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 '??'
> alo
> 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
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 bef
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
