Re: Format Style Opinions: my, ternary, subroutine

I find it almost completely unreadable, and disagree vehemently with PBP's suggestion that nested ternaries are anything other than a horrible idea.

I can think of no good reason why this simple functionality should be written so tersely, when a more sensible approach takes up almost the same amount of space.

sub xyz { 
    my ( $ttt, $xxx, $yyy );
    ( $xxx, $yyy ) = @_       if @_ == 2;
    ( $ttt, $xxx, $yyy ) = @_ if @_ == 3;
    croak 'Not good' unless $xxx and $yyy;
}
[download]

As a tangent, I'd also consider thinking about why you have a sub where the first parameter is optional -- it's a lot easier if optional parameters go on the end.

Comment on Re: Format Style Opinions: my, ternary, subroutine Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Format Style Opinions: my, ternary, subroutine by jffry (Hermit) on Dec 04, 2007 at 18:37 UTC
friedo wrote: > ...consider thinking about why you have a sub where the first parameter is optional... Because it is a wrapper for a command. Suppose the command was ls. It would be convenient to call the sub, thus: `ls('-lrt', '/home');` [download] Does this convenience not outweigh breaking from the convention that optional args go last?	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: Format Style Opinions: my, ternary, subroutine by webfiend (Vicar) on Dec 04, 2007 at 19:11 UTC
My first thought is "If it's good enough for `system`, it's good enough for me" `$ perl -e 'system("ls", "/home/brian");' # ... my stuff $ perl -e 'system("ls", "-lrt", "/home/brian");' # ... my stuff` [download]	[reply] [d/l]