Re^5: perldelta unclear on 'given's fate

It's essentially the same with For-If just the fall trough is inverse.

See provided code examples.

update

i.e. you need to terminate with explicit next statements to avoid fall through.

  for ($var){
    if (/abc/) { print "abc"}        # falls through
    if (/def/) { print "def" ;next}
    if (/xyz/) { print "xyz" ;next}
    print "default";
  }
[download]

Cheers Rolf

( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

Comment on Re^5: perldelta unclear on 'given's fate Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: perldelta unclear on 'given's fate by Tommy (Chaplain) on Jan 05, 2014 at 21:15 UTC
I actually think that's pretty cool, despite my desire to see a native switch. I have often use hash constructs to accomplish switch-like behavior, and I think that the for ( $var ) ... approach is much nicer... `# Example of the hash-construct "switch", which is limited and has no +"default". # The output of this code is "abc" use Moo; my $val = 'c'; my @args = qw( abc ); my $obj = __PACKAGE__->new(); { a => sub { say 'a' }, b => \&b, c => sub { $obj->c( @_ ) }, }->{ $val }->( @args ); sub b { say 'b' }; sub c { shift; say for @_ };` [download] Tommy A mistake can be valuable or costly, depending on how faithfully you pursue correction	[reply] [d/l]
Re^6: perldelta unclear on 'given's fate by Bloodnok (Vicar) on Jan 06, 2014 at 14:18 UTC
Hmmm LanX, not unlike the construct I found when and have used ever since, I was looking for an alternative to the Switch modules available at the time - viz... `for ($var){ SWITCH: { /abc/ && do { print "abc"} # falls through /def/ && do { print "def" ; last SWITCH } /xyz/ && do { print "xyz" ; last SWITCH } print "default"; }; . . }` [download] A construct I much prefer (for readability if nothing else) to what sometimes appear to extend to seemingly interminable if-elif-else constructs. A user level that continues to overstate my experience :-))	[reply] [d/l]