Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Syntactic Confectionery Delight
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Order of operations, mutators, aliasing and whammies

by Abigail-II (Bishop)
on Sep 05, 2003 at 21:31 UTC ( [id://289358]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Re: Order of operations, mutators, aliasing and whammies
in thread Order of operations, mutators, aliasing and whammies

Perl does have a defined order of evaluation;

Do you know something that neither p5p nor comp.lang.perl.misc knows? Order of evaluation has been discussed recently on both forums, and noone one these forums has been able to show that Perl has a defined order of evaluation. Please quote the relevant parts of the documentation that define order of evaluation in general. (Order of evaluation is defined for &&, ||, and, or and comma in scalar context, but not generally).

How can I trust
print 5+1;
always prints 6, and not 5 (and a warning)?

Precedence garantees that. Just like C, Perl does have well defined precedence and associativity rules. But neither language has a defined order of evaluation.

Abigail

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Order of operations, mutators, aliasing and whammies
by Jenda (Abbot) on Sep 09, 2003 at 12:01 UTC

    This one thing amazes me. ML is functional (though not purely), side-effects are pretty rare there, yet it does specify the order of evaluation in all cases. C and Perl are full of side-effects, yet they don't.

    Jenda
    Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will be a violent psychopath who knows where you live.
       -- Rick Osborne

    Edit by castaway: Closed small tag in signature

      Not defining order of evaluation leaves more possibilities open for optimalizations. Consider for instance the expression:
      f ($a) + g ($a)
      If you define an order of evaluation, it would probably be:
      • fetch the value of $a
      • call f() with $a as argument, remember the return value
      • fetch the value of $a
      • call g() with $a as argument, remember the return value
      • add the return values of f() and g().
      Notice the twice fetching of $a. If the order of evaluation isn't defined, you can first fetch the value of $a twice. Even if you do fetch the value twice (instead of fetching it once and remembering the results), doing it before calling f() and g() could be a win due to an increased chance of cache hits. It will also give you the opportunity to evaluate sub expressions in parallel.

      Last but not least, if the order of evaluation is defined, people will start writing code that depends on this. This will lead to fragile code, that will break if you swap the arguments of an otherwise symmetric operator.

      Finally, I don't see how lazy evaluation and a defined order of evaluation combine to a happy programming language. Perl6 will have a defined order of evaluation, and have lazy evaluation. I wonder how Larry is going to pull off that one.

      Abigail

        I don't think the problem is with having laziness and defined order of evaluation. It's side-effects per-se that create the problem. Which is why laziness is usualy only present in purely functional (free of any side-effects) languages.

        The defined O-of-E could actually make the problem slightly smaller. Anyway IMHO the only thing Lary can do is to write a warning in the docs. "Don't mix laziness and side effects. If you do, don't come to us crying ;-)"

        Jenda
        Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will be a violent psychopath who knows where you live.
           -- Rick Osborne

        Edit by castaway: Closed small tag in signature

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://289358]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others chanting in the Monastery: (8)
As of 2024-04-25 08:02 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found