in reply to Perl 'grammar'

Here is a Perlish way to convert a name into AD format: 
sub format_name_for_AD {
    my $empl_name = shift;            # $empl_name has the form "Last,
+ First"

    my ($last, $first) = $empl_name=~/^([^,]+), (.+)/ or return undef;
    
    return uc(substr($first, 0, 1)) . ucfirst($last);
}

for ('Smith, John', 'Wall, Larry', 'Perlis, Alan', 'Ritchie, Dennis') 
+{
    print format_name_for_AD($_), "\n";
}

[download]
I'll leave what's going on as an exercise to the reader (hint: perlre), but as a short comment, I'll say that string matching in Perl shouldn't look like string matching in C. :)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Perl 'grammar'
by WoodyWeaver (Monk) on Jan 08, 2008 at 22:28 UTC
    why is 
    my $empl_name = shift;
my ($last, $first) = $empl_name=~/^([^,]+), (.+)/ or return undef;

    [download]
    preferred over 
    my ($last, $first) = /(.*), (.*)/ or return undef;

    [download]
    (or perhaps /(.*),\s*(.*)/ ?)
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
      Hell, why not sub format_name_for_AD {/(.+), (.)/ ? $2.$1 : undef}?
[reply]
[d/l]
        Good point. You lose the uc bit, but its awfully tight.

        I think I was reacting more to the parameter unpacking. The sub is handed a compound, and the parameter is stored and then broken apart. I tend to think of that breaking as part of the unpacking process, so in essence get two params passed to the sub in a particular format, hence my "first" line produces those two variables.

        It all comes down to chasing errors, I suppose. I've gotten the habit of putting in a print (or warn) at subroutine entry with the parameters passed controlled by a debug variable. With the one-liner, you can't really do that. But then again, its so bloody simple, perhaps its not necessary.

        --woody

[reply]
      The two are not the same. Consider what happens when the sub is called as format_name_for_AD($foo).
[reply]
[d/l]
        Ah, $_ != $_[0]. I did not think of that.
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom