Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2011
* John Imrie <j.imrie@virginmedia.com> [2011-01-31 20:35]:
> On 31/01/2011 10:20, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> >* Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker<ilmari@ilmari.org> [2011-01-31 10:45]:
> >>Aristotle Pagaltzis<pagaltzis@gmx.de> writes:
> >>
> >>>+ if (my $how = $replacement{$func}) {
> >>>+ croak "Unimplemented: POSIX::$func() is C-specific, stopped" if not defined $how;
> >>>+ croak "Unimplemented: POSIX::$func() $$_" if ref $how;
> >>>+ croak "Use method $_() instead of POSIX::$func()" if $how =~ /->/;
> >>>+ croak "Unimplemented: POSIX::$func() is C-specific, use $_ instead";
> >>>+ }
> >>
> >>s/\$_/\$how/g ?
> >
> >woops, good catch. Thanks for the feedback. It’ll be fixed when
> >I send the patches to perlbug.
>
> Isn't this a good candidate for a given/when construct?
>
> given ($replacement{$func}) {
> when (! defined) { croak "Unimplemented: POSIX::$func() is
> C-specific, stopped"; }
> when (ref) { croak "Unimplemented: POSIX::$func() $$_"; }
> when (/->/) { croak "Use method $_() instead of POSIX::$func()"; }
> default { croak "Unimplemented: POSIX::$func() is
> C-specific, use $_ instead"; }
> }
I’m not sure.
I don’t find the code significantly clearer either way and
I didn’t want to modernise without a clear win in readability.
I do like that it makes naming the value unnecessary, though.
Does anyone have a strong opinion about this suggestion?
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next