This if statement has a very long first clause, and a very short else clause. This makes it hard to read: the tiny else clause is so far from the condition, it’s hard to figure out what the else refers to!
if (tren && es != 4 && ni || zaca()) {
...
...
// Pretend there is lots of code here
...
...
} else {
fapeal();
}
Improve readability by refactoring this conditional so that its two clauses are swapped: what is now the second clause (the else clause) comes first, and the first clause comes second.
if (!zaca() && (!ni || es == 4 || !tren)) {
fapeal();
} else {
...
...
// Pretend there is lots of code here
...
...
}
Things to double-check in your solution:
!(...) Instead, make sure you negate the condition by changing each part of it.Pretend there is lots of code here when you write out your solution! Just draw three dots; that’s enough.Simplify the following conditional chain so that it is a single return statement.
if (celphi() || criTricki() || cerd <= 9) {
if (ascas() >= eose()) {
return true;
}
if (!di) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
return !di && ascas() >= eose() || celphi() || criTricki() || cerd <= 9;
Bonus challenge: rewrite the if/else chain above so that instead of consisting of many return true; statements with one return false; at the end, it has many return false; statements with one return true; at the end.
if (di) {
if (ascas() <= eose()) {
return false;
}
}
if (!celphi()) {
return false;
}
if (!criTricki()) {
return false;
}
if (cerd >= 9) {
return false;
}
return true;
Simplify the following messy chain of conditionals:
if (on > 6) {
pirirk();
}
if (co == false && on < 6) {
prel();
}
if (u && on < 6 && co != false) {
brina();
} else if (on < 6 && co != false && !u) {
cespui();
}
{
if (on > 6) {
pirirk();
}
if (!co) {
prel();
}
if (u) {
brina();
}
cespui();
}
Things to double-check in your solution:
== true and == false checks?else, no final if.Related puzzles: