perl qstn...

[Chuck Swiger]

On Apr 6, 2010, at 11:43 AM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> "Chuck" == Chuck Swiger <cswiger at mac.com> writes:

>> Then you wouldn't have used this construct.
> 
> Chuck> If the construct isn't a good idea considering the most obvious
> Chuck> change one might make to the code,
> 
> Objection: presumes facts not in evidence, your honor.

This isn't a court-room.

I don't mind rhetorical flourishes, but if you are unwilling to consider how a statement might be changed over time as the circumstances require, even for the sake of discussion, well, in doing so you've chosen to not consider code maintainability.

> Seriously, I've written thousands of lines that look like:
> 
>           print "....." if $flag;
> 
> over the years (decades), and only *once* or *twice* do I ever recall
> saying "oh, I actually wanted a two-way switch", and had to rewrite it.
> 
> So "most obvious" to you is clearly not what is actually most likely.

Very well; I would like to hear you propose another type of change that might be made to this sort of postfix test syntax which you consider to be "most likely".

I find it remarkable, and nearly unbelievable, that one would only need to add an else clause to such a statement less often than 0.1% of the time.  Frankly, I wouldn't mind taking a look through a few revisions of something you'd written (perhaps via CVSweb or similar) to see what kind of changes you do make to code over time.

> Chuck> Surely Perl source code shouldn't be considered as write-once,
> Chuck> modify-never?
> 
> Yes, and that's also presumes facts not in evidence.  See above.

I'd be happy to take a look at your evidence.  In fact, I'd already asked a similar question:

>> Perl has *many* options that are all clear and readable, and some
>> that aren't.  Python has a *few* options that are all clear and
>> readable, and some that aren't.
> 
> ...and an example or two would be?


...and yet I do not see a response.

Regards,
-- 
-Chuck