Redundancy in "if (x == TRUE)" | /en/2017/09/redundancy-in-if-x-true/

yihui 2022-12-17 01:27:50

Redundancy in "if (x == TRUE)"

https://yihui.org/en/2017/09/redundancy-in-if-x-true/

2 Comments

giscus-bot 2022-12-17 01:27:51

Guest *Blackwell Rao Rao* @ 2017-09-11 21:07:32 originally posted:

Nice post. Is therer an impact in the efficiency of the code???

yihui 2022-12-17 01:27:53

I believe the impact should be negligible in most cases. The correct answer is always to measure instead of guessing, though (e.g., microbenchmark::microbenchmark()).

Originally posted on 2017-09-11 21:48:43

giscus-bot 2022-12-17 01:27:52

Guest *Rahul Sangole* @ 2017-09-12 23:05:08 originally posted:

Hah, I'm nit-picky like this in the code I see at work! Glad there are others out there too. Some say one suffers from a case of 'purist' tendencies, but I believe it makes the code more readable.

I struggle with 4. I like both snake_case as well as camelCase. One involves less typing (no _), however when there are longer names, it's easier_to_read_snake_case than it is toReadCamelCase, isn't it?

yihui 2022-12-17 01:27:54

I try my very best to use at most two underscores when naming my functions (in most cases, I try to use a single word or two words). As you said, typing a lot of underscores is not fun, although this issue can be solved by autocomplete.

Originally posted on 2017-09-13 03:35:54