Re: Class::Fields, a base/fields.pm rewrite

[Larry Wall <larry@wall.org>]

Michael G Schwern writes:
: No, I believe it has to be 'and'.  The statement is actually written
: in a confusing manner.  I'm trying to accomplish this:
: 
:         if( $fglob = ${"$class\::"}{"FIELDS"} ) {
:                 return (*$fglob{HASH}) ? 1 : 0;
:         }
:         else {
:                 return 0;
:         }
: 
: not this
: 
:         $fglob = ${"$class\::"}{"FIELDS"};
:         $fglob = *$fglob{HASH} if $fglob;
:         return $fglob;
: 
: Either way, its written confusingly.  I'll see if I can clear it up.
: 
: 
: BTW return $fglob = ${"$class\::"}{"FIELDS"} && *$fglob{HASH}; doesn't
: work since $fglob needs to be set before *$fglob{HASH} is checked.

But yours doesn't do what you want either.  Note that the following
always returns 1, not 2:

    sub foo { return $x = 1 and 2 }

To get the effect you want, you'd have to say

    sub foo { return ($x = 1 and 2) }

Plus, of course, returning *$fglob{HASH} is never actually going to
return 1 or 0, but I presume you're really just using those to mean
true and false.

Larry

---

Follow-Ups from:

Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com>

References to:

Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com>

---

[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Top&Search][Original]

---