|Syntactic Confectionery Delight|
Comment onby gods
|on Feb 11, 2000 at 00:06 UTC||Need Help??|
You mean the one from perlfaq5?
Well, yes; I don't know of any others.
do you honestly feel that your solutions are any better if your target audience is a perl beginner?
[blink] Perhaps I'm being a tad sensitive, but I feel like you're taking an aggressive tone here and in the rest of your reply. Did I flick you on the raw somewhere? If so, I apologize; my post here was not meant as an insult to anyone.
To answer your question: my solution was not intended as a replacement for the code in the FAQ - I'd already said that the example was intended to demonstrate a point (one which my code does not demonstrate.) It is not intended for beginners; my point was that I would never use the regex in the example since it is an obfuscated, baroque, and unnecessarily tortuous approach to solving a simple problem, and that there are more readable, reasonable ways to do it. My only reason for mentioning beginners at all was to note that the code in the FAQ is not suitable for them; I did not say or imply that mine is. As for the rest of your reply... please feel free to explain to me why all of these things are not done in that FAQ, and why I should do them. If your demands are reasonable, then the FAQ should have followed them, no?
I assure you, by the way, that if I was writing for beginners, I would do so quite well - perhaps better than anyone who chooses to criticize me on that topic. I'm a teacher, and have been for most of career; that is, I specialize in explaining things to beginners. Which is explicitly not what I was doing here.
The bit of code that I posted here simply explored an approach, with a possible variation, that I thought was reasonable for the problem. Again, if was not intended to be an insult or an attack on anyone, and I'm sorry that you appear to be taking it that way.
"Language shapes the way we think, and determines what we can think about."
-- B. L. Whorf