maybe a little example will make it clearer
DB<1> sub tst {return undef} DB<2> if ($a=tst()) {print "TRUE"} else {print "FALSE" } FALSE DB<3> if (@a=tst()) {print "TRUE"} else {print "FALSE" } TRUE DB<4> sub tst { return (); } DB<5> if ($a=tst()) {print "TRUE"} else {print "FALSE" } FALSE DB<6> if (@a=tst()) {print "TRUE"} else {print "FALSE" } FALSE
line 4 is of course redundant, return; and return (); do exactly the same thing.
> I have found it wise to always return an explicit value,
OK, if you wanna code more "explicitly", you should better define constants for TRUE, FALSE and FAILED.
DB<9> use constant FAILED => (); DB<10> use constant FALSE => !1; DB<11> use constant TRUE => 1; DB<12> sub t_FALSE { return FALSE; } DB<13> sub t_TRUE { return TRUE; } DB<14> sub t_FAILED { return FAILED; } DB<15> if (@a=t_FAILED) {print "TRUE"} else {print "FALSE" } FALSE DB<16> if (@a=t_FALSE) {print "TRUE"} else {print "FALSE" } TRUE DB<17> if ($a=t_FALSE) {print "TRUE"} else {print "FALSE" } FALSE DB<18> if ($a=t_FAILED) {print "TRUE"} else {print "FALSE" } FALSE
If you wonder about my definition of FALSE, see Truth and Falsehood in perlsyn:
Negation of a true value by "!" or "not" returns a special fals +e value. When evaluated as a string it is treated as '', but as a number +, it is treated as 0.
UPDATE:
please note: FALSE is defined!
DB<27> p !defined (FAILED) 1 DB<28> p defined (FALSE) 1
i.e. FALSE acts like a defined value like in most other languages.
UPDATE:
On second thought FAILED should better be named EMPTY or NOTHING. Failure is just an interpretation of returning nothing.
Cheers Rolf
In reply to Re^5: Perl Style: ... (TRUE, FALSE and FAILED)
by LanX
in thread Perl Style: Is initializing variables considered taboo?
by ait
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |