in reply to defined() might be a good idea
in thread Check on if statement

I wasn't saying that defined() doesn't have important uses, only that it use as given in the referenced post was not useful.

That said, I wouldn't use a regex as you have either. You point out one reason yourself, though m//s would probably address that concern, but, as others pointed out earlier, using a regex to test a string against a single, predefined char (or word)--especially when that char is a non-word char, meaning that the m//i option would be of no benefit--is simply overkill.

Personally, I would probably code the test as: 

if ( !defined($foo) or  $foo eq '' or $foo eq '?' ) { 
    print "\$foo OK!\n"; 
}

[download]

as using a regex against a fixed string seems pointless and I prefer positive conditions to negative ones.

Update:Modified condition, struck irrelevant comments. Seems I lost track of the original questioners reqs. Personally, I probably still wouldn't use a regex for this.

What's this about a "crooked mitre"? I'm good at woodwork!

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: defined() might be a good idea
by demerphq (Chancellor) on Aug 18, 2002 at 17:28 UTC
    I havent read the rest of the thread, I only comment because of your mistake in the cb ;-), but the test you describe: 
    if ( defined($foo) and $foo eq '?' ) { 
    print "\$foo OK!\n"; 
}

    [download]
    Would be better (Lazier) written 
    print "\$foo OK!\n" 
   if $foo and $foo eq '?';

    [download]
    in my opinion anyway...

    Note that since $foo must be a '?', then it cant be _any_ false value, defined being only one of three. Thus you can dispose of the defined test and replace it with simple true or false.

    Yves / DeMerphq
    ---
    Software Engineering is Programming when you can't. -- E. W. Dijkstra (RIP)

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom