Re^4: Situation where warning "Found = in conditional, should be" seems obsolete (documentation

Terminology is not easy if it involves history and parallels to other (normative) languages.

The Conditional operator is supported in many programming languages. This term usually refers to ?: as in C, C++, C#, Python, and JavaScript.
However, in Java, this term can also refer to && and ||

When Perl was born, C-programmers where one of the main target groups.

But as you see "Java" is doing it like you suggested.

And in Perl it's not only that

and has the same "flow control" like if

but also

if returns a value like the operand and

As I said, both are implemented with the same OP-Code.

edit

At the same time we want documentation to stay concise, otherwise it's considered "too complicated"

I think adding an extra section "Control flow in conditional operators" with these deeper informations and linking to it from ?: and && or || might solve the issue.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)

Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

Comment on Re^4: Situation where warning "Found = in conditional, should be" seems obsolete (documentation - C terminology) Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Situation where warning "Found = in conditional, should be" seems obsolete (documentation - C terminology) by rsFalse (Chaplain) on Feb 06, 2021 at 20:07 UTC
Do '&&' and '\|\|' short-circuit in C? >>`if` returns a value like the operand `and` Ye, I was surprised, when `if` returned the result of its conditional (because it was false) and didn't proceeded to a sencence! (The long discussion about this finding was here: printing unitialized value of the 'do BLOCK')	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^6: Situation where warning "Found = in conditional, should be" seems obsolete (documentation - C terminology) by LanX (Saint) on Feb 06, 2021 at 20:15 UTC
> Do `&&` and `\|\|` short-circuit in C? Yes, and Perl introduce `and` and `or` as low precedence alternatives. > The long discussion yes we had this before simple example `DB<226> p do { unless (42) { } } 42 DB<227>` [download] Please keep in mind that "ternary operator" is not correct either, since it's a mathematical term classifying a whole family of operators with 3 operands. `? :` is just the only ternary one in these languages. Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply] [d/l] [select]


Welcome to the Monastery
	PerlMonks

Re^4: Situation where warning "Found = in conditional, should be" seems obsolete (documentation - C terminology)

edit