Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
P is for Practical

•Re: improve ugly flow control

by merlyn (Sage)
on Sep 19, 2004 at 07:53 UTC ( #392137=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to improve ugly flow control

Just a different try on this:

use List::Util qw(first); if (defined(my $try = first { $hash{$_} } @options)) { do_something($try); } else { log_failure(); }

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

Comment on •Re: improve ugly flow control
Download Code
Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: improve ugly flow control
by perrin (Chancellor) on Sep 19, 2004 at 20:52 UTC
    That's a neat idea. Unfortunately, in my real code, the $hash{$_} test is actually something expensive, so I need to stop as soon as one of the options works. I should have made a better example.
Re^2: improve ugly flow control
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Sep 20, 2004 at 09:50 UTC

    I liked that quite a bit, but the structure has been bothering me, like with most other solutions: it feels to me like the failure case gets too much emphasis. I didn't know how to do any better when I first saw the post, though. But now I think I do:

    { my $try = first { $hash{ $_ } } @options; defined $try or ( log_failure(), last ); do_something( $try ); }

    Makeshifts last the longest.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://392137]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others rifling through the Monastery: (4)
As of 2015-11-28 14:40 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    What would be the most significant thing to happen if a rope (or wire) tied the Earth and the Moon together?

    Results (742 votes), past polls