Function for minimum non-zero with multiple additional conditions
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
This function works, but seems unnecessarily complicated. I would like to simplify but performance is vital as it is called many times.
The conditions are:
1) If either value is negative, then result is -1
2) If both values are zero, then result is zero
3) If NeedMax is true, result is largest value
4) If NeedMax is false, result is smallest non-zero value
CODE:
Public Function SelValue(ValOne As Long, ValTwo As Long, _
Optional NeedMax As Boolean = True) As Long
If ValOne < 0 Or ValTwo < 0 Then
SelValue = -1
ElseIf ValOne = 0 And ValTwo = 0 Then
SelValue = 0
ElseIf NeedMax Then
If ValOne > ValTwo _
Then SelValue = ValOne _
Else SelValue = ValTwo
Else
If ValOne = 0 Then
SelValue = ValTwo
ElseIf ValOne > ValTwo And ValTwo <> 0 Then
SelValue = ValTwo
Else
SelValue = ValOne
End If
End If
End Function
Can anyone suggest a more direct, and hopefully faster, approach?
vba excel
New contributor
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
This function works, but seems unnecessarily complicated. I would like to simplify but performance is vital as it is called many times.
The conditions are:
1) If either value is negative, then result is -1
2) If both values are zero, then result is zero
3) If NeedMax is true, result is largest value
4) If NeedMax is false, result is smallest non-zero value
CODE:
Public Function SelValue(ValOne As Long, ValTwo As Long, _
Optional NeedMax As Boolean = True) As Long
If ValOne < 0 Or ValTwo < 0 Then
SelValue = -1
ElseIf ValOne = 0 And ValTwo = 0 Then
SelValue = 0
ElseIf NeedMax Then
If ValOne > ValTwo _
Then SelValue = ValOne _
Else SelValue = ValTwo
Else
If ValOne = 0 Then
SelValue = ValTwo
ElseIf ValOne > ValTwo And ValTwo <> 0 Then
SelValue = ValTwo
Else
SelValue = ValOne
End If
End If
End Function
Can anyone suggest a more direct, and hopefully faster, approach?
vba excel
New contributor
Are the parameters more likely to be positive or negative? It's called many times in what context?
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
1
@MathieuGuindon They should always be positive. The check for negatives is really an error check so that ifSelValue
is returned as-1
I can check for that. It is called to find an index number for a find result.
– Rey Juna
2 hours ago
2
That's a code smell. If legal values should be positive, then illegal values should throw an error (#5 "invalid procedure call or argument" seems sensible), and that way you avoid a systematic check for exceptional conditions. Seeing the function in its usage context could be helpful and valuable IMO.
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
There really should never be a negative value. Maybe I am being over cautious, but I always try to cover the bases.
– Rey Juna
2 hours ago
2
I've rolled back the last edit, since it incorporates feedback from an answer. Please don't invalidate answers with edits! =)
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
This function works, but seems unnecessarily complicated. I would like to simplify but performance is vital as it is called many times.
The conditions are:
1) If either value is negative, then result is -1
2) If both values are zero, then result is zero
3) If NeedMax is true, result is largest value
4) If NeedMax is false, result is smallest non-zero value
CODE:
Public Function SelValue(ValOne As Long, ValTwo As Long, _
Optional NeedMax As Boolean = True) As Long
If ValOne < 0 Or ValTwo < 0 Then
SelValue = -1
ElseIf ValOne = 0 And ValTwo = 0 Then
SelValue = 0
ElseIf NeedMax Then
If ValOne > ValTwo _
Then SelValue = ValOne _
Else SelValue = ValTwo
Else
If ValOne = 0 Then
SelValue = ValTwo
ElseIf ValOne > ValTwo And ValTwo <> 0 Then
SelValue = ValTwo
Else
SelValue = ValOne
End If
End If
End Function
Can anyone suggest a more direct, and hopefully faster, approach?
vba excel
New contributor
This function works, but seems unnecessarily complicated. I would like to simplify but performance is vital as it is called many times.
The conditions are:
1) If either value is negative, then result is -1
2) If both values are zero, then result is zero
3) If NeedMax is true, result is largest value
4) If NeedMax is false, result is smallest non-zero value
CODE:
Public Function SelValue(ValOne As Long, ValTwo As Long, _
Optional NeedMax As Boolean = True) As Long
If ValOne < 0 Or ValTwo < 0 Then
SelValue = -1
ElseIf ValOne = 0 And ValTwo = 0 Then
SelValue = 0
ElseIf NeedMax Then
If ValOne > ValTwo _
Then SelValue = ValOne _
Else SelValue = ValTwo
Else
If ValOne = 0 Then
SelValue = ValTwo
ElseIf ValOne > ValTwo And ValTwo <> 0 Then
SelValue = ValTwo
Else
SelValue = ValOne
End If
End If
End Function
Can anyone suggest a more direct, and hopefully faster, approach?
vba excel
vba excel
New contributor
New contributor
edited 2 hours ago
Mathieu Guindon
60.4k12147414
60.4k12147414
New contributor
asked 3 hours ago
Rey Juna
1114
1114
New contributor
New contributor
Are the parameters more likely to be positive or negative? It's called many times in what context?
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
1
@MathieuGuindon They should always be positive. The check for negatives is really an error check so that ifSelValue
is returned as-1
I can check for that. It is called to find an index number for a find result.
– Rey Juna
2 hours ago
2
That's a code smell. If legal values should be positive, then illegal values should throw an error (#5 "invalid procedure call or argument" seems sensible), and that way you avoid a systematic check for exceptional conditions. Seeing the function in its usage context could be helpful and valuable IMO.
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
There really should never be a negative value. Maybe I am being over cautious, but I always try to cover the bases.
– Rey Juna
2 hours ago
2
I've rolled back the last edit, since it incorporates feedback from an answer. Please don't invalidate answers with edits! =)
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Are the parameters more likely to be positive or negative? It's called many times in what context?
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
1
@MathieuGuindon They should always be positive. The check for negatives is really an error check so that ifSelValue
is returned as-1
I can check for that. It is called to find an index number for a find result.
– Rey Juna
2 hours ago
2
That's a code smell. If legal values should be positive, then illegal values should throw an error (#5 "invalid procedure call or argument" seems sensible), and that way you avoid a systematic check for exceptional conditions. Seeing the function in its usage context could be helpful and valuable IMO.
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
There really should never be a negative value. Maybe I am being over cautious, but I always try to cover the bases.
– Rey Juna
2 hours ago
2
I've rolled back the last edit, since it incorporates feedback from an answer. Please don't invalidate answers with edits! =)
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
Are the parameters more likely to be positive or negative? It's called many times in what context?
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
Are the parameters more likely to be positive or negative? It's called many times in what context?
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
1
1
@MathieuGuindon They should always be positive. The check for negatives is really an error check so that if
SelValue
is returned as -1
I can check for that. It is called to find an index number for a find result.– Rey Juna
2 hours ago
@MathieuGuindon They should always be positive. The check for negatives is really an error check so that if
SelValue
is returned as -1
I can check for that. It is called to find an index number for a find result.– Rey Juna
2 hours ago
2
2
That's a code smell. If legal values should be positive, then illegal values should throw an error (#5 "invalid procedure call or argument" seems sensible), and that way you avoid a systematic check for exceptional conditions. Seeing the function in its usage context could be helpful and valuable IMO.
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
That's a code smell. If legal values should be positive, then illegal values should throw an error (#5 "invalid procedure call or argument" seems sensible), and that way you avoid a systematic check for exceptional conditions. Seeing the function in its usage context could be helpful and valuable IMO.
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
There really should never be a negative value. Maybe I am being over cautious, but I always try to cover the bases.
– Rey Juna
2 hours ago
There really should never be a negative value. Maybe I am being over cautious, but I always try to cover the bases.
– Rey Juna
2 hours ago
2
2
I've rolled back the last edit, since it incorporates feedback from an answer. Please don't invalidate answers with edits! =)
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
I've rolled back the last edit, since it incorporates feedback from an answer. Please don't invalidate answers with edits! =)
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
First, the default value seems like it's overkill here. The function should be a Min
function or a Max
function, not both. It's not going to kill you to have two functions with clear arguments that describe what they are doing.
The naming is suspect too. SelValue
doesn't sound like the name of a function - it sounds like a procedure or property. It invokes the idea of doing something, not returning a value. I'd rename it. Note that I can't even suggest a good name because of the first thing, because FindHigherOrLowerOfTwoNumbers()
seems a little... weird.
As far as performance, that would be the last thing on my mind. This is only performing comparison operations between numbers, and that should be blazingly fast regardless of how many extra comparisons you've managed to sneak in there:
- You don't have to check explicitly to see if they're both zero. If they're equal and both happen to be zero, you'll get zero back anyway.
- If both of them are the same, that's the only check you need to do. Just pick one and return it.
VBA's If
statements don't short circuit, so I'd structure this as a Select Case
and filter away remaining cases on my way down.
Select Case True
Case ValOne < 0 Or ValTwo < 0
SelValue = -1
Case ValOne = ValTwo
SelValue = ValOne
Case NeedMax
If ValOne > ValTwo Then
SelValue = ValOne
Else
SelValue = ValTwo
End If
Case ValOne < ValTwo
SelValue = ValOne
Case Else
SelValue = ValTwo
End Select
Oh well, there goes my draft! :)
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
@MathieuGuindon - Reading fail. Edited (although I'll stand by the rest of that bullet).
– Comintern
2 hours ago
1
Based on the comment conversation though, it appears-1
is actually an error flag; hence I'd move that first case last, and throw error 5 - eliminating a highly redundant if-check at the call site.
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
1
@MathieuGuindon That would make a good answer. ;-)
– Comintern
2 hours ago
Yeah, I like theSelect Case
approach - I was going to add it to my answer.
– AJD
2 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
This is a really funky way of formatting an If
statement and is totally inconsistent with the rest of the procedure (and the way most people would format it):
If ValOne > ValTwo _
Then SelValue = ValOne _
Else SelValue = ValTwo
I'd rearrange that as
If ValOne > ValTwo Then
SelValue = ValOne
Else
SelValue = ValTwo
End If
SelValue = If(ValOne > ValTwo, ValOne, ValTwo)
. Using the VBAIf()
function in this context is safe because all components are values, not objects and not likely to throw error in themselves.
– AJD
2 hours ago
@AJD, I like that approach. You should post as an answer.
– Rey Juna
2 hours ago
@AJD that'sIIf
;-)
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
1
@AJDIIf
is a function, so it involves stack manipulation - i.e. copying memory, pushing the stack pointer, popping back, etc. That's a horrible idea if you're looking for raw performance.
– Comintern
2 hours ago
@MathieuGuindon: thanks - yesIIf()
.If()
works in .Net as well and is safer.
– AJD
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
-1
down vote
This is Excel, so some Excel built-in perks can be used.
Return a Variant, not a defined type because you can then return an error quite easily. Yes this does apply to general VBA as well.
Return early from the function if you can to save further checks - although in this simple example it is not really necessary.
Every time I see an ElseIf
I think that there is something in here that can be improved.
If you are looking to expand this later, then write it for such extension. The first example below just cleans up the code.
Public Function SelValue(ValOne As Long, ValTwo As Long, _
Optional NeedMax As Boolean = True) As Variant
If ValOne < 0 Or ValTwo < 0 Then
SelValue = CVErr(xlErrValue)
Exit Function
End If
If ValOne = 0 And ValTwo = 0 Then
SelValue = CLng(0)
Exit Function
End If
If NeedMax Then
SelValue = IIf(ValOne > ValTwo, CLng(ValOne), CLng(ValTwo)) ' But note comments about a minor performance hit
Exit Function
End If
If ValOne = 0 Then
SelValue = CLng(ValTwo)
Exit Function
End If
' Now that we have cleaned out the special cases above. NeedMax is False
If ValOne > ValTwo And ValTwo <> 0 Then
SelValue = CLng(ValTwo)
Else
SelValue = CLng(ValOne)
End If
End Function
The above code is not the final way I would leave it - personally I would refactor it again because I prefer only one exit/return from a function. But the above iteration highlights something important. It isolates the logic. And you don't handle the case where ValTwo = 0
Addendum: SelValue = CVErr(xlErrValue)
is only useful if the function is a UDF. Raising error #5 (Err.Raise 5
) here and still returning a Long is a valid approach for a non-UDF. Thanks to Mathieu Guindon.
I did it again!If()
instead ofIIf()
– AJD
2 hours ago
2
SelValue = CVErr(xlErrValue)
is only useful if the function is a UDF. I would absolutelyErr.Raise 5
here and still return aLong
.
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
Returning Variant to be able to return an Error instead of Raising it is bad advice. That's even more true when seen through the lens of performance, where returning Variant incurs overhead for type-coercion and IDispatch/IUnknown.
– Vogel612♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
First, the default value seems like it's overkill here. The function should be a Min
function or a Max
function, not both. It's not going to kill you to have two functions with clear arguments that describe what they are doing.
The naming is suspect too. SelValue
doesn't sound like the name of a function - it sounds like a procedure or property. It invokes the idea of doing something, not returning a value. I'd rename it. Note that I can't even suggest a good name because of the first thing, because FindHigherOrLowerOfTwoNumbers()
seems a little... weird.
As far as performance, that would be the last thing on my mind. This is only performing comparison operations between numbers, and that should be blazingly fast regardless of how many extra comparisons you've managed to sneak in there:
- You don't have to check explicitly to see if they're both zero. If they're equal and both happen to be zero, you'll get zero back anyway.
- If both of them are the same, that's the only check you need to do. Just pick one and return it.
VBA's If
statements don't short circuit, so I'd structure this as a Select Case
and filter away remaining cases on my way down.
Select Case True
Case ValOne < 0 Or ValTwo < 0
SelValue = -1
Case ValOne = ValTwo
SelValue = ValOne
Case NeedMax
If ValOne > ValTwo Then
SelValue = ValOne
Else
SelValue = ValTwo
End If
Case ValOne < ValTwo
SelValue = ValOne
Case Else
SelValue = ValTwo
End Select
Oh well, there goes my draft! :)
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
@MathieuGuindon - Reading fail. Edited (although I'll stand by the rest of that bullet).
– Comintern
2 hours ago
1
Based on the comment conversation though, it appears-1
is actually an error flag; hence I'd move that first case last, and throw error 5 - eliminating a highly redundant if-check at the call site.
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
1
@MathieuGuindon That would make a good answer. ;-)
– Comintern
2 hours ago
Yeah, I like theSelect Case
approach - I was going to add it to my answer.
– AJD
2 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
First, the default value seems like it's overkill here. The function should be a Min
function or a Max
function, not both. It's not going to kill you to have two functions with clear arguments that describe what they are doing.
The naming is suspect too. SelValue
doesn't sound like the name of a function - it sounds like a procedure or property. It invokes the idea of doing something, not returning a value. I'd rename it. Note that I can't even suggest a good name because of the first thing, because FindHigherOrLowerOfTwoNumbers()
seems a little... weird.
As far as performance, that would be the last thing on my mind. This is only performing comparison operations between numbers, and that should be blazingly fast regardless of how many extra comparisons you've managed to sneak in there:
- You don't have to check explicitly to see if they're both zero. If they're equal and both happen to be zero, you'll get zero back anyway.
- If both of them are the same, that's the only check you need to do. Just pick one and return it.
VBA's If
statements don't short circuit, so I'd structure this as a Select Case
and filter away remaining cases on my way down.
Select Case True
Case ValOne < 0 Or ValTwo < 0
SelValue = -1
Case ValOne = ValTwo
SelValue = ValOne
Case NeedMax
If ValOne > ValTwo Then
SelValue = ValOne
Else
SelValue = ValTwo
End If
Case ValOne < ValTwo
SelValue = ValOne
Case Else
SelValue = ValTwo
End Select
Oh well, there goes my draft! :)
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
@MathieuGuindon - Reading fail. Edited (although I'll stand by the rest of that bullet).
– Comintern
2 hours ago
1
Based on the comment conversation though, it appears-1
is actually an error flag; hence I'd move that first case last, and throw error 5 - eliminating a highly redundant if-check at the call site.
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
1
@MathieuGuindon That would make a good answer. ;-)
– Comintern
2 hours ago
Yeah, I like theSelect Case
approach - I was going to add it to my answer.
– AJD
2 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
First, the default value seems like it's overkill here. The function should be a Min
function or a Max
function, not both. It's not going to kill you to have two functions with clear arguments that describe what they are doing.
The naming is suspect too. SelValue
doesn't sound like the name of a function - it sounds like a procedure or property. It invokes the idea of doing something, not returning a value. I'd rename it. Note that I can't even suggest a good name because of the first thing, because FindHigherOrLowerOfTwoNumbers()
seems a little... weird.
As far as performance, that would be the last thing on my mind. This is only performing comparison operations between numbers, and that should be blazingly fast regardless of how many extra comparisons you've managed to sneak in there:
- You don't have to check explicitly to see if they're both zero. If they're equal and both happen to be zero, you'll get zero back anyway.
- If both of them are the same, that's the only check you need to do. Just pick one and return it.
VBA's If
statements don't short circuit, so I'd structure this as a Select Case
and filter away remaining cases on my way down.
Select Case True
Case ValOne < 0 Or ValTwo < 0
SelValue = -1
Case ValOne = ValTwo
SelValue = ValOne
Case NeedMax
If ValOne > ValTwo Then
SelValue = ValOne
Else
SelValue = ValTwo
End If
Case ValOne < ValTwo
SelValue = ValOne
Case Else
SelValue = ValTwo
End Select
First, the default value seems like it's overkill here. The function should be a Min
function or a Max
function, not both. It's not going to kill you to have two functions with clear arguments that describe what they are doing.
The naming is suspect too. SelValue
doesn't sound like the name of a function - it sounds like a procedure or property. It invokes the idea of doing something, not returning a value. I'd rename it. Note that I can't even suggest a good name because of the first thing, because FindHigherOrLowerOfTwoNumbers()
seems a little... weird.
As far as performance, that would be the last thing on my mind. This is only performing comparison operations between numbers, and that should be blazingly fast regardless of how many extra comparisons you've managed to sneak in there:
- You don't have to check explicitly to see if they're both zero. If they're equal and both happen to be zero, you'll get zero back anyway.
- If both of them are the same, that's the only check you need to do. Just pick one and return it.
VBA's If
statements don't short circuit, so I'd structure this as a Select Case
and filter away remaining cases on my way down.
Select Case True
Case ValOne < 0 Or ValTwo < 0
SelValue = -1
Case ValOne = ValTwo
SelValue = ValOne
Case NeedMax
If ValOne > ValTwo Then
SelValue = ValOne
Else
SelValue = ValTwo
End If
Case ValOne < ValTwo
SelValue = ValOne
Case Else
SelValue = ValTwo
End Select
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
Comintern
3,68411124
3,68411124
Oh well, there goes my draft! :)
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
@MathieuGuindon - Reading fail. Edited (although I'll stand by the rest of that bullet).
– Comintern
2 hours ago
1
Based on the comment conversation though, it appears-1
is actually an error flag; hence I'd move that first case last, and throw error 5 - eliminating a highly redundant if-check at the call site.
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
1
@MathieuGuindon That would make a good answer. ;-)
– Comintern
2 hours ago
Yeah, I like theSelect Case
approach - I was going to add it to my answer.
– AJD
2 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
Oh well, there goes my draft! :)
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
@MathieuGuindon - Reading fail. Edited (although I'll stand by the rest of that bullet).
– Comintern
2 hours ago
1
Based on the comment conversation though, it appears-1
is actually an error flag; hence I'd move that first case last, and throw error 5 - eliminating a highly redundant if-check at the call site.
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
1
@MathieuGuindon That would make a good answer. ;-)
– Comintern
2 hours ago
Yeah, I like theSelect Case
approach - I was going to add it to my answer.
– AJD
2 hours ago
Oh well, there goes my draft! :)
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
Oh well, there goes my draft! :)
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
@MathieuGuindon - Reading fail. Edited (although I'll stand by the rest of that bullet).
– Comintern
2 hours ago
@MathieuGuindon - Reading fail. Edited (although I'll stand by the rest of that bullet).
– Comintern
2 hours ago
1
1
Based on the comment conversation though, it appears
-1
is actually an error flag; hence I'd move that first case last, and throw error 5 - eliminating a highly redundant if-check at the call site.– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
Based on the comment conversation though, it appears
-1
is actually an error flag; hence I'd move that first case last, and throw error 5 - eliminating a highly redundant if-check at the call site.– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
1
1
@MathieuGuindon That would make a good answer. ;-)
– Comintern
2 hours ago
@MathieuGuindon That would make a good answer. ;-)
– Comintern
2 hours ago
Yeah, I like the
Select Case
approach - I was going to add it to my answer.– AJD
2 hours ago
Yeah, I like the
Select Case
approach - I was going to add it to my answer.– AJD
2 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
This is a really funky way of formatting an If
statement and is totally inconsistent with the rest of the procedure (and the way most people would format it):
If ValOne > ValTwo _
Then SelValue = ValOne _
Else SelValue = ValTwo
I'd rearrange that as
If ValOne > ValTwo Then
SelValue = ValOne
Else
SelValue = ValTwo
End If
SelValue = If(ValOne > ValTwo, ValOne, ValTwo)
. Using the VBAIf()
function in this context is safe because all components are values, not objects and not likely to throw error in themselves.
– AJD
2 hours ago
@AJD, I like that approach. You should post as an answer.
– Rey Juna
2 hours ago
@AJD that'sIIf
;-)
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
1
@AJDIIf
is a function, so it involves stack manipulation - i.e. copying memory, pushing the stack pointer, popping back, etc. That's a horrible idea if you're looking for raw performance.
– Comintern
2 hours ago
@MathieuGuindon: thanks - yesIIf()
.If()
works in .Net as well and is safer.
– AJD
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
This is a really funky way of formatting an If
statement and is totally inconsistent with the rest of the procedure (and the way most people would format it):
If ValOne > ValTwo _
Then SelValue = ValOne _
Else SelValue = ValTwo
I'd rearrange that as
If ValOne > ValTwo Then
SelValue = ValOne
Else
SelValue = ValTwo
End If
SelValue = If(ValOne > ValTwo, ValOne, ValTwo)
. Using the VBAIf()
function in this context is safe because all components are values, not objects and not likely to throw error in themselves.
– AJD
2 hours ago
@AJD, I like that approach. You should post as an answer.
– Rey Juna
2 hours ago
@AJD that'sIIf
;-)
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
1
@AJDIIf
is a function, so it involves stack manipulation - i.e. copying memory, pushing the stack pointer, popping back, etc. That's a horrible idea if you're looking for raw performance.
– Comintern
2 hours ago
@MathieuGuindon: thanks - yesIIf()
.If()
works in .Net as well and is safer.
– AJD
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
This is a really funky way of formatting an If
statement and is totally inconsistent with the rest of the procedure (and the way most people would format it):
If ValOne > ValTwo _
Then SelValue = ValOne _
Else SelValue = ValTwo
I'd rearrange that as
If ValOne > ValTwo Then
SelValue = ValOne
Else
SelValue = ValTwo
End If
This is a really funky way of formatting an If
statement and is totally inconsistent with the rest of the procedure (and the way most people would format it):
If ValOne > ValTwo _
Then SelValue = ValOne _
Else SelValue = ValTwo
I'd rearrange that as
If ValOne > ValTwo Then
SelValue = ValOne
Else
SelValue = ValTwo
End If
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
FreeMan
634515
634515
SelValue = If(ValOne > ValTwo, ValOne, ValTwo)
. Using the VBAIf()
function in this context is safe because all components are values, not objects and not likely to throw error in themselves.
– AJD
2 hours ago
@AJD, I like that approach. You should post as an answer.
– Rey Juna
2 hours ago
@AJD that'sIIf
;-)
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
1
@AJDIIf
is a function, so it involves stack manipulation - i.e. copying memory, pushing the stack pointer, popping back, etc. That's a horrible idea if you're looking for raw performance.
– Comintern
2 hours ago
@MathieuGuindon: thanks - yesIIf()
.If()
works in .Net as well and is safer.
– AJD
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
SelValue = If(ValOne > ValTwo, ValOne, ValTwo)
. Using the VBAIf()
function in this context is safe because all components are values, not objects and not likely to throw error in themselves.
– AJD
2 hours ago
@AJD, I like that approach. You should post as an answer.
– Rey Juna
2 hours ago
@AJD that'sIIf
;-)
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
1
@AJDIIf
is a function, so it involves stack manipulation - i.e. copying memory, pushing the stack pointer, popping back, etc. That's a horrible idea if you're looking for raw performance.
– Comintern
2 hours ago
@MathieuGuindon: thanks - yesIIf()
.If()
works in .Net as well and is safer.
– AJD
2 hours ago
SelValue = If(ValOne > ValTwo, ValOne, ValTwo)
. Using the VBA If()
function in this context is safe because all components are values, not objects and not likely to throw error in themselves.– AJD
2 hours ago
SelValue = If(ValOne > ValTwo, ValOne, ValTwo)
. Using the VBA If()
function in this context is safe because all components are values, not objects and not likely to throw error in themselves.– AJD
2 hours ago
@AJD, I like that approach. You should post as an answer.
– Rey Juna
2 hours ago
@AJD, I like that approach. You should post as an answer.
– Rey Juna
2 hours ago
@AJD that's
IIf
;-)– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
@AJD that's
IIf
;-)– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
1
1
@AJD
IIf
is a function, so it involves stack manipulation - i.e. copying memory, pushing the stack pointer, popping back, etc. That's a horrible idea if you're looking for raw performance.– Comintern
2 hours ago
@AJD
IIf
is a function, so it involves stack manipulation - i.e. copying memory, pushing the stack pointer, popping back, etc. That's a horrible idea if you're looking for raw performance.– Comintern
2 hours ago
@MathieuGuindon: thanks - yes
IIf()
. If()
works in .Net as well and is safer.– AJD
2 hours ago
@MathieuGuindon: thanks - yes
IIf()
. If()
works in .Net as well and is safer.– AJD
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
-1
down vote
This is Excel, so some Excel built-in perks can be used.
Return a Variant, not a defined type because you can then return an error quite easily. Yes this does apply to general VBA as well.
Return early from the function if you can to save further checks - although in this simple example it is not really necessary.
Every time I see an ElseIf
I think that there is something in here that can be improved.
If you are looking to expand this later, then write it for such extension. The first example below just cleans up the code.
Public Function SelValue(ValOne As Long, ValTwo As Long, _
Optional NeedMax As Boolean = True) As Variant
If ValOne < 0 Or ValTwo < 0 Then
SelValue = CVErr(xlErrValue)
Exit Function
End If
If ValOne = 0 And ValTwo = 0 Then
SelValue = CLng(0)
Exit Function
End If
If NeedMax Then
SelValue = IIf(ValOne > ValTwo, CLng(ValOne), CLng(ValTwo)) ' But note comments about a minor performance hit
Exit Function
End If
If ValOne = 0 Then
SelValue = CLng(ValTwo)
Exit Function
End If
' Now that we have cleaned out the special cases above. NeedMax is False
If ValOne > ValTwo And ValTwo <> 0 Then
SelValue = CLng(ValTwo)
Else
SelValue = CLng(ValOne)
End If
End Function
The above code is not the final way I would leave it - personally I would refactor it again because I prefer only one exit/return from a function. But the above iteration highlights something important. It isolates the logic. And you don't handle the case where ValTwo = 0
Addendum: SelValue = CVErr(xlErrValue)
is only useful if the function is a UDF. Raising error #5 (Err.Raise 5
) here and still returning a Long is a valid approach for a non-UDF. Thanks to Mathieu Guindon.
I did it again!If()
instead ofIIf()
– AJD
2 hours ago
2
SelValue = CVErr(xlErrValue)
is only useful if the function is a UDF. I would absolutelyErr.Raise 5
here and still return aLong
.
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
Returning Variant to be able to return an Error instead of Raising it is bad advice. That's even more true when seen through the lens of performance, where returning Variant incurs overhead for type-coercion and IDispatch/IUnknown.
– Vogel612♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
This is Excel, so some Excel built-in perks can be used.
Return a Variant, not a defined type because you can then return an error quite easily. Yes this does apply to general VBA as well.
Return early from the function if you can to save further checks - although in this simple example it is not really necessary.
Every time I see an ElseIf
I think that there is something in here that can be improved.
If you are looking to expand this later, then write it for such extension. The first example below just cleans up the code.
Public Function SelValue(ValOne As Long, ValTwo As Long, _
Optional NeedMax As Boolean = True) As Variant
If ValOne < 0 Or ValTwo < 0 Then
SelValue = CVErr(xlErrValue)
Exit Function
End If
If ValOne = 0 And ValTwo = 0 Then
SelValue = CLng(0)
Exit Function
End If
If NeedMax Then
SelValue = IIf(ValOne > ValTwo, CLng(ValOne), CLng(ValTwo)) ' But note comments about a minor performance hit
Exit Function
End If
If ValOne = 0 Then
SelValue = CLng(ValTwo)
Exit Function
End If
' Now that we have cleaned out the special cases above. NeedMax is False
If ValOne > ValTwo And ValTwo <> 0 Then
SelValue = CLng(ValTwo)
Else
SelValue = CLng(ValOne)
End If
End Function
The above code is not the final way I would leave it - personally I would refactor it again because I prefer only one exit/return from a function. But the above iteration highlights something important. It isolates the logic. And you don't handle the case where ValTwo = 0
Addendum: SelValue = CVErr(xlErrValue)
is only useful if the function is a UDF. Raising error #5 (Err.Raise 5
) here and still returning a Long is a valid approach for a non-UDF. Thanks to Mathieu Guindon.
I did it again!If()
instead ofIIf()
– AJD
2 hours ago
2
SelValue = CVErr(xlErrValue)
is only useful if the function is a UDF. I would absolutelyErr.Raise 5
here and still return aLong
.
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
Returning Variant to be able to return an Error instead of Raising it is bad advice. That's even more true when seen through the lens of performance, where returning Variant incurs overhead for type-coercion and IDispatch/IUnknown.
– Vogel612♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
up vote
-1
down vote
This is Excel, so some Excel built-in perks can be used.
Return a Variant, not a defined type because you can then return an error quite easily. Yes this does apply to general VBA as well.
Return early from the function if you can to save further checks - although in this simple example it is not really necessary.
Every time I see an ElseIf
I think that there is something in here that can be improved.
If you are looking to expand this later, then write it for such extension. The first example below just cleans up the code.
Public Function SelValue(ValOne As Long, ValTwo As Long, _
Optional NeedMax As Boolean = True) As Variant
If ValOne < 0 Or ValTwo < 0 Then
SelValue = CVErr(xlErrValue)
Exit Function
End If
If ValOne = 0 And ValTwo = 0 Then
SelValue = CLng(0)
Exit Function
End If
If NeedMax Then
SelValue = IIf(ValOne > ValTwo, CLng(ValOne), CLng(ValTwo)) ' But note comments about a minor performance hit
Exit Function
End If
If ValOne = 0 Then
SelValue = CLng(ValTwo)
Exit Function
End If
' Now that we have cleaned out the special cases above. NeedMax is False
If ValOne > ValTwo And ValTwo <> 0 Then
SelValue = CLng(ValTwo)
Else
SelValue = CLng(ValOne)
End If
End Function
The above code is not the final way I would leave it - personally I would refactor it again because I prefer only one exit/return from a function. But the above iteration highlights something important. It isolates the logic. And you don't handle the case where ValTwo = 0
Addendum: SelValue = CVErr(xlErrValue)
is only useful if the function is a UDF. Raising error #5 (Err.Raise 5
) here and still returning a Long is a valid approach for a non-UDF. Thanks to Mathieu Guindon.
This is Excel, so some Excel built-in perks can be used.
Return a Variant, not a defined type because you can then return an error quite easily. Yes this does apply to general VBA as well.
Return early from the function if you can to save further checks - although in this simple example it is not really necessary.
Every time I see an ElseIf
I think that there is something in here that can be improved.
If you are looking to expand this later, then write it for such extension. The first example below just cleans up the code.
Public Function SelValue(ValOne As Long, ValTwo As Long, _
Optional NeedMax As Boolean = True) As Variant
If ValOne < 0 Or ValTwo < 0 Then
SelValue = CVErr(xlErrValue)
Exit Function
End If
If ValOne = 0 And ValTwo = 0 Then
SelValue = CLng(0)
Exit Function
End If
If NeedMax Then
SelValue = IIf(ValOne > ValTwo, CLng(ValOne), CLng(ValTwo)) ' But note comments about a minor performance hit
Exit Function
End If
If ValOne = 0 Then
SelValue = CLng(ValTwo)
Exit Function
End If
' Now that we have cleaned out the special cases above. NeedMax is False
If ValOne > ValTwo And ValTwo <> 0 Then
SelValue = CLng(ValTwo)
Else
SelValue = CLng(ValOne)
End If
End Function
The above code is not the final way I would leave it - personally I would refactor it again because I prefer only one exit/return from a function. But the above iteration highlights something important. It isolates the logic. And you don't handle the case where ValTwo = 0
Addendum: SelValue = CVErr(xlErrValue)
is only useful if the function is a UDF. Raising error #5 (Err.Raise 5
) here and still returning a Long is a valid approach for a non-UDF. Thanks to Mathieu Guindon.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
AJD
1,1881213
1,1881213
I did it again!If()
instead ofIIf()
– AJD
2 hours ago
2
SelValue = CVErr(xlErrValue)
is only useful if the function is a UDF. I would absolutelyErr.Raise 5
here and still return aLong
.
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
Returning Variant to be able to return an Error instead of Raising it is bad advice. That's even more true when seen through the lens of performance, where returning Variant incurs overhead for type-coercion and IDispatch/IUnknown.
– Vogel612♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I did it again!If()
instead ofIIf()
– AJD
2 hours ago
2
SelValue = CVErr(xlErrValue)
is only useful if the function is a UDF. I would absolutelyErr.Raise 5
here and still return aLong
.
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
Returning Variant to be able to return an Error instead of Raising it is bad advice. That's even more true when seen through the lens of performance, where returning Variant incurs overhead for type-coercion and IDispatch/IUnknown.
– Vogel612♦
1 hour ago
I did it again!
If()
instead of IIf()
– AJD
2 hours ago
I did it again!
If()
instead of IIf()
– AJD
2 hours ago
2
2
SelValue = CVErr(xlErrValue)
is only useful if the function is a UDF. I would absolutely Err.Raise 5
here and still return a Long
.– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
SelValue = CVErr(xlErrValue)
is only useful if the function is a UDF. I would absolutely Err.Raise 5
here and still return a Long
.– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
Returning Variant to be able to return an Error instead of Raising it is bad advice. That's even more true when seen through the lens of performance, where returning Variant incurs overhead for type-coercion and IDispatch/IUnknown.
– Vogel612♦
1 hour ago
Returning Variant to be able to return an Error instead of Raising it is bad advice. That's even more true when seen through the lens of performance, where returning Variant incurs overhead for type-coercion and IDispatch/IUnknown.
– Vogel612♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Rey Juna is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Rey Juna is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Rey Juna is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Rey Juna is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f209101%2ffunction-for-minimum-non-zero-with-multiple-additional-conditions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Are the parameters more likely to be positive or negative? It's called many times in what context?
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
1
@MathieuGuindon They should always be positive. The check for negatives is really an error check so that if
SelValue
is returned as-1
I can check for that. It is called to find an index number for a find result.– Rey Juna
2 hours ago
2
That's a code smell. If legal values should be positive, then illegal values should throw an error (#5 "invalid procedure call or argument" seems sensible), and that way you avoid a systematic check for exceptional conditions. Seeing the function in its usage context could be helpful and valuable IMO.
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago
There really should never be a negative value. Maybe I am being over cautious, but I always try to cover the bases.
– Rey Juna
2 hours ago
2
I've rolled back the last edit, since it incorporates feedback from an answer. Please don't invalidate answers with edits! =)
– Mathieu Guindon
2 hours ago