Operator Associative in Perl

irah has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Operator Associative in Perl by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jun 03, 2009 at 15:37 UTC
there is no associative for '++' and '--' operator There are two major mistakes there. You're actually concerned about the order in which the operands of the list operator (`,`) are evaluated. Operand evaluation order has nothing to do with operator associativity (which determines precedence of instances of operators with the same precedence). While Perl doesn't document its operand evaluation order, it always evaluates operands from left to right for left-associative operators and exponentiation (*), and from right to left for assignments operators. This case is no exception. There are two characteristics (features?) of Perl that cause the result you observe: Perl passes arguments to functions and subs by reference. `$a`, `--$a` and `++$a` return `$a` as an l-value. So, that means `printf("%d%d%d%d%d\n",$a++,$a--,++$a,--$a,$a);` [download] is basically equivalent to `do { local @_; alias $_[0] = "%d%d%d%d%d\n"; alias $_[1] = $a++; # Returns new value 5, $a=6 alias $_[2] = $a--; # Returns new value 6, $a=5 alias $_[3] = ++$a; # Returns $a (lvalue) $a=6 alias $_[4] = --$a; # Returns $a (lvalue) $a=5 alias $_[5] = $a; # Returns $a (lvalue) $a=5 \&printf; }` [download] When `printf` gets the values from `@_`, it sees 5 6 5 (the current value of $a) 5 (the current value of $a) 5 (the current value of $a) When I run the same program in C, I got, 45555. Please explain how it is working?* C leaves the operand evaluation order up to the compiler. Results will vary from compiler to compiler. It looks like yours passed by reference, evaluating from right to left.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
pre and post increment of subroutine arguments by ig (Vicar) on Jun 04, 2009 at 21:37 UTC
I find the difference between $a++ and ++$a as subroutine arguments to be quite interesting/surprising. In a subroutine the elements of @_ are usually aliases to the arguments of the subroutine call, allowing the subroutine to modify the caller's variables. In the case of ++$a, the corresponding element of @_ is a reference to the same IV as $a but in the case of $a++ it is a reference to a new IV, effectively preventing the subroutine from modifying the caller's variable. In both cases the array element is an lvalue (i.e. it can be modified), but only in the case of pre-increment can the subroutine modify the caller's variable. Using pre/post increment/decrement on an argument to a subroutine that attempts to modify that argument is not a good thing to do because the order of execution is not defined. None the less, the difference in implementation is interesting. Read more... (2 kB)	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Operator Associative in Perl by lakshmananindia (Chaplain) on Jun 03, 2009 at 11:02 UTC
From man perlop Note that just as in C, Perl doesn't define when the variable is incremented or decremented. You just know it will be done sometime before or after the value is returned. This also means that modifying a variable twice in the same statement will lead to undefined behaviour. Avoid statements like: `$i = $i ++; print ++ $i + $i ++;` [download] Perl will not guarantee what the result of the above statements is. --Lakshmanan G. The great pleasure in my life is doing what people say you cannot do.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^2: Operator Associative in Perl by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jun 03, 2009 at 15:24 UTC
Perl doesn't define when the variable is incremented or decremented. [...] Perl will not guarantee what the result of the above statements is. While operand evaluation order isn't documented, the order is the same in all versions on all platforms (intentionally), and changing it would break a lot of code. `perl` always evaluates operands from left to right for left-associative operators and exponentiation (`**`), and from right to left for assignments operators.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: Operator Associative in Perl by JavaFan (Canon) on Jun 03, 2009 at 12:59 UTC
Basically what you are saying is, "give me the value of $a, increment it sometimes afterwards", "give me the value of $a, decrement it sometimes afterwards", "give me the value of $a but only after you've incremented it", "give me the value of $a, but only after you've decremented it". Note that you never say at which moment the value of $a needs to change, just that it needs changing sometime before (or after) fetching the value. Getting 56555 is not unreasonable. But another result wouldn't have been unreasonable either. In general, it's a bad idea to use ++ or -- twice on the same variable in the same statement is a bad idea. Or to assign to a variable in the same statement as you apply ++ or -- to that variable.	[reply]
Re^2: Operator Associative in Perl by catellus (Initiate) on Jun 04, 2009 at 17:24 UTC
JavaFan said: `>In general, it's a bad idea to use ++ or -- twice on the >same variable in the same statement is a bad idea.` [download] The paralell of the repitition in the sentence to the original topic gave me quite a chuckle. I hope it was intentional.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: Operator Associative in Perl by JavaFan (Canon) on Jun 04, 2009 at 17:31 UTC
It wasn't intentional, but it does stress it's a bad idea. ;-)	[reply]
Re: Operator Associative in Perl by vinoth.ree (Monsignor) on Jun 03, 2009 at 11:00 UTC
perldoc perlop Auto-Increment and Auto-Decrement Perl operator Associate More on operator Vinoth,G	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Operator Associative in Perl by nagalenoj (Friar) on Jun 03, 2009 at 13:33 UTC
I remember brainbench questions on seeing your question. It's really interesting when solving the problems like this. When I run the same program in C, I got, 45555 Like this, many things differs across languages. No need to compare with other languages. As Javafan said, its good not to use these kind of code and its better not to confuse your team and maintainers.	[reply]
Re^2: Operator Associative in Perl by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Jun 03, 2009 at 18:49 UTC
... its good not to use these kind of code and its better not to confuse your team and maintainers. When I was a kid, we often went to Saturday afternoon horror or monster movie matinees. Sometimes they would show a 3-D movie that used anaglyphic viewers, cheap cardboard 'glasses' with a red or green filter over each eye. The viewers were always clearly marked as to which color filter went with which eye, right or left. Some kids always insisted on wearing the viewers backwards. They always got headaches. Something similar is happening here. And while we're (more or less) on the topic of 50's sci-fi, and with reference to the example expression of the OP... "Man does not look upon the face of the Gorgon and live." Morbius, Forbidden Planet, 1956 Update: In Morbius quote: made slight correction, added reference to pertinent topic.	[reply]