Clientside Swear Filter

[Gambet]

Originally Posted by Tigairius

That's correct, Java's switch() statements only allow ints, but that doesn't mean I should model my code after the standards Java runs. You may notice that GScript2 utilizes strings much differently than most coding languages. Following that logic I should also declare all of my variables before using them even though they're automatically declared when they're not equal to NULL.

Not true, Java's switch() does not only allow ints (it also allows char, byte, and short types), and for that matter, switch() works the same in just about every other popular language (such as C++ which was used largely in making Graal).

I'm not saying you shouldn't use strings in switch() statements on Graal, I'm just pointing out that other languages wouldn't allow you to do that. Regardless, though, I still feel that it was quite unnecessary in this case.

Originally Posted by Tigairius

It really isn't necessary for this... if someone said filteron and it was currently on it would just switch it off. An extra line or two really isn't a big deal in my opinion.

I agree that it isn't so important for this example, but when you're dealing with large scripts (such as the code for Windows that is well past millions of lines), it is quite important to shorten the number of lines as much as possible. Just a general tip.

[Loriel]

Originally Posted by Gambet

Not true, Java's switch() does not only allow ints (it also allows char, byte, and short types), and for that matter, switch() works the same in just about every other popular language (such as C++ which was used largely in making Graal).

All the languages that do switch statements and only allow you switch on integral types do that on account of having copied the syntax pretty much verbatim from C.

D lets you switch on strings, perl does not let you switch at all unless you write your own switchiness, ruby lets you switch on pretty much goddamn anything that defines an operator for matching a switch case. In Haskell and Nemerle, a switch-like structure is the basic low-level control structure and works for everything as well.

Regardless, though, I still feel that it was quite unnecessary in this case.

I think it is purely a matter of style, here. Checking a variable against a sequence of values looks neater if you do not have to repeat the "variable ==" over and over, but all the break;s are pretty annoying too, I guess.

I agree that it isn't so important for this example, but when you're dealing with large scripts (such as the code for Windows that is well past millions of lines), it is quite important to shorten the number of lines as much as possible. Just a general tip.

No, generally you want to make sure your code is as readable and maintainable as possible. The number of lines should only enter it a whole lot after that.

[cbk1994]

Originally Posted by Loriel

No, generally you want to make sure your code is as readable and maintainable as possible. The number of lines should only enter it a whole lot after that.

I agree.