perlstyle - Unclear wording

tinita has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: perlstyle - Unclear wording by radiantmatrix (Parson) on Nov 18, 2005 at 14:34 UTC
Funny, I've always interpreted that particular advice in the context of nested parens. The last paren that has a match on the current line should get a space, but I think it only applies with nested parens. I.e.: `#do this: if (($a+b) eq ($c-$d) ) { } #instead of: if (($a+b) eq ($c-d)) { } #but I do: if ( ($a+b) eq ($c-$d) ) { }` [download] It never even occured to me that it could mean something different. <-radiant.matrix-> A collection of thoughts and links from the minds of geeks The Code that can be seen is not the true Code "In any sufficiently large group of people, most are idiots" - Kaa's Law	[reply] [d/l]
Re: perlstyle - Unclear wording by jonix (Friar) on Nov 18, 2005 at 15:36 UTC
While the respective style guide is part of Programming Perl (3rd Edition, july 2000) in a way - some wordings are different, not as brief and more concise - the ambiguous advice in question does not seem to be part of it. The relevant chapter is 24 'Common Practices', 'Programming with Style' IMHO. I am wondering whether it was omitted on purpose, or was it added to the pod later on? Regards, jonix	[reply]
Re: perlstyle - Unclear wording by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Nov 18, 2005 at 13:59 UTC
I wouldn’t say that is unclear, I’d say it makes no sense. “Unclear” would mean there are multiple possible interpretations – in this case, though, I can’t find even one. How does a parenthesis “match on current line”? Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re^2: perlstyle - Unclear wording by thor (Priest) on Nov 18, 2005 at 14:48 UTC
How does a parenthesis “match on current line”? Like-a-so: `( ($a eq "foo") && ($b eq "bar") )` [download] In each case, the close parens "matches" it's open parens (the converse is also true). So, if it "matches on current line", the open and close are on the same line. thor `Feel the white light, the light within Be your own disciple, fan the sparks of will For all of us waiting, your kingdom will come`	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: perlstyle - Unclear wording by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Nov 18, 2005 at 14:54 UTC
Doesn’t that make it a strangely particular style rule, though? It doesn’t make sense for someone like me who spaces all parens anyway, as in: `( ( $a \|\| $b ) && ( $c \|\| $d ) )` [download] And it looks weirdly out of place in code of someone who doesn’t, as in: `(($a \|\| $b) && ($c \|\| $d) )` [download] Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: perlstyle - Unclear wording by thor (Priest) on Nov 18, 2005 at 16:01 UTC
Re: perlstyle - Unclear wording by eric256 (Parson) on Nov 18, 2005 at 13:51 UTC
What is the other option? I can't think of anything else that matches that statment so it seems clear. ___________ Eric Hodges $_='y==QAe=e?y==QG@>@?iy==QVq?f?=a@iG?=QQ=Q?9'; s/(.)/ord($1)-50/eigs;tr/6123457/- \/\|\\\_\n/;print;	[reply]
Re^2: perlstyle - Unclear wording by Corion (Patriarch) on Nov 18, 2005 at 13:55 UTC
Sumsumming the other ideas that were floated on the CB There are many situations that seem to apply but don't make sense: `if ( ($foo == 1) and ($bar == 1) ){ # ^ space after last matching parens` [download] Also, in plain statements, it doesn't make much sense: `(caller) [0] # ^ space after last matching parens?` [download]	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: perlstyle - Unclear wording by TimToady (Parson) on Nov 18, 2005 at 18:11 UTC
Yes, it would be clearer if it said something like "Space between two right parens when the first matches a left paren on the current line and the second matches a left paren on a previous line."	[reply]
Re^3: perlstyle - Unclear wording by pg (Canon) on Nov 18, 2005 at 18:04 UTC
I agree that those cases don't make much sense. But with long and complex condition statement, I occassionally break it in some way to help myself understand it, for example: `if (($a1 == $a2) && ($a3 == $a4) && (($a5 == $a6) \|\| ($a7 == $a8)) ) { }` [download] This way of breaking makes it clear (at least to me) that those lines are at the same level.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: perlstyle - Unclear wording by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Nov 19, 2005 at 04:28 UTC
Re^4: perlstyle - Unclear wording by halley (Prior) on Nov 18, 2005 at 21:00 UTC
Re^3: perlstyle - Unclear wording by eric256 (Parson) on Nov 18, 2005 at 14:45 UTC
Ahh. For what its worth. When it said matching I though the expresion part of an if block. Although looking at those, the wording isn't very clear. ___________ Eric Hodges $_='y==QAe=e?y==QG@>@?iy==QVq?f?=a@iG?=QQ=Q?9'; s/(.)/ord($1)-50/eigs;tr/6123457/- \/\|\\\_\n/;print;	[reply]


Welcome to the Monastery
	PerlMonks