When I first started writing Perl in my early 20’s, I tended to follow a lot of the structured programming conventions I had learned in school through Pascal, especially the notion that every function has a single point of exit. For example:
sub double_even_number {
# not using signatures, this is mid-1990's code
my $number = shift;
if (not $number % 2) {
$number *= 2;
}
return $number;
}This could get pretty convoluted, especially if I was doing something like validating multiple arguments. And at the time I didn’t yet grok how to handle exceptions with eval and die, so I’d end up with code like:
sub print_postal_address {
# too many arguments, I know
my ($name, $street1, $street2, $city, $state, $zip) = @_;
# also this notion of addresses is naive and US-centric
my $error;
if (!$name) {
$error="no name";
}
else {
print "$namen";
if (!$street1) {
$error="no street";
}
else {
print "$street1n";
if ($street2) {
print "$street2n";
}
if (!$city) {
$error="no city";
}
else {
print "$city, ";
if (!$state) {
$error="no state";
}
else {
print "$state ";
if (!$zip) {
$error="no ZIP code";
}
else {
print "$zipn";
}
}
}
}
}
return $error;
}What a mess. Want to count all those braces to make sure they’re balanced? This is sometimes called the arrow anti-pattern, with the arrowhead(s) being the most nested statement. The default ProhibitDeepNests perlcritic policy is meant to keep you from doing that.
The way out (literally) is guard clauses: checking early if something is valid and bailing out quickly if not. The above example could be written:
sub print_postal_address {
my ($name, $street1, $street2, $city, $state, $zip) = @_;
if (!$name) {
return 'no name';
}
if (!$street1) {
return 'no street1';
}
if (!$city) {
return 'no city';
}
if (!$state) {
return 'no state';
}
if (!$zip) {
return 'no zip';
}
print join "n",
$name,
$street1,
$street2 ? $street2 : (),
"$city, $state $zipn";
return;
}With Perl’s statement modifiers (sometimes called postfix controls) we can do even better:
...
return 'no name' if !$name;
return 'no street1' if !$street1;
return 'no city' if !$city;
return 'no state' if !$state;
return 'no zip' if !$zip;
...(Why if instead of unless? Because the latter can be confusing with double-negatives.)
Guard clauses aren’t limited to the beginnings of functions or even exiting functions entirely. Often you’ll want to skip or even exit early conditions in a loop, like this example that processes files from standard input or the command line:
while (<>) {
next if /^SKIP THIS LINE: /;
last if /^END THINGS HERE$/;
...
}Of course, if you are validating function arguments, you should consider using actual subroutine signatures if you have a Perl newer than v5.20 (released in 2014), or one of the other type validation solutions if not. Today I would write that postal function like this, using Type::Params for validation and named arguments:
use feature qw(say state);
use Types::Standard 'Str';
use Type::Params 'compile_named';
sub print_postal_address {
state $check = compile_named(
name => Str,
street1 => Str,
street2 => Str, {optional => 1},
city => Str,
state => Str,
zip => Str,
);
my $arg = $check->(@_);
say join "n",
$arg->{name},
$arg->{street1},
$arg->{street2} ? $arg->{street2} : (),
"$arg->{city}, $arg->{state} $arg->{zip}";
return;
}
print_postal_address(
name => 'J. Random Hacker',
street1 => '123 Any Street',
city => 'Somewhereville',
state => 'TX',
zip => 12345,
);Note that was this part of a larger program, I’d wrap that print_postal_address call in a try block and catch exceptions such as those thrown by the code reference $check generated by compile_named. This highlights one concern of guard clauses and other “return early” patterns: depending on how much has already occurred in your program, you may have to perform some resource cleanup either in a catch block or something like Syntax::Keyword::Try’s finally block if you need to tidy up after both success and failure.
