my($foo) = blah($yadda); unless( $foo ) { $foo = barf->new(); } unless( $foo ) { $foo = gazonkly(); } if ( $foo < $boo ) { return ERROR_CODE; }
When reading this code, if I determine that $foo was set to a non-zero value greater than $boo by function blah(), I only need to read the first half of each of the subsequent lines to know they don't impact the scenario I'm considering.
When they're written backwards to the underlying logic, I can't do that. I have to read all of each line, and then forget what I've read if it doesn't apply. That's why I don't consider the idiom any clearer when written backwards. I have to wonder: why did you think reversing tradition was a good idea in this (specific) case?
In reply to Re^6: If I was forced to program in another language, the Perl language feature I would miss most would be:
by Anonymous Monk
in thread If I was forced to program in another language, the Perl language feature I would miss most would be:
by grinder
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |