We Keep Coding

Re-writing code to remove conditional statements

Is it possible to re-write the following so that it doesn't contain any conditional statements? I'm thinking there might be some clever trick using something like bitwise operations?
int a = // some value
int b = // some other value between 0 and max int
if(b >= 3)
{
return a + 1;
}
else
{
return a;
}
EDIT: to be clear, I'm not looking for a generic way of removing conditionals. I'm looking for a trick to remove the conditionals from this very specific code. Think of it as an academic puzzle.
To give an example, one way to remove conditionals (which happens to yield perf gains in some situations) is to precompute a lookup table and index into that with b instead. In this particular case this is tricky because b could be a very large number. Is there another way?

Here you go
return a - ((2 - b) >> 31);
Explanation:
r = 2 - b, < 0 (i.e. high bit set) for b >= 3
r >> 31, = -1 for b >= 3, 0 otherwise

uint a = // some value
uint b = // some other value between 0 and max int
bool c = b & 0xFFFC
return a + Convert.ToInt32(c);
The fastest will probably be as bitwise operations tend to be very fast
uint a = // some value
uint b = // some other value between 0 and max int
return (b & 0xFFFC) ? a+1 : a;

You could make it better by doing this:
int a = // some value
int b = // some other value between 0 and max int
return (b >= 3) ? (a+1) : a;

?: operator. (but yet it contains conditional statement.)
return b >= 3 ? a + 1 : a;
or
return a + (b >= 3 ? 1 : 0);
Is it possible to re-write the following so that it doesn't contain any conditional statements?
It is not possible to make it work out of no where. you must check this condition any way. There is no magic.
If you want to make your program faster by removing this condition then you picked wrong way. this is micro optimization.

Or in IF statement not working properly

I have this Or condition in an IF statement (in a foreach loop) in a Windows Form C# program:
if ((splittedFile.Count() != 3) || (splittedFile.Count() != 4))
continue;
and it always does continue, even if splittedFile.Count() is 3 or 4.
The thing is that if I remove the Or condition:
if ((splittedFile.Count() != 4))
continue;
it works properly!! Any ideas why?

This is the correct behavior, you need to use &&.
The reason is that the count is fixed number, let's say n. Now the condition reads:
n is not 3 or n is not 4.
Given n is 4, this means it is not 3, thus the test succeeds and vice versa.
A compiler can't detect this is trivially true, because between the two if statements, the Count() might change (for instance in a multithreading setting where the second thread would add/remove something to/from the collection). I agree however some analysis tools could be capable in some conditions to detect such trivial behavior. In general however such analysis can't be implemented because of Rice's theorem.
If you use &&, the expression reads:
n is not 3 and n is not 4.
Thus both conditions should be true. In other words only if n is less than three and greater than 4, the condition holds.

Try:
if ((splittedFile.Count() != 3) && (splittedFile.Count() != 4))
continue;
I know || sound logical because : if splittedFile.count is not 3 OR it is not 4 then continue; But because there are 2 NOT ! operators in the if expression an AND && is needed.

put a real number into your expression:
if( 3 != 3 || 3 != 4)
which is
if( false || true )
your expression will always be true, as splittedFile.Count() is always (not 3) or (not 4)
you want to && your results together, which looks like
(x != 3) || (x != 4)
or
!( x == 3 || x == 4)

Because one of your expressions will be always true. That's why true || something always returns true.
Let's analyze your splittedFile.Count() is 3, 4 and other than these values.
For 3, your expression will be false || true and this returns true.
For 4, your expression will be true || false and this returns true.
For other than 3 or 4, your expression will be true || true and this returns true.
Strongly suspect you are looking for && operator which provides logical-AND.

Floored integer division

Is there an easy, efficient and correct (i.e. not involving conversions to/from double) way to do floored integer division (like e.g. Python offers) in C#.
In other words, an efficient version of the following, that does not suffer from long/double conversion losses.
(long)(Math.Floor((double) a / b))
or does one have to implement it oneself, like e.g.
static long FlooredIntDiv(long a, long b)
{
if (a < 0)
{
if (b > 0)
return (a - b + 1) / b;
// if (a == long.MinValue && b == -1) // see *) below
// throw new OverflowException();
}
else if (a > 0)
{
if (b < 0)
return (a - b - 1) / b;
}
return a / b;
}
*) Although the C# 4 spec of the Division operator leaves it open whether OverflowException is raised inside unchecked, in reality it does throw (on my system) and the Visual Studio .NET 2003 version even mandated it throw:
If the left operand is the smallest representable int or long value and the right operand is –1, [..] System.OverflowException is always thrown in this situation, regardless of whether the operation occurs in a checked or an unchecked context.
Edit
The crossed out statements about checked and unchecked are all nice and well, but checked is in fact only a compile time concept, so whether my function should wrap around or throw is up to me anyway, regardless of whether code calling the function is inside checked or not.

You can try this:
if (((a < 0) ^ (b < 0)) && (a % b != 0))
{
return (a/b - 1);
}
else
{
return (a/b);
}
Edit (after some discussions in comments below):
Without using if-else, I would go like this:
return (a/b - Convert.ToInt32(((a < 0) ^ (b < 0)) && (a % b != 0)));
Note: Convert.ToIn32(bool value) also needs a jump, see implemention of the method:
return value? Boolean.True: Boolean.False;
Theoretically, it is not possible to calculate the division for a = long.MinValue and b = -1L, since the expected result is a/b = abs(long.MinValue) = long.MaxValue + 1 > long.MaxValue. (Range of long is –9,223,372,036,854,775,808 to 9,223,372,036,854,775,807.)

The way it works in any sane programming language (one that follows our normal order of operations) is that -1.0/3.0 is equivalent to -(1.0/3.0) which is -0.3333.... So if you want that converted to an int, it's really the cast/floor operator you need to think about, not the division. As such, if you want this behavior, you must use (int)Math.Floor(a/b), or custom code.

You don't need to implement this yourself, the Math class provides a builtin method for doing Euclidean division: Math.DivRem()
The only downside is that you have to provide an assignable variable for the remainder:
long remainder;
long quotient = Math.DivRem(a, b, out remainder);

Operator <= cannot be applied to double in if statement

I have an if statement as follows
if (1 <= value <= 20)
{
}
value is a double.
however I get an error which says that "Operator '<=' cannot be applied to operands of type 'bool' and 'double'"
Is there a way around this error?

C# doesn't allow you to do this.
Do like this:
if (1 <= value && value <= 20)
The problem is not the double, problem is your syntax is incorrect.

You:
if (1 <= value <= 20)
{
}
That is interpreted as
(1 <= value) <= 20
so first 1 will be compared with value and it will be determined if the former is "less than or equal" the latter. That gives a boolean. Then that boolean, True or False, is compared with <= to 20. But you cannot ask if True/False is less than or equal 20, in C#.

Problem : you can not check two expressions without Combining them.
Solution : i think you want to check whether value is in beteween 1 and 20
You can Use Logical AND && operator for checking this
Try This:
if (value >= 1 && value <= 20)
{
}

1 <= value evaluates out to be bool (false if value is less than 1 and true otherwise).
So it evaluates out to be (true <= 20) or (false <=20) and error states clearly that you cannot use operator <= to compare bool and double.
You need and (&&) operator to do comparison:
if (1 <= value && value <= 20)
{
}

C# ?: Expression

I have a function with multiple if's (THIS IS NOT THE ACTUAL CODE)
if(n == 1)
m = 1;
if(n == 2)
m = 2;
if(n == 3)
m = 3;
Instead of that I wanted to do make them all into ?: expression :
(n == 1) ? m = 1;
But it says that its expecting a ':'
I am familiar with the ?: expression from C++ where you can simply write:
(n == 1) ? m = 1 : 0;
But 0 doesn't take here. This is a ridiculous question and I couldn't even find an answer in google since it ignores '?:' as a word.
ANSWER : too bad the answer was in the comments. There is no way to "do nothing" in this expression and I should use if-else or switch. thanks.

It looks like you're looking for:
m = (n == 1) ? 1 : 0;
Which you could then cascade to:
m = (n == 1) ? 1 : (n == 2) ? 2 : (n == 3) ? 3 : 0;
An important (to me, anyway), aside:
Why are you asking this? If it's because you think that this form will be more efficient than a series of if statements, or a switch, don't. The C# compiler and the .net JIT compiler are really quite clever and they'll transform your code (hopefully!) into its most optimal form. Write your code so its as understandable by yourself, or the developer who has to maintain it after you as it can be. If the performance you get isn't acceptable, then try changing it around but measure to determine what works best (bearing in mind that newer compilers/.net frameworks could well change what happens).

looking for ternary operator in c# will give you relevant results.
an example usage would be
var m = n == 1 ? 1 : 0

Maybe:
m = (n == 1) ? 1 : (n == 2) ? 2 : (n == 3) ? 3 : m;
or
m = n
Edit:
Simplified:
variable2 = (variable1 == value) ?
variable1 :
variable2;

You want this:
m = (n == 1) ? 1 : 0;
To nest them all it would look like this:
m = (n == 1) ? 1 : (n == 2) ? 2 : (n == 3) ? 3 : 0;
But as you can see, this is really a lot less easy to read and understand. It can help to add extra parenthesis, but I think you're better off using an if-else tree.

m = (n == 1) ? 1 : m
Means
M equals 1 if n == 1, else m
FYI the ? is called the Ternery operator. Find usage on MSDN
Best regards,

You could write:
m = (n==1) ? 1 : m;
But IMO that's harder to read and uglier than the original code.
(n == 1) ? m = 1 : 0;
This isn't allowed because C# doesn't allow arbitrary expressions as a statement. Method calls and assignments are allowed, most other expressions aren't.
A statement is executed for its side-effects, an expression for its value. So it's only natural that the outermost part of a statement has a side effect. ?: never has a side-effect, so it's not allowed as a statement.

Try this :
m = (n == 1) ? 1 : 0;

This is not a problem to be solved with a ternary if/else operator - it is clearly an ideal candidate for a switch statement (and using a switch is likely to be much more efficient than using a sequence of ternary operators)
If you wish to transliterate an if statement into ?:, then it's quite simple:
if ({condition}) {then-code}; else {else-code};
becomes
{condition} ? {then-code} : {else-code};
The only restriction is that the then/else code is a single statement.
The primary benefit of ?: (with modern compilers) is that it can be embedded within a statement to significantly compress the source code - sometimes this can aid readability, and sometimes it just serves to obfuscate the meaning of the code - use it with care.