Re^6: Switch.pm Failure

"The only way that this Switch { ... } block would make sense is if somewhere there was a sub Switch (&);

wow, but even then i would have done Switch sub {...} just like i say my $n=scalar(@ar);, im not into golf

Comment on Re^6: Switch.pm Failure Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Switch.pm Failure by haukex (Archbishop) on Feb 25, 2017 at 20:59 UTC
i would have done `Switch sub {...}` Ok, but without the `sub` is also not uncommon, for example I'd say Try::Tiny's `sub try (&;@)` clearly looks better when written `try { ... } catch { ... };`. In regards to your other post: the whole `(logical-test) && do { process-stmts} ;` setup while legal is very "un-perlish" I disagree, I think it's very perlish, in fact probably "too" perlish! ;-) given/when Note that these were retroactively marked experimental as of v5.16, and will generate warnings in Perl v5.18 and above: It is clear that smartmatch is almost certainly either going to change or go away in the future. Relying on its current behavior is not recommended.	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^7: Switch.pm Failure
by haukex (Archbishop) on Feb 25, 2017 at 20:59 UTC

i would have done Switch sub {...}

Ok, but without the sub is also not uncommon, for example I'd say Try::Tiny's sub try (&;@) clearly looks better when written try { ... } catch { ... };.

In regards to your other post:

the whole (logical-test) && do { process-stmts} ; setup while legal is very "un-perlish"

I disagree, I think it's very perlish, in fact probably "too" perlish! ;-)

given/when

Note that these were retroactively marked experimental as of v5.16, and will generate warnings in Perl v5.18 and above:

It is clear that smartmatch is almost certainly either going to change or go away in the future. Relying on its current behavior is not recommended.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]