$foo     ||= barf->new();
$foo     ||= gazonkly();
[download]

$foo     //= barf->new();
$foo     //= gazonkly();
[download]

if (<expr>) { statement }
[download]

instead of

statement if <expr>;
[download]

I understand that traditional argument, the point is that I was using postfix if as an idiom in specific circumstances which make my code clearer.

I specifically asked for "a clearer way of writing things like that", but you didn't answer -- which probably means you can't see a neater way, either.

Update: Fixed spelling and a html tag so it worked. :-)

I prefer this, as I thought I'd already stated. :-)

my($foo) = blah($yadda);
unless( $foo ) { $foo     = barf->new(); }  
unless( $foo ) { $foo     = gazonkly();  }
if ( $foo < $boo ) { return ERROR_CODE; }
[download]

When reading this code, if I determine that $foo was set to a non-zero value greater than $boo by function blah(), I only need to read the first half of each of the subsequent lines to know they don't impact the scenario I'm considering.

When they're written backwards to the underlying logic, I can't do that. I have to read all of each line, and then forget what I've read if it doesn't apply. That's why I don't consider the idiom any clearer when written backwards. I have to wonder: why did you think reversing tradition was a good idea in this (specific) case?