Re: perl

[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/22]

> You know, in Perl, the equivalent of the C snippet would just be:
>
>     do_some_process;
>
> while in do_some_process, you'd use the '<>' to read input. Perl has 
> the
> snippet build in - if there are no arguments, '<>' will read from the
> file(s) given as arguments.

Yep, Perl is full of rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty 
like that. The fix to pointlessly obscure syntax is to introduce more 
obscure syntax that handles some common cases that the pointlessly 
obscure syntax makes difficult... without actually doing anything about 
the fact that you have to use

do_some_process(STDIN);

but

do_some_process(*INPUT);

when you suddenly realize that you need to handle files ending with 
".o" differently from files ending in ".a" and by the way doesn't that 
mean that file boundaries actually matter now...?

• Abigail 10:02 on 22 Dec 2006
  • Peter da Silva 13:09 on 22 Dec 2006
    • Abigail 13:27 on 22 Dec 2006
      • too deep to show
    • A. Pagaltzis 18:41 on 22 Dec 2006
    • demerphq 19:26 on 22 Dec 2006
      • too deep to show
• Earle Martin 11:10 on 22 Dec 2006
  • Dave Hodgkinson 11:20 on 22 Dec 2006
  • Sean Conner 20:29 on 22 Dec 2006
  • Yoz Grahame 09:09 on 26 Dec 2006
    • A. Pagaltzis 16:11 on 26 Dec 2006
      • too deep to show
    • Sean Conner 00:31 on 27 Dec 2006
    • Jonathan Stowe 13:25 on 28 Dec 2006
• Peter da Silva 12:48 on 22 Dec 2006
  • Aaron Crane 19:00 on 22 Dec 2006
    • peter (Peter da Silva) 22:02 on 22 Dec 2006

Generated at 14:01 on 28 Dec 2006 by mariachi 0.52