introspection (and Perl 6)
jon at jrock.us
Wed Jan 23 15:29:05 GMT 2008
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 15:13 +0000, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 09:56:08AM -0500, Jeff Anderson wrote:
> > On Jan 22, 2008 5:49 AM, Ovid <publiustemp-londonpm at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In short, if people can't read the code I write, that's my fault. If
> > > they can't read the language I write in, that's their fault.
> I take it that you consider yourself to be reasonably competent in perl
> 5? Good, thought so. Now, what does this do, and how does it work?
> #:: ::-| ::-| .-. :||-:: 0-| .-| ::||-| .:|-. :||
> /:.:/xg;s/:/../g;$Q=$_?length:$_;$q+=$q?$Q:$Q*20;}print chr($q);}}}print"\n";
> #.: ::||-| .||-| :|||-| ::||-| ||-:: :|||-| .:|
It's fairly obvious, however that's beside the point. This code isn't
even using any shorthand operators other than ?: (and // instead of
m//), but you're posting it to prove that shorthand operators are
> I'm advocating a sensible compromise. Saying 'HOW' would be a
> sensible compromise.
Then say 'HOW'?
I will stick to the shorthand, though, because I like it better.
Amazingly the human brain has the capacity to remember what a few
similar-looking characters do. Notice how every Japanese person seems
to be able to distinguish between 2000 or so characters?  Surely you
can handle 10 operators. In both cases, it's all about context and
memorization. They use language everyday; you write Perl everyday.
Just learn 'em.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://london.pm.org/pipermail/london.pm/attachments/20080123/92fb94d4/attachment.pgp
More information about the london.pm