Re: Refactoring: dumb or witty use of ternary operator?

in reply to Re: Refactoring: dumb or witty use of ternary operator?
in thread Refactoring: dumb or witty use of ternary operator?

If the the value of $outhash{$str} is undefined, you'll get a warning about using an undefined value.

Are you sure about that? Can you show code giving the warning? If you can construct code that generates a warning when ++ is applied to an undefined value, make sure to report it as a bug, because that's not supposed to happen.

This would work equally well:
$outhash {$str} ||= 0;
$outhash {$str} ++;
[download]

Yeah, but why bother? From the documentation about auto-increment and auto-decrement:

       "undef" is always treated as numeric, and in particular is
       changed to 0 before incrementing (so that a post-increment
       of an undef value will return 0 rather than "undef").
[download]

Abigail

Comment on Re: Refactoring: dumb or witty use of ternary operator? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Refactoring: dumb or witty use of ternary operator? by cLive ;-) (Prior) on Jun 22, 2004 at 17:54 UTC
"Are you sure about that?". No, obviously, but my guess is that his colleague made the same assumption that I did :) cLive ;-)	[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom