Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from April 2012
On 4/25/12, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> wrote:
> The proposal appears to be, allow
>
> if ( BOOLEAN ) { TRUE BRANCH } else { FALSE BRANCH }
>
> and variations (unless, elsif, elsunless (do we even have that?) and so on)
>
> to act as R-values in assignment and elsewhere. In effect, making that
> syntax exactly a long way to write the ternary operator.
>
> An if-statement already sort of returns a value, but it can only be
> captured by enclosing the if-statement in a block of some kind, so the
> value gets returned
> according the "value of a block is the value of the last expression
> executed" rule.
If I'm following, the initial challenge is recognizing when an
'if(unless)/elsif/else' construct is intended to be an expression
(EXPR).
If that hurdle is passed, then I suppose you could pretend you had a
'do{if...}' and get an R-value. But what if you pretend you had a
(possibly nested) ternary? Wouldn't that buy you an L-value, too?
Just wondering.
--
Brad
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next