# Brainmess: Extract Jump Methods

Today, I’ll start to refactor the Brainmess program. In the first post I gave an “all-in-one” solution. Next I added some automated tests to give me some confidence that I don’t break anything during the process. The last time that I spoke about Brainmess, I just explained my implementation.

Notice that in the switch statement every case, except the last two cases, is one line of code (followed by a break). The last two cases are several lines long. These two are prime candidates for Extract Method. Why? The first reason is to reduce the length and nesting level of the program. The second is that I suspect these methods which are concerned with finding matching brackets are good candidates for unit testing. So I extract out the JumpForward and JumpBackward methods. The main method now looks like this:

// skip lines
case '[':
if (tape[tc] == 0)
{
pc = JumpForward(program, pc);
}
break;
case ']':
if (tape[tc] != 0)
{
pc = JumpBackward(program, pc);
}
break;
// skip lines


I think this is already cleaner. The methods make it clear that in one case we are jumping forward, and in the next we are jumping backward. In both cases, the methods scan the program starting from the current position and return the location of the matching bracket.

The methods look like this:

private static int JumpForward(string program, int pc)
{
int nestLevel = 1;
while (nestLevel > 0)
{
char instruction = program[pc];
if (instruction == '[')
{
nestLevel++;
}
else if (instruction == ']')
{
nestLevel--;
}
pc++;
}
return pc;
}

private static int JumpBackward(string program, int pc)
{
pc -= 2;
int nestLevel = 1;
while (nestLevel > 0)
{
char instruction = program[pc];
if (instruction == '[')
{
nestLevel--;
}
else if (instruction == ']')
{
nestLevel++;
}
pc--;
}
pc++;
return pc;
}


You can see the change I made (and the full files) by visiting my GitHub repository and viewing commit 4b15b4ca. After I made these changes, I ran my tests and found that they still passed.

Now, I’m not totally satisfied with the new methods. The first problem I want to address is that the two methods look almost identical. The main differences between the two is whether we increment or decrement a variable.

The second problem has to do with the pc -= 2 in the JumpBackward method. What is going on there? And why is the nestLevel initialized to 1 in both cases?

In the Run method we always increment the pc variable before executing the instruction. Therefore, when we go to execute the jump instructions the pc variable is pointing to the instruction immediately after the jump instruction. In the case of JumpForward this means that the nestLevel is indeed 1. We are nested one level deep relative to the current jump instruction. In the case of the JumpBackward we are in the same position, but only if we back up two instructions.

The third problem with this code, is that the jump instructions have this strange pre-condition that the pc variable needs to be positioned 1 after the bracket that caused the jump. That seems odd.

I’m going to create one new method named FindMatch that fixes all of these problems.

private static int JumpForward(string program, int pc)
{
const int increment = 1;
return FindMatch(program, pc - 1, increment) + 1;
}

private static int JumpBackward(string program, int pc)
{
const int increment = -1;
return FindMatch(program, pc - 1, increment);
}

/// <summary>
/// Finds the match for the bracket pointed to by
/// pc in the program. Increment tells the algorithm
/// which way to search.
/// </summary>
private static int FindMatch(string program, int pc, int increment)
{
int nestLevel = 1;
pc += increment;
while (nestLevel > 0)
{
char instruction = program[pc];
if (instruction == '[') nestLevel += increment;
else if (instruction == ']') nestLevel -= increment;
pc += increment;
}
return pc - increment;
}


It solves the first problem because it takes a increment variable that indicates which way to search thru the program string. This allows us to have just one method that knows how to find matching strings. (I still don’t like this exactly, but I’ll talk more about this later.)

It solves the second and third problems by stating the fact that it expects pc to point to an actual bracket. This method then finds the matching bracket. Like before we know that the nestLevel is 1. This is only true however, because on the next line we either move forward (or backward) to get “inside” of the loop.

I then updated the jump methods to delegate to FindMatch. They pass in 1 or -1 as appropriate for the increment parameter. In addition they don’t pass in the current pc value. They pass in pc - 1 which makes sure we are telling FindMatch to start with a bracket.

This change can be found at commit abe37577. Again, I ran my tests and they passed.

Now the last refactoring for this post.

I’m going to convert FindMatch into an extension method that can be used on any string, and I’m going to remove the increment parameter. This is what the Run method looks after the change.

// skip lines
case '[':
if (tape[tc] == 0)
{
pc = program.FindMatch(pc - 1) + 1;
}
break;
case ']':
if (tape[tc] != 0)
{
pc = program.FindMatch(pc - 1);
}
break;
// skip lines


Why did I remove the increment parameter? It didn’t make sense to me. The method FindMatch should find the the match and determine which way to search. So here is the implementation.

using System;

namespace BrainmessShort
{
public static class StringExtensions
{
/// <summary>
/// Finds the match for the bracket pointed to by
/// pc in the program. Increment tells the algorithm
/// which way to search.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="program"></param>
/// <param name="pc"></param>
/// <param name="increment"></param>
/// <returns></returns>
private static int FindMatch(this string program, int pc, int increment)
{
int nestLevel = 1;
pc += increment;
while (nestLevel > 0)
{
char instruction = program[pc];
if (instruction == '[') nestLevel += increment;
else if (instruction == ']') nestLevel -= increment;
pc += increment;
}
return pc - increment;
}

public static int FindMatch(this string program, int pc)
{
if (program[pc] == '[') return program.FindMatch(pc, 1);
if (program[pc] == ']') return program.FindMatch(pc, -1);
throw new ArgumentException("The character at specified location is not a square bracket");

}
}
}


You can see that there is one public version of FindMatch that determines the value
of increment and then delegates to the private one. All the code for this change can be found at commit abe37577.

Finally, I reran all my tests and they passed.

I am a software developer and part-time professor. I enjoy studying and discussing mathematics, computer science and software development.
This entry was posted in software development and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

### 7 Responses to Brainmess: Extract Jump Methods

1. Jmaxxz says:

The all in one implementation in your first post is a great example of the loop-switch sequence antipattern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop-switch_sequence

2. Michael says:

Based on my reading of the link you posted, it isn’t actually an example of that anti-pattern. (It’s specifically exempted.)

3. Jmaxxz says:

I suppose if you view this as an event handler, or an event driven finite state machine loop then I would agree. I would not have called the file stream an event stream though I can see how this is one possible way to model it. If the intent was to model it as an event driven finite state machine or a event handler loop then the issue would be the business logic being handled inline instead of by dedicated event handlers (with the switch just being the event router).

The reason I called it this antipattern is when I read the initial switch driven architecture I mentally modeled it as a command pattern. Since it was not modeled this way in the code in the article I was incorrect in calling it this antipattern.

4. Michael says:

This is the key quote I think “…it is only considered incorrect when used to model a known sequence of steps”.

We are never executing a known sequence of steps in that implementation. (I agree it’s got problems, hence my series of posts; but not necessarily this anti-pattern).

5. Pingback: Loop Invariant Proofs | Loominate