Re^2: A silly reg exp question

[AnomalousMonk]

in reply to Re: A silly reg exp question
in thread A silly reg exp question

s/8/7-/g; s/7/33-/g; s/6/5-/g; s/5/22-/g; s/4/3-/g; s/3/11-/g; s/2/1-/
+g; s/1/-/g;

This version certainly seems to work, but is it lazy, crazy, peevish, peccant, or...?

I think it's the version I would choose if I hated the person who would be maintaining my code!

Update: ++ for the whole reply for diversity and perversity!

[JavaFan]

Feel free to replace the semicolons (except the last) with xors for even more perversity.

[AnomalousMonk]

++ and amen, but only with  no warnings 'void'; since one cannot enjoy perversity incautiously.

In fact, wouldn't any of the left-associative operators  * x + - . << >> & | ^ , => xor do as well so long as precedence levels were not mixed unwisely? Although I haven't thoroughly tested it, I like:

>perl -wMstrict -le
"$_ = 'p1r4k/8';
 my $t = 'p-r----k/--------';
 no warnings 'void';
 s/8/7-/g-+s/7/33-/g-+s/6/5-/g-+s/5/22-/g-+s/4/3-/g-+s/3/11-/g-+s/2/1-
+/g-+s/1/-/g;
 print qq{'$_'};
 print $_ eq $t;
"
'p-r----k/--------'
1