Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do we say the =~ operator "binds"?

[emazep]

in reply to Re: Re: Re: Why do we say the =~ operator "binds"?
in thread Why do we say the =~ operator "binds"?

Well, I not only wouldn't use explicit loop variables when I can resort to the singular pronoun (or even better, when I can omit it) but I would also try to avoid unnecessary assignments ;-)

foreach (@email_addresses) {
    if ( /[a-zA-Z0-0.]+\@[a-zA-Z0-0.]+/ ) {
        ....
    }
}

This is IMHO more legible, as long as your public is fluent in Perl, or just knows the basics.
The only context where I would use your code is a Perl class, but just to show immediately after how to shorten that code and make it more legible (confess, you are a teacher! ;-)

Cheers,
Emanuele.

[William G. Davis]

Emazep, it was just an example; Diotalevi and I were talking about a situation in which the assignment is practical for some reason (like if you're calling m//g in scalar context), not one where you can get away with sticking m// in a conditional by itself. (Who on earth would store away the result unless they needed for something later on, anyway?)

My point was that if you have an assignment like "$var = /pattern/", then name the variables and use the binding operator explicitly so it's completely unambiguous: "$pos = $string =~ /pattern/g".

In real life I would have written that validity checking code like this:

foreach my $address (@email_addresses) {
    return unless ($address =~ /[a-zA-Z0-0.]+\@[a-zA-Z0-0.]+/);

    # proceed normally...

[emazep]

I apologize for my (pointless) excess of pedantry.

Cheers,
Emanuele.