Re: Would you use a switch instead?

There is the Switch module, but it's a source filter and considered evil. Perl 5.10 has the given/when statements, that are the equivalent of Switch.

If you're stuck on an earlier perl, you could also use something like:

for ($value) {
    /aaa/ && do { $foo = 'wanna';   last };
    /bbb/ && do { $foo = 'be';      last };
    /ccc/ && do { $foo = 'startin'; last };
    $foo = 'somethin';
}
[download]

Tested with dodgy eyes only!

Comment on Re: Would you use a switch instead? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Would you use a switch instead? by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Jul 04, 2009 at 16:15 UTC
And, of course, `foreach`-loop topicalization can also be combined with the original nested ternary expression, although definition and initialization of the variable `$foo` are no longer so closely tied together: `>perl -wMstrict -le "my $value = 'bbb'; my $foo; for ($value) { $foo = /aaa/ ? 'wanna' : /bbb/ ? 'be' : /ccc/ ? 'startin' : 'somethin' ; } print $foo; " be` [download]	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: Would you use a switch instead? by GrandFather (Saint) on Jul 04, 2009 at 22:32 UTC
but of course we always use an explicit lexical as a loop variable so there's no gain there is there? ;) True laziness is hard work	[reply]
Re^4: Would you use a switch instead? by ysth (Canon) on Jul 05, 2009 at 08:42 UTC
Then don't use a for loop? `my ($foo) = map { /aaa/ ? 'wanna' : /bbb/ ? 'be' : /ccc/ ? 'startin' : + 'somethin' } $value;` [download] -- Online Fortune Cookie Search Office Space merchandise	[reply] [d/l]