Content deleted Content added
m Just a bit of minor grammar. Hopefully cleared up the fragment sentence to what the original author intended. |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1:
A '''loop-switch sequence''' is a specific derivative of the [[spaghetti code]] programming [[antipattern]] where a clear set of steps is implemented as a byzantine switch-within-a-loop. Also known as "The FOR-CASE paradigm" [http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Switched_on_Loops.aspx].
'''Note: ''' it is not necessarily an [[antipattern]] to use a switch statement within a loop. It is only considered incorrect when used to model a known sequence of steps. The most common example of the correct use of a switch within a loop is an event handler. In event handler loops, the sequence of events is not known at compile-time, so the repeated switch is both necessary and correct (see [[Event-driven programming]], [[Event loop]] and [[Event-driven finite state machine]]). It is also reasonable to have a check for the possible performance loss that having a conditional inside a loop could bring. Today modern compilers are capable in some cases to transform the loop with conditional(s) into a construct with better performance (see [[loop unswitching]]); therefore it may not always be worthwhile to eliminate these constructs for performance reasons alone, although it may benefit readability to do so.
==Example of antipattern (pseudocode)==
| |||