Re: What is true and false in Perl?
by ambrus (Abbot) on Apr 07, 2005 at 19:30 UTC
|
undef # evaluates to "" so it's false -- note, you may get a warni
+ng "use of uninitialized value if you are using -w
I belive you can not get such a warning, an undefined value
is always false without any warning when interpreted as a boolean.
From perlsyn, section Declarations (it's so well hidden):
A variable holds the undefined value ("undef")
until it has been assigned a defined value, which is anything other than "undef".
When used as a number, "undef" is treated as 0; when used as a string, it is
treated as the empty string, ""; and when used as a reference that isn't being
of an uninitialized value whenever you treat "undef" as a string or a number.
Well, usually. Boolean contexts, such as
my $a;
if ($a) {}
are exempt from warnings (because they care about truth rather than definedness).
| [reply] [d/l] [select] |
Re: What is true and false in Perl?
by bangers (Pilgrim) on Apr 16, 2009 at 15:21 UTC
|
"0 but true" is (a bit) interesting:
use strict;
use warnings;
print "0 but true" ? "true\n" : "false\n";
print "0 but true" + 0 ? "true\n" : "false\n";
print "0 but true" + 1 ? "true\n" : "false\n";
No warnings using numeric addition on a string, despite the 'use warnings'. Also the second case is unexpected. Shouldn't 'True' + 1 be true? | [reply] [d/l] |
|
| [reply] |
|
Why is the second case unexpected?
"0 but true" is not "True".
It means "treat me in numeric context as 0, but in boolean context as true".
So when you do "0 but true" + 0 you are in numeric context, so you effectively do 0+0 which is 0 and this in turn (for the ? operator) is false.
I find that quite logical (which probably shows that using Perl for too long causes brain-damage).
And by the way: You are not doing numeric addition on a string, you are evaluating "0 but true" in numeric context (to 0) - therefore no warning.
| [reply] |
|
$ perl -wle'print 0+"0 abc"'
Argument "0 abc" isn't numeric in addition (+) at -e line 1.
0
$ perl -wle'print 0+"0 but true"'
0
| [reply] [d/l] |
|
|
Re: What is true and false in Perl?
by tobyink (Canon) on Apr 16, 2012 at 16:37 UTC
|
The oft-cited list of values considered false is:
- undef
- 0
- ""
- "0"
- Any blessed objects that overload conversion to boolean to return false
- Empty lists and empty hashes
I did actually manage to find another value that Perl treats as false:
-0.0
You can see its interesting behaviour here:
perl -E'say(-0.0 eq 0?"eq 0":"ne 0"); say(-0.0?"true":"false");'
ne 0
false
Note that it's false but not (stringy) equal to zero.
This does vary between Perl versions. The behaviour documented above exists between Perl 5.6.x to 5.12.x (obviously you need to use print instead of say before Perl 5.10) and perhaps earlier. But in Perl 5.14.x, -0.0 is (stringy) equal to 0.
perl -E'sub Monkey::do{say$_,for@_,do{($monkey=[caller(0)]->[3])=~s{::}{ }and$monkey}}"Monkey say"->Monkey::do'
| [reply] [d/l] [select] |
|
Another one that's false is a list of undefs. An array of undefs though is true.
if ( (undef,undef) ) { } # a list of undefs is false
@arr = (undef,undef);
if ( @arr ) {} # an array of undefs is true
We make use of this like so:
$_ = 'x';
if (($a,$b) = m/(.)(.)/) { }
mc0e
| [reply] [d/l] [select] |
|
It isn't a list nor an array in scalar context that your example is making use of. It is a list assignment (in scalar context).
A list assignment in scalar context returns the number of items in the right-hand list.
And, in your example, 'x' =~ m/(.)(.)/, in a list context, returns an empty list, not a list of two 'undef's. An empty list (on the right-hand side of the list assignment) contains zero items so the assignment in scalar context returns 0, which is one of the documented false values.
But there is a kernel of truth hidden behind your mistakes.
There have been some exceptions (as near as I can remember, on an inconsistent basis) to the rule about what a list assignment returns in scalar context. Those exceptions were meant to handle cases very similar to what you described.
sub undefs {
my( $count ) = @_;
return ( undef ) x $count;
}
if( my( $x, $y ) = undefs(2) ) {
print "true\n";
} else {
print "false\n";
}
In some versions of Perl, that code would print "false". In the relatively modern Perl I had handy, it prints "true".
I even recall having a very short on-line conversation with Larry years ago about what I considered to be bugs such as ( undef, undef )[0] being an empty list instead of being a list containing a single 'undef' and he was worried about breaking the fact that the above code was supposed to print "false". I argued that that wasn't a feature worth keeping.
But I didn't follow-up to see what decisions were made back then. And, just now, I didn't test the current behavior except minimally. I think there was at least one thread about this stuff on PerlMonks around the time Larry and I talked, but I haven't looked for it. It might've just been in the chatterbox.
| [reply] [d/l] [select] |
|
|
|
|
# Does not say "true". This is as you describe.
say "true" if undef, undef;
# Still doesn't say true.
say "true" if 1, 2, 3, 4, undef;
The reason for this behaviour is that if imposes a scalar context on the expression that acts as its condition. When the comma operator is used in a scalar context it is not a list constructor and instead evaluates the left argument, discards it and then evaluates the right argument (it basically acts like the semicolon but with a different precedence).
Thus this:
say "true" if 1, 2, 3, 4, undef;
Is essentially the same as:
sub x {
1;
2;
3;
4;
return undef;
}
say "true" if x();
perl -E'sub Monkey::do{say$_,for@_,do{($monkey=[caller(0)]->[3])=~s{::}{ }and$monkey}}"Monkey say"->Monkey::do'
| [reply] [d/l] [select] |
|
print "true" if "IS" eq "evaluates to in scalar context"; # doesn't pr
+int.
| [reply] [d/l] |
|
|
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in. |