Re^5: Situation where warning "Found = in conditional, should be" seems obsolete (documentation


The stupid question is the question not asked
	PerlMonks

Re^5: Situation where warning "Found = in conditional, should be" seems obsolete (documentation - C terminology)

by rsFalse (Chaplain)

on Feb 06, 2021 at 20:07 UTC ( #11127991=note: print w/replies, xml )

Need Help??

in reply to Re^4: Situation where warning "Found = in conditional, should be" seems obsolete (documentation - C terminology)
in thread Situation where warning "Found = in conditional, should be" seems obsolete

Do '&&' and '||' short-circuit in C?

>>if returns a value like the operand and

Ye, I was surprised, when if returned the result of its conditional (because it was false) and didn't proceeded to a sencence! (The long discussion about this finding was here: printing unitialized value of the 'do BLOCK')

Comment on Re^5: Situation where warning "Found = in conditional, should be" seems obsolete (documentation - C terminology) Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^6: Situation where warning "Found = in conditional, should be" seems obsolete (documentation - C terminology)
by LanX (Sage) on Feb 06, 2021 at 20:15 UTC

> Do && and || short-circuit in C?

Yes, and Perl introduce and and or as low precedence alternatives.

> The long discussion

yes we had this before

simple example

  DB<226> p do { unless (42) {  } }
42
  DB<227>
[download]

Please keep in mind that "ternary operator" is not correct either, since it's a mathematical term classifying a whole family of operators with 3 operands. ? : is just the only ternary one in these languages.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)

Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom