Demystifying the Long Arrow "Operator"

Some Dood on November 30, 2018

I recently stumbled upon some code that I found to be really interesting. It essentially iterates over a loop but with a twist. It uses the myste... [Read Full]
 

That is just a bad idea.

There really is no such thing as a "Long arrow" operator.

The example of:

while (i --> 0) {
  console.log(pets[i]);
}

Is really just:

while (i-- > 0) {
  console.log(pets[i]);
}

The post decrement does not belong to the greater than sign, and implies entirely different things.

 

Exactly the point I tried to hit on. I purposefully added quotation marks around the word "operator" every time I used it in the context of the "long arrow operator" because of that.

 

But that is the problem. There is no such thing as a "long arrow operator", and you are just sowing confusion.

I see. I get your point. I wrote this article so that people would be aware of an unorthodox way of formatting their code, so that when they encounter them in the wild, they'd be prepared to tackle them.

Indeed, the entire point of this article is to demystify something that doesn't exist. It's great that you pointed this out, though.

Nah, keep it up. The confusion was sown long before that. I had a good laugh.

 

but you also called it analogous to a limit function. which is confusing and it's just not. limits in my mind are inclusive, infinite sequences, not integer-based, step-wise functions that forget their initial value.

That's true. I do catch your drift. I see where I might have caused some confusion there.

It isn't meant to equate the two ideas, though. One shouldn't get too worked up in it. It is just an analogy after all.

i think the issue is that it's a bad analogy. it draws parallels where there are none, and it creates a mind map that just doesn't match the terrain.

That's true. This isn't the first time I've made bad analogies. Guess I'm still learning how to play with my words in an interesting manner. I'll keep working on it.

Admittedly, though, I don't see the analogy I made as entirely wrong. There is still some truth to it. The notation does imply some sort of "approaching by decrementing" to an extent. Regardless of that, it's still a bad analogy, as you said, and I agree.

However, I won't edit the article because that's really how I thought about the notation at first. It would really be dishonest of me and to myself if I changed the analogy now. So for now, it shall serve as a reminder to me to be better with my analogies.

The notation does imply some sort of "approaching by decrementing"

i think the issue is that "approaching by decrementing" just isn't a limit. if you'd stumbled across a "approach through an infinite sequence" operation (maybe something that recursively takes smaller steps as it approaches a correct answer?), then i think you'd be on to something.

 

seems like an excellent way to frustrate the hell out of future maintainers. the formatting is weird and the value you declared for your index is never used. that's subtle and unexpected (two things you should never be striving for in code meant to be read by humans).

 

The value for the index is used, it is just used in a confusing way.
This whole article is just an example of what NOT to do.

Also, realize that the post decrement actually happens AFTER the comparison to zero, which might not be obvious to someone as well. As you say, don't do this with code that someone else might have to maintain.

 

i should clarify, the problem that stood out to me is the initial value of the index is never used in the body of the loop. that's what makes this thing so awful. the loop "works", but then you're left chasing an off-by-one error.

 

Well, the point of this article isn't really to encourage you to use it, thus my recommendation against it towards the end of the article. It's just a fun way of reading code.

In the bright side, at least you now know what that weird long arrow means in some code bases if ever you encounter them.

 

Come on, you don't discourage it nearly enough as you should if that was indeed your intention. This isn't something that "beginners shouldn't be doing", this is something that no one should be doing. Saying something isn't "for beginners" isn't condemnation, it's just motivation for aspiring ninjas. There's no upside to using this "operator": Long Arrow "operator" considered harmful.

Don't worry. I'm pretty sure the comments section has discouraged its usage strongly enough. It's fascinating how passionate everyone is against the way of formatting such code.

 
 
 

You probably meant,
x --> 0 == x-- > 0?

No, no, and no.

--> is a recognized ES token in every popular browser. If it occurs at the start of a line, it is considered a single-line comment.

 

In 12 years of the programming, I first hear about "long arrow" operator. It confuses beginners.
But you can do the same, in easy way:

let x = 2
while (x--) { 
  console.log(x)
} 
// 1
// 0
 

Watch out with that notation though, it's best to only use it on integers declared as a constant.

let x = 2

// Wait, you have to pay taxes over your loops!
x *= 1.1

while (x--) { 
  console.log("Nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes")
} 
 

You need to know what you are doing with your code.

Certainly! But with Javascript not having an int type, it can lead to unexpected bugs.

Sometimes the space between the declared variable and the loop fills up with other code, especially in a project that's not squeaky clean to begin with.
Or the variable was passed in as an argument to a function, and eventually someone calls the function with unexpected input.

Maybe a coworker wants to loop over something in batched chunks, and naively divides x by a chunkSize.

Assuming that x in while(x--) is an integer which will hit zero isn't necessarily bad, just something to be careful with.

It's true that it is dangerous.
I see a reason to use tools (approaches) in related situations.
Construction without zero only in the case, when you know what you do. For example, iterate through array elements from the end:

const arr = ["this", "is", "c", "h", "a", "r"]
let n = arr.length
while(n--) {
  const el = arr[n]
  ...
}

or count input value as a number. In this case, input can be any, the function must know the type and cast to it. If float – make it as int by parseInt or Math functions.

 

Yup, that's definitely true. In cases when one has to decrement until any number other than 0, I think the long arrow "operator" has its... "uses".

let i = 10;
while (i --> 5) {
  console.log(i);
}
 

Nowadays decrement and increment are bad practice. Consequently operator "long arrow" will be disappeared, and it's good.

 

Looks beautiful with my font ligatures!

Kewl Kode

Oh, what's that? A reverse long-arrow operator? Read about it here!

 

That's why everyone should avoid increment (++) and decrement (--) operators

As in the Douglas Crockford's Javascript: The Good Parts, he writes:

++ and --
The ++ (increment) and -- (decrement) operators have been known to contribute to bad code by
encouraging excessive trickiness. They are second only to faulty architecture in enabling to viruses and other security menaces. There is a plusplus option [in JSLint] that prohibits the use of these operators.

 

Definitely can't disagree with the Great Crockford.

 

Note that in every modern browser “the Robin Hood operator” is actually considered a start of a single – line comment if it occurs at the start of the line or is preceded only by whitespace.

So if you accidentally put an EOL after “x”, that code becomes illegal.

OTOH, it is possible to hide some malicious hidden/polyglot code behind the --> operator.

stackoverflow.com/questions/578004...

 

Wowwwwww... This is just outrageous! As much as I love the simplicity of HTML (and the language itself), I absolutely hate the fact that it forced the JavaScript specification to accommodate for its strange code commenting syntax. In all my years of writing HTML, I personally never liked this <!-- --> way of commenting code.

 

Yes, all that overly tolerant HTML tag soup syntax with its complex parsing and fallback rules is inherently evil. The browser should not do any telepathy thinking and guessing on behalf of the programmer, especially in such an unsafe environment as public network computing with plain text communication channels.

That's why I prefer XHTML5 over HTML5, and always put my foreign-language code (CSS, scripts, templates, data blobs, or simply user-entered strings from a database) into well-formed <![CDATA[ ... ]]> sections.

On the other hand, we might as well think of Ecmascript and server-side languages as PHP as especially retrofitted to be mixed with a well-formed XML.

Once Javascript1.7 in Gecko had that E4X extension that actually allowed well-formed XML tags to be valid JS tokens (and first-class data types). Combine that with JS string template interpolation:

<script><![CDATA[
   var span = <span class="{class}">Today is: {new Date.toLocaleDateString()}</span>;
   document.querySelector(`div#output`).appendChild(span);
]]></script>

And you have a perfectly validatable polyglot grammar. As you see, the XHTML/JS/E4X parser contexts are (almost) completely isolated.

Unfortunately, E4X is dead in Gecko, but with its simplistic reincarnation in React as ESX you can get essentially the same.

The only problem is with lazy web developers. Tersiness of XML (hence, XHTML5 too) was never a design goal. So basically we only need to evangelize high quality validating editors. And to teach our students to use them properly, without counting characters.

Lastly, note that syntax and semantics of<!CDATA[ .... ]]> is specifically designed for embedding large unencoded character data verbatim. Contrary to XML/HTML TextNodes or attribute values, its contents are not supposed to be encoded or protected anyhow. It does not have any internal structure except the ending trigraph. It does not interfere with contents inside, as opposed to ordinary <script>, <style>, <pre>, <textarea>, <template> or similar tags. It does not leave junk unlike the <script>//<-- ... //--></script> hack.

The only highly unlikely problem remains: if you really need the actual string "]]>" inside your text block. It is not even syntactically possible nowhere in JS or CSS except comments or constant string literals, where there are many trivial options to work around. You can simply split the trigraph inside the string by means of JS/CSS or by exiting and reentering the CDATA regions. Even if you fail to notice the bug yourself, your editor will probably catch it because both the structure of your script and the XHTML will be severely broken.

Wow, I never knew how much of hassle this was until you explained it to me. Thanks for the new information (at least for me)!

 

Creative! I love weirdness like this.

The only problem with it is that it requires reeducation. And people really resist being educated.

Perfect for a pet project. Not so much for your employer's source.

You'd just have to add some docs to explain what this funky thing does.

Cheers!

 

Thanks! I'm glad you share my fascination with weird things. *high five*

 
 

it's not really a "reeducation" problem so much a bad code problem. it might be useful for code golf, but it's just a confusing way to decrement an index.

 

This is exactly why I hate such C-style syntactic sugar as pseudo-atomic “function plus side effect” operators. Especially their prefix versions “copy the original_value somewhere; copy it once again, increment and store back; use the old copy of original_value as the result”.

Consider for(;;i++) versus for(;;++i). It is not obvious at all whether the actual modification of i actually occurs at the start of the loop body (where it is written) or at the end. What about for(;i++>n;) / for(;++i>n;) ?

It is confusing at least, and seemingly has been created for the sole reason of brevity of loop expressions. Where other languages have “for(i : 0..n-1)...”, in a C-style language you should repeat yourself as in “for(i=0;i<n;i++)...”.

Otherwise why do we have ++ and --, but no !!, **, //, &&&&, ||||, <<<<, >>>>, >>>>>>?

That given, I still consider modify-and-assign-back operators (i+=1, i*=2, i>>=1, etc.) a very valuable syntactic shorthand for inc(i,1), shr(i,1) as in other languages e.g. Pascal, and yet they still have some ambiguity such as in “x^=y^=x^=y”. A novice might expect that ^= is an atomic operator and this expression is a perfectly legal XOR-swapping.

Unfortunately, the consensus among modern languages is exactly the opposite: every variable is loaded just once before evaluating the expression, and their temporary changes are lost.

Now consider a language such as C# where += is overloaded for a collection type as .add(value) or .addAll(collection). What would be the semantics of “col+=col+=col”?

I think that operations such as “increment and assign” should have been defined as statements, not expressions – i.e. to return a void value and be forbidden to be nested into larger expressions.

This way you could still write something along the lines of “while(i-=1,i>0)” without any ambiguities.

While the compilers allow such ambiguous compound expressions, I feel that they should be explicitly forbidden at least in code style guides.

As a side note, the = character is also the reason why I feel that the syntax of lambda expressions in ES6 ( x=>x+1 ) is much more confusing than in Java ( x->x+1 ). The double arrow intuitively implies a definition or an assignment back to the parameter list, while the single arrow reminds the mathematical notation of mapping.

Unfortunately in C++ and PHP the single arrow operator was already defined as a dereference of a struct member, so we have double arrows in C++ and, by copying, in ES6 (but frankly not in PHP7). Actually, in PHP the double arrow is exactly the definition and assignment of associative array's member (and mapping keys to values), and I don't see the reason PHP should introduce a shorthand syntax for anonymous functions (a sugar for function(){} syntax like in ES5).

Perhaps ES6 shouldn't have either – in my personal opinion, Firefox 3.6 had a better solution, that it allowed just to write a return expression instead of a function body (without curly braces and an explicit return keyword):

var f = function(x)x+1; [0,1,2].map(f); // returns [1,2,3]

You could define lambdas almost just as concisely but without any special keywords or operators.

This shows that not only novices, but experienced language designers too are prone to inventing unnecessary cryptic operators.

 

I like your take on this. It's very thought-provoking. These operators truly are one of the sources of evil in C-like languages.

 

This article is a much needed resource for someone who might come across such usage and google it. I agree that it shouldn't be used because it relies on whitespace formatting and in fact, deceives the reader into thinking it's a single legitimate operator.

I suggest adding names of languages that accept this usage in the title? And perhaps a clarification in the beginning that the "long arrow operator" doesn't actually exist.

 

I'm sure the comments section have clarified those facts strongly enough. 😂

 

"long arrow is a bad idea" seems to be a common theme in most of comments.

Knowing that it's a bad practice makes this post worth reading 😀

And love your avatar & the featured image😍

 

Thanks! I'm glad you liked them (the post and my avatar).

People truly have strong opinions on best practices, don't they? 😁

 

You're welcome 😊

People truly have strong opinions on best practices, don't they?

Those opinions make'em heard and let us learn from each other 😛

 

Never saw it before, wouldn't recommend using it. Too much of a "wow this is a clever trick" thing which doesn't do much more than harm readability (not criticizing the author here, I think he's acknowledging exactly this).

 

But why? I don't see how this can be useful at all O.o So please don't make this as an actual thing.

 

Oh, for sure! You share the same sentiment as everyone who read this article (including me). 😂

I just wanted to show that there is an unorthodox way of writing two separate operators. That way, when one encounters such code in the future, they'd be ready to tackle it.

 
 
 

This is a total click bait title. Dismistifying something that doesn't exist. 🤔

 
 

Never combine post/pre increment/decrement with other operators. It makes code hard to understand and can lead to nasty bugs. That's why many langs like Python don't have them at all.

 
[deleted]
 

I believe I hit on that point pretty explicitly in the article. Somewhere around here, I think?

 

Tha'ts why everyone should avoid increment (++) and decrement (--) operators:

 

I'm reasonably sure that prettier fixes this so that its not an issue.

 

I think its pretty dumb and extremely funny :D

code of conduct - report abuse