in reply to Little things ;)

All of this makes want to ask a kind of 'Meta' question about language and tools in general.At what point does it become 'gibberish'? If the notion of more than one way to do it is inherent in the language is it gibberish or idomatic ignorance? I'm fairly sure that there is a line (the in the sand type) in there somewhere, but I'm not sure just where…

–hsm

"Never try to teach a pig to sing…it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Little things ;)
by Caillte (Friar) on Dec 14, 2001 at 15:25 UTC

    This was more the thing I had in mind when I started this debate. You see, when asked my mindset was heavily into dereferencing due to working on writing a program to extract data from a hashref of a hashref of a hashref. So it was probably mostly due to that that I responded the way I did instead of using the more familiar, and readable, scalar(keys %hash)).

    To me, this is the great advantage, as well as the greatest potential hazard, of using perl. It is easy to write code differently depending on how you are thinking at the time, the phase of the moon, the weather, the day of the week and a million other reasons. What I was interested in seeing was, not who can obfuscate; we have another section for that, but who has written down any of those little syntactic gems that are only possible in a language like perl.

    This page is intentionally left justified.