... you are pretending to not understand it. Presumably. ... if you've ever worked in a production environment with code more than five minutes old. Say 20+ years.
As I said, I was trying to present arguments for "the Perl way" of looking at things. I intended my replies to be friendly, and if you took offense at the few light jabs I made, I apologize. If, as you seem to be saying, you have 20+ years of C experience, then I know I could learn from that. I'm just offering my 20+ years of Perl experience here. As you can probably imagine I'm not a big fan of insults, and that's not what I'm trying to do here, but I am a fan of correctness, and unless I misunderstood you, I do think you're wrong in a couple of points.
You can try to pretend being explicit about what a return value of something must be is bad, but if you say that you can't sit there and argue that having literally no idea is more informed. That is worse than wrong. ... With explicit return values, there is no confusion unless you are deliberately being foolish.
Sorry but I think you are mistaken about what I said and meant. Let me be more direct: defined is documented to return "a Boolean value", nothing more. Testing a boolean with if( BOOL eq "" ) to check for false values is incorrect. As per Truth and Falsehood, which I linked to earlier, there are three basic "false" values in Perl: 0, "", and undef. The test would fail on the first case because "0" eq "" is false. (Update: More on the comparison operators here.)
The way to explicitly check for "false" in Perl is if( not EXPR ) or the other variants I showed. The way to check for "true" is if( EXPR ), or, if you want to be really explicit about it, which was how I understood your argument, then use if( !!(EXPR) ) (see also "Bang bang" in perlsecret).
Not quite, in Perl it could also be "0 but true" (e.g. sysseek), or in theory any other "true" value.
Sysseek does not return a conditional, it returns a position or undef. ... Ironically, mentioning sysseek is important, they couldn't do if( ! sysseek() ){...} because the failure state, undef, and a success state, 0, both become a truthful value after not so they ended up using an exception to get around a lousy logic style.
Are you talking about C or Perl here? Because in Perl, you can do if( !sysseek() ) to test for failure, that is the point of the "0 but true" return value - when evaluated as a number, it is 0, and in a boolean context, it is true. So the only false value sysseek should return is undef on failure, and it shouldn't normally throw an exception either. Note that the string "0 but true" is special-cased in Perl to not warn when it is used as a number, this is described in fcntl and ioctl. Another value that is sometimes used as a "numerically zero but true in a boolean context" value is the string "0E0".
sysseek($fh,0,0) returned "0 but true"
sysseek($fh,42,0) returned 42
sysseek($fh,-1,0) returned undef
undef: bool=false, str= "", num=0 (warns: uninit x 2)
"": bool=false, str= "", num=0 (warns: numeric)
0: bool=false, str= "0", num=0
"0": bool=false, str= "0", num=0
1: bool=true , str= "1", num=1
"1": bool=true , str= "1", num=1
"foo": bool=true , str= "foo", num=0 (warns: numeric)
Perl's true: bool=true , str= "1", num=1
Perl's false: bool=false, str= "", num=0
"0 but true": bool=true , str="0 but true", num=0
"3 and true": bool=true , str="3 and true", num=3 (warns: numeric)
"0E0": bool=true , str= "0E0", num=0
0E0: bool=false, str= "0", num=0
1E0: bool=true , str= "1", num=1
"1E0": bool=true , str= "1E0", num=1
pryrt also wrote a good post in a similar vein here.
Defined itself not returning the value on success or undef on not defined is probably the core reason we can't have sensible returns.
Sorry, I don't understand this point.
In C there are more than one return values on failures, and there are functions which return status values or pointers.
Right, which is why I said "you don't check that with somefunc()==-1". What I meant is that if a function is documented to return a negative value on failure, I'd first use if( somefunc()<0 ), or, if I needed to inspect it closer, int rv = somefunc(); if ( rv<0 ) { handle_error(rv); } or something along those lines.
Additionally, even if you use defined, you have to know in advance whether or not your function can return a defined-but-false value. ... And documentation is nice, except if you've ever worked in a production environment with code more than five minutes old.
I completely agree that poorly maintained documentation is a problem. Fortunately, the Perl documentation for the most part doesn't suffer from that problem and can be taken seriously.
Update 2019-08-17: Updated the link to "Truth and Falsehood". | [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
I'm wondering if, by focusing on the sysseek aside, you've missed the point about the return value of defined() itself. It returns something that is indistinguishable from the return value of the == operator. See below.
By doing an explicit test against a single value, rather than leaving defined() to return a "truthy" value itself, future readers would be well within their rights to infer that defined() may return one of many integers (~4billion in 32bit world, ~18 billion billion in 64bit world, ...) or one of an infinitude of possible strings, and that compared value of 0 or "" is somehow magically important, without any indication that the importance comes because the function is returning a Boolean (or at least something that can be interpreted in a truthy manner). On the other hand, if you left !defined($var) as the sole element of the conditional, you would show you expect the return from defined() function to be truthy (Boolean), and are using it as such. To me, this is more clear than the comparison to the magic number (or magic string). But if you're the only person who will ever read your code, and you are 100% certain that perl will never change the false return to be 0|"0" instead of 0|"", then continue as you want. In which case, I'd recommend the defined($var)==0 rather than defined($var) eq '', because it seems more future proof, and programmers from other languages are possibly more accustomed to integers being mildly truthy (for example, c's if(5) evaluating true) than they would be to strings evaluating true.
(BTW: Sorry about my use of -1 in an earlier post: I had misremembered that c defaulted to -1 for TRUE... But before making this post, I did a quickie in gcc, and saw that 1==1 really did return 1. Maybe I'm remembering some ancient compiler I used 20+ years ago. Or my memory is making this up.)
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
A year ago, I said:
(BTW: Sorry about my use of -1 in an earlier post: I had misremembered that c defaulted to -1 for TRUE... But before making this post, I did a quickie in gcc, and saw that 1==1 really did return 1. Maybe I'm remembering some ancient compiler I used 20+ years ago. Or my memory is making this up.)
I finally figured it out.
I recently rescued and resurrected my family's old TI99-4/A (Mom was about to sell it in a garage sale!), and was reminded: In TI-BASIC, TRUE is represented by -1. You can go to http://js99er.net/, select TI BASIC, and type PRINT 1=1 to see that oddity for yourself.
| [reply]
[d/l] |
I have a dim memory of seeing #define TRUE (-1) somewhere, and IIRC, the accompanying documentation explained how that value was used because even if you mask it with an & or shift the value, it's still true. Haven't seen it anywhere since then, though.
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
defined($var)==0
Use of uninitialized value in numeric eq (==)
use strict;
use warnings;
my $variable = undef;
if( undef == 0 ){
print "undef == 0\n";
}
if( $variable == 0 ){
print "\$variable undef == 0\n";
}
if( "" == 0 ){
print "\"\" == 0\n";
}
if( undef eq 0 ){
print "undef eq 0\n";
}
if( undef eq 0 ){
print "\$variable undef eq 0\n";
}
if( undef eq "" ){
print "undef == \"\" \n";
}
if( 0 == "0" ){
print "0 == \"0\"\n";
}
if( 0 eq "" ){
print "0 eq \"\"";
}
if( undef eq "" ){
print "undef == \"\"\n";
}
if( defined ($variable) eq "" ){
print "undef == \"\"\n";
}
exit 0;
The last two cases may be of particular interest. undef is uninitialized as itself or from a variable, but as the result of defined it is not uninitialized. Magic conditions. I'm running Perl 5.26.1
Nvm: doy. Defined returns "" on undef. | [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |