Perl has a conditional operator that is the same a C's conditional operator.
To refresh, the conditional operator in C and in Perl is:
(test) ? (if test was true) : (if test was false)
and if used with an lvalue you can assign and test with one action:
my $x= $n==0 ? "n is 0" : "n is not 0";
I was reading Igor Ostrovsky's blog on A neat way to express multi-clause if statements in C-based languages and realized this is indeed a "neat way" in Perl as well.
For example: (edit: used Jonathan Leffler's more readable form...)
# ternary conditional form of if / elsif construct:
my $s=
$n == 0 ? "$n ain't squawt"
: $n == 1 ? "$n is not a lot"
: $n < 100 ? "$n is more than 1..."
: $n < 1000 ? "$n is in triple digits"
: "Wow! $n is thousands!" ; #default
Which reads a LOT easier than what many would write in Perl:
(edit: used cjm's more elegant my $t=do{ if };
form in rafi's answer)
# Perl form, not using Switch or given / when
my $t = do {
if ($n == 0) { "$n ain't squawt" }
elsif ($n == 1) { "$n is not a lot" }
elsif ($n < 100) { "$n is more than 1..." }
elsif ($n < 1000) { "$n is in triple digits" }
else { "Wow! $n is thousands!" }
};
Are there any gotchas or downside here? Why would I not write an extended conditional form in this manner rather than use if(something) { this } elsif(something) { that }
?
The conditional operator has right associativity and low precedence. So:
a ? b : c ? d : e ? f : g
is interpreted as:
a ? b : (c ? d : (e ? f : g))
I suppose you might need parenthesis if your tests used one of the few operator of lower precedence than ?:
. You could also put blocks in the form with braces I think.
I do know about the deprecated use Switch
or about Perl 5.10's given/when
constructs, and I am not looking for a suggestion to use those.
These are my questions:
Have you seen this syntax used in Perl?** I have not, and it is not in perlop
or perlsyn
as an alternate to switch.
Are there potential syntax problems or 'gotchas' with using a conditional / ternary operator in this way?
Opinion: Is it more readable / understandable to you? Is it consistent with Idiomatic Perl?
-------- Edit --
I accepted Jonathan Leffler's answer because he pointed me to Perl Best Practices. The relevant section is 6.17 on Tabular Ternaries. This allowed me to investigate the use further. (If you Google Perl Tabular Ternaries, you can see other comments.)
Conway's two examples are:
my $salute;
if ($name eq $EMPTY_STR) {
$salute = 'Dear Customer';
}
elsif ($name =~ m/\A ((?:Sir|Dame) \s+ \S+)/xms) {
$salute = "Dear $1";
}
elsif ($name =~ m/([^\n]*), \s+ Ph[.]?D \z/xms) {
$sa1ute = "Dear Dr $1";
}
else {
$salute = "Dear $name";
}
VS:
# Name format... # Salutation...
my $salute = $name eq $EMPTY_STR ? 'Dear Customer'
: $name =~ m/ \A((?:Sir|Dame) \s+ \S+) /xms ? "Dear $1"
: $name =~ m/ (.*), \s+ Ph[.]?D \z /xms ? "Dear Dr $1"
: "Dear $name"
;
My conclusions are:
Conway's ?:
example is more readable and simpler to me than the if/elsif
form, but I could see how the form could get hard to understand.
If you have Perl 5.13.1, use my $t=do { given { when } };
as an assignment as rafi has done. I think given/when
is the best idiom now, unless the tabular ternary format is better for your particular case.
If you have Perl 5.10+ use given/when
in general instead of Switch
or if you need some sort of case type switch.
Older Perl's, this is a fine form for simple alternatives or as an alternate to a case statement. It is better than using Switch
I think.
The right to left associativity means the form is evaluated bottom to top. Remember that when using...
The conditional operator – also known as the ternary operator – is an alternative form of the if/else statement that helps you to write conditional code blocks in a more concise way. First, you need to write a conditional expression that evaluates into either true or false .
Yes you can. A ternary conditional operator is an expression with type inferred from the type of the final two arguments. And expressions can be used as the conditional in an if statement. Naturally, whether or not it's a good thing to do depends on the context.
If condition is preferred in case if program requires executing only on true block. In this case, it is necessary to work around to use Ternary Operator. Nested Ternary Operator is not readable and can not be debugged easily. If else is more readable and easier to debug in case of issue.
"?:" In most programming languages, ?: is called the conditional operator.
I've seen this idiom used in perl. As the ternary operator ? :
is, well.. an operator, it's documented in perlop
, not perlsyn
.
In my eyes, it is sort of idiomatic Perl, but the main purpose of this in Perl seems to avoid the lack of a proper switch
statement while not writing huge if/else
-cascades. However, this has been fixed years ago in perl 5.10.0. These days I can't see many reasons for not writing the above as this, which appears to be far more readable than (ab)using the ternary:
given ($n) {
when (0) { $t = "$_ ain't squawt" }
when (1) { $t = "$_ is not a lot" }
when ($_ < 100) { $t = "$_ is more than 1..." }
when ($_ < 1000) { $t = "$_ is in triple digits" }
default { $t = "Wow! $_ is thousands!" }
}
or, as of perl 5.13.1, even as:
my $t = do {
given ($n) {
when (0) { "$_ ain't squawt" }
when (1) { "$_ is not a lot" }
when ($_ < 100) { "$_ is more than 1..." }
when ($_ < 1000) { "$_ is in triple digits" }
default { "Wow! $_ is thousands!" }
}
};
Another alternative would be something like this, wich works on all perl versions:
my @cases = (
[sub { $_ == 0 }, sub { "$_ ain't squawt" }],
[sub { $_ == 1 }, sub { "$_ is not a lot" }],
[sub { $_ < 100 }, sub { "$_ is more than 1..." }],
[sub { $_ < 1000 }, sub { "$_ is in triple digits" }],
[sub { 1 }, sub { "Wow! $_ is thousands!" }],
);
for my $case (@cases) {
local $_ = $n;
next unless $case->[0]->();
$t = $case->[1]->();
last;
}
While this avoids both using huge if/elsif/else
-cascades, and doesn't need features of recent perls, it's probably not worth the effort for this simple example. However, I can very much see an approach like this being useful with lots of conditions and with the constraint of wanting to support old perls.
(Also note that your initial example doesn't handle $n being smaller than zero or not being a number at all.)
Note from cjm: You can also do this in all versions of Perl 5:
my $t = do {
if ($n == 0) { "$n ain't squawt" }
elsif ($n == 1) { "$n is not a lot" }
elsif ($n < 100) { "$n is more than 1..." }
elsif ($n < 1000) { "$n is in triple digits" }
else { "Wow! $n is thousands!" }
};
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With