in reply to Re^15: 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?

> 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

  • Comment on Re^16: chopping a string into slices - is there a more elegant way to do it?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^17: chopping a string into slices - is there a more elegant way to do it?
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Dec 01, 2008 at 16:02 UTC
    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]

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

        Exactly.

        Removing parens to the definition of list is simpler then the same definition without parens.

        • A list is a series of comma delimited expression or "()".
        • Parens, an array or a hash on the LHS of an assignment operator force a list assignment.

        vs

        • A list is a series of comma delimited expression, a series of comma delimited expression in parens or "()".
        • A list, an array or a hash on the LHS of an assignment operator force a list assignment.

        Using parens in the definition of list has failed.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom