Re^3: Mr. Ternary is greater than Mrs. If Else

This looks quite orderly, since the only words you are using here are 'eval', 'statement' and 'expression'. If you fill that with 'real code', the picture will get different, and the tiny ':' will get hard to spot at a glance.

In contrast, 'if-elsif-else' statements stand out and are thus better readable on larger constructs.

As for \& {}, that's an abuse of the coderef constructor and it will clutter up your symbol table.

<expression> ? eval { <statement>; <statement>; <statement>; <expression> ? eval { <statement>; <statement>; <statement>; } : eval { <statement>; <statement>; <statement>; }; } : eval { <statement>; <statement>; <statement>; <expression> ? eval { <statement>; <statement>; <statement>; } : eval { <statement>; <statement>; <statement>; }; };
[download]

if (<expression>) { <statement>; <statement>; <statement>; if (<expression>) { <statement>; <statement>; <statement>; } else { <statement>; <statement>; <statement>; } } else { <statement>; <statement>; <statement>; if (<expression>) { <statement>; <statement>; <statement>; } else { <statement>; <statement>; <statement>; } }
[download]

What do you do with your large ?: construct if you have by chance to insert a third condition (a.k.a elsif) statement? Which of both columns is better readable? Can you tell at a glance if there's a semicolon missing (or one that causes a syntax error) on a line in the left column?

--shmem

_($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo.  G°\        /
                              /\_¯/(q    /
----------------------------  \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."·
");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}

Comment on Re^3: Mr. Ternary is greater than Mrs. If Else Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Mr. Ternary is greater than Mrs. If Else by PerlPhi (Sexton) on May 20, 2007 at 10:53 UTC
okey... you got the power. well, i got no things in mind yet to mind storm with Mr. Ternary over Mrs. If Else. anyway my delimma was already solved. thanks guys. it was appreciated... i will come back to this topic very soon, if ever i find a good try over Mrs. If Else in Perl. now, the good news is Mr. Tarnary operator can be used in multi-statements unlike to what i usually hear about it (that it can only be used in single statement only).	[reply]
Re^5: Mr. Ternary is greater than Mrs. If Else by blazar (Canon) on May 20, 2007 at 13:31 UTC
now, the good news is Mr. Tarnary operator can be used in multi-statements unlike to what i usually hear about it (that it can only be used in single statement only). Nope: the arguments to `?:` are expressions, period. But then Perl also has operators/functions/constructs that let you "interpolate" a whole block of code containing multiple statements into a single expression. Thus you have two different tools that you can use synergetically together: this is nothing new - just build something complex out of simple pieces. Update: (some philosophy) I've tried, along with others, to explain you that `if`, `else`, etc. on the one hand and `?:` on the other one are different things with different purposes, although also with some overlapping. Now I'll try with an analogy: suppose you have both a pickup and a scooter available. Now, if you have a huge load to bring from some place to another place, you will probably use the former, but if it's a tiny package, the latter. Granted: nobody prohibits to you to also use the pickup to transport the tiny package nor to invent some smart binding that will allow you to put the huge load on the scooter. That is exactly what you're doing. There are languages in which you only have either the pickup or the scooter: in those cases you have to do it those ways. But Perl lets you decide: it lets you decide to pick up the best suited tool for any given job - and also the not best suited one, if you really insist to. That's part of its TMTOWTDIness.	[reply] [d/l] [select]