Re^2: strange scope

If you use strict and warnings (or at least warnings), you should get a warning like:

Found = in conditional, should be == at scope_test.pl line 5.
[download]

For example, in the following code:

use strict;
use warnings;

while (my $y = 1) {
    $y = 0;
    print "hello (y = $y)\n";
}
[download]

You will get the warning about "= in conditional".

It's also interesting to note that this test program, which is essentially equivalent to:

use strict;
use warnings;

my $y = 0;
while ($y = 1) {
    $y = 0;
    print "hello (y = $y)\n";
}
[download]

will never terminate, even though $y is set to zero each time, because it's set to 1 immediately before the condition of the while statement is evaluated.

s''(q.S:$/9=(T1';s;(..)(..);$..=substr+crypt($1,$2),2,3;eg;print$..$/

Comment on Re^2: strange scope Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: strange scope
by jasonk (Parson) on May 23, 2007 at 14:29 UTC

I find it interesting that so many people jumped on the "you don't want to do an assignment in a conditional" bandwagon without even knowing what the right hand side of the assignment is. There are times when an assignment in a conditional is exactly what you want. Here is an example that I use almost daily with DBIx::Class...

my $rs = $schema->resultset( 'Foo' );
while ( my $record = $rs->next ) {
    # do something with the record
}
[download]

The warning you mention only occurs if the right hand side of the assignment is a constant, and the OP didn't include what was in the RHS.

We're not surrounded, we're in a target-rich environment!

[reply]
[d/l]

Re^3: strange scope
by Beechbone (Friar) on May 23, 2007 at 15:31 UTC

I also find it strange that a node that completely ignores the question of the op gets such a high reputation.

_Search, Ask, ^{Know something completly different}

[reply]

Re^3: strange scope
by blazar (Canon) on May 23, 2007 at 09:16 UTC

will never terminate, even though $y is set to zero each time, because it's set to 1 immediately before the condition of the while statement is evaluated.

Yep, one would want to use redo there, in that case.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]