Re^2: Help with a logical structure for an if statement

It's often better to use 'and' and 'or' (lower precedence than '&&' and '||')

I don't get this. Lower precedence operators are better to use than higher precedence ones, even if they have existed in Perl longer, and are used in a myriad of other languages? If so, do you have some arguments to back up this claim?

Perhaps you meant to write "I would use" where you wrote "It's often better to use"?

I would write it as:

if ($player_one_race eq 'terran' && $player_two_race eq 'zerg' ||
    $player_one_race eq 'zerg'   && $player_two_race eq 'terran') {
    ...
}
[download]

That is, I'd lose the redundant parenthesis, use the standard operators, and use whitespace to make the symmetry clear. Or:

my %races;
$races{$_} = 1 for $player_one_race, $player_two_race;
if ($races{zerg} && $races{terran}) {
    ...
}
[download]

Comment on Re^2: Help with a logical structure for an if statement Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Help with a logical structure for an if statement by tobyink (Canon) on Apr 30, 2012 at 07:43 UTC
Or even: `if ([sort $player_one_race, $player_two_race] ~~ [qw(terran zerg)]) { # TIMTOWTDI }` [download] `perl -E'sub Monkey::do{say$_,for@_,do{($monkey=[caller(0)]->[3])=~s{::}{ }and$monkey}}"Monkey say"->Monkey::do'`	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: Help with a logical structure for an if statement by brx (Pilgrim) on Apr 30, 2012 at 09:12 UTC
Oops. I'm not sure to understand what you said but here some explanation with my well-known "beach-English". Because `and` and `or` have the lower precedence ( lower than `=` for example), it is for me simpler : no need to use extra parenthesis when they are used as 'if...then' way. With `&&` and `\|\|` I always have to check 'perldoc perlop' to find precedence. So, OK, it's only my choice. Some not tested examples I would write And: `$var=$den and $m/=$var` &&: `$var=$one&&$two`	[reply] [d/l] [select]