Start with
scoreX: anInteger y: anInteger2
| distance |
distance := (anInteger squared + anInteger2 squared) sqrt.
distance > 10
ifTrue: [ ^ 0 ].
distance > 5
ifTrue: [ ^ 1 ].
distance > 1
ifTrue: [ ^ 5 ].
^ 10
(1) Use better argument names.
(2) Forget about the square root.
(3) Note the repetitive pattern.
So
scoreX: x y: y
| distanceSquared |
distanceSquared := x squared + y squared.
#((100 0) (25 1) (1 5)) do: [:each |
distanceSquared > each first ifTrue: [^each last]].
^10
But I'd say that apart from the argument names and pointless square root,
your original code is about as clear as it gets.
The "ifs stink" dogma is about *type* testing, not *range* testing,
and this is range testing. It is also a tiny piece of code which
can only be made *less* readable by trying to avoid the ifs.
Remember the slogan YAGNI? You Ain't Gonna Need it?
The time to go for a more elaborate solution is when you HAVE to.
Do The Simplest Thing That Could Possibly Work.
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 at 23:59, Dennis Schetinin <chae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It would be an overkill to do it for this particular case, but Smalltalk
> makes it possible to implement a case-like construction:
>
> [ expression ]
> when: [ :value | condition1 ] do: [-0do :value | ... ];
> when: [ :value | condition2 ] do: [ :value | ... ];
> otherwiseDo: [ :value | ... ];
> evaluate
>
>
> I am sure, something like this has been implemented already somewhere (maybe
> in Squeak?). Still not sure it is practical as compared to simple if-s, and
> for sure not widely used :)
> ...On the other hand, sometimes the case-like construction can be considered
> a more intension-revealing style.
>
> пт, 27 дек. 2019 г., 22:18 Roelof Wobben via Pharo-users
> <pharo-users@lists.pharo.org>:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Im trying to solve a challenge from exercism where I have to calculate the
>> points somehow gets on a very simple darts board.
>>
>> I solved it like this :
>>
>>
>> scoreX: anInteger y: anInteger2
>> | distance |
>> distance := (anInteger squared + anInteger2 squared) sqrt.
>> distance > 10
>> ifTrue: [ ^ 0 ].
>> distance > 5
>> ifTrue: [ ^ 1 ].
>> distance > 1
>> ifTrue: [ ^ 5 ].
>> ^ 10
>>
>>
>> but now I use three if then and I think it's ugly code.
>>
>> Is there a way I can make it more the smalltalk way ?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Roelof
>>
