BTW, the split is more 'correctly' written as:
my ($port, $sname, $rem) = split /\t/;
Uh... there is nothing wrong with split("\t"). To quote Camel 2 (note that this is different from our own docs for split):
| |
The /PATTERN/ argument may be replaced with an expression to specify patterns that vary at run-time. (To do run-time compilation only once, use /$variable/o.) As a special case, specifying a space " " will split on whitespace just as split with no argument does. Thus, split(" ") can be used to emulate awk's default behavior, whearas split(/ /) will give you as many null initial fields as there are leading spaces. (Other then this special case, if you supply a string instead of a regular expression, it'll be interpreted as a regular expression anyway.)
| |
My point, runrig, is TIMTOWTDI, and that sometimes the 'correct' way isn't the way the programmer wanted to do it. I, for one, like to use quotes around constants that I am splitting on, and slashes for things that look more like regular expressions. Yeah, I know they are the same, but quotes around strings looks better (to me) then slashes.
| [reply] |
Ok, point taken, but in my (perhaps pathetically weak) defense, if that is the official behavior, then it ought to be documented in perlfunc, not just in a book (even if it is The Camel book :-).
| [reply] |
split /\t/
split "\t"
split '\t'
split "\\t"
split '\\t'
split "\\\t"
while all of these are the same (they split on backslash
followed by "t"):
split /\\t/
split "\\\\t"
split '\\\\t'
split '\\\t'
Did that surprise you? I can certainly seeing that
surprising a non-perfect Perl coder who takes over
maintanence of your code.
I think split $string would be more DWIM if it
translated into split /\Q$string\E/, which it
doesn't. So I think you should avoid using it as it makes
your code harder to maintain. (Except for the special case
of split " ", of course.)
-
tye
(but my friends call me "Tye") | [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |