Personally, I hate seeing a solution before even having a try at the problem; that spoils all the fun.

Agreed. My point was not that such threads would be necessitated to present the solution, rather that the presentation of the solution be done in a manner conducive to learning perl. Consider:

Q. Perl question of the week.
A. <span class="spoiler">The Solution</span>

versus

Q. Perl question of the week.
A. [id://node|The Solution]

Both methods seperate the question from the solution, but the latter does so without obsfucation (and in my opinion, with a better presentation).

However, in the interest of completeness, for those who aren't as HTML savy and want to use the tags, have you considered adding the "spoiler code" to your user preferences for the text-area default content?

<!--
<span class="spoiler"></span>
-->
[download]

The comments would preclude the code from being inserted in every post, yet it would be there as a reminder whenever necessary.

Having said that, HTML is an abstraction. PerlMonks tags are an abstraction of an abstraction. While I have found the [] tags particularly beneficial for intrasite links, I find the proposed <spoiler> tags akin to bbcode, namely a further abstraction. The point being that if one is to learn an abstraction, they may as well learn a productive one. HTML is universal; the proposed <spoiler> tags are not. Consider:

<spoiler></spoiler>
<span class="spoiler"></span>
[download]

The proposed tags are slightly shorter, but their use necessitates understanding of HTML (opening and closing tags). The addition of an attribute would require slightly more effort, but as I've said, if you're going to use an abstraction, you may as well use something universal.

Both methods seperate the question from the solution, but the latter does so without obsfucation (and in my opinion, with a better presentation).

I disagree with the "better presentation". I prefer the former one. The latter one requires another client-server round, downloading another perlmonks page - with all it's irrelevant stuff like boxes, headers and banner ads. Just for what's often is less than a line of text or code. Very inefficient in user time. It's even worse if you have a post with several replies with masked answers. Instead of getting the original post, and the, say, five masked answers in one HTTP transaction, you need six for the link variant.

Just for what's often is less than a line of text or code.

I would agree that "spoiler" tags for a line or two of text or code is reasonably appropriate given context.

While I maintain that "Spoiler" tags should NOT be used to mask didactic content, I have no qualms with their usage to mask a few lines of text or code so long as they're used appropriately in context.

As far as presentation is concerned, protracted or inappropriate use, including the obsfucation of entire <code> blocks or paragraphs (such as this example) are particularly distracting.

I'm really just concerned about their potential for abuse in this fashion. I'm sure all the monks in this thread are well intentioned, but Anonymous Monk often requires the assistance of the Janitors.

Actually, as unsightly as abused spoiler tags are, I had forgotten that Level 6: Friars can ask for consideration having only recently become a Level 5: Monk. Given this realization, I have no objections regarding the creation of spoiler tags.

Having said that, HTML is an abstraction. PerlMonks tags are an abstraction of an abstraction. While I have found the [] tags particularly beneficial for intrasite links, I find the proposed

<Reveal this spoiler or all in this thread>
---
demerphq