Yes, this is semi-related to the 'my $a if 0;' behavior.
Out of morbid curiosity (since I'm working on documentation), given the
program that the following program generates:
#!/your/path/to/perl -w# perl 5.6.1
my @l = ('a' .. 'g');
my $my = 0;
for my $v (@l) {
my @a = map { \$$v .=
In a nutshell, you are viewing:
foo if bar;
as two statements rather than one, right?
Personally, I think it's more natural to view the above as one
statement, so any my anywhere in one element of it does not
apply to other elements of it.
Out of morbid curiosity (since I'm working on documentation), given the
program that the following program generates:
#!/your/path/to/perl -w# perl 5.6.1
my @l = ('a' .. 'g');
my $my = 0;
for my $v (@l) {
my @a = map { \$$v .= '$_' } @l;
$a[$my++] = my $a[$my];
print
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 19:36:43 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
$x = ($default,$a,$b)[$b=$a]; # Much like I did before
Note that
$x = cond? a : b
does lazy evaluation, i.e. the value for a or for b is only fetched when
it's actually needed. In your construct, they're all fetched anyway,
On Monday 30 July 2001 05:37 am, Me wrote:
In a nutshell, you are viewing:
foo if bar;
as two statements rather than one, right?
Yep. The 5.7 docs explain it rather well, I think. Too bad I didn't read
them until *after* I had posted and taken off for work.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
On Monday 30 July 2001 07:29 am, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 19:36:43 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
$x = ($default,$a,$b)[$b=$a]; # Much like I did before
Note that
$x = cond? a : b
does lazy evaluation, i.e. the value for a or for b is only fetched when
it's actually
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 08:23:12PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
raptor wrote:
hi,
we have = and 'cmp' operators but we don't have the conditional constroct
to use better their result :
May be forthcomming switch will solve this in some way, but isn't it better
to have shortcut
Thus it was written in the epistle of Edward Peschko,
Maybe call it if3
print do {
if3($A cmp $B){
They're the same
}{
$A is before $B
}{
$B is before $A
} };
Ed,
Why should it die a horrible death? It seems like something which could be
pretty easily implemented:
sub if3 ($) {
return {$_[1]} unless $_[0];
return {$_[2]} if $_[0] 0;
return {$_[3]};
}
gives the functionality. A little more research (and perhaps a quick
On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 04:34:46PM +0300, raptor wrote:
if (cond)
{ }
else {}
otherwise {}
i.e.
if cond == 1 then 'then-block'
if cond == 0 then 'else-block'
if cond == -1 then 'otherwise-block'
Sounds like you need a switch, yes. The cases where cond will
be 1, 0 and -1 is
Thus it was written in the epistle of Edward Peschko,
ok, never mind. I got the impression that this was a built-in function, ie:
if3 goes along with = the same that ()? : goes along with if() else.
I have no problem if it follows from prototypes. Maybe we could implement '??'
along the
11 matches
Mail list logo
