in reply to Object::InsideOut field type validation

Note that you used
! defined $val || $val > 0
in one place and
! defined $v or $v > 0
in the other.

Argument "undef" isn't numeric in numeric gt (>)

That's not a Perl message. Perl 5.6 to 5.10 all return 

Use of uninitialized value in numeric gt (>)

[download]

Update: LOL! As oshalla points out, this is the warning you get for the string 'undef', as opposed to an undefined value.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Object::InsideOut field type validation
by Bloodnok (Vicar) on Feb 05, 2009 at 19:49 UTC
    TFT ikegami, I knew it would be something simple.

    Having said that, the problem can be removed by including no warnings; in the code ... 

    sub validate_max_size {
    my $val = shift;

    no warnings;
    ! defined $val || $val > 0;
}

    [download]
    gets rid of the problem ... or at least allows a different problem to surface in my test harness ;-)

    A user level that continues to overstate my experience :-))
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

      I don't get it :-( I tried:

        use strict ;
  use warnings ;

  try() ;        #     none: 1
  try(undef) ;   #    undef: 1
  try(-1) ;      #       -1: 0
  try(0) ;       #        0: 0
  try(1) ;       #        1: 1

  sub try {
    my ($s) = @_ ;

    my $r = validate_max_size(@_) ;

    if    (@_ == 0)      { $s = "none" ;  }
    elsif (!defined($s)) { $s = "undef" ; } ;

    printf "%8s: %d\n", $s, $r+0 ;
  } ;

  sub validate_max_size {
    my $val = shift;

    ! defined $val || $val > 0;
  }

      [download]
      on perl 5.10.0, and got no warnings...

      I don't know if there's an ointment for bracket-alergy as extreme as this... I would write:

        !defined($val) || ($val > 0) ;

      [download]
      'cos I'm comfortable with unaries binding tighter than binaries... but the effect is the same as what you writ.

      Wait a tick... this gives the error you mentioned:

        try('undef') ;  # Argument "undef" isn't numeric in numeric gt (>) .
+..

      [download]
      could it be that somebody, somewhere, is mapping undef to 'undef' ?

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom