Re^3: The maybe it is better written this way tool

I don't understand what you meant by far fetched?

Unless you were suggesting the tool should only look for that specific string, the tool would have to know

That more's output is being piped.
How more behaves when it's output is being piped.
The directory from which ls is launched.
That the file spec will only match the names of file (not directories).
That ls is given a list of file names (not directories).
How ls behaves when given a list of file names.

It would also have to make assumptions such as

sh is used as the shell.
ls and more aren't aliases.
ls and more refer to the standard utilities.

All this from a program that's suppose to know Perl. And that's just to handle that one command.

That it will be difficult to pro-grammatically understand the intention? Yes I guess it will

That it requires an incredible amount of knowledge about non-Perl material to have the slightest clue as to the command's meaning.

Regarding @ARGV I would look for 2 or more occurrences of either \$ARGV\[ or shift; outside of any sub or shift @ARGV; and then recommend.

That's no good. Whether you're doing it "correctly" or not, all you have to do with @ARGV is loop over it. The number of times @ARGV is referenced (i.e. how you loop over it) does not indicate how its contents are used at all.

Comment on Re^3: The maybe it is better written this way tool Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: The maybe it is better written this way tool by szabgab (Priest) on Dec 02, 2009 at 20:20 UTC
The tool does not need to recognize all the cases, if we can find a few that might already help. It also does not need to give an exact alternative. It can just point in the general direction of a better solution and let the programmer decide if she wants to take the advice or not.	[reply]
Re^5: The maybe it is better written this way tool by ikegami (Patriarch) on Dec 02, 2009 at 23:19 UTC
The tool does not need to recognize all the cases You seem to have misunderstood me. All that knowledge and all those assumptions is needed for that one case.	[reply]