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]"
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
$x = cond? a : b
does lazy evaluation, i.e. the value for a or for b is only fetched when
it's actually needed. In your construct, they're all fetched anyway
On Monday 30 July 2001 05:37 am, Me wrote:
> In a nutshell, you are viewing:
>
> foo if bar;
>
> as two statements rather than one, right?
>
Yep. The 5.7 docs explain it rather well, I think. Too bad I didn't read
them until *after* I had posted and taken off for work.
--
Bryan C. Warnoc
On Monday 30 July 2001 07:29 am, Bart Lateur wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 19:36:43 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> >$x = ($default,$a,$b)[$b<=>$a]; # Much like I did before
>
> Note that
>
> $x = cond? a : b
>
> does lazy evaluation, i.e. the value for a or for b is only fetched when
> it'
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 08:23:12PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
> raptor wrote:
> >
> > hi,
> >
> > we have <=> and 'cmp' operators but we don't have the conditional constroct
> > to use better their result :
> > May be forthcomming switch will solve this in some way, but isn't it better
> > to
Thus it was written in the epistle of Edward Peschko,
> > Maybe call it "if3"
> >
> > print do {
> > if3($A cmp $B){
> > "They're the same"
> > }{
> > "$A is before $B"
> > }{
> > "$B is bef
> 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
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 a
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
