Re: chaining defines
[email protected] ("Jenda Krynicky")
| Newsgroups | perl.beginners |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
From: Robert Hicks <[email protected]> > Is there anything wrong with: > > if ( defined $one && defined $two && $one eq $two ) { > #### do something > } As far as I can tell not. I was afraid the operator precedence might play tricks with it, but looks like it doesn't: V:\>perl -MO=Deparse -e "defined $one && defined $two && $one eq $two" $one eq $two if defined $one and defined $two; -e syntax OK V:\>perl -MO=Deparse -e "if(defined $one && defined $two && $one eq $two) {print 'aha'}" if (defined $one and defined $two and $one eq $two) { print 'aha'; } -e syntax OK I would write it as if ( defined($one) && defined($two) && $one eq $two ) { or even more likely as if ( defined($one) and defined($two) and $one eq $two ) { but it seems your version is just fine. Jenda ===== [email protected] === http://Jenda.Krynicky.cz ===== When it comes to wine, women and song, wizards are allowed to get drunk and croon as much as they like. -- Terry Pratchett in Sourcery