1–7 of 7 posts
Tiny Little Elevator Simulator (Qt)
aminbandali.com
Just looking at elevator.cpp briefly, it seems like some comments are unnecessary, e.g., stating that the constructor is the constructor. Also, I was confused by the switch statement that took a boolean and had a case for true and false. Why didn't you use an if statement?
This is what I made in about 5 hours (java)
https://gist.github.com/brambram/6261967
(it was made in 2 sessions, in the 2nd session we had to expand the elevator code so it supported 2D movement)
We had to make this as a "practicum" in our computer science class. This is what I made in about 5 hours (java) https://gist.github.com/brambram/6261967 (it was made in 2 sessions, in the 2nd session we had to expand the elevator code so it supported 2D movement)
Just looking at elevator.cpp briefly, it seems like some comments are unnecessary, e.g., stating that the constructor is the constructor. Also, I was confused by the switch statement that took a boolean and had a case for true and false. Why didn't you use an if statement?
You know, it never occurred to me to do that, but I think there may be times when that would be a clearer idiom than an if statement (as long as you put "default:" immediately after "case true:"). I always feel like the order of clauses in an if-else gives a sense of privilege to whichever case is handled first, but there's less of that sense with a switch statement.
In particular, I think it might be a good alternative to conditionals on non-boolean arguments. For example, instead of:
if(countDown) {
countDown--;
} else {
blastOff();
}
switch (countDown) {
case 0:
blastOff();
break;
default:
countDown--;
}This isn't a dig at the poster; it just sparked some memories.