Re^3: do $n exist in grep?

I use a similar idiom in formulating a return responses or external calls, sometimes:

my ($stdout, $stderr, $ret) = capture {
    system('foo',
        ($somearg  ? ('--somearg'  => $somearg ) : ()),
        ($otherarg ? ('--otherarg' => $otherarg) : ()),
    );
};
[download]

...or...

return {
    status => $s,
    ($optional_field ? (optional_field => $optional_field) : ()),
};
[download]

Caveat emptor. The need to do either of these may constitute code smell, but sometimes purity has to give way to get it done-ery.

Dave

Comment on Re^3: do $n exist in grep? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: do $n exist in grep? by choroba (Cardinal) on May 12, 2021 at 17:02 UTC
It's also possible to shorten the lines with `('--somearg' => $somearg ) x !! $somearg, ('--otherarg' => $otherarg) x !! $otherarg,` [download] but only if the left hand side of `x` doesn't have any side-effects (because unlike the ternary operator, `foo() x 0` still calls foo). See also PerlX::Maybe. `map{substr$_->[0],$_->[1]\|\|0,1}[\\|\|{},3],[[]],[ref qr-1,-,-1],[{}],[sub{}^ARGV,3]`	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^5: do $n exist in grep? by davido (Cardinal) on May 12, 2021 at 17:26 UTC
That's interesting. I'm not sure it qualifies as coding for clarity, but perhaps neither does my example. Dave	[reply]
Re^4: do $n exist in grep? by Marshall (Canon) on May 12, 2021 at 20:46 UTC
Interesting: `return { status => $s, ($optional_field ? (optional_field => $optional_field) : ()), };` [download] I personally would not make a hash key optional like that. I would always return the hash key and then an undef value for that key if it is not valid. But as is often said "there is more than one way to do it". It could also be that I haven't thought this completely through and haven't considered what the calling code looks like and how it processes this returned info.	[reply] [d/l]