You're almost in my lane :)

The key for my claim is that the return/exit/die/croak is the last unconditional statement in the if block. I might have been clearer on that.

Your rule would forbid:

if (...) {
  return A
} elsif (...) {
  return B
} elsif (...) {
  return C
} else {
  die "unmatched case"
}
[download]

This is why I say it is ridiculous, because I see that construct as a perfectly legitimate way to handle returning different values in different cases. The final die (or a final return undef) is indented along with all of the other cases. Omitting the else would place it one level out. Note that an if-elsif chain like this obviously can have no code following it, but the else here simply highlights that one of these will be executed. Also note that I tend to omit the semicolon after return/last/next/die/etc. in Perl because there should not be another statement after any of those and omitting the semicolon promotes such dead code to a syntax error.

As others already stated, your code is confusing and yes, my rule would forbid that.

Your code has no more value than any of these (all clearer):

if (EXPR1) { return A };
if (EXPR2) { return B };
if (EXPR3) { return C };
die "unmatched case";

EXPR1 and return A;
EXPR2 and return B;
EXPR3 and return C;
die "unmatched case";

return A if EXPR1;
return B if EXPR2;
return C if EXPR3;
die "unmatched case";
[download]

For short expressions, my personal preference is the middle one. The first is the best choice if it is likely that the blocks can have statements before the return.

I personally do not like statement modifiers, so I would not choose the third option, but it is still by far better than your example.

Opinions differ though. TIMTOWTDI. But you still have shown no reason why my ruling would be rediculous. You only showed an example that strenghtens my opinion on it.


Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn

Somewhat tangential, but a less messy, more readable and preferable (IMHO) version of this is:

return
    COND_A ? A  :
    COND_B ? B  :
    COND_C ? C  :
    COND_D ? () :  # returns undef or empty list per context
    die "unmatched case"
    ;
[download]

---

Give a man a fish:  <%-{-{-{-<

I see that construct as a perfectly legitimate way to handle returning different values in different cases.

It is legitimate but all those unnecessary elsifs and elses spread confusion. Why are they there if they serve no purpose? TIMTOWTDI but I prefer the clarity of

return A if FOO;
return B if BAR;
return C if BAZ;
die "unmatched case";
[download]

---

🦛