Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

emazep (6092)

emazep
  (email not shown publicly)

I'm from Roma, Italy and, yes, I'm a male.

Journal of emazep (6092)

Thursday October 26, 2006
09:33 PM

ref never returns undef!

[ #31432 ]
Since I keep on finding here and there tests like this:

if (defined ref $thingy ...

let me point out that ref never returns undef. If its argument is not a reference, ref simply returns the empty string (even if called on undef!)

To have an idea on what I'm talking about (and on how common this redundant - and sometimes completely wrong - test is), have a look at here.
And to have a confirmation that a test like this is really superfluous (at best), have a look at the docs.

Update

Here is a slightly better crafted search - which searches just for the pattern defined\s*\(?\s*ref - which gives more results (though some of them are not pertinent to be honest).

Anyway thank everyone for the clarification about the origin of this meme (though now I have the same n1vux's curiosity ;-)

Ciao, Emanuele.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I think it used to return undef on older Perls, which is where that meme came from.

    • It used to be documented as

      Returns a TRUE value if EXPR is a reference, FALSE otherwise.

      which could mean it returns "" or undef or alternates between them.
      • which means removing the defined() without putting in a require 5.8.0; would potentially create a compatibility regression, on any implementation/releases that actually returned undef when FALSE was documented?

        Do we know if it actually returned 'undef' or if it always returned q{} as it's FALSE (but defined) value?
        --
        Bill
        # I had a sig when sigs were cool
        use Sig;
        • Since undef is false, wouldn't if (ref $thingy work in all cases?
          • Sure it would. At least on the first page of results emazep's Code Search query, all code snippets take the form of

            if(defined ref $x && ref $foo eq 'X') ...

            This can be reduced to

            if(ref $x && ref $foo eq 'X') ...

            even if ref ever returned undef (which, last I heard, has always been considered false). Which it doesn't, even

            ref undef

            returns a true boolean, a value like !1. And then,

            if(ref $foo eq 'X') ...

            suffices. No warnings, now, ever. But maybe it did warn, in the past.

          • Well, not always.

            Under the false assumption that if the argument is not a reference ref returns undef, a test like this

            if (defined ref $thingy) { ... }

            to check if $thingy is a reference or not, would clearly be wrong, non just redundant (you can find an example of this here [google.com]).

            Anyway my main complaint was about the fact that, even if the code is formally correct (whereas the test is used to supposedly avoid the possible warning from a subsequent test), such defined-ness test is redundant, or unnecessary,

            • Update

              Please forget my previous pointless post: I wrongly assumed that DAxelrod was talking about

              if (defined ref $thingy) { ... }
              while he clearly said
              if (ref $thingy) { ... }
              Ciao, Emanuele.