A reusable variable: still good to define in the scope that uses it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SlurrerOfSpeech
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Scope Variable
Click For Summary
Defining a variable within the scope of its use, such as inside a loop, is generally considered best practice for clarity and to adhere to the principle of least privilege. However, some argue that declaring the variable outside the loop can enhance efficiency by avoiding repeated initialization. Despite these claims, both approaches yield the same compiled output, making the first method preferable for readability. Additionally, initializing variables outside of loops can prevent undefined behavior if the loop might not execute. Overall, prioritizing clear code and proper variable scope is essential in programming.
SlurrerOfSpeech
Messages
141
Reaction score
11
I'll give you an example.

Let's say I have a snippet of code like

Code:
   while(*s2)
   {
       char* c = s1;
       while(*c++==*s2++);
       if(!*c)
       {
          flag=true;
          break;
       }
       else
       {
          flag=false;
       }
   }

(which is a real snippet of code I have).

One might alternatively write it like

Code:
    char* c;
   while(*s2)
   {
       c = s1;
       while(*c++==*s2++);
       if(!*c)
       {
          flag=true;
          break;
       }
       else
       {
          flag=false;
       }
   }

The main argument I can see for the first way is

"The variable c is only used in the while loop and therefore should be defined there as best practice."

The main argument I can see for the second way is

"It's equiavlent and more efficient because you don't have to initialize c during every iteration of the while loop."

What are your thoughts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Technology news on Phys.org
SlurrerOfSpeech said:
The main argument I can see for the second way is

"It's equiavlent and more efficient because you don't have to initialize c during every iteration of the while loop."
This is not a correct statement. In both cases, what changes is where c is declared, not initialized. After compilation, there will be no difference between the two pieces of code. The first approach is preferable.
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
You can verify DrClaude's claim easily at http://gcc.godbolt.org/. It is a very convenient tool for showing how your code maps to the machine.

(In many cases, it will also show just how much work your compiler does for you. This can give you confidence in writing the clearest code you can think of, and leaving micro-optimization to the compiler. It's usually much better at it than you. Modern optimizing compilers are remarkable.)
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker and DrClaude
The only advantage for c being defined outside of the loop is if you need to reference later on outside of the loop.

In either case, the code you've shown gives me a headache as you have to remember the operator precedence for the more arcane C operators and its easy to get it wrong. I especially hate the expression: *c++==*s2++
 
  • Like
Likes Samy_A
jedishrfu said:
I especially hate the expression: *c++==*s2++
Good lord. Yeah, at least get some parenthesis in there.Uhh... your code is incorrect. That can also go pass the null terminator easily if the strings are the same length.
 
  • Like
Likes jedishrfu
DrClaude said:
This is not a correct statement. In both cases, what changes is where c is declared, not initialized. After compilation, there will be no difference between the two pieces of code. The first approach is preferable.

Sorry, the mord I meant to use is instantiated.
 
jedishrfu said:
The only advantage for c being defined outside of the loop is if you need to reference later on outside of the loop
Bad idea, I could cause that to give you undefined behavior by setting s2 = ""; If your planning on using something outside of a loop that may run 0-n times, you should always initialize it. I like to initialize my variables outside of loops even if I'm 100% sure it'll run at least once, it prevents me from messing things up if I refactor it later.
 
Hint: smashing things together in one line of code is all of these: cool, hard to read, more prone to problems.
So, what do you gain: cool? Not cool actually.

Quite simply: Don't do that. The compiler will undo it anyway. Follow the advice @Integrand gave you.

Plus I would suggest very strongly that you learn the standard C library, one member of which does what it appears your code :nb) tries to do.
See if you can tell us which one that is. Try the string section, you know strcmp() and friends.
 
It is a question of the well known software engineering "least privilege" principle: at every function or construct for procedural code and their counterparts in OOP, you must always give a variable the least chance to be modified by the rest of your code or so to speak, you always have to begin in local scope and expand to the "outside" only for very good reasons.
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
  • #10
newjerseyrunner said:
Bad idea, I could cause that to give you undefined behavior by setting s2 = ""; If your planning on using something outside of a loop that may run 0-n times, you should always initialize it. I like to initialize my variables outside of loops even if I'm 100% sure it'll run at least once, it prevents me from messing things up if I refactor it later.

I didn't mean not to initialize it only that if you need it later then you promote it to the next higher scope. I figured it wasn't apparent as often posters don't post all of their code.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
6K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K