Derek Martin wrote:
Agreed that your version is more straightforward, probably even more elegant (who am I to decide), but does not your script require the reader to know what the "s///" operator does, or what shift() does? In other words, assuming that the reader of the script does know how to read Perl including the standard-library functions "grep" and "map", then the script is perfectly readable, even using temporary variables such as "@f" and "$n" rather than taking the obvious Perl shortcuts of omitting them and implying the value (something that I think only Perl lets you get away with).This particular one-liner is very readable when properly indented and code-formatted, making use of few of the esoteric symbols that make reading Perl scripts hard. I like it quite a bit.
I disagree, in large part, though I've definitely seen worse. I find the syntax of the grep and map to be pretty cryptic, and as a result the purpose of them is obscure to anyone who isn't familiar with the Perl syntax used. The version I wrote is much less so, IMO.
A question for you -- do you find
doSomething if (condition);
to be less readable than
if (condition) {
doSomething;
}
? For someone who has even only a few hours' experience with Perl, the former is generally more readable in a larger script with more lines. Of course, by itself in an email it's hard to convey how nice it is to see a one-line if statement.
Just my opinions...
Erik
PS: FWIW, Python is a friendlier and IMO superior language for writing scripts where legibility is important, but you can't write a oneliner like the OP's Perl script using Python. I think a lot of Perl users like the way that it is quick to write.
_______________________________________________
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
