For those who think that Perl lacks the adequacy to replace english
I will attempt to translate and answer this:

perl -we "code........." = when I executed this from the commandline it didn't work.

note: shift is regularly used in programs, replace shift with "palindrome word" 
(obviously replace "palindrome word" with the word you are testing.)

If no word is applied the program will not work as is expected.

Using -w does NOT mean something is wrong : try this if ( int ("") < 0) {print "foo.\n"}
with -w it whines, this is a valid way of converting strings to integer.
and it converts the value to 0 but still it complains. Perlease....

The script is just showing that in one line you can find a palindrome
That is how cool Perl is. 

The wrapping code lacks validation and prettification, as I expect the 
perl community to understand the spirit in which this is posted.

If I wanted to write bullet-proof code, I would do it in three lines not two!!</emp>

Frankus.

Well, obfuscated code is meant to be a showcase, and it's far more impressive if your code works with warnings and strict. Plus, I'd still do it in two lines:

$_=$ARGV[0]||die;my$x="$_ is ";$x.="not "if($_ ne
join"",reverse split//);print $x," a palindrome";
[download]

(If the errors were helpful, it wouldn't be obfuscated, now, would it?)

Andrew.

Errors? Warnings!!!!

<shrug type=gallic>If you idea of obfuscation and mine differ, I'm sorry.</shrug>
I spent 4 years in a comp sci cohort with pedants that would 
feel that they had made a valid point if they asked you to run a 
piece of code and input the wrong variable type (in C) and it crash.
The fact that by removing the error checking meant the whole code 
fitted one over-head, escaped them. Perhaps I have the same weary mindset 
to these people and I applied it to you. My apologies if I have mistakenly grouped you with the nerds.

In this case the code doesn't work with strict or warn, and frankly a null word is 
the same reversed, depends on your identification of a palindrome.

I like your changes. It is not too removed from what I did, except 
that you've used interpolation. I was hoping for a response in regex.

I will look at your code and see if I can reduce it more, just for fun.
Thankyou.

:-)

Frankus.