Re: if statement question

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: if statement question by tobyink (Canon) on Dec 13, 2012 at 22:24 UTC
"Obviously a check for "truth value" is not a desirable practice." Ultimately all `if` conditions check truth values. `if ($foo)` and `if (defined $foo)` have two different meanings. One is not "better" than the other. Don't use the former when you mean the latter, but don't use the latter when you mean the former. `perl -E'sub Monkey::do{say$_,for@_,do{($monkey=[caller(0)]->[3])=~s{::}{ }and$monkey}}"Monkey say"->Monkey::do'`	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^2: if statement question by Anonymous Monk on Dec 13, 2012 at 21:23 UTC
That seems to come from the Java school of thought. A check for a true value is perfectly fine and does not need to be explicit. Being explicit is just worthless clutter, doubly so in a strongly typed language like Java. (I feel like strangling someone every time I have to type `if (obj == NULL)`) (It's good, though, to have a clue on what the variable contains. I generally reserve such shorthands for boolean 0/1 values and variables which I expect to carry either undef or a reference.)	[reply] [d/l]
Re^2: if statement question by BillKSmith (Monsignor) on Dec 14, 2012 at 14:32 UTC
There is nothing wrong with boolean variables in perl, it really helps the reader if they are given names such as "$is_found" instead of "$search". Bill	[reply]