Surprising Precedence/Context

williams has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

I don't understand why the following dies on the last line.

#!/usr/bin/perl

use strict;
use warnings;

my($bad)='/this/path/does/not/exist';
die "$bad exists, but must not\n" if -f $bad;

my($yes1)=(defined $bad and -f $bad); #2nd parens seem unnecessary,
die "yes1=$yes1\n" if $yes1;          #but does not die here; good

my($yes2)=defined $bad and -f $bad;   #2nd parens removed,
die "yes2=$yes2\n" if $yes2;          #but dies here; why?
[download]

The parentheses on the left-hand side of the my statement for both $yes1 and $yes2 should impose list context on the right-hand side. So I'd expect the parentheses added for $yes1 to have no effect. Also, I didn't think the two operators used here, defined and -f, changed behavior between scalar and list context. Also, I'd expect the low-precedence and to keep the defined and the -f separated from each other.

This is on Linux with Perl 5.10.1, which I can't control. Thanks.

Jim

Comment on Surprising Precedence/Context Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Surprising Precedence/Context by Paladin (Vicar) on Jun 02, 2017 at 18:03 UTC
As you can see below, the `=` binds tighter than the `and`, so your second example is parsing as: `(my($yes2)=defined $bad) and -f $bad;` [download] Deparse: `[~]$ perl -MO=Deparse -e 'my($yes2) = defined $bad and -f $bad;' -f $bad if my($yes2) = defined $bad; -e syntax OK` [download]	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^2: Surprising Precedence/Context by Anonymous Monk on Jun 02, 2017 at 18:46 UTC
When looking at precedence issues, the -p (full parens) Deparse option is helpful. `> perl -MO=Deparse,-p -e 'my($yes2) = defined $bad and -f $bad;' ((my($yes2) = defined($bad)) and (-f $bad));` [download]	[reply] [d/l]
Re^2: Surprising Precedence/Context by williams (Beadle) on Jun 02, 2017 at 19:04 UTC
Ouch. Thanks. Jim	[reply]
Re: Surprising Precedence/Context by LanX (Saint) on Jun 02, 2017 at 19:15 UTC
As a side note: Perl comes with with a second set of logical operators for `and` , `or` and `not', with much higher precedence ie '&&` , `\|\|` and `!` (compare perlop#Operator-Precedence-and-Associativity and perlop#Logical-Not ff) You wouldn't need parens then. One reason `and` and `or` are so weak is to allow their use in flow control (in combination with short circuiting) Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :) Je suis Charlie!}	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^2: Surprising Precedence/Context by williams (Beadle) on Jun 02, 2017 at 19:51 UTC
That must explain this too, `#!/usr/bin/perl use strict; use warnings; sub returnsTrueButExpectedFalse {return 1 and 0} die if 1 and 0; #does not die, but die if returnsTrueButExpectedFalse(); #does die here, surprisingly` [download] `B::Deparse` shows the `return` statement as this, `(return(1) and 0);` [download] which isn't quite enough to say the `return(1)` happens before the `0` is evaluated. That must be what's happening though, from your reminder about flow control and `and`. Thanks for the tip about `B::Deparse`. Jim	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: Surprising Precedence/Context ("and" is "if") by LanX (Saint) on Jun 02, 2017 at 20:11 UTC
like AnoMonk explained, use the -p switch with B::Deparse to see more parens `D:\Users\lanx>perl -MO=Deparse,-p -e"sub { return 1 and 0 }" sub { ((return 1) and 0); } ; -e syntax OK` [download] Please note that -x7 or higher will also show the equivalence between `if` and `and` (albeit in the opposite direction) `D:\Users\lanx>perl -MO=Deparse,-p,-x7 -e"sub { 0 if return 1 }" sub { ((return 1) and 0); } ; -e syntax OK` [download] Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :) Je suis Charlie!}	[reply] [d/l] [select]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.