NAME Syntax::Operator::In - infix element-of-list meta-operator SYNOPSIS On a suitably-patched perl: use Syntax::Operator::In; if($x in:eq @some_strings) { say "x is one of the given strings"; } DESCRIPTION This module provides an infix meta-operator that implements a element-of-list test on either strings or numbers. Current versions of perl do not directly support custom infix operators. The documentation of XS::Parse::Infix describes the situation, with reference to a branch experimenting with this new feature. This module is therefore almost entirely useless on standard perl builds. While the regular parser does not support custom infix operators, they are supported via XS::Parse::Infix and hence XS::Parse::Keyword, and so custom keywords which attempt to parse operator syntax may be able to use it. For operators that already specialize on string or numerical equality, see instead Syntax::Operator::Elem. OPERATORS in my $present = $lhs in:OP @rhs; my $present = $lhs in @rhs; Yields true if the value on the lefhand side is equal to any of the values in the list on the right, according to some equality test operator OP. This test operator must be either eq for string match, or == for number match, or any other custom infix operator that is registered in the XPI_CLS_EQUALITY classification. There are currently two accepted forms of the syntax for this operator, using either a prefix colon or a circumfix pair of angle-brackets. They are entirely identical in semantics, differing only in the surface-level syntax to notate them. This is because I'm still entirely undecided on which notation is better in terms of readable neatness, flexibility, parsing ambiguity and so on. This is somewhat of an experiment to see which will eventually win. TODO * Improve runtime performance of compiletime-constant sets of strings, by detecting when the RHS contains string constants and convert it into a hash lookup. * Consider cross-module integration with Syntax::Keyword::Match, permitting match($val : elem) { case(@arr_of_strings) { ... } } Or perhaps this would be too weird, and maybe match/case should have an "any-of" list/array matching ability itself. See also https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=143482. AUTHOR Paul Evans