Re^2: Generate the perl sequence 1, 11, 111, ....

[dHarry]

Is there some name for this kind of sequence

1 liner :-)

[matrixmadhan]

Hello all, This is my very first post/reply to perlmonks.org :)

my $one_literal = "1";
my $counter = 1;

while ( 1 ) {
  for ( my $i = 1; $i <= $counter; $i++ ) {
    printf "$one_literal";
  }
  printf "\n";
  $counter++;
}

[ikegami]

Do you mind if I offer a critique? There are a few minor points that could be improved.

• If all that $one_literal can contain is "1", then the variable isn't needed.
  If $one_literal can contain something other than "1", then it's misnamed.

• Speaking of being misnamed, $one_literal doesn't contain a literal. It contains a string. String literals are pieces of source code that get compiled into strings. They don't exist anywhere but in source code.

• The first argument of printf is a formatting string. Using it to print arbitrary string is a trap waiting to be sprung. Instead, use print or printf('%s', ...).

• The C syntax for "for" loops (for ( my $i = 1; $i <= $counter; $i++ )) is much more complex than alternative syntax Perl provides (for my $i ( 1..$counter )). That makes it more error-prone and harder to parse mentally (small variations will be obscured).

[matrixmadhan]

No, I don't mind at all. In fact, I would be glad to correct my mistakes and improve perl coding.

"That makes it more error-prone" - Did you mean the C style for loop syntax. I don't understand why that would be error-prone ?

[monarch]

I would agree with the printf being a trap without a formatting string. However I would disagree that C-style for loops are more error-prone than the double-dot operator. I disagree, however, that c-style loops are harder to understand.

I personally find it much harder to mentally parse the for my $i ( 1 .. $counter ) because it forces me to remember whether the .. operator is a toggle or a list generator, and then I have to wonder if list generation is less efficient than the C-style comparison and increment operators.

[blazar]

Hello all, This is my very first post/reply to perlmonks.org :)

I personally believe, then, in addition to the Perl-specific points addressed by ikegami (which I was about to point out myself...) that as a behavioural rule you should have posted your reply not as a comment to a more or less random entry of this thread, but as one to the root node because it anwers the latter not the former.

[matrixmadhan]

Please pardon my ignorance. Only after replying to another reply - I realized that I should not have done that instead it should have been a direct reply. In most of the forums there isn't any concept of direct/indirect replies, so I was not aware of that. Next time, I will make sure about direct or indirect reply accordingly before posting. Sorry again.