Re: Only one point of return

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
but if so, try


Hmmm, or:

bool f()
{
    if( pointer1 == 0 ){ return false; }
    pointer1->doSomething();
    if( pointer2 == 0 ){ return false; }
    pointer2->doSomething();
    return true;
}

I like this because it seems less complex to read and understand, but
the rationale is of course subjective (as is SESE and SEME in C++,
depending to who you speak). I like getting the pre-conditions out of
the way before handling the meat. SEME for me seems to do this better
than SESE.

Another alternative...

template <class T>
class ExistentPtr
{
  public:
    ExistentPtr
( T*& p );
    T& operator*() const; //throws if pointer_ NULL.
    T* operator->() const; //throws if pointer_ NULL.

  private:
    T*& pointer_;
};

bool f()
{
  ExistentPtr<Type> p1( pointer1 );
  ExistentPtr<Type> p2( pointer2 );

  try
  {
    p1->doSomething();
    p2->doSomething();
    return true;
  }
  catch( const null_ptr_error& )
  {
    return false;//
  }
}

Perhaps, if a function is written properly, it may never require
visible ifs
for the sake of handling errors, but this is very subjective.

Regards,

Werner