in reply to Re^14: chopping a string into slices - is there a more elegant way to do it?
in thread chopping a string into slices - is there a more elegant way to do it?

I say "parens force a list assignment", not "parens force a list".

The concepts are already simple. I don't need to make up rules to keep it simple. That only leads to making up more rules on the fly.

  • Comment on Re^15: chopping a string into slices - is there a more elegant way to do it?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^16: chopping a string into slices - is there a more elegant way to do it?
by LanX (Saint) on Dec 01, 2008 at 14:29 UTC
    > The concepts are already simple.

    simple != trivial

    If it is really inevitable to teach opcode mechanisms, it's perfectly understandable when people prefer learning languages like python or ruby...

    Cheers Rolf

[reply]
      Of course Perl isn't trivial??? All we can strive for is to keep things as simple as possible. Not creating unnecessary myths keeps things simple.
[reply]
        Were we disaggree is that I say:

        Simplified rules that never fail are not "unnecessary myths".

        For instance Newton's Mechanics are teached in school, even that Einstein prooved 100 years ago they are wrong! It's easily observable when one reach the speed of light. But how many pupils ever reach 1% of the speed of light? and how many perl hackers ever see opcode?

        well actually it's a philosophical question, no need to discuss it further.

        Cheers Rolf

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom