Re: [OT] Thoughts on Ruby's new absent operator?

Any thoughts on Ruby's new absent operator in its regular expressions

Verbosity doesn't equal clarity.

Eg. Constrast

3.1415926535897932384626433832795
three point one four one five nine two six five three five eight nine seven nine three two three eight four six two six four three three eight three two seven nine five

Just as the symbols of Chinese or Japanese seem opaque and mysterious to most westeners, yet are as clear as day to those born in the East, so the regex nomenclature is only mysterious to those that are not familiar with it. Once you take the effort to become familiar with it, its terse economy is far more easily written and read than the nested function/method calls of this kind of alternative.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity.

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Comment on Re: [OT] Thoughts on Ruby's new absent operator?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: [OT] Thoughts on Ruby's new absent operator?
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 24, 2017 at 18:17 UTC

what if alternative without nested function/method call?

[reply]


Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
	PerlMonks