Will my for loop keep running after the catch block catches an exception

[junior sedge]

aaa

[fluid shell]

⌛ This post has been reserved for your question.

Hey @junior sedge! Please use /close or the Close Post button above when you're finished. Please remember to follow the help guidelines. This post will be automatically closed after 300 minutes of inactivity.

TIP: Narrow down your issue to simple and precise questions to maximize the chance that others will reply in here.

[static epoch]

the try/catch is executed once for every iteration of the loop, it has no bearing on the iteration of the loop

[junior sedge]

unless i add a break;

inside catch right

cuz i want to stop it from looping if it catches an error

catch an error - > delete placed tiles -> stop the looping

[static epoch]

put the for in the try then

[junior sedge]

that will still k++ ?

[static epoch]

why delete placed tiles? you shouldntve placed them if it's an invalid state

[junior sedge]

it checks one tile by one tile, to see if they respect the rules, and if one doesnt then remove the others

[static epoch]

why not just check all of them, and only if they all pass, place all of them

why worry about cleanup when you can just not create a dirty state to begin with

[junior sedge]

the dirty state is needed

im placing a line of tiles

[static epoch]

no, not really

[junior sedge]

the first 3 could respect the rules

but the last one no

it already doesnt place them if the rules are easy to detect

[static epoch]

yeah so only place them after you've checked all the tiles

so just.. do that here

having a consistent system will make it much easier to work with

could use streams

[junior sedge]

The basic checks like: 2 tiles in same line identical, 2 tiles in same line have different shape AND color, tile in line place already occupied by another tile, line of tiles placed somewhere where there isnt any other tile near. These basic checks dont place the tiles they just throw exception.

The hard check is the one where im checking in the grid in the line they will be placed if there is another tile touching with different color and shape

and for that i must place the tiles, so I can iterate through the whole line

otherwise around it its null

and it throws an exception

[static epoch]

you really don't

you can just check each tile in the sequence of tiles that are about to be placed there

[static epoch]

so handle that.

https://xyproblem.info you're just making it harder for yourself

the obvious solution has a trivial issue, and your reaction is to discard it and mix in a completely different way of doing things?

[junior sedge]

its not a trivial issue because there could be other lines involved

for example

this placement here is incorrect

the way im doing things right now

it places the blue square up there because that one is valid

and then the circle it checks for it

[static epoch]

that is kinda trivial though

i have no idea what the check actually is because you're so vague about it, but i assure you, it's much easier than fumbling with partial/dirty state

[junior sedge]

Im not trying to be vague at all

[static epoch]

then maybe try to be more specific

[junior sedge]

sec

[static epoch]

either way, you're going down the wrong path, just continue along the path you've been going down before

nope don't want to hear it

[junior sedge]

don't ask me to be specific then

anyways

this placement here is valid

even tho 2 identical tiles are on the same line in the grid

because they arent touching each other nor touching another line with the same tile

so i must check if there is a null everytime im checking, because when i find the null it means im done with the line and all gucci

except when trying for a line if i dont actually place the tiles itll detect nulls

because the path they got placed in is not there

and its important to place them because the tile at position 5 could perfectly be touching another line

so its not enough by just checking the line they got attached to

[static epoch]

aight ok let me be clear.
be more specific next time
imma just be blunt, you need to figure out how to ask better questions, give enough info to actually be helped
but this help thread doesn't need that, there's not really anything more to add. you can implement the checks without a partial state just fine, whatever they may be

[static epoch]

you can check for that without placing them.

[junior sedge]

you could technically yes, by saying if the direction im checking is the opposite as the one i placed them in then start the check where the first tile got checked

but thats more work than just placing and checking

and if invalid remove all

[static epoch]

it isn't

[junior sedge]

innocent until proven guilty

[static epoch]

you're just being stubborn now

[junior sedge]

no I actually believe it is more work

or maybe it isnt for the machine

for the machine its maybe less work

but for the human brain im carrying it is more work

but then again the point is to make it less work for the machine i guess

[static epoch]

ok but

1. it isn't.
2. this is conflicting with your existing design. this is how spaghetti code is born.
3. this is much less safe, just by nature of partial states.
4. it's more bug and error prone.

it's less work to implement because it reuses other parts of your design, and it saves you work fixing the damn thing

but sure go make your spaghetti code if you so believe it's less work

[junior sedge]

even if making the code you refer to would require a whole new method to treat multiple tiles ?

because by doing this "spaghetti code" im allowing myself to reuse the code that checks for one tile

[static epoch]

you can reuse code here too, yknow

[static epoch]

again, you're making it out to be harder than it actually is

im done here

[junior sedge]

I just rewrote it by not placing the tiles

I wrote much more lines but hey

if its better to write 10 extra lines than to have spaghetti code

why not