With respect for your discussion and skills, I must admit that to me, this code doesn't look better than (either of) the perlfaq5 examples. It doesn't look worse, but it is not a pearl of truth in the darkness, either. Your code and that code both take a bit of time to get to understand why each statement is justified, and how it deals with edge cases. I don't see an improvement, I just see a difference.
The first time I became a manager, I had to learn how to accept that other people do things in a way that I would not have done them. If it passes the tests, and it's not a risk to maintenance, then I would just have to let it be. I'd have to accept the solution until there was a real need to change it, and there rarely was. If I didn't learn to accept others' solutions, I'd end up coding it all myself. It's a hard hurdle to cross but it's a worthwhile one.
--
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]
In reply to Re^3: Commify numbers, the boring and straightforward way
by halley
in thread Commify numbers, the boring and straightforward way
by Aristotle
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |