Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Just another Perl shrine
 
PerlMonks  

Re^5: Perl ternary operator style

by SimonClinch (Chaplain)
on May 30, 2011 at 14:19 UTC ( #907322=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^4: Perl ternary operator style
in thread Perl ternary operator style

I saw that it was the same function call - doh - but since the OP was giving it as an example of style as opposed to a specific code snippet, I considered that the general case of function1 and function2 was absolutely required in my response - function1 = function2 is a special case that doesn't affect the question of best syntax. On the other hand labelling them 1 and 2 is clearer.

OK so one could say you checked the text of the OP, but surely it is reasonable to raise a theory of style to a reasonable level of abstraction and I am surprised you don't even see that that is what I wad doing. You really think adding 1 and 2 to the function names was a misread on my part? get real!

One world, one people


Comment on Re^5: Perl ternary operator style
Re^6: Perl ternary operator style
by BrowserUk (Pope) on May 30, 2011 at 14:30 UTC
    function1 = function2 is a special case that doesn't affect the question of best syntax. On the other hand labelling them 1 and 2 is clearer.

    If you (now) take the time to double-check the OP, then from the second code block alone, it is very plain to see that function1() == function2() is not a "special case", but the only case.

    And if you read the OPs text, is is even more clear.

    So, first you only read 1/4 of the post; 2) you misinterpret it; 3) you assume that all the other respondents have misread it and rubbish their replies; 5) you ignore a polite suggestion to double check your interpretation and come back with a shitty response; 6) you post this meaningless drivel.

    And you think I need to "get real".


    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
      And you think I need to "get real".

      I would gladly like to see a reduction in ad hominem, however oblique

      It's a question about style - what might be technically clear to support the argument your ego won't let you drop is irrelevant in such a case

      One world, one people

        It's a question about style

        Er. No it's not. You offered a 'solution' that didn't solve the OPs problem.

        Ie. You were wrong. Get over it and move on.


        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://907322]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others having an uproarious good time at the Monastery: (9)
As of 2014-07-11 12:01 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    When choosing user names for websites, I prefer to use:








    Results (224 votes), past polls