At 2003-06-13T04:11:47Z, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> foreach $_ ($switch)
>> {
>> /^a$/ and do { print "a"; };
>> /^b$/ and do { print "b"; };
>> /^c$/ and do { print "c"; };
>> }
> BTW, the above is still not that idiomatic. C'mon, any C
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 05:57:05PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
} On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:48:47 +0300
} Aryan Ameri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
} > If the intended users of the script are likely to use different Unix
} > versions, then sh scripting is probably the safe bet. On the other
} > hand, if yo
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 03:36:54AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:37:36 +0100
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have to say that I can never remember whether Python's print includes
> > a trailing newline, and I find it much more obvious when that's spelt
> > out ex
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:37:36 +0100
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have to say that I can never remember whether Python's print includes
> a trailing newline, and I find it much more obvious when that's spelt
> out explicitly as it is in Perl ...
> Language features can be idioms too.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:11:47PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> for element in switch:
> if hash.has_key(element):
> print(hash(element))
>
> 2 years later I'll know exactly what that code does.
I have to say that I can never remember whether Python's print includes
a trailing newli
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 06:13:05PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:15:36 -0500
> Kirk Strauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not this again, indeed. I find a lot of shell scripts
> > incomprehensible, but you seem to like them. That's OK - it's your
> > preference. Please unde
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 02:48:40AM +0300, Aryan Ameri wrote:
> On Friday 13 June 2003 01:01, John Hasler wrote:
> > Aryan Ameri writes:
> > > BTW, now that we are here, I wonder about the portability of awk.
> > > Is awk available on all major Unices?
awk itself is very portable. Just be careful a
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:20:08 -0500
Kirk Strauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll admit that I'm not 100% consistent about that. I tend to use parens
> when it helps to disambiguate the meaning of the code, along the lines of
> saying "2 * 2 + 3" or explicitly stating "3 + (2 * 2)", even though t
If I were you I would cut your loses and go with python. Whatever anyone
says perl is virtually unmaintainable (yes I know you can write resonablyclean code
but this is only through coding standards, which no one can
agree on and consequently you have to force people to use them -- always
a bad th
At 2003-06-13T01:13:05Z, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Uh, no, read my post where I said that for any given situation I prefer
> Perl over Shell script.
OK, I hadn't seen that.
> I also happen to have worked with Perl for far too long to fall into the
> trap that it is easily maintai
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:15:36 -0500
Kirk Strauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 2003-06-12T20:16:40Z, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Not this again. *sigh* The point is that it is far too simple in Perl to
> > write s'ghetti code.
> Not this again, indeed. I find a lot of shell s
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:48:47 +0300
Aryan Ameri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the intended users of the script are likely to use different Unix
> versions, then sh scripting is probably the safe bet. On the other
> hand, if you are counting on them, running your script on Windows or
> tradition
On Friday 13 June 2003 01:01, John Hasler wrote:
> Aryan Ameri writes:
> > BTW, now that we are here, I wonder about the portability of awk.
> > Is awk available on all major Unices?
>
> AFAIK POSIX requires it.
I'm really not an expert in Unix, and it's standards, but IIRC Windows
NT also passed
At 2003-06-12T20:16:40Z, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not this again. *sigh* The point is that it is far too simple in Perl to
> write s'ghetti code.
Not this again, indeed. I find a lot of shell scripts incomprehensible, but
you seem to like them. That's OK - it's your preference.
Aryan Ameri writes:
> BTW, now that we are here, I wonder about the portability of awk. Is awk
> available on all major Unices?
AFAIK POSIX requires it.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Thursday 12 June 2003 19:08, John Hasler wrote:
> Matthew Weier O'Phinney writes:
> > One aspect of [Perl] I particularly like is that it is also very
> > portable: I don't have to worry about which shell is available on
> > which system...
>
> On Unix and Linux conservatively-written POSIX sh s
Sebastian writes:
> BTW, is #!/bin/bash a valid choice for a Debian "official" shell script?
Yes, but I would like to see it deprecated for maintainer scripts and
forbidden for init.d scripts (the latter should be too simple to need
bashisms).
> After all, bash is an essential package AFAIK.
Yes
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:22:16 -0500
Kirk Strauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have to vehemently disagree. You can write spaghetti code in *any*
> language, and you can write good code in Perl.
Not this again. *sigh* The point is that it is far too simple in Perl to
write s'ghetti code.
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:48:31 -0400
Chun Kit Edwin Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In what situation does ppl normally use shell script and when
> when will ppl use Perl? How about their performance like speed and also
> the ease of programming?
In years of working on unix systems from
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 07:19:27PM +0200, Sebastian Kapfer wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:50:12 +0200, Gregory Seidman wrote:
>
> > Let me add one more detail: anyone who is about to write a shell script
> > should read this page http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
> > Some of it
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 07:19:27PM +0200, Sebastian Kapfer wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:50:12 +0200, Gregory Seidman wrote:
> > Let me add one more detail: anyone who is about to write a shell script
> > should read this page http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
> > Some of it is
At 2003-06-12T14:46:39Z, Gregory Seidman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This makes maintaining any substantial chunk of perl code a
> misery.
I have to vehemently disagree. You can write spaghetti code in *any*
language, and you can write good code in Perl. If you have any experience
with typica
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 11:08:56AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Matthew Weier O'Phinney writes:
> > One aspect of [Perl] I particularly like is that it is also very
> > portable: I don't have to worry about which shell is available on which
> > system...
>
> On Unix and Linux conservatively-written
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:50:12 +0200, Gregory Seidman wrote:
> Let me add one more detail: anyone who is about to write a shell script
> should read this page http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
> Some of it is outdated, but the majority of it still applies. The short
> version: scri
Matthew Weier O'Phinney writes:
> One aspect of [Perl] I particularly like is that it is also very
> portable: I don't have to worry about which shell is available on which
> system...
On Unix and Linux conservatively-written POSIX sh scripts are more portable
than Perl.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PRO
Jake Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi Edwin,
>It all depends on the level of difficulty the problem is and how well you
>know shell scripting vs. perl. I would recommend using perl script if you
>need to massage files and need advan
Edwin writes:
> In what situation does ppl normally use shell script...
When portability and robustness are important.
> ...and when when will ppl use Perl?
When the problem is more complex and speed is important.
> How about their performance like speed...
Perl is faster.
> ...and also the e
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:48:31AM -0400, Chun Kit Edwin Lau wrote:
} In what situation does ppl normally use shell script and when
} when will ppl use Perl? How about their performance like speed and also
} the ease of programming?
You probably didn't know it, but this is a good way to sta
-- Chun Kit Edwin Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(on Thursday, 12 June 2003, 09:48 AM -0400):
> In what situation does ppl normally use shell script and when
> when will ppl use Perl? How about their performance like speed and also
> the ease of programming?
Use what you're comfortable with,
Hi Edwin,
It all depends on the level of difficulty the problem is and how well you
know shell scripting vs. perl. I would recommend using perl script if you
need to massage files and need advanced features in your program,
otherwise I would stick to a shell script that is small and fast.
Good Luc
Hi everyone,
In what situation does ppl normally use shell script and when
when will ppl use Perl? How about their performance like speed and also
the ease of programming?
--
Edwin ERTW Lau
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta
31 matches
Mail list logo
