Re: Perl ternary operator style

[SimonClinch]

in reply to Perl ternary operator style

Note: The OP asked about having two invocations of a function, not one.

But of course, the mere fact respondents misread it, suggests it needs to be made more readable. I would reserve the ternary operator for simpler situations rather than for chaining functions (logically for three functions you need two such operators on the same line - gets even more hairy!). There is also an omission - if the second function call returns false, it doesn't get the default value because it is performed on the wrong branch of the ternary for that.

I think the simplest way, probably most compatible with your style is:

if ( $target = Function1($params1) || $default ) {
    $target = Function2( $params2 ) || $default;
}

[holli]

Well, before calling other people misreader you better double check that it's not you who has actually misread.

[SimonClinch]

So what in my post suggested that I didn't double check?

Anyway, you were warned about it and even then, by inference, managed to misread the beginning of the OP! Who is it that has to double check? Try counting the number of function calls in the first code block of the OP.

[BrowserUk]

ry counting the number of function calls in the first code block of the OP.

You're right there are two function calls. But they are both called Function(), not Function1() and Function2() as in your example.

Whirrr-click-whirrr. Yes. That's right. The OP is calling the same function twice!.

And if you looked just a few lines further down, he acknowledges in his second code sample where he tries to avoid that:

$Target = ($temp = Function($params)) ? $temp : $DefaultValue;

It's one thing to misread a post, we've all done that. But to fail to double check when it is suggested you should; and then claim you already did; and then respond with such .... (I'll let you fill in the rest.)

Nice one. I bet you're a Jackass fan aren't you.