/prog/ - shortened if

Name: Suddenly, Bananas 2013-02-10 14:26

Do any languages allow you to shorten an if statement like this:
if (test == a || test == b || test == c || test == d)
to something like this:
[code]if (test == a || b || c || d)
?

Name: Suddenly, Bananas 2013-02-10 14:27

Forgot a code tag....

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:29

The second if would be interpreted as:
if test is equal to a, or b is true, or c is true, or d is true

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:29

(case test

  ((a b c d)

    (display "Haxus mein anuum.")

    (newline)))

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:31

>>3
Yes fucking obviously, >>1 was asking whether there existed some syntax similar to that which matched the semantics of the first expression.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:33

>>5
No, because that would be fucking retarded and illogical.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:36

>>6
Get out of my /frague/, cretinous fagshitoid.

Name: Suddenly, Bananas 2013-02-10 14:37

So maybe it would make more sense using something like this:
if (test == (a || b || c || d))

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:37

CRETINANUS

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:40

JEWS

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:54

(define (faggot-predicate  c . l)

    (foldl (λ (v i) (or i (= v c))) #f l))

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:31

>>8
Not in any language that will ever exist.
>>11
Where's your short circuiting?

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 17:52

[a, b, c, d].indexOf(test) >= 0

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 18:02

(cond) is as close as it gets

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 18:13

if(test == (c = (a || b || c || d)))

I think that should work in C?

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 18:17

[code]if test in [a, b, c, d]:
print 'FIOC wins again'

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 18:18

>>16

if test in [a, b, c, d]:

    print 'ONE WORD FORCED INDENTATION OF THE CODE /CODE'

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 18:29

>>15
Kill yourself or learn how the language features you're trying to use actually work

>>13,16,17
Instantiate an array just to test a few values. Wonderful!

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 18:38

>>18
Instantiate an array just to test a few values. Wonderful!
The optimizer takes care of that.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 18:52

>>19
"The optimizer"?

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 19:03

>>20
Yeah, the Python compiler's optimizer. It takes care of things like that.

>>> def f(x,a,b,c,d):

...  if x in [a,b,c,d]:

...   return 'FIOC'

... 

>>> dis.dis(f)

  2           0 LOAD_FAST                0 (x)

              3 LOAD_FAST                1 (a)

              6 COMPARE_OP               2 (==)

              9 POP_JUMP_IF_TRUE        48

             12 LOAD_FAST                0 (x)

             15 LOAD_FAST                2 (b)

             18 COMPARE_OP               2 (==)

             21 POP_JUMP_IF_TRUE        48

             24 LOAD_FAST                0 (x)

             27 LOAD_FAST                3 (c)

             30 COMPARE_OP               2 (==)

             33 POP_JUMP_IF_TRUE        48

             36 LOAD_FAST                0 (x)

             39 LOAD_FAST                4 (d)

             42 COMPARE_OP               2 (==)

             45 POP_JUMP_IF_FALSE       52



  3     >>   48 LOAD_CONST               1 ('FIOC')

             51 RETURN_VALUE        

        >>   52 LOAD_CONST               0 (None)

             55 RETURN_VALUE

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 19:05

>>21
Python compiler
lel

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 19:08

Uh Earth to Troll, like, python's compiler is non-optimizing, ideeot.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 19:19

>>23
then explain >>21

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 20:07

>>24
Unrolling a constant array lookup is hardly 'optimising'

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 20:12

>>25
The point was to prove >>18 wrong.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 20:33

>>26
Well then well done for mutating the point beyond recognition.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 20:34

>>26
Also I bet the point still stands for Javashit.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 20:52

Perl 6's Junctions are exactly this.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Perl_6_Programming/Junctions

shortened if

1 Name: Suddenly, Bananas 2013-02-10 14:26

2 Name: Suddenly, Bananas 2013-02-10 14:27

3 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:29

4 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:29

5 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:31

6 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:33

7 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:36

8 Name: Suddenly, Bananas 2013-02-10 14:37

9 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:37

10 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:40

11 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:54

12 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:31

13 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 17:52

14 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 18:02

15 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 18:13

16 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 18:17

17 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 18:18

18 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 18:29

19 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 18:38

20 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 18:52

21 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 19:03

22 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 19:05

23 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 19:08

24 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 19:19

25 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 20:07

26 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 20:12

27 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 20:33

28 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 20:34

29 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 20:52

Name: Suddenly, Bananas 2013-02-10 14:26

Name: Suddenly, Bananas 2013-02-10 14:27

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:29

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:29

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:31

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:33

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:36

Name: Suddenly, Bananas 2013-02-10 14:37

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:37

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:40

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 14:54

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 15:31

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 17:52

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 18:02

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 18:13

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 18:17

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 18:18

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 18:29

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 18:38

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 18:52

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 19:03

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 19:05

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 19:08

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 19:19

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 20:07

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 20:12

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 20:33

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 20:34

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-10 20:52