Develop Reference

Multiple if condition in java " if value exists in a list " [duplicate]

I have an if statement with many conditions (have to check for 10 or 15 constants to see if any of them are present.)
Instead of writing something like:
if (x == 12 || x == 16 || x == 19 || ...)
is there any way to format it like
if x is [12, 16, 19]?
Just wondering if there is an easier way to code this, any help appreciated.
The answers have been very helpful, but I was asked to add more detail by a few people, so I will do that to satiate their curiosity. I was making a date validation class that needed to make sure days were not > 30 in the months that have only 30 days (of which there are 4, I think) and I was writing an if statement to check things like this:
if (day > 30 && (month == 4 || month == 6 || month == 9 || month == 11))
I was just wondering if there was a faster way to code things like that - many of the answers below have helped.

I use this kind of pattern often. It's very compact:
// Define a constant in your class. Use a HashSet for performance
private static final Set<Integer> values = new HashSet<Integer>(Arrays.asList(12, 16, 19));
// In your method:
if (values.contains(x)) {
...
}
A HashSet is used here to give good look-up performance - even very large hash sets are able to execute contains() extremely quickly.
If performance is not important, you can code the gist of it into one line:
if (Arrays.asList(12, 16, 19).contains(x))
but know that it will create a new ArrayList every time it executes.

Do you want to switch to this??
switch(x) {
case 12:
case 16:
case 19:
//Do something
break;
default:
//Do nothing or something else..
break;
}

If the set of possibilities is "compact" (i.e. largest-value - smallest-value is, say, less than 200) you might consider a lookup table. This would be especially useful if you had a structure like
if (x == 12 || x == 16 || x == 19 || ...)
else if (x==34 || x == 55 || ...)
else if (...)
Set up an array with values identifying the branch to be taken (1, 2, 3 in the example above) and then your tests become
switch(dispatchTable[x])
{
case 1:
...
break;
case 2:
...
break;
case 3:
...
break;
}
Whether or not this is appropriate depends on the semantics of the problem.
If an array isn't appropriate, you could use a Map<Integer,Integer>, or if you just want to test membership for a single statement, a Set<Integer> would do. That's a lot of firepower for a simple if statement, however, so without more context it's kind of hard to guide you in the right direction.

Use a collection of some sort - this will make the code more readable and hide away all those constants. A simple way would be with a list:
// Declared with constants
private static List<Integer> myConstants = new ArrayList<Integer>(){{
add(12);
add(16);
add(19);
}};
// Wherever you are checking for presence of the constant
if(myConstants.contains(x)){
// ETC
}
As Bohemian points out the list of constants can be static so it's accessible in more than one place.
For anyone interested, the list in my example is using double brace initialization. Since I ran into it recently I've found it nice for writing quick & dirty list initializations.

You could look for the presence of a map key or see if it's in a set.
Depending on what you're actually doing, though, you might be trying to solve the problem wrong :)

No you cannot do that in Java. you can however write a method as follows:
boolean isContains(int i, int ... numbers) {
// code to check if i is one of the numbers
for (int n : numbers) {
if (i == n) return true;
}
return false;
}

With Java 8, you could use a primitive stream:
if (IntStream.of(12, 16, 19).anyMatch(i -> i == x))
but this may have a slight overhead (or not), depending on the number of comparisons.

Here is another answer based on a comment above, but simpler:
List numbers= Arrays.asList(1,2,3,4,5);
if(numbers.contains(x)){
//
}

can you have two conditions in an if statement

I'm a beginner in coding. I was recently working with to create a chatting programme where a user will chat with my computer. Here is a part of the code:
System.out.println("Hello, what's our name? My name is " + answer4);
String a = scanner1.nextLine();
System.out.println("Ok, Hello, " + a + ", how was your day, good or bad?");
String b = scanner2.nextLine();
**if (b.equals("good"))** { //1
System.out.println("Thank goodness");
} else **if (b.equals("it was good"))** { //2
System.out.println("Thank goodness");
} else **if (b.equals("bad"))** { //3
System.out.println("Why was it bad?");
String c = scanner3.nextLine();
System.out.println("Don't worry, everything will be ok, ok?");
String d= scanner10.nextLine();
} else **if (b.equals("it was bad"))**{ //4
System.out.println("Why was it bad?");
String c = scanner3.nextLine();
System.out.println("Don't worry, everything will be ok, ok?");
String d= scanner10.nextLine();
}
if(age<18){System.out.println("How was school?");}
else if (age>=18){System.out.println("How was work?");}
The conditions of the if statements are in Bold (surrounded with **). In case of first and the second condition I want my application to do same thing. Similarly third and fourth condition. I thought it was possible to somehow group them in if statement.
I tried with below code but it doesn't compile:
if (b.equals("good"), b.equals("it was good")) {
System.out.println("Thank goodness");
} else if (b.equals("bad"),(b.equals("it was bad"))) {
System.out.println("Why was it bad?");
String c = scanner3.nextLine();
System.out.println("Don't worry, everything will be ok, ok?");
String d= scanner10.nextLine();
}
Can someone correct it for me?

You can use logical operators to combine your boolean expressions.
&& is a logical and (both conditions need to be true)
|| is a logical or (at least one condition needs to be true)
^ is a xor (exactly one condition needs to be true)
(== compares objects by identity)
For example:
if (firstCondition && (secondCondition || thirdCondition)) {
...
}
There are also bitwise operators:
& is a bitwise and
| is a bitwise or
^ is a xor
They are mainly used when operating with bits and bytes. However there is another difference, let's take again a look at this expression:
firstCondition && (secondCondition || thirdCondition)
If you use the logical operators and firstCondition evaluates to false then Java will not compute the second or third condition as the result of the whole logical expression is already known to be false. However if you use the bitwise operators then Java will not stop and continue computing everything:
firstCondition & (secondCondition | thirdCondition)

Here are some common symbols used in everyday language and their programming analogues:
"," usually refers to "and" in everyday language. Thus, this would translate to the AND operator, &&, in Java.
"/" usually refers to "or" in everyday language. Thus, this would translate to the OR operator, ||, in Java.
"XOR" is simply "x || y but both cannot be true at the same time". This translates to x ^ y in Java.
In your code, you probably meant to use "or" (you just used the incorrect "incorrect solution" :p), so you should use "||" in the second code block for it to become identical to the first code block.
Hope this helped :)

You're looking for the "OR" operator - which is normally represented by a double pipe: ||
if (b.equals("good") || b.equals("it was good")) {
System.out.println("Thank goodness");
} else if (b.equals("bad") || b.equals("it was bad")) {
System.out.println("Why was it bad?");
String c = scanner3.nextLine();
System.out.println("Don't worry, everything will be ok, ok?");
String d= scanner10.nextLine();
}

This is probably more answer than you need at this point. But, as several others already point out, you need the OR operator "||". There are a couple of points that nobody else has mentioned:
1) If (b.equals("good") || b.equals("it was good")) <-- If "b" is null here, you'll get a null pointer exception (NPE). If you are genuinely looking at hard-coded values, like you are here, then you can reverse the comparison. E.g.
if ("good".equals(b) || "it was good".equals(b))
The advantage of doing it this way is that the logic is precisely the same, but you'll never get an NPE, and the logic will work just how you expect.
2) Java uses "short-circuit" testing. Which in lay-terms means that Java stops testing conditions once it's sure of the result, even if all the conditions have not yet been tested. E.g.:
if((b != null) && (b.equals("good") || b.equals("it was good")))
You will not get an NPE in the code above because of short-circuit nature. If "b" is null, Java can be assured that no matter what the results of the next conditions, the answer will always be false. So it doesn't bother performing those tests.
Again, that's probably more information than you're prepared to deal with at this stage, but at some point in the near future the NPE of your test will bite you. :)

You can have two conditions if you use the double bars(||). They mean "Or". That means only ONE of your conditions has to be true for the loop to execute.
Something like this:
if(condition || otherCondition || anotherCondition) {
//code here
If you want all of conditions to be true use &&. This means that ALL conditions must be true in order for the loop to execute. if any one of them is false the loop will not execute.
Something like this:
if(condition && otherCondition && anotherCondition) {
//code here
You can also group conditions, if you want certain pairs of them to be true. something like:
if(condition || (otherCondition && anotherCondition)) {
//code here

There is a simpler way.
if (b.contains("good")) {
...
}
else if (b.contains("bad")) {
...
}

Chained ANDs or chained ORs best practice

Which is better in terms of best practice / efficiency?
if (x == 1
&& y == 1
&& z == 1)
{ do things }
or
if (x != 1 ||
y != 1 ||
z != 1)
{ don't do things and go to a different bit of logic.}
Is there any difference in efficiency when short circuiting ANDs and ORs? Is it (generally) better to check positively or negatively when multiple logical assertions need to be made?

For pure optimization of the code it depends case-by-case. The scenario that will on average do the least amount of comparisons.
For code design it is also case-by-case. The if-cases should match what you are actually looking for. A function that tests if a string is inputted correctly for example. (the tests are made up)
public boolean isValidString (string s) {
if (s.isEmpty())
return false;
if (s.length() < 12)
return false;
if (s...)
return false
return true;
}
In this case the most logical approach is the ||. It could be written.
public boolean isValidString (string s) {
if (s.isEmpty() || s.length() < 12 || s...)
return false;
return true;
}
With http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws this could be rewritten to not and. However it is not what we want to test, even though they yield the same result.
So stick to the logical approach in general cases.

If you think about efficiency then think about how often each case will occur. The most likely one should be put in front so the whole expression is shortcircuited immediately.

Better you use "==" instead of going for "!=".
This is also recommended with PMD.
The following is good and improves redability.
If(true){
//
}else{
//
}
than
If(!true){
//
}else{
//
}

Well, in some JVM implementations boolean values are stored as integers in the JVM. int value 1 meaning true and int value 0 meaning false. Also, comparison logic at processor level is architecture dependent. Some machines might subtract 2 operands, then add and then compare, others might compare byte by byte etc.. So, unless you are looking at a specific hardware architecture (which you shouldn't.. atleast for java programming language), I don't think this matters much..

Complexity of if statement

I am wondering complexity of following if statement
if (isTrue()) //case 1
VS
if(isTrue()==true) //case 2
And isTrue defined as
boolean isTrue(){
//lots of calculation and return true false based on that.
return output;
}
I was thinking, complexity of if (isTrue()) is lower then if(isTrue()==true) because on case 2 require additional comparison for equals.
What about space complexity?
Any different thought?

Both of them are same in speed/space. But second way is weird for C/C++ programmers.
The different is, second way is just less readable.

They are equivalent. And when doing global optimizations condition is removed altogether.

The second case (checking for ==true) can get problematic if you or someone else redefines the value of true.
Let's say that we have the following C code:
#define true 2
bool isEqual(int a, int b)
{
return (a == b);
}
if (isEqual(5, 5)) {
printf("isEqual #1\n");
}
if (isEqual(5, 5) == true) {
printf("isEqual #2\n");
}
The output from this code will be
isEqual #1
So the shorter form where you leave out ==true is preferable not only because it leads to less verbose code but also because you avoid potential problems like these.

Java coding standards and multiple IF's

I have the following lines of code:
if(
checker.this()==false ||
checker.that()==false ||
checker.what()==true||
checker.cool()==false ||
checker.damm()==true
(...)
)
{
option = Option.FALSE;
}
With about 20 checks that must be performed. I've found this to be the most 'visual-tolerable' form of writing this if with multiple OR sequence but I'm not yet satisfied. Is there a coding standard for this?
Thanks.

The closest thing to a coding standard around this is Steve McConnel, whose authoritative book "Code Complete" recommends that complex conditions are factored into their own method, even if they are only used once. This allows for the name of the method to descibe what is happening.
if (checkValid(checker)) {...}
private boolean checkValid(Checker checker) {...}
checkValid is not a good name, of course, and should be replaced with something more descriptive. In this particular case you may want to make the check method part of "checker" object.
You should also avoid "something==true" and "something==false", and use "something" and "!something". This process is helped if you give the boolean methods appropriate names, like "isOpen()", "isEmpty()", rather than "open()" and "empty()". "checker.isOpen() && !checker.isEmpty()" is perfectly clear to read.

foo==false should better be written with !foo
Possibly, you can move this big if in a separate method: if (checker.complexConditionMet()) or if (complexConditionMet(checker)). It will improve readability.

checker.this()==false can be replaced by !checker.this()

I have never heard of a coding standard for anything like this. Personally, I would group several ifs into a method taking readability into consideration. For instance if you have something like:
if (this || that || what || where || why || cool || wow){ ... }
You could replace it with:
if (pronouns() || questions() || exclamations()){ ... }

I'd try to find common meaning between any of the various checks, and create functions from them.
When bundled together to describe a certain discrete, meaningful state of affairs or requirement, this can make the code less magical, easier to read, easier to test.
i.e. something like this, which is a bit "magical"
if (a == "world" || b == "dolly" || c == 42 || murder()) {
}
can be rendered more readable by changing it to something more like this:
if ( canSayHello() || canMeanLife()) {
}
...
boolean canSayHello() {
return a == "world" || b == "dolly"
}
boolean canMeanLife() {
return c == 42 || murder();
}