Shorten This Code with... blocks?

Question

I think this code cannot be shortened much, especially because I only consider two cases. But maybe there's a language construct that I don't know that would help.

if (subControl.inverted) {
    newValue = subControl.value+(float)(1.0f/(float)subControl.decorator.ticks);
    if (newValue > 1)
        newValue = 0;
} else {
    newValue = subControl.value-(float)(1.0f/(float)subControl.decorator.ticks);
    if (newValue < 0)
        newValue = 1;
}

Some of the (floats) are gratuitous, which is irrelevant.

Edit: The code could look like this, which helps. However, I guess this is the result of reading the answers already ;)

if (subControl.inverted) {
    newValue = subControl.value+(float)(1.0f/(float)subControl.decorator.ticks);
} else {
    newValue = subControl.value-(float)(1.0f/(float)subControl.decorator.ticks);
}

if (newValue > 1)
    newValue = 0;
if (newValue < 0)
    newValue = 1;

Answer 1

Not a lot shorter, but a bit...

float ticks = (float)(1.0f/(float)subControl.decorator.ticks);
newValue = subControl.value + subControl.inverted ? ticks : - ticks;

if (subControl.inverted && newValue > 1)  {
    newValue = 0;
} else if (!subControl.inverted && newValue < 0){
    newValue = 1;
}

You could make it even shorter if the you are restricting the values to just 0 and 1.

EDIT: you say in a comment, that it should be between 0 and 1, so...

if (newValue > 1)  {
    newValue = 0;
} else if (newValue < 0){
    newValue = 1;
}

Which is fewer characters if not fewer lines, and imo clearer in intent.

Answer 2

If you don't mind using the ternary operator, I suppose you could do something like this:

if (subControl.inverted) {
    newValue = subControl.value+(float)(1.0f/(float)subControl.decorator.ticks);
    newValue = newValue > 1 ? 0 : newValue;
} else {
    newValue = subControl.value-(float)(1.0f/(float)subControl.decorator.ticks);
    newValue = newValue < 0 ? 1 : newValue;
}

Or shorten it further to:

newValue = subControl.value + (subControl.inverted?1:-1) * (float)(1.0f/(float)subControl.decorator.ticks);
if (subControl.inverted) {
    newValue = newValue > 1 ? 0 : newValue;
} else {
    newValue = newValue < 0 ? 1 : newValue;
}

And if you really want to get funky:

newValue = subControl.value + (subControl.inverted?1:-1) * (float)(1.0f/(float)subControl.decorator.ticks);
newValue = subControl.inverted ? (newValue > 1 ? 0 : newValue)
                               : (newValue < 0 ? 1 : newValue);

...Not that I think this last version is good - it's a bit harder to follow, and I probably wouldn't use it myself. But it's shorter, which is what you wanted, and I don't know if I can make it any shorter.

---

If this were golf, here would be the hole-in-one:

newValue = subControl.inverted ? ((subControl.value + (subControl.inverted?1:-1) * (float)(1.0f/(float)subControl.decorator.ticks))> 1 ? 0 : ((subControl.value + (subControl.inverted?1:-1) * (float)(1.0f/(float)subControl.decorator.ticks))< 0 ? 1 : (subControl.value + (subControl.inverted?1:-1) * (float)(1.0f/(float)subControl.decorator.ticks))) );

cleaned up a bit:

newValue = subControl.inverted ?
               (
                  (subControl.value + (subControl.inverted?1:-1) * (float)(1.0f/(float)subControl.decorator.ticks))> 1
                  ? 0
                  :
                    (
                      (subControl.value + (subControl.inverted?1:-1) * (float)(1.0f/(float)subControl.decorator.ticks))< 0
                      ? 1
                      :
                        (subControl.value + (subControl.inverted?1:-1) * (float)(1.0f/(float)subControl.decorator.ticks))
                    )
              );

And remember: Just because you can doesn't mean you should!

(I haven't tested this last one, BTW)

Answer 3

I think the code you posted (first version) is the most readable version of what you're trying to do, and that's really more important than getting your code smaller.

The only thing I would change is, as jmoreno suggested, use a variable to hold the ticks and then add or subtract depending on the value of inverted. But I would keep the if blocks as you have them in the first version of your code.