Re: why not listed foreach and if?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: why not listed foreach and if? by GrandFather (Saint) on Feb 02, 2025 at 04:59 UTC
In JavaScript the ';' is not required and a human parsing JavaScript can easily misunderstand how the code will be interpreted if they are used. In Perl I do: `if (condition) { ... }` [download] unless both the condition and the statement (note - just one statement) are simple and short. Perl allows me to use either construct. Optimising for fewest key strokes only makes sense transmitting to Pluto or beyond	[reply] [d/l]
Re^2: why not listed foreach and if? by marto (Cardinal) on Feb 02, 2025 at 08:15 UTC
"I am surprised that Perl requires me to put the statement in front of if rather than after. For me, it would be more logical to put the statement after in this case" Except you've posted perl code doing exactly that, `if ( condition ) { ... }`.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: why not listed foreach and if? by dsheroh (Monsignor) on Feb 02, 2025 at 11:56 UTC
Assuming that the comment you replied to was serious (rather than satire of the initial post or trolling), I believe that they were referring to JS allowing you to omit the {braces} when it's only a single statement. Perl allows `if (condition) {statement;}` (with braces) and `statement if condition;` (no braces with postfix conditional), but not `if (condition) statement;` (no braces with prefix conditional).	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: why not listed foreach and if? by GrandFather (Saint) on Feb 02, 2025 at 20:16 UTC
Actually JavaScript and most C like languages don't see the difference between `if (<condition>) <statement>` and `if (<condition>) <block>` because a <block> can go anywhere a <statement> can go. Interestingly, and the point of difference here is, Perl requires a <block> in many places where more Cish languages are happy with just a <statement>. Optimising for fewest key strokes only makes sense transmitting to Pluto or beyond	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^2: why not listed foreach and if? by Anonymous Monk on Feb 02, 2025 at 03:51 UTC
and with that, you have finally jumped the shark into full sundial mode.	[reply]
Re^3: why not listed foreach and if? by afoken (Chancellor) on Feb 02, 2025 at 10:44 UTC
full sundial mode For people being new to perlmonks: [redacted by gods] Alexander -- Today I will gladly share my knowledge and experience, for there are no sweeter words than "I told you so". ;-)	[reply]
Re^4: why not listed foreach and if? by karlgoethebier (Abbot) on Feb 02, 2025 at 16:10 UTC
Anyone who says the bad word pays € 5 into the piggy bank. «The Crux of the Biscuit is the Apostrophe»	[reply]
Re^4: why not listed foreach and if? by 1nickt (Canon) on Feb 02, 2025 at 11:50 UTC
Don't mention the name! The way forward always starts with a minimal test.	[reply]
Re^5: why not listed foreach and if? by marto (Cardinal) on Feb 02, 2025 at 13:01 UTC


Perl: the Markov chain saw
	PerlMonks