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 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
This makes no sense. ?: tests a boolean value, which is either true or false.
There is no ternary state for a boolean value. True/False, Yes/No, On/Off,
1/0. Are you suggesting Yes/No/Maybe? Or are you redefining True and False?
Doesn't matter. What you're asking has no counterpart in boolean
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 14:22:23 +0300, raptor wrote:
But at least the second shortcut is worth it, i think :
cond ? then : else : otherwise
This has a vague smell of Fortran.
--
Bart.
David Grove wrote:
There is no ternary state for a boolean value. True/False, Yes/No, On/Off,
1/0. Are you suggesting Yes/No/Maybe? Or are you redefining True and False?
He's suggesting True/False/-True (as in, 1/0/-1, which is what you get
from cmp and =). How hard is that to understant?
Bart Lateur wrote:
This has a vague smell of Fortran.
Nothing vague about it. It is exactly analogous to Fortran's three-way if.
--
John Porter
This makes no sense. ?: tests a boolean value, which is either true or
false.
There is no ternary state for a boolean value. True/False, Yes/No, On/Off,
1/0. Are you suggesting Yes/No/Maybe? Or are you redefining True and
False?
]- I'm not talking about boolean's... but mostly this can be
But at least the second shortcut is worth it, i think :
cond ? then : else : otherwise
This has a vague smell of Fortran.
]- I don't know Fortran sorry :)
=
iVAN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 18:08:00 +0300, raptor wrote:
But at least the second shortcut is worth it, i think :
cond ? then : else : otherwise
This has a vague smell of Fortran.
]- I don't know Fortran sorry :)
Then check this out.
http://www.engr.umd.edu/~nsw/ench250/fortran1.htm#IFA
Linguistically, if then else, otherwise doesn't make sense, since 'else'
and 'otherwise' are synonymous.
]- ok .. I choosed wrong word... I'm not native English sorry... but I agree
that if-else-otherwise construct is not so good, for most of the people... I
forgot about it already :)
? : :
: Re: if then else otherwise ...
Linguistically, if then else, otherwise doesn't make sense,
since 'else'
and 'otherwise' are synonymous.
]- ok .. I choosed wrong word... I'm not native English sorry...
but I agree
that if-else-otherwise construct is not so good, for most of the
people
On Sunday 29 July 2001 04:32 pm, raptor wrote:
index(ref $var, 'A') - 1 ? SCALAR-LVALUE-case : HASH-case : ARRAY-case;
That one is actually rather clever
Most of your examples, however, look like you are attempting to bandage some
poorly designed code upstream. (Perhaps not, but writing
in ?:: or any other condition checking block, 0 is true, everything else
is
false. I am yet to see why otherwise or any third condition is needed.
If
that's then we can have 4 conditions 1,0,-1,undef, and we can keep going.
That is why there are conditions, if you want to check for -1 you
What's the point, you can accomplish the same with if/elsif/else. Maybe I'm
not understanding this correctly, but
if (cond)
{}
elsif (cond)
{}
else
{}
Ilya
-Original Message-
From: raptor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 9:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've/m never used/ing elseif ( i hate it :) from the time I have to edit
a perl script of other person that had 25 pages non-stop if-elsif sequence)
... never mind there is two conditions in your example...
of coruse i've think of this just like a shortcut nothing special ... later
on :
$x =
Oh boo hoo. Might I suggest a good introductory Perl book?
p
On Saturday 28 July 2001 12:32, raptor wrote:
I've/m never used/ing elseif ( i hate it :) from the time I have to
edit a perl script of other person that had 25 pages non-stop if-elsif
sequence) ... never mind there is two
-Original Message-
From: raptor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 12:32 PM
To: Sterin, Ilya; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: if then else otherwise ...
I've/m never used/ing elseif ( i hate it :) from the time I
have to edit
a perl script of other person
22 matches
Mail list logo
