RE: [misterhouse-users] RE: Please correct me if I am incorrect

[Carl F. <fri...@ex...>]

Jumping in again to prod others to action :-)

I personally have a dislike for this style of "c" coding:

> > if ($state =3D state_now $pedestal_light) {...}

I believe (haven't the patience at this hour to check) that
the -w option will emit a complaint about this.=20

In fact, this one is on my list of "why I hate C" (even though
it's Perl).

C/Perl syntax here is a bit vague, allowing a
multiplicity of actions to occur: first, the replacement of
the current lvalue of $state with the result of the state_now
function; then, the testing of the result within the if ().

I've caught this bug many times (in C) when the
original coder had intended X =3D=3D (comparison) rather
than X =3D (replacment). That's why the alternate coding style is
clearer and safer (obviously, in my opinion):

> > if (state $pedestal_light eq ON) print_log "the light is on\n";

Your instincts are right.  You're getting it.

Carl

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Winter [mailto:bruce%mis...@fw...]
> Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 11:35 PM
> To: Misterhouse-Users
> Subject: [misterhouse-users] RE: Please correct me if I am incorrect
>=20
>=20
> Your post is correct.   I think you are indeed getting the=20
> hang of this!
>=20
> If you wanted to find the current state of a light periodically, try
> something like this:
>=20
>   if (new_minute 5 and state $pedestal_light eq ON) print_log=20
> "the light is
> on\n";
...