«

Trying to print to a file after a while loop.....


while {
test
}

do this

can I put an else in here if the above is not true????

Bla <> writes:
> Trying to print to a file after a while loop.....
>
>
> while {
> test
> }
>
> do this
>
> can I put an else in here if the above is not true????

I quoted you fully only because I cannot for the life of me figure out
what, in fact, you are trying to do. A while loop doesn't look like
that, it looks like this:

while (some_test()) {
do_something();
}

Can you please try this question again, with actual Perl?

-=Eric
--
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare.
-- Blair Houghton.

Bla <> wrote:

> while {
> test
> }


This is the Perl newsgroup. We discuss Perl here.

Did you have some _Perl_ code that you wanted to ask about?


--
Tad McClellan SGML consulting
Perl programming
Fort Worth, Texas

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:35:34 -0700, Eric Schwartz <>
wrote:

>Bla <> writes:
>> Trying to print to a file after a while loop.....
>>
>>
>> while {
>> test
>> }
>>
>> do this
>>
>> can I put an else in here if the above is not true????
>
>I quoted you fully only because I cannot for the life of me figure out
>what, in fact, you are trying to do. A while loop doesn't look like
>that, it looks like this:
>
>while (some_test()) {
> do_something();
>}
>
>Can you please try this question again, with actual Perl?
>
>-=Eric

#!/usr/bin/perl -w
#
open (SNMPLOG, ">snmp.log") or die "could not open 'snmp.log' $!";
$ARGV[0] = 'url.log';
my %status;
while (<>) {
/ (FAILURE|SUCCESS).+?from (.+)/ and $status{$2} = $1;
}
$status{$_} eq 'FAILURE' and print SNMPLOG " 0 " for sort keys
%status;

#else {
# print SNMPLOG " 1 " for sort keys %status;
#}

Bla <> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:35:34 -0700, Eric Schwartz <>
> wrote:
>
>>Bla <> writes:
>>> Trying to print to a file after a while loop.....
>>>
>>>
>>> while {
>>> test
>>> }
>>>
>>> do this
>>>
>>> can I put an else in here if the above is not true????
>>
>>I quoted you fully only because I cannot for the life of me figure out
>>what, in fact, you are trying to do. A while loop doesn't look like
>>that, it looks like this:
>>
>>while (some_test()) {
>> do_something();
>>}
>>
>>Can you please try this question again, with actual Perl?
>>
>>-=Eric
>
> #!/usr/bin/perl -w
> #
> open (SNMPLOG, ">snmp.log") or die "could not open 'snmp.log' $!";
> $ARGV[0] = 'url.log';
> my %status;
> while (<>) {
> / (FAILURE|SUCCESS).+?from (.+)/ and $status{$2} = $1;
> }
> $status{$_} eq 'FAILURE' and print SNMPLOG " 0 " for sort keys
> %status;
>
> #else {
> # print SNMPLOG " 1 " for sort keys %status;
> #}


print SNMPLOG $status{$_} eq 'FAILURE' ? ' 0 ' : ' 1 ' for sort keys %status;


but I don't like that much for maintenance, I wouldn't use it in my code.

I'd "unroll" it, as that seems to make it much easier to see what's going on:

for (sort keys %status) {
if ( $status{$_} eq 'FAILURE' )
{ print SNMPLOG ' 0 ' }
else
{ print SNMPLOG ' 1 ' }
}



--
Tad McClellan SGML consulting
Perl programming
Fort Worth, Texas

Bla <> wrote:

: #!/usr/bin/perl -w
: #
: open (SNMPLOG, ">snmp.log") or die "could not open 'snmp.log' $!";
: $ARGV[0] = 'url.log';
: my %status;
: while (<>) {
: / (FAILURE|SUCCESS).+?from (.+)/ and $status{$2} = $1;
: }
: $status{$_} eq 'FAILURE' and print SNMPLOG " 0 " for sort keys
: %status;
:
: #else {
: # print SNMPLOG " 1 " for sort keys %status;
: #}

This makes more sense than the original article. Other than setting up the
data structure, the while loop has nothing to do with the problem.

Since there are only two possible values of $status{$_}, each of which maps
directly to one output string, I'd rather ditch the if/else thing.

print SNMPLOG
{ FAILURE => ' 0 ', SUCCESS => ' 1 ' } -> { $status{$_} }
for sort keys %status;

(Jay Tilton) wrote:

: print SNMPLOG
: { FAILURE => ' 0 ', SUCCESS => ' 1 ' } -> { $status{$_} }
: for sort keys %status;

Or using hash slices:

print SNMPLOG
@{{ FAILURE=>' 0 ', SUCCESS=>' 1 ' }}
{@status{ sort keys %status }};

That's probably going one step too far into obfuscation country.