d'oh!  I must confess that in all my programming years, I've never seen `<=> (1)` used by itself.  I've always seen the "trynary" operator used with -1 and 0 as well.  So this is an unusual usage of this operator.

So, what you have works.  But...

Besides being unusual, a nit is that your are also saying that for it to be too long, you are testing that it must be *greater than*, and not simply *greater than or equal*.  In this case, it doesn't really matter, but it is another item to parse for the maintenance programmer.

I confess that I'd rather see the `>=` operator used here because it's what would be normally used.  The `<=>` operator implies a different (and, in this case, I think inappropriate) programming *intention*: which is what to do if the value is less than, equal, or greater than the compare value.  And, we don't have that intention here.