Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from April 2009
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:01:02PM +0100, Hakim Cassimally wrote:
> 2009/4/29 Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>:
> > Hakim Cassimally wrote:
> >>
> >> I wanted to be able to write:
> >>
> >> my $x = given ($blah) {
> >> ....
> >> default { 'foo' }
> >> }
> >>
> > Seems like along that path would lie:
> >
> > my $x = if ($blah) { ... } else { 'foo' };
> >
> > Some part of me finds your expectation appealing and some part of me is
> > revolted. :-)
>
> Perhaps I've been programming too much Haskell... I certainly don't
> see why a case statement *shouldn't* work as an expression. (And it
> doesn't turn my stomach either ;-)
>
> (And why resort to the chain of ?: ternaries, given that that's the
> kind of ugliness that the switch was brought in to deal with in the
> first place?)
>
> Actually, I don't dislike the idea of an if-expression either, but to
> be honest, for a single expression a ternary is neater.
As noted upthread, a do {} block makes if work fine as an expression - I
do this quite a bit to clarify complex ternaries. given should, really,
also work in this context IMO, and I can't see that we'd lose anything
by doing so.
Perhaps you could have a go at writing a test to give people a basis to
work from?
--
Matt S Trout Catalyst and DBIx::Class consultancy with a clue
Technical Director and a commit bit: http://shadowcat.co.uk/catalyst/
Shadowcat Systems Limited
mst (@) shadowcat.co.uk http://shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next