If all it does is evaluate a variable, then you might want to use a dispatch table... with a code-ref

Something like:

my %dispatch = (
  value1 => \&code_A();
  value2 => \&code_B();
  value3 => \&code_C();
);

# and in your code:

if (exists $dispatch{$somevar}) {
  $dispatch{$somevar}->();
}
[download]

my $contition = $some_letter;

my %dispatch = (
  a => sub {
      # do something with a
  },
  b => \&do_something_with_b,
  c => ...
);
$dispatch{$condition}->();
[download]

my @dispatch = (
  sub { shift() eq 'a' } => sub { "do something with a" },
  sub { shift() == 105 } => sub { "do something with 105" },
);
for (my $i; $i < @dispatch; $i+=2) {
  $dispatch[$i+1]->() if $dispatch[$i]->($variable);
}
[download]

use Switch::Perlish;

switch $your_var, sub {
  case 'this',  \&this_function;
  case 'that',  \&that_function;
  case 'the',   \&the_function;
  case 'other', \&other_function;
  default
    sub { print "Nothing matched '$your_var'\n" };
};
[download]

broquaint++. Very clever indeed.

I wish I'd written that :). I have had half a dozen attempts at doing so and got near to something usable a few times, but always got hung up on weird syntax and error handling.

You could remove the need for the 'sub' keyword on the 'default' with a prototype, but that would be inconsistant with 'case'. Now, if only prototypes allowed the use of & in the positions other than the first to accept a bare-block, this could be damn nearly perfect.

Nice!

---

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

The "good enough" maybe good enough for the now, and perfection maybe unobtainable, but that should not preclude us from striving for perfection, when time, circumstance or desire allow.

Thank you so much for your help. I will definitely be using this module!

smack

lupey