Does manually breaking early from a for loop make sense when testing if a linked list contains an item?
While following a basic tutorial, I'm faced with this function:
use std::collections::LinkedList;
// ...
pub fn contains(&self, x: i32, y: i32) -> bool {
let mut ch = 0;
let list: &LinkedList<Block> = &self.body;
for block in list {
if block.x == x && block.y == y {
return true;
}
ch += 1;
if ch == list.len() - 1 {
break;
}
}
return false;
}
It felt obvious that I could get rid of the whole if ch == list.len() - 1 part and write it like so:
pub fn contains(&self, x: i32, y: i32) -> bool {
for block in &self.body {
if block.x == x && block.y == y {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
It seems to work fine, but maybe there is something that I've missed? Is it just an unnecessary overhead that an author of the tutorial made by mistake?
rust for-in-loop
edited Nov 13 '18 at 2:50
Shepmaster
148k12282417
asked Nov 12 '18 at 22:35
streletss
2,080421
add a comment |
While following a basic tutorial, I'm faced with this function:
use std::collections::LinkedList;
// ...
pub fn contains(&self, x: i32, y: i32) -> bool {
let mut ch = 0;
let list: &LinkedList<Block> = &self.body;
for block in list {
if block.x == x && block.y == y {
return true;
}
ch += 1;
if ch == list.len() - 1 {
break;
}
}
return false;
}
It felt obvious that I could get rid of the whole if ch == list.len() - 1 part and write it like so:
pub fn contains(&self, x: i32, y: i32) -> bool {
for block in &self.body {
if block.x == x && block.y == y {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
It seems to work fine, but maybe there is something that I've missed? Is it just an unnecessary overhead that an author of the tutorial made by mistake?
rust for-in-loop
edited Nov 13 '18 at 2:50
Shepmaster
148k12282417
asked Nov 12 '18 at 22:35
streletss
2,080421
1
Is this theLinkedListfrom the standard library? If not, perhaps it is a circularly linked list that iterates infinitely by linking the tail to the head.
– Benjamin Lindley
Nov 12 '18 at 23:12
Yes, it is.use std::collections::LinkedList;
– streletss
Nov 12 '18 at 23:14
4
even betterself.body.iter().any(|block| block.x == x && block.y == y)
– Stargateur
Nov 13 '18 at 0:51
1
The presented code has numerous non-idiomatic aspects, so I would not trust that tutorial strongly.
– Shepmaster
Nov 13 '18 at 2:50
add a comment |
While following a basic tutorial, I'm faced with this function:
use std::collections::LinkedList;
// ...
pub fn contains(&self, x: i32, y: i32) -> bool {
let mut ch = 0;
let list: &LinkedList<Block> = &self.body;
for block in list {
if block.x == x && block.y == y {
return true;
}
ch += 1;
if ch == list.len() - 1 {
break;
}
}
return false;
}
It felt obvious that I could get rid of the whole if ch == list.len() - 1 part and write it like so:
pub fn contains(&self, x: i32, y: i32) -> bool {
for block in &self.body {
if block.x == x && block.y == y {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
It seems to work fine, but maybe there is something that I've missed? Is it just an unnecessary overhead that an author of the tutorial made by mistake?
rust for-in-loop
edited Nov 13 '18 at 2:50
Shepmaster
148k12282417
asked Nov 12 '18 at 22:35
streletss
2,080421
While following a basic tutorial, I'm faced with this function:
use std::collections::LinkedList;
// ...
pub fn contains(&self, x: i32, y: i32) -> bool {
let mut ch = 0;
let list: &LinkedList<Block> = &self.body;
for block in list {
if block.x == x && block.y == y {
return true;
}
ch += 1;
if ch == list.len() - 1 {
break;
}
}
return false;
}
It felt obvious that I could get rid of the whole if ch == list.len() - 1 part and write it like so:
pub fn contains(&self, x: i32, y: i32) -> bool {
for block in &self.body {
if block.x == x && block.y == y {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
It seems to work fine, but maybe there is something that I've missed? Is it just an unnecessary overhead that an author of the tutorial made by mistake?
rust for-in-loop
rust for-in-loop
edited Nov 13 '18 at 2:50
Shepmaster
148k12282417
asked Nov 12 '18 at 22:35
streletss
2,080421
edited Nov 13 '18 at 2:50
Shepmaster
148k12282417
asked Nov 12 '18 at 22:35
streletss
2,080421
edited Nov 13 '18 at 2:50
Shepmaster
148k12282417
edited Nov 13 '18 at 2:50
Shepmaster
148k12282417
edited Nov 13 '18 at 2:50
Shepmaster
148k12282417
148k12282417
asked Nov 12 '18 at 22:35
streletss
2,080421
asked Nov 12 '18 at 22:35
streletss
2,080421
asked Nov 12 '18 at 22:35
streletss
2,080421
2,080421
1
Is this theLinkedListfrom the standard library? If not, perhaps it is a circularly linked list that iterates infinitely by linking the tail to the head.
– Benjamin Lindley
Nov 12 '18 at 23:12
Yes, it is.use std::collections::LinkedList;
– streletss
Nov 12 '18 at 23:14
4
even betterself.body.iter().any(|block| block.x == x && block.y == y)
– Stargateur
Nov 13 '18 at 0:51
1
The presented code has numerous non-idiomatic aspects, so I would not trust that tutorial strongly.
– Shepmaster
Nov 13 '18 at 2:50
add a comment |
1
Is this theLinkedListfrom the standard library? If not, perhaps it is a circularly linked list that iterates infinitely by linking the tail to the head.
– Benjamin Lindley
Nov 12 '18 at 23:12
Yes, it is.use std::collections::LinkedList;
– streletss
Nov 12 '18 at 23:14
4
even betterself.body.iter().any(|block| block.x == x && block.y == y)
– Stargateur
Nov 13 '18 at 0:51
1
The presented code has numerous non-idiomatic aspects, so I would not trust that tutorial strongly.
– Shepmaster
Nov 13 '18 at 2:50
1
1
Is this the
LinkedList from the standard library? If not, perhaps it is a circularly linked list that iterates infinitely by linking the tail to the head.– Benjamin Lindley
Nov 12 '18 at 23:12
Is this the
LinkedList from the standard library? If not, perhaps it is a circularly linked list that iterates infinitely by linking the tail to the head.– Benjamin Lindley
Nov 12 '18 at 23:12
Yes, it is.
use std::collections::LinkedList;– streletss
Nov 12 '18 at 23:14
Yes, it is.
use std::collections::LinkedList;– streletss
Nov 12 '18 at 23:14
4
4
even better
self.body.iter().any(|block| block.x == x && block.y == y)– Stargateur
Nov 13 '18 at 0:51
even better
self.body.iter().any(|block| block.x == x && block.y == y)– Stargateur
Nov 13 '18 at 0:51
1
1
The presented code has numerous non-idiomatic aspects, so I would not trust that tutorial strongly.
– Shepmaster
Nov 13 '18 at 2:50
The presented code has numerous non-idiomatic aspects, so I would not trust that tutorial strongly.
– Shepmaster
Nov 13 '18 at 2:50
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
As written in the original 'tutorial' version, it doesn't seem to look at the last element. Consider a list of length 2 where the second element is the one you're looking for.
After the first comparison, ch becomes 1. It's now equal to the list length minus 1, so you break out of the loop just before the loop would (if executed one more time) find the last element.
That doesn't make much sense, so I conclude yours is not only shorter but correct.
answered Nov 13 '18 at 0:55
dave
1032
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53271083%2fdoes-manually-breaking-early-from-a-for-loop-make-sense-when-testing-if-a-linked%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
As written in the original 'tutorial' version, it doesn't seem to look at the last element. Consider a list of length 2 where the second element is the one you're looking for.
After the first comparison, ch becomes 1. It's now equal to the list length minus 1, so you break out of the loop just before the loop would (if executed one more time) find the last element.
That doesn't make much sense, so I conclude yours is not only shorter but correct.
answered Nov 13 '18 at 0:55
dave
1032
add a comment |
As written in the original 'tutorial' version, it doesn't seem to look at the last element. Consider a list of length 2 where the second element is the one you're looking for.
After the first comparison, ch becomes 1. It's now equal to the list length minus 1, so you break out of the loop just before the loop would (if executed one more time) find the last element.
That doesn't make much sense, so I conclude yours is not only shorter but correct.
answered Nov 13 '18 at 0:55
dave
1032
add a comment |
As written in the original 'tutorial' version, it doesn't seem to look at the last element. Consider a list of length 2 where the second element is the one you're looking for.
After the first comparison, ch becomes 1. It's now equal to the list length minus 1, so you break out of the loop just before the loop would (if executed one more time) find the last element.
That doesn't make much sense, so I conclude yours is not only shorter but correct.
answered Nov 13 '18 at 0:55
dave
1032
As written in the original 'tutorial' version, it doesn't seem to look at the last element. Consider a list of length 2 where the second element is the one you're looking for.
After the first comparison, ch becomes 1. It's now equal to the list length minus 1, so you break out of the loop just before the loop would (if executed one more time) find the last element.
That doesn't make much sense, so I conclude yours is not only shorter but correct.
answered Nov 13 '18 at 0:55
dave
1032
answered Nov 13 '18 at 0:55
dave
1032
answered Nov 13 '18 at 0:55
dave
1032
answered Nov 13 '18 at 0:55
dave
1032
1032
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53271083%2fdoes-manually-breaking-early-from-a-for-loop-make-sense-when-testing-if-a-linked%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Is this the
LinkedListfrom the standard library? If not, perhaps it is a circularly linked list that iterates infinitely by linking the tail to the head.– Benjamin Lindley
Nov 12 '18 at 23:12
Yes, it is.
use std::collections::LinkedList;– streletss
Nov 12 '18 at 23:14
4
even better
self.body.iter().any(|block| block.x == x && block.y == y)– Stargateur
Nov 13 '18 at 0:51
1
The presented code has numerous non-idiomatic aspects, so I would not trust that tutorial strongly.
– Shepmaster
Nov 13 '18 at 2:50