in reply to Brannigan: hash validation

I tried and finally gave up on Brannigan. Wonderful idea, sort of like what happens when YACC meets XSLT. But it is so generalized that I could never get it to a point where I was confident that it was doing what I wanted. It seems better suited for checking what data is, but not so much for detecting when extraneous data exists (which seems to be your use-case). I cut my losses and did it the hard way.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Brannigan: hash validation
by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Feb 14, 2018 at 19:13 UTC

    Please consider posting with a named account—or technical details on the hard way—so others can know how much credibility to attach to your opinion. As an AnonyMonk it's not worth the electricity that lights the pixels to display it since we have no idea if your opinion is solid gold or gobshite vomitus #FakeNews. Acronym dropping and being excited about XSLT points the compass toward the latter pole in my book.

[reply]

      ? solid gold or #FakeNews

      Ha! That sounds like you've lost access to the central git repository where #RealTruth is kept.

[reply]

      RTFM? If the pod matches the opinion ( extras undetected ) you can believe it ... or just believe the pod?

      Crusading against AM am YOING

[reply]

        Neither has any brand credibility and since I am not in the market for a validation framework and am firmly against squashing harmless insects, I have no action items from this meeting.

        Sidebar: Another benefit of logging in is you can edit your node when you realize you forgot to say that extra clever thing you think of 10 minutes later instead of needing a whole new post and ensuing acceleration of the needless massacre of electrons.

[reply]
Re^2: Brannigan: hash validation
by henzen (Acolyte) on Feb 15, 2018 at 10:55 UTC
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom