Re^2: perltidy for ternary operator?

in reply to Re: perltidy for ternary operator?
in thread perltidy for ternary operator?

Page 32 of PBP, first edition : </p

You can use the tabular layout even if you have only a singular ternary .... Starting out this way makes it easier for maintainers to subsequently add new alternatives to the table.

As Occam said: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Comment on Re^2: perltidy for ternary operator?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: perltidy for ternary operator? by LanX (Saint) on Dec 06, 2014 at 19:06 UTC
That's a suggestion ("you can") for the case you expect new entries to come. But that's not a problem with perltidy, cause cascades (as demonstrated) would be fixed automatically. And I doubt that breaking simple ternaries would be appreciated by the majority. It might interest you that tidy's output of a simple ternaries depends on existing linebreaks: (see `-bot` option)š `lanx@lanx-1005HA:~$ cat /tmp/tst.pl my $var1 = $condition ? $val_for_true : $val_for_none ; #own linebreak my $var2 = $condition ? $val_for_true : $val_for_none ; lanx@lanx-1005HA:~$ perltidy -pbp /tmp/tst.pl my $var1 = $condition ? $val_for_true : $val_for_none; #own linebreak my $var2 = $condition ? $val_for_true : $val_for_none;` [download] Since the documentation mentions ternaries only once for `-bot` I doubt your goal can be achieved! (i.e. without patching the code) Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)} update š) i.a.W if you expect the ternary to be cascaded in the future then enter a linebreak manually.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: perltidy for ternary operator? by TomDLux (Vicar) on Dec 06, 2014 at 21:36 UTC
I didn't ask how to achieve what the majority want, I asked how to achieve what I want. As Occam said: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.	[reply]
Re^5: perltidy for ternary operator? by atcroft (Abbot) on Dec 07, 2014 at 04:51 UTC
Could one not just create a second ternary operation that perl would optimize out, such as the following? Read more... (76 Bytes) According to B:Deparse, the second ternary operator appears to be optimized out: Read more... (464 Bytes) However, the code, when handled by Perl::Tidy, appears to be formatted in the manner the OP is requesting: Read more... (629 Bytes) I know that may not be what the OP was hoping for, but perhaps it might be an option to look at. Hope that helps.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^5: perltidy for ternary operator? by LanX (Saint) on Dec 06, 2014 at 22:24 UTC
And you got an answer: patch the code. There is no option for your private needs Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)}	[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom

update