|
in reply to What operator should perl5porters use for safe dereferencing?
I don't want there to be such an operator, because I want errors warned about as early as possible.
I know the existing behaviour has many faults, but I still don't think the introduction of this operator is an improvement. |
Re^2: What operator should perl5porters use for safe dereferencing?
by perl-diddler (Chaplain) on Jun 25, 2012 at 01:16 UTC
|
I'm surprised at the number of lazy answer types on here "~>"? "~" is used in the context of binary NOT, or pattern matching. Neither has anything to do with conditional pointer referencing. you want to choose something, ideally, that makes sense in the language.
Going from it being a conditional expression, the idea of a question mark naturally comes to mind as in a conditional statement like "x?a:b", here, you are questioning
if the pointer is valid, if yes, do "->", implicitly, in the no case, the answer is "undef", so the ":undef part becomes superfluous. So "?->" seems clear to me.
While it is in 2nd place, it's amazing how laziness outranks logic almost 3:1 -- (more general population would probably choose lazy over logical 10:1 I'd bet...)
| [reply] |
|
|
"~" is used in the context of binary NOT, or pattern matching. Neither has anything to do with conditional pointer referencing
'-' is used in numeric subtraction; '>' is used in numeric greater than; both are used in numeric comparison <->.
Neither has anything to do with pointer dereferencing -> .... D'oh!
(You cannot break multi-character operators into bits to try and make sense of them!)
~> isn't just(*) the lazy option; it is also the logical option.
The subtlety of the difference in the operators reflecting well the subtlety of the difference in the operation (note:singular) they perform.
Ie. They both do the same thing -- dereference a pointer. The subtlety is that the new operator doesn't blow up if the variable it is applied to contains undef rather than a reference.
Most of the time when scan reading the code; that subtlety will be unimportant. And when the difference becomes important, the code following the new operator will need to deal with its consequences and that will be more than sufficient to demarcate its use.
*laziness -- the desire to not have to constantly type unnecessary boilerplate verbiage -- is a virtue in a programmer.
It is why Perl programmers infinitely prefer to type:
#! perl -slw
use strict;
print "What's your name? ";
print 'Hello ' . <STDIN> . '!!!';
Rather than import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.InputStreamReader;
public class HelloName {
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
System.out.println("What's your name? ");
// the BufferedReader is able to store some data for easier retrie
+val
BufferedReader bufferedReader = new BufferedReader(
new InputStreamReader(System.in));
String name = bufferedReader.readLine();
System.out.println("Hello " + name +"!!!");
}
}
I mean, honestly is it so good it needs to be said thrice? : BufferedReader bufferedReader = new BufferedReader(
Even the damn comment is grievously wrong!
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
|
|
I disagree with regard to "logical." This is clearly a discussion about preferences. And for me "~>" is way too close to "->", and if the font makes it not look too similar, it also makes it not look like an arrow anymore.
Your theory about skimming it seems to be dependent on the previous developer doing everything right. What if ~> was used by accident? What if it's in the wrong place of the expression?
Thus, my personal preference is for "?->". I find it clearer, since it stands out more. This also has the advantage that somebody who doesn't know it doesn't just scan it as "->" and wonder why everything goes wonky. They see something that doesn't make sense to them immediately and have to look it up.
Ordinary morality is for ordinary people. -- Aleister Crowley
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
'-' is used in numeric subtraction; '>' is used in numeric greater than; both are used in numeric comparison <->.
You are comparing apples & applets -- app isn't a root word so trying to compare mixes of the words with letter substitutions is fruitless.
"->" is one token. "?" is one token.
to disassemble -> into components doesn't make sense anymore than disassembling words into letters and having re-use of the letters mean something related.
I'm practicing standard grammatical rules taking a "world"
the ->", meaning something being pointed to, -- using it's standard meaning, and making a compound word by combining it with "?" -- a standard operator meaning only do the next thing if the left-operand is true, else do a false case. I'm not changing the meanings of any of the operators of subdividing operators, I combining whole operators and using their meanings as they are used in perl.
? evaluates the left operand, and, if it is true (i.e. !0 && ! undef), then do the action to the right, namely using the defined base, give me the offset @ "->offset".
In the false case, it is a constant- "undef", so it doesn't
need to be stated.
You are trying to take the letters that compose words and mix and match them with other letters and expecting them to make sense on some level related to their original usage. That is absurd.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent argument! You can diddle my perl anytime perl-diddler!
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
