Actually just did the comparison ... and you are way off. Next time you want to accuse someone of plagiarizing ... I suggest you do the comparison FIRST.

My agenda was simply "did this wheel need to get reinvented?", so I was wondering if there was new art in the head of this thread, or whether it was just an attempt to reinvent something already done.

If there's a difference in implementation, which one is more robust or more elegant? If the one at the head of this thread, then that should be sent in as a patch to find2perl. If find2perl's is better, then the code at the head of this thread should be relegated to the "not terribly useful reimplementation of existing wheel" category.

Reuse dammit. It's never about plagerism. Sheesh. Where are you from?

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker

The above snippet by chipmunk would have been the preferred way of writing the code. I do believe in reuse ... but you have to know the code is available before you can reuse it. I would think most people would agree that your statement does sound like you are accusing me of plagiarizing. Please word your posts more carefully in the future. Apologies for accusing you of accusing 8) .. but you have to agree it did sound that way.

Hmm. I spoke far too soon. find2perl's code is about going from the permission to the symbolic meaning. The code at the head of this thread is to go the other way, albeit for the wrong reason (from what I can gather).

So, the code is neither the best way to do something, nor something that is parallel to what find2perl does.

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker