Re^5: Complex conditional sort

I figured you'd say that. I hear ya when it comes to perl not "promising" any particular return value. But can you name any example where !!$test doesn't return 1 or ''/0 currently? And do you really think it's likely that's going to change?

Obviously, for safety sake with future versions, it probably is better to rely on documented return values instead of assumed current implementation. However, it seems a little silly to me to be that wary of something so basic changing. I wouldn't have been the only person to occasionally take advantage of observed behavior instead of only relying on documented. To future ill or not.

Comment on Re^5: Complex conditional sort

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Complex conditional sort by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 09, 2011 at 20:42 UTC
But can you name any example where !!$test doesn't return 1 or ''/0 currently? Overloaded operators can do this.* I'm talking about properly written overloaded operators, not ones that try to repurpose "!". It's not an issue here and it's not likely to ever be an issue, which is why that's not the argument I chose to make. What I did focus on is the writing of unreadable code to save one character. I find it too demanding of your reader to know that "!" returns +1 for true given the lack of cost of not demanding this knowledge. The cost of confusion is low, but so is the cost of avoiding it. * — Read more... (549 Bytes)	[reply] [d/l]
Re^7: Complex conditional sort by wind (Priest) on Mar 09, 2011 at 21:00 UTC
True, thank you for clarifying your concerns. I also totally agree against the anti-golfing proclivities. I will gladly use excessive parenthesis () instead of relying on detailed knowledge of order of operations. However, I feel that use of !! is one of those border cases where it might help for more people to be aware of its use. I'm happy using the ternary operator ?1:0 to be more clear though if I feel that's what's necessary.	[reply]