Perl also has unless() for the very purpose in OP, which is a more sensible choice.
Oh, and if you need to reinforce your belief that Perl is a mess, the single-quote character can be used as a package separator instead of “::”. This was set in the 90s when nobody was quite sure of the right syntax for package separators, so it borrowed “::” from C++ and the single quote from Ada (I think).
That means the ifn't() in OP can be interpreted as calling the t() function on the ifn package.
The “::” separator is vastly preferred, though. Single quotes run havoc on syntax highlighting text editors (since they can also be used for strings). About the only time I’ve seen it used is a joke module, Acme::don't.
I propose a new, more threatening kind of control flow.
do { /* something */ } or else { /* you don't want to find out */ }
this is just a menacing try/catch!
You just made me a offer I can’t refuse. I go now to sleep with the fishes…
The better try-catch. More intuitive if you ask me.
do { /* something */ } do hast { /* something */ }
do { /* something */ } do hast { /* something */ } do hast mich { /* something */ }
It exists, kind of. Python has this construct
for item in iterable: ... else: ...
which always puzzles me, since it depends on a break statement execution. I always have to look it up when the else block is executed.
Some C++ style guides suggest the following naming convention for functions that crash on any error
OpenFileOrDie()
Personally, I like to call catched exception variables
up
, so for a rethrow I canthrow up;
.Except rethrowing an exception in C# is just
throw;
, anything else is a crime against the person who reads your stacktraces.PHP has the always wonderful (and perfectly functional) syntax of
logUserIn() or die();
Or Perl
Perl also has
unless()
for the very purpose in OP, which is a more sensible choice.Oh, and if you need to reinforce your belief that Perl is a mess, the single-quote character can be used as a package separator instead of “::”. This was set in the 90s when nobody was quite sure of the right syntax for package separators, so it borrowed “::” from C++ and the single quote from Ada (I think).
That means the
ifn't()
in OP can be interpreted as calling thet()
function on theifn
package.The “::” separator is vastly preferred, though. Single quotes run havoc on syntax highlighting text editors (since they can also be used for strings). About the only time I’ve seen it used is a joke module,
Acme::don't
.It_would_be_a_shame_if(condition)