Re: chaining defines
[email protected] (Robert Hicks)
| Newsgroups | perl.beginners |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Jenda Krynicky wrote: > 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 > Thanks very much for the corroboration. Robert