Oops I just tried to define a function like this ``` fun isB

Question

Oops I just tried to define a function like this ``` fun isBetween x edge1 edge2 Boolean = x in edge1 edge2 ``` but that doesn t Do What I Mean because `5 in 10 1 ` is false Is there anything in the standard library that handles this already or do I have to add an `if edge2 lt edge1` in there to make sure they re the right way around

Davio · Answer

` 10 1 ` doesn t work because the rangeTo operator only works for incremental ranges

Alan Evans · Answer

works fine You do get a warning though

Alan Evans · Answer

Another option ``` fun isBetween x Int edge1 Int edge2 Int Boolean = x in edge1 edge2 || x in edge2 edge1 ```

gildor · Answer

Creating 2 ranges or even one range as in original snippet just to check range looks as overkill for me why not just check which edge is bigger and just compare with x

Alan Evans · Answer

Yeah someone suggested `x in minOf a b maxOf a b ` I would side with readability what would what you are suggesting look like this `x gt = minOf a b amp amp x lt = maxOf a b `

gildor · Answer

Yes no ranges needed

Alan Evans · Answer

It s fine lots of options Depends if you like to optimize upfront and like code that looks like `c`

Alan Evans · Answer

troll

gildor · Answer

Imo simple compare not only more efficient but also more readable

Alan Evans · Answer

I disagree on that And efficiency here should be the compilers problem

Alan Evans · Answer

`x in edge1 edge2 ` should be no less efficient than `x gt = edge1 amp amp x lt = edge2` If it is less efficient that s a compiler failure IMO

Alan Evans · Answer

I feel Kt wants us to use these more natural language constructs like `in` and if we can t without a cost that s on Kt s compiler team

Alan Evans · Answer

You even get hints in the IDE to convert to range checks

Alan Evans · Answer

And I think the byte code looks OK with the range check I don t think it s doing the evil you think it s doing

gildor · Answer

I actually talking about one check not 2 consequence range checks

Alan Evans · Answer

You re just substituting a basic `||` for two static method invocations If you want to talk efficiency I think this is a case of profiling over theorizing which is almost always the case

Alan Evans · Answer

Point is looking at the bytecode gt Creating 2 ranges or even one range as in original snippet just to check range looks as overkill for me This statement is false There is no creation going on The compiler seems to handle it quite efficiently The IDE will even recommend it

gildor · Answer

No static method invocations just common if

gildor · Answer

I don t want to say about any significant or even visible difference it s just simple and at least same level of readability

Alan Evans · Answer

I m not sure what method you are advocating now Can you make that clear