<Bacon *>bacons;
bacons.push_back(new Bacon(false));
bacons.push_back(new Bacon(false));
bacons.push_back(new Bacon(false));
for_else (uint i = 0; i < bacons.size(); i++,
std::cout << bacons.at(i)->Eggs();
if (bar(bacons.at(i))) {
__break__;
}
) else {
baz();
}
bacons.push_back(new Bacon(true));
bacons.push_back(new Bacon(false));
for_else (uint i = 0; i < bacons.size(); i++,
std::cout << bacons.at(i)->Eggs();
if (bar(bacons.at(i))) {
__break__;
}
) else {
baz();
}
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
You can use for-else almost like in Python by defining two macros:
#define BREAK {CONTINUETOELSE = false; break;}
#define FORWITHELSE(x, y) {bool CONTINUETOELSE = true; x if(!CONTINUETOELSE){} y}
Now you put the for and the else inside the FORWITHELSE macro separated by a comma and use BREAK instead of break. Here is an example:
FORWITHELSE(
for(int i = 0; i < foo; i++){
if(bar(i)){
BREAK;
}
},
else{
baz();
}
)
There are two things you need to remember: to put a comma before the else and to use BREAK instead of break.
I came here because I had the same question, in C though. The best thing I came out with is
bool notTerminated = true;
for (int i = 0; i < 50 || (notTerminated = false); i++)
if (bar(i))
break;
if (! notTerminated)
baz();
Explanation: the (notTerminated = false) is an assignment that will always return the false value, it will never affect the condition and will be evaluated iif the condition if true.
If you don't mind inverting the logic, you can use else for:
std::vector<int> values = { 1, 2, 3 };
if (values.empty()) {
puts("Vector was empty");
}
else for (auto&& v : values) {
printf("%d, ", v);
}
I would accomplish this with a simple helper variable:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
int main()
{
bool b;
printf("Numbers which are multiples of 7:\n");
for (int i=8; b=(i<12); i++)
{
if (i%7==0)
{
printf("%d", i);
break;
}
}
if (!b)
{
printf("no numbers found\n");
}
return 0;
}
This way, you need to implement the condition (in the above examplei<12) only at one place.
© 2022 - 2024 — McMap. All rights reserved.
find()is a classic example where this conctruct is used. – Voicelessreturn, not abreak, and then it does skip the code immediately following the loop. – Malchyif (c),while (c)andfor (...; c; ...)evaluatec, but at present only the first one lets you access the result of this expression. The other two are throwing away this information, which violates the principle that you should not throw away results that were obtained as part of a computation. – Wallsnot breakstatement-block has the benefit of using existing keywords, for better backwards compatibility (and being strongly indicative of the conditions under which it runs). In C++ the use ofelsefor this would conflict with existing code a laif (...) for (...) ...; else .... – Matriarchybreakbyreturn. – Occasion