56 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
56 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
== Why is this an issue?
|
|
|
|
Nested ``++switch++`` structures are difficult to understand because you can easily confuse the cases of an inner ``++switch++`` as belonging to an outer statement. Therefore nested ``++switch++`` statements should be avoided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specifically, you should structure your code to avoid the need for nested ``++switch++`` statements, but if you cannot, then consider moving the inner ``++switch++`` to another function.
|
|
|
|
=== Noncompliant code example
|
|
|
|
[source,php]
|
|
----
|
|
switch($a) {
|
|
case "foo":
|
|
switch($b) { // Noncompliant
|
|
case "bar":
|
|
doSomething();
|
|
break;
|
|
}
|
|
break;
|
|
}
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
=== Compliant solution
|
|
|
|
[source,php]
|
|
----
|
|
function handleFoo($foo) {
|
|
switch($foo) {
|
|
case "bar":
|
|
doSomething();
|
|
break;
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
switch($a) {
|
|
case "foo":
|
|
handleFoo($b);
|
|
break;
|
|
}
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]
|
|
|
|
'''
|
|
== Implementation Specification
|
|
(visible only on this page)
|
|
|
|
include::../message.adoc[]
|
|
|
|
'''
|
|
== Comments And Links
|
|
(visible only on this page)
|
|
|
|
include::../comments-and-links.adoc[]
|
|
endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]
|