http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=973367


in reply to What operator should perl5porters use for safe dereferencing?

I like ?> because the '?' introduces uncertainty. The choices ?-> and ->? are good in that they include the already familiar arrow shape .. but they are one more keystroke. Of the two, I like the second one -- a) call the method, b) did it work?

Alex / talexb / Toronto

"Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: What operator should perl5porters use for safe dereferencing?
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on May 30, 2012 at 20:43 UTC
    Of the two, I like the second one -- a) call the method, b) did it work?

    Hm. That's backward. How can you call the method if you don't have a valid reference?

    Of those two, I prefer the first: a) do we have a valid reference? b) if so, dereference it.

    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    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.

    The start of some sanity?
[reply]

      You're quite right, I do have it backwards. Bother.

      Alex / talexb / Toronto

      "Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds

[reply]
Re^2: What operator should perl5porters use for safe dereferencing?
by Boldra (Deacon) on May 31, 2012 at 07:12 UTC
    ->? is my favourite too, and the extra keystroke is preferable to the shift-swapping needed for ~> (you could count the shift-swap as an extra keystroke). > and ? are next to each other on my keyboard, so the extra typing effort is minimal.


    - Boldra
[reply]

In Section Past Polls