I did not say that your code was "incorrect".   What I did say was that  ? : is usually used as an rvalue expression:

my $variable = /condition/ ? 'TRUE' : 'FALSE';

or as an lvaue expression:

( /condition/ ? $true : $false ) = 'something';

but very rarely, if ever, used in a void context.

The /no_proc/ is a match statement on $_ which yields a true/false value.

The /no_proc/ is a match operator on $_ which yields a true/false value.

print will return a "true value".

It will if it worked correctly, otherwise it will return a "false value".

What would "print /adsf/;" mean? I think nothing,

"print /adsf/;" would print whatever /adsf/ returned, usually either 1 or '' for "true" or "false".   But that is not what the expression I wrote would do which would print either "$_\n" or "$_ : in proc\n" depending on whether /no_proc/ was "true" or "false".

I would respectfully disagree on some points and hopefully we can agree on the main point.

I dunno what got my brain working on the ternary operator idea, maybe it was the "and" or "&&" stuff? (no pun intended). I normally don't use this syntax in Perl code.

The main point here is that this is a simple "if","else" condition, not a more complex construction with "and" and "next". That's it! That concept is stunning in its simplicity.

 # I think the if/else is better and I think
 # we agree on that. The if/else can be written like this, but
 # nobody cares! Let's just stop talking about it!
 # It simply does NOT matter. We are beating a dead horse if
 # we worry about this:
 #  /no_proc/ ? print "$_\n" 
 #            : print "$_ : in proc\n" ;  
 #
 
 # some very few extra parens results in this:
 # It is crystal clear, there are no "ands, nexts"
 # that is the MAIN point!
 #
 if (/no_proc/)
 {
     print "$_\n";
 }
 else
 {
     print "$_ : in proc\n" ;  
 }
[download]