in reply to Re: Using 'and'
in thread Array Woes

TMTOWTDI, of course, but I'd prefer to say:

#!/usr/bin/perl use strict; use warnings; use IO::Socket::INET; my @host = qw[ 192.168.1.3 192.168.46.2 ]; my $port = 22; foreach (@host) { check($_, $port); } sub check { my ($ip, $port) = @_; print ( my $sock = IO::Socket::INET->new( PeerAddr => $ip, PeerPort => $port, Proto => 'tcp', timeout => 10, ) ? "$ip is listening on port $port\n" : "$ip is NOT listening on port $port.\n" ) }

But then again, I'm a sucker for the ternary operator.


LAI
:eof

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Using 'and'
by tadman (Prior) on Dec 12, 2002 at 22:20 UTC
    I think that edges into obfuscation territory. What about this?
    #!/usr/bin/perl use strict; use warnings; use IO::Socket::INET; my @host = qw[ 192.168.1.3 192.168.46.2 ]; my $port = 22; foreach (@host) { check($_, $port); } sub can_connect { my ($ip, $port) = @_; return ! !IO::Socket::INET->new( PeerAddr => $ip, PeerPort => $port, Proto => 'tcp', timeout => 10, ); } sub check { my ($ip, $port) = @_; my $can_connect = can_connect($ip,$port); print "$ip is "; print "NOT" unless ($can_connect); print " listening on port $port\n"; return $can_connect; } sub check_variation { my $can_connect = can_connect(@_); print "$ip is "; print "NOT" unless ($can_connect); print " listening on port $port\n"; return $can_connect; }
      > I think that edges into obfuscation territory. What about this?
      I call that obfuscation through abundance. :-)

      ...All the world looks like -well- all the world, when your hammer is Perl.
      ---v

      Note: I could have sworn I sent this in yesterday... bah.

      My code edges into obfuscation? How about your double-negative return? ^^;;

      ++ on your modifications, but might I suggest:

      #!/usr/bin/perl use strict; use warnings; use IO::Socket::INET; my @host = qw[ 192.168.0.5 66.100.167.57 ]; my $port = 22; foreach (@host) { check($_, $port); check_variation($_, $port); check_complication($_,$port); } sub can_connect { my ($ip, $port) = @_; return ! !IO::Socket::INET->new( PeerAddr => $ip, PeerPort => $port, Proto => 'tcp', timeout => 10, ); } sub check { my ($ip, $port) = @_; my $can_connect = can_connect($ip,$port); print "$ip is "; print "NOT " unless ($can_connect); print "listening on port $port\n"; return $can_connect; } sub check_variation { # changed this so Strict doesn't complain my $can_connect = can_connect(my ($ip,$port) = @_); print "$ip is "; print "NOT " unless ($can_connect); print "listening on port $port\n"; return $can_connect; } sub check_complication { print "$_[0] is ".($_?"":"NOT ")."listening on port $_[1]\n" and return $_ for can_connect(@_); }

      When I was in high school I had a friend who believed he didn't have bad handwriting because, after all, he could read at least 85% of it. In that vein, "this isn't obfuscation!"


      LAI
      :eof
        The double-negative is, of course, to replicate the functionality of the earlier function which returned either 1 or undef. Invert once, and you get 1 on false, undef on true. Invert again, and you get 1 on true, undef on false.

        It's a cheap trick, and using !! can even throw off some syntax highlighters, so I tend to space it out.

        Here's another way to do it:
        my $foo = (....) && 1;
Re: Re: Re: Using 'and'
by agentv (Friar) on Dec 12, 2002 at 23:48 UTC
    > But then again, I'm a sucker for the ternary operator.

    ...I like that. I must confess to the same weakness.

    ...All the world looks like -well- all the world, when your hammer is Perl.
    ---v