in reply to Re^5: vec overflow?
in thread vec overflow?
vec( $_, $offset, $size ) = 1 for substr( $astring, $start, $len ); has no big advantage over vec( substr( $astring, $start, $len ), $offset, $size ) = 1;
I agree. But I've only very recently 'discovered' nested lvalue subs -- this thread is the first time I've ever used the construct publicly -- and I've never seen it used anywhere else.
I can well imagine that there are lot of silent readers looking at
- vec( vec( ... ), ... ) = 1;
- vec( substr(... ), ... ) = 1;
- substr( vec( ... ), ... ) = $stuff;
- substr( substr( ...), ... ) = $stuff;
- substr( vec( substr( vec( substr( ...), ... ), ... ), ... ), ... ) = $something;
and thinking:
"I'd never use such an unholy constructs even if it meant my code running a 1000 times more slowly."
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".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^7: vec overflow?
by LanX (Saint) on Jun 25, 2013 at 14:32 UTC |
In Section
Seekers of Perl Wisdom