在我的第一次代码评审中(不久前),有人告诉我,在所有switch语句中包含一个default子句是一种很好的实践。我最近想起了这个建议,但不记得理由是什么了。现在我听起来很奇怪。

是否有一个合理的理由总是包含默认语句? 这是语言依赖吗?我不记得当时我在用什么语言了——也许这适用于一些语言而不是其他语言?


当前回答

如果switch语句中没有缺省情况,则在缺省情况下行为可能是不可预测的 在某个时间点出现,这在发展阶段是无法预测的。这是一个很好的练习 要包含默认大小写。

switch ( x ){
  case 0 : { - - - -}
  case 1 : { - - - -}
}

/* What happens if case 2 arises and there is a pointer
* initialization to be made in the cases . In such a case ,
* we can end up with a NULL dereference */

这样的做法可能会导致错误,如NULL解引用,内存泄漏以及其他类型的 严重的错误。

例如,我们假设每个条件初始化一个指针。但如果默认情况是 应该是上升的,如果我们不初始化这个例子,那么就完全有可能上升 一个空指针异常。因此,建议使用默认case语句,即使它 可能是微不足道的。

其他回答

我不同意上面Vanwaril投票最多的回答。

任何代码都会增加复杂性。此外,还必须为此进行测试和文档编制。所以用更少的代码编程总是好的。我的观点是,我对非穷举switch语句使用default子句,而对穷举switch语句不使用default子句。为了确保我做对了,我使用了静态代码分析工具。让我们来详细了解一下:

Nonexhaustive switch statements: Those should always have a default value. As the name suggests those are statements which do not cover all possible values. This also might not be possible, e.g. a switch statement on an integer value or on a String. Here I would like to use the example of Vanwaril (It should be mentioned that I think he used this example to make a wrong suggestion. I use it here to state the opposite --> Use a default statement): switch(keystroke) { case 'w': // move up case 'a': // move left case 's': // move down case 'd': // move right default: // cover all other values of the non-exhaustive switch statement } The player could press any other key. Then we could not do anything (this can be shown in the code just by adding a comment to the default case) or it should for example print something on the screen. This case is relevant as it may happen. Exhaustive switch statements: Those switch statements cover all possible values, e.g. a switch statement on an enumeration of grade system types. When developing code the first time it is easy to cover all values. However, as we are humans there is a small chance to forget some. Additionally if you add an enum value later such that all switch statements have to be adapted to make them exhaustive again opens the path to error hell. The simple solution is a static code analysis tool. The tool should check all switch statements and check if they are exhaustive or if they have a default value. Here an example for an exhaustive switch statement. First we need an enum: public enum GradeSystemType {System1To6, SystemAToD, System0To100} Then we need a variable of this enum like GradeSystemType type = .... An exhaustive switch statement would then look like this: switch(type) { case GradeSystemType.System1To6: // do something case GradeSystemType.SystemAToD: // do something case GradeSystemType.System0To100: // do something } So if we extend the GradeSystemType by for example System1To3 the static code analysis tool should detect that there is no default clause and the switch statement is not exhaustive so we are save.

还有一件事。如果我们总是使用默认子句,那么静态代码分析工具可能无法检测穷尽性或非穷尽性switch语句,因为它总是检测到默认子句。这是非常糟糕的,因为如果我们将枚举扩展为另一个值,并且忘记将其添加到一个switch语句中,我们将不会得到通知。

在我看来,答案是“默认”是可选的,说一个开关必须总是包含一个默认就像说每个“if-elseif”必须包含一个“其他”。 如果有一个逻辑在默认情况下完成,那么'default'语句应该在那里,但否则代码可以继续执行而不做任何事情。

在某些情况下,没有默认情况实际上是有益的。

If your switch cases are enums values, by not having a default case, you can get a compiler warning if you are missing any cases. That way, if new enum values are added in the future and you forget to add cases for these values in the switch, you can find out about the problem at compile time. You should still make sure the code takes appropriate action for unhandled values, in case an invalid value was cast to the enum type. So this may work best for simple cases where you can return within the enum case rather than break.

enum SomeEnum
{
    ENUM_1,
    ENUM_2,
    // More ENUM values may be added in future
};

int foo(SomeEnum value)
{
    switch (value)
    {
    case ENUM_1:
        return 1;
    case ENUM_2:
        return 2;
    }
    // handle invalid values here
    return 0;
 }

这是一个可选的编码“约定”。是否需要取决于用途。我个人认为,如果你不需要它,它就不应该在那里。为什么要包含一些用户不会使用或接触到的内容?

如果情况的可能性是有限的(即一个布尔值),那么默认子句是多余的!

您应该有一个默认值来捕捉传入的非预期值。

然而,我不同意Adrian Smith关于默认的错误消息应该是完全没有意义的。可能会有一个你没有预见到的未处理的情况(这是一点),你的用户最终会看到,像“无法到达”这样的消息是完全没有意义的,在这种情况下对任何人都没有帮助。

举个例子,你有多少次经历过毫无意义的蓝皮书?或者致命异常@ 0x352FBB3C32342?