ES.87 (redundant == or !=) Add my_condition == true example
#2185
Conversation
Code like `if (my_condition == true)` does occasionally occur "in the wild", so it seems worth adding this as an example.
|
Editors call: Thanks! We agree with the intent of the example, but we think this is stated in the rule title and description. The reason there is a pointer example is that case might be less obvious from the title and description. |
|
@hsutter OK, no problem, thanks for reviewing my pull request! There are still lots of |
| @@ -13281,6 +13281,10 @@ Helps make style consistent and conventional. | |||
| By definition, a condition in an `if`-statement, `while`-statement, or a `for`-statement selects between `true` and `false`. | |||
| A numeric value is compared to `0` and a pointer value to `nullptr`. | |||
|
|
|||
| // Assuming that "my_condition" is a `bool` variable | |||
| if (my_condition) { ... } // good | |||
| if (my_condition == true) { ... } // redundant ==true, not recommended | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would have been better if you had another example:
if (true == my_condition) { ... } // redundant but preferred if it must be specified
Reason being - some like myself prefer to have the redundancy obvious - being explicit over implicit. However, having the true as the l-value and the variable as the r-value prevents errors with = vs == from happening.
So there should be a middle ground between the implicit my_condition and the explicit.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@BenjamenMeyer Thank you for your suggestion. I know that if (true == my_condition) would prevent an accidental assignment, that would happen when doing if (my_condition = true), accidentally. But honestly, I still prefer to have the "unknown" (the variable) at the left side, and the "known value" (the constant) at the right side, because I find it more intuitive.
Code like
if (my_condition == true)does occasionally occur "in the wild", so it seems worth adding this as an example.