introspection (and Perl 6)

[Jeff Anderson]

OK OK OK! I capitulate! :)

Just as long as we call this op right here ^..^

The Groucho Marx op. Who's with me?


On Jan 23, 2008 10:29 AM, Jonathan Rockway <jon at jrock.us> wrote:
>
> 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-| .-| ::||-| .:|-. :||
> > open(Q,$0);while(<Q>){if(/^#(.*)$/){for(split('-',$1)){$q=0;for(split){s/\|
> > /:.:/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
> unreadable?  What?
>
> > 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? [1]  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.
>
> [1] http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/jouyoukanji.html
>
> Regards,
> Jonathan Rockway
>



-- 
jeffa