After probably more then a dozen replies to VarStructor and VarStructor 1.0 NOBODY BUT MYSELF found a single bug, except when someone spent 6 hours analyzing the code,
Are you implying that since it took 6 hours of analysis to find a bug that your code must be good? I take it to mean that if it took 6 hours to understand 2 pages of code, your code needs to be rethought.
and even then, the bugs he found would have been noticed in use only in rare occasions.
But still a bug. If you're planning on releasing this to CPAN, why not make it as robust as possible?
I know you would dismiss an in-depth discussion about how you can't parse Perl with regular expressions as just "academic" and therefore stupid. If you're really interested, find a book on formal language theory and models of computation. The point is that not being able to parse Perl with regular expressions is a fact. You whine and whine about how lexicals and use strict are so restrictive, but now anyone who uses this code you release will be restricted to the coding style that are recognized by your basic regexes.
And it's not as though nobody tried to find bugs. I got plenty of bogus complaints about the code.
The complaints were valid, they just weren't bug reports. Someone telling you that your code is crap is not necessarily "bogus." In this particular case, it's spot-on.
I don't need to get any better at debugging or testing, and my programming ways don't need to change. Anyway, all that is irrelevant to my question.
You're right, it is. And I think we all know that it's hopeless to try to convince you of pretty much anything about your code.
Chain GNU tools together and parse things? The change to my script to produce the output you showed wouldn't take much time or code. Sounds like you want me to spend extra time to do it the way you would from scratch. That doesn't sound appealing.
If you already know how to do it the best way, why post in SOPW?
