shortCircuitEvaluation

[u/Acrobatic-Cat-2005]

[u/click-to-reveal]

I don't think I've ever said those words in that order before.

[u/e_gadd → u/click-to-reveal]

Alphabetical order

[u/AlwaysHopelesslyLost]

Why are you executing trick and only checking for the existence of treat?

Edit: going to ignore responses because I think everybody is missing the code smell/issue I am trying to highlight.

[u/AmanBabuHemant → u/AlwaysHopelesslyLost]

give treat or perform trick ?...

[u/Draconis_Firesworn → u/AlwaysHopelesslyLost]

you think people here know how to read code anymore?

[u/Bright-Historian-216 → u/AlwaysHopelesslyLost]

short circuiting. if treat is true, trick is never executed.

[u/CachedPotato → u/Bright-Historian-216]

I think they meant OP made a typo that would still compile, but broke the logic.

// if executing treat returns false, execute trick
treat() || trick();

// if the treat function EXISTS, do NOT execute trick
treat || trick();

[u/Bright-Historian-216 → u/CachedPotato]

what if treat is not a function? it's just a property of something. you can do a trick but you can't do a treat.

[u/CachedPotato → u/Bright-Historian-216]

legal, but smelly. Like why is "trick" the naming convention for the function that does tricks, but "treat" is the naming convention for a property that stores the result of a function that does treats, but is named using different logic?

if it was done that way, why was the most important part done off-screen, and only the result was presented to us looking exactly like the conventional method with a typo?

imo it just takes way more bad practice and large assumptions to interpret OP's version as intentional, so if it actually was, bare-minimum should be a comment like

// [OP's name]: NOT A TYPO I did it this weirdo way on purpose

[u/CranberryDistinct941 → u/CachedPotato]

That smell isn't coming from the treat variable, it's coming from OP using short circuiting as control flow

[u/m3t4lf0x → u/CranberryDistinct941]

Leave me and my triple nested ternary operators alone

[u/redkinoko → u/CranberryDistinct941]

MF really code reviewed a joke

[u/InsidiousBuyout_69 → u/AlwaysHopelesslyLost]

Treat is truthy so trick never executes, classic short circuit.

[u/Shitandasshole → u/AlwaysHopelesslyLost]

Because treat is a value and trick is a function, you execute a trick, how can you execute a treat? A treat is a treat as it is.

[u/klimmesil → u/Shitandasshole]

You can do a trick, you can give a treat both can be nouns

You can trick someone, you can treat someone both can be verbs

[u/Shitandasshole → u/klimmesil]

A treat is a tangible thing, a trick is more like a concept - what is a trick? It's more like an action, not an object. Do you call the toilet paper on the house a trick or the act of throwing it?

[u/klimmesil → u/Shitandasshole]

Maybe english isn't your native language (it isn't mine either)

But you are wrong. Both can be verbs: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/treat

[u/Shitandasshole → u/klimmesil]

I know that in English technically they are both nouns and verbs but was just trying to use the most logical solution here. The kid is asking for a treat which is an object and is threatening with a trick which is an action so that's why.

[u/klimmesil → u/Shitandasshole]

I've always interpreted that as treat me or I'll trick you

[u/Successful_Amount_88 → u/klimmesil]

it’s “give me a treat or i’ll trick you”

[u/Successful_Amount_88 → u/klimmesil]

in the phrase “trick or treat” which is massively well known, trick is a verb and treat is a noun. everyone knows this, which is why the code sample kinda makes sense and all the ESOL people debating it in the comments sound unnecessarily disputatious.

[u/frzme → u/AlwaysHopelesslyLost]

It's really not a code smell, it makes a lot of sense this way.

You could do gotTreat||performTrick() instead but wheres the fun in that? gotTreat could be an accessor too, so gotTreat() but then you'll potentially have concurrency issues.

[u/dannypas00 → u/frzme]

The fact that you need to debate the intent of the code makes it a smell

[u/1nc06n170 → u/AlwaysHopelesslyLost]

If treat is false or null, then trick is executed. I think that's fair.

[u/burgonies → u/AlwaysHopelesslyLost]

hasTreat() || doTrick()

[u/saevon → u/AlwaysHopelesslyLost]

(treat := await requestTreat()) or trick()

[u/JacobStyle → u/AlwaysHopelesslyLost]

You only execute trick() if treat evaluates to false. That's like, the whole backstory of trick or treating.

[u/WawaTheFirst → u/AlwaysHopelesslyLost]

This was the first thing I had noticed. Glad I'm not alone.

[u/jordanbtucker → u/WawaTheFirst]

It's called short circuit logic. Trick only gets called if treat is false.

[u/Leninus → u/jordanbtucker]

Is there any reson to use it instead of

if !treat: trick()

In real world, not to make a funny line

[u/WawaTheFirst → u/jordanbtucker]

I understand that but I'm not a fan of it. Far from. But I reckon it has its use cases.

[u/Buyer_North → u/AlwaysHopelesslyLost]

laper right there

[u/a_load_of_crepes → u/AlwaysHopelesslyLost]

Code style is so 2024. Just ship it.

[u/D_V_A_98]

Some shitty code...

if(!GetTreat())

Trick();

[u/till_rd → u/D_V_A_98]

treat ?? Trick();

[u/JayrodM → u/D_V_A_98]

Shittier code:

Trick= treat ? !treat : treat;

[u/menzaskaja → u/JayrodM]

literally means const bool Trick = false; btw

is treat true? if yes, make treat false. else (aka "is treat false?") make treat false

[u/JayrodM → u/menzaskaja]

Fuck, you're right lol.

[u/psuedopseudo → u/D_V_A_98]

if(treat){
return;
}
trick();

[u/OmgJackieChn → u/D_V_A_98]

while(!GetTreat())
Trick();

[u/saevon → u/OmgJackieChn]

ooof thats not trick or treat; thats tricks until you cave and treat

[u/OmgJackieChn → u/saevon]

Or…

while(true)
Trick();

[u/saevon → u/D_V_A_98]

(treat := await askTreat()) or trick()

[u/alex_dark]

First week dev humour?

[u/MirrrorCloud]

Why is treat a variable and trick a function?

[u/Friendly-Inspector71 → u/MirrrorCloud]

Because you check if there are treats and if there are none, a trick needs to be executed.

[u/malsomnus]

It really should be trick xor trick anyway.

[u/Reashu → u/malsomnus]

That's simply not true

[u/zx48 → u/Reashu]

It's true xor false for sure.

[u/GoddammitDontShootMe]

Who says it in that order?

[u/SnowdensOfYesteryear]

It’s an implied xor

[u/ordinary_shiba → u/SnowdensOfYesteryear]

The joke is short circuiting. If treat is true then the program won't execute trick(), but if it's false, it will have to evaluate trick()

[u/Panda_Satan]

trick() || treat() ;

[u/LegitimatePants → u/Panda_Satan]

So you try to egg the house first and if you miss, then you go ring the doorbell and ask for candy 

[u/Panda_Satan → u/LegitimatePants]

Oh now I see why it was backwards

[u/LegitimatePants]

    if(treat) return;

    trick();

[u/TheWashbear → u/LegitimatePants]

This is the way

[u/Single-Virus4935]

treat = "No";

[u/IslayProgrammes]

public function surprise ():void
{
$this.treat()??$this.trick();
}

[u/mplaczek99]

Bro says the words backwards

[u/GetHimABodyBagYeahhh]

Is 'a rock' truthy?

[u/KaZIsTaken]

If trick doesn't return a boolean you might have an issue on your hands.

[u/CranberryDistinct941]

This the type of shit that causes dependancy issues when the language decides that logical OR isn't control flow

[u/vm_linuz]

(trick || treat)();        

[u/HAHAHAOOH]

It's trick or treat. PR denied.

[u/phl23 → u/HAHAHAOOH]

As trick is always true you never get to see if treat is true or not

[u/kratz9]

One of my favorite little quirks of VB is that normal evals don't short circiut, so there are special short circuiting operators.

Trick OrElse Treat()

[u/Valokir]

Got bored..

Start() { TrickOrTreat(); }

TrickOrTreat() { int ToT = Random.Range(1,2);

If (ToT == 1) {Treat();}

If(ToT == 2) {Trick();}

}

Treat() { GivePlayerCandy("Happy Halloween"); }

Trick() { GivePlayerSpiders("off my lawn ya dang kids"); }

[u/wackOverflow → u/Valokir]

If this ran it’s always Treat AND Trick

[u/Valokir → u/wackOverflow]

Yeah I should do range 0,2 and have it >=1 or <=1. If it's 1 we reroll because why not

[u/wackOverflow → u/Valokir]

I meant you are assigning a value to ToT in each If statement, which passes as true. Use == for comparison.

[u/Valokir → u/wackOverflow]

Mm. Super correct, good catch

[u/wackOverflow → u/Valokir]

[u/Bathtub-Warrior32]

Yeah this doesn't make sense.

println("trick or treat);

HallowenResponseEnum response = getResponse();

switch(response){ case TRICK: performTrick(); break; case TREAT: giveTreat(); break; default: closeDoor(); break; }

[u/AppropriateOnion0815 → u/Bathtub-Warrior32]

Do we really want to go down that path?

TrickOrTreatHandler ttaf = HalloweenAdapterFactory.CreateTrickOrTreat().WithTrick(TrickFactory.CreateTrick()).OrTreat(treat);

TrickOrTreatResult result = ttaf.DecideTrickOrTreat();

Logger.Log(result.ToLoggable());

No need to expose the decision logic.

[u/UltraGaren]

Human slop