在我的第一次代码评审中(不久前),有人告诉我,在所有switch语句中包含一个default子句是一种很好的实践。我最近想起了这个建议,但不记得理由是什么了。现在我听起来很奇怪。

是否有一个合理的理由总是包含默认语句? 这是语言依赖吗?我不记得当时我在用什么语言了——也许这适用于一些语言而不是其他语言?


当前回答

No.

如果没有默认操作,那么上下文就很重要了。如果你只关心几个价值怎么办?

以读取游戏按键为例

switch(a)
{
   case 'w':
     // Move Up
     break;
   case 's':
     // Move Down
     break;
   case 'a':
     // Move Left
     break;
   case 'd':
     // Move Right
     break;
}

添加:

default: // Do nothing

只是浪费时间,毫无理由地增加了代码的复杂性。

其他回答

这取决于switch在特定语言中的工作方式,但是在大多数语言中,当没有匹配到case时,switch语句的执行就会毫无警告地结束。想象一下,你期望得到一组值,并在switch中处理它们,然而你在输入中得到了另一个值。什么都没发生,你也不知道什么都没发生。如果您发现了违约情况,您就会知道有问题。

“switch”语句应该总是包含一个默认子句吗?不。它通常应该包含一个默认值。

包含默认子句只有在它需要做某些事情时才有意义,比如断言错误条件或提供默认行为。包括一个“仅仅因为”是狂热的节目,没有任何价值。这相当于说所有的“if”语句都应该包含一个“else”。

下面是一个毫无意义的小例子:

void PrintSign(int i)
{
    switch (Math.Sign(i))
    {
    case 1:
        Console.Write("positive ");
        break;
    case -1:
        Console.Write("negative ");
        break;
    default: // useless
    }
    Console.Write("integer");
}

这相当于:

void PrintSign(int i)
{
    int sgn = Math.Sign(i);
    if (sgn == 1)
        Console.Write("positive ");
    else if (sgn == -1)
        Console.Write("negative ");
    else // also useless
    {
    }
    Console.Write("integer");
}

我不同意上面Vanwaril投票最多的回答。

任何代码都会增加复杂性。此外,还必须为此进行测试和文档编制。所以用更少的代码编程总是好的。我的观点是,我对非穷举switch语句使用default子句,而对穷举switch语句不使用default子句。为了确保我做对了,我使用了静态代码分析工具。让我们来详细了解一下:

Nonexhaustive switch statements: Those should always have a default value. As the name suggests those are statements which do not cover all possible values. This also might not be possible, e.g. a switch statement on an integer value or on a String. Here I would like to use the example of Vanwaril (It should be mentioned that I think he used this example to make a wrong suggestion. I use it here to state the opposite --> Use a default statement): switch(keystroke) { case 'w': // move up case 'a': // move left case 's': // move down case 'd': // move right default: // cover all other values of the non-exhaustive switch statement } The player could press any other key. Then we could not do anything (this can be shown in the code just by adding a comment to the default case) or it should for example print something on the screen. This case is relevant as it may happen. Exhaustive switch statements: Those switch statements cover all possible values, e.g. a switch statement on an enumeration of grade system types. When developing code the first time it is easy to cover all values. However, as we are humans there is a small chance to forget some. Additionally if you add an enum value later such that all switch statements have to be adapted to make them exhaustive again opens the path to error hell. The simple solution is a static code analysis tool. The tool should check all switch statements and check if they are exhaustive or if they have a default value. Here an example for an exhaustive switch statement. First we need an enum: public enum GradeSystemType {System1To6, SystemAToD, System0To100} Then we need a variable of this enum like GradeSystemType type = .... An exhaustive switch statement would then look like this: switch(type) { case GradeSystemType.System1To6: // do something case GradeSystemType.SystemAToD: // do something case GradeSystemType.System0To100: // do something } So if we extend the GradeSystemType by for example System1To3 the static code analysis tool should detect that there is no default clause and the switch statement is not exhaustive so we are save.

还有一件事。如果我们总是使用默认子句,那么静态代码分析工具可能无法检测穷尽性或非穷尽性switch语句,因为它总是检测到默认子句。这是非常糟糕的,因为如果我们将枚举扩展为另一个值,并且忘记将其添加到一个switch语句中,我们将不会得到通知。

enum所使用的开关可能不需要默认大小写。当switch包含所有值时,默认情况将永远不会执行。所以在这种情况下,这是不必要的。

在某些情况下,没有默认情况实际上是有益的。

If your switch cases are enums values, by not having a default case, you can get a compiler warning if you are missing any cases. That way, if new enum values are added in the future and you forget to add cases for these values in the switch, you can find out about the problem at compile time. You should still make sure the code takes appropriate action for unhandled values, in case an invalid value was cast to the enum type. So this may work best for simple cases where you can return within the enum case rather than break.

enum SomeEnum
{
    ENUM_1,
    ENUM_2,
    // More ENUM values may be added in future
};

int foo(SomeEnum value)
{
    switch (value)
    {
    case ENUM_1:
        return 1;
    case ENUM_2:
        return 2;
    }
    // handle invalid values here
    return 0;
 }