Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2020
At risk of derailing the try/catch discussion, I'll reply anyway but as
a different subject line
On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 12:13:55 +0100
"H.Merijn Brand" <h.m.brand@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> I have a few real-world switches, all use *just* 4 cases
>
> when (undef)
Oh. Hrm; none of my four mentioned operators so far (eq, ==, isa, =~)
are nicely defined for undef. They can't be used to distinguish undef
from defined values.
As a side-note, I have sometimes wanted an "undef-aware-eq"
operator that is true for undef/undef, false without warning for
undef/defined, and otherwise acts exactly like eq for two defined
values. Also for ==.
I wonder if the invention of those kinds of operator would help my
dumbmatch idea...
> when ("fixed-string")
> when (42)
> when (qr{^foo})
>
> My longest production-case switch/given is 206 lines long, it has
> • 33 when (qr{foo | bar})
> • 19 when ("foo")
Ah; a single "given" that contains both regexp pattern and string
equality tests? I guess that particular mixture might be more common
than the more general case. It can easily be supported by just
rewriting them as
when (qr{\Afoo\z})
but it might be nice to see if a better solution could be found.
> That script has 2600 lines of embedded documentation and about 800
> lines of code and comments: this means that 25% of the script is taken
> by the given/when block
Overall: I'm not quite sure what you're advocating for or against here.
You've supplied some information but I'm unsure what to do with it.
--
Paul "LeoNerd" Evans
leonerd@leonerd.org.uk | https://metacpan.org/author/PEVANS
http://www.leonerd.org.uk/ | https://www.tindie.com/stores/leonerd/
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next