Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Paul Makepeace]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Rafael Garcia-Suarez
<rgarciasuarez at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2008/10/10 Paul Makepeace <paulm at paulm.com>:
> > Back to programming languages(!)
> >
> > Just as a different perspective, here is Python growing a ternary operator,
> > i.e. how to get the same behavior as the C-like C ? A : B. There was
> > considerable debate about this, with Guido eventually Making a Decision.
> > What's interesting is that python gets ?: without any additional keywords,
> > or... punctuation: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0308/
> >
> > There's no moral judgment here, just thought it was an interesting aside
> > from lies & nazism.
>
> But isn't aesthetics the ultimate moral judgment for the centuries to come ?

:)

You'll note I cunningly didn't pass judgment on it. (That said, it's a
great alternative IMO to four lines of if/else, or buggy horrors of
the and/or trick.)

> And honestly, putting the condition in the middle just makes me want
> to poke my eyes out with a snail fork.

It doesn't seem wildly different to perl's
  expression if condition;

P