Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [PBML] Variable Interpolation

Expand Messages
  • KalyanRaj
    Hi, Mail Meda - the following code will give you what you want....PBML. another version of code which uses hash and return sub reference { $type = shift;
    Message 1 of 20 , Jan 2, 2006
      Hi,

      Mail Meda - the following code will give you what you want....PBML.
      another version of code which uses hash and return
      sub reference {
      $type = shift;
      %types = (
      group => "PBML",
      lang => "Perl",
      os => "Linux"
      );
      return $types{$type};
      }
      $result = reference("group");
      print "$result\n";

      Cheers,
      KalyanRaj

      -----Original Message-----
      From: perl-beginner@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:perl-beginner@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Shawn Corey
      Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 11:28 PM
      To: perl-beginner@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [PBML] Variable Interpolation


      Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
      >>>>>>"Shawn" == Shawn Corey <shawn.corey@...> writes:
      >
      >
      > Shawn> You should always use an argument for shift.
      >
      > That's a bit strong. It's accepted to leave the argument off shift
      > when it's being used in a sane way. I presumed the original poster
      > knew what he was doing, and didn't comment on that.
      >

      Yes, it's strong but all good discipline seems strong until you reap the
      benefits from it. I don't think it's sane for the implied behaviour of
      any construct to change. What it means is that when I'm reading a
      program, I have one more thing to keep track of. Anything that reduces
      this overhead is worth the effort.

      Always write your programs as though you aren't going to see them again
      for 25 years and then have to make a critical change immediately.


      --

      Just my 0.00000002 million dollars worth,
      --- Shawn

      "Probability is now one. Any problems that are left are your own."
      SS Heart of Gold, _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_

      * Perl tutorials at http://perlmonks.org/?node=Tutorials
      * A searchable perldoc is available at http://perldoc.perl.org/


      Unsubscribing info is here:
      http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/groups-32.html
      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Jenda Krynicky
      From: Shawn Corey ... I would be a bit surprised if anyone wrote: sub foo { my $bar = shift(@_); ... and would wonder why. In this
      Message 2 of 20 , Jan 3, 2006
        From: Shawn Corey <shawn.corey@...>
        > Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
        > >>>>>>"Shawn" == Shawn Corey <shawn.corey@...> writes:
        > >
        > >
        > > Shawn> You should always use an argument for shift.
        > >
        > > That's a bit strong. It's accepted to leave the argument off shift
        > > when it's being used in a sane way. I presumed the original poster
        > > knew what he was doing, and didn't comment on that.
        > >
        >
        > Yes, it's strong but all good discipline seems strong until you reap
        > the benefits from it. I don't think it's sane for the implied
        > behaviour of any construct to change. What it means is that when I'm
        > reading a program, I have one more thing to keep track of. Anything
        > that reduces this overhead is worth the effort.
        >
        > Always write your programs as though you aren't going to see them
        > again for 25 years and then have to make a critical change
        > immediately.

        I would be a bit surprised if anyone wrote:

        sub foo {
        my $bar = shift(@_);
        ...

        and would wonder why. In this case it's a generally accepted that the
        @_ gets omited. OTOH, I'd never make use of the fact that outside
        subroutines shift() means shift(@ARGV). That's something lots of
        people doesn't remember and something that might break easily if I
        tried to move the piece of code into a subroutine.

        Jenda
        ===== Jenda@... === http://Jenda.Krynicky.cz =====
        When it comes to wine, women and song, wizards are allowed
        to get drunk and croon as much as they like.
        -- Terry Pratchett in Sourcery
      • merlyn@stonehenge.com
        ... Jenda I would be a bit surprised if anyone wrote: Jenda sub foo { Jenda my $bar = shift(@_); Jenda ... Jenda and would wonder why. In this case
        Message 3 of 20 , Jan 3, 2006
          >>>>> "Jenda" == Jenda Krynicky <Jenda@...> writes:

          Jenda> I would be a bit surprised if anyone wrote:

          Jenda> sub foo {
          Jenda> my $bar = shift(@_);
          Jenda> ...

          Jenda> and would wonder why. In this case it's a generally accepted that the
          Jenda> @_ gets omited. OTOH, I'd never make use of the fact that outside
          Jenda> subroutines shift() means shift(@ARGV). That's something lots of
          Jenda> people doesn't remember and something that might break easily if I
          Jenda> tried to move the piece of code into a subroutine.

          I agree with you there. However, for a five line program:

          #!/usr/bin/perl
          my $from = shift;
          my $to = shift;
          if (-e $to) { rename $to, "$to~" or warn "cannot backup $to: $!"; }
          rename $from, $to or warn "Cannot rename $from to $to: $!";

          Will anyone really not know what "shift" is doing there? Or confuse
          it with shift(@_)?

          That's the point of defaults... they're the defaults because they're
          the most common thing you would do with that operator *in that context*.

          --
          Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
          <merlyn@...> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
          Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
          See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
        • Shawn Corey
          ... The key phrase being in that context . My issue is that the default depends on the context. If it was the same throughout the regardless of context, I
          Message 4 of 20 , Jan 3, 2006
            merlyn@... wrote:
            > That's the point of defaults... they're the defaults because they're
            > the most common thing you would do with that operator *in that context*.
            >

            The key phrase being "in that context". My issue is that the default
            depends on the context. If it was the same throughout the regardless of
            context, I wouldn't have a problem. The problem is that when I see a
            naked shift, I have to stop and remember the context. One more thing to
            worry about while reading a program.


            --

            Just my 0.00000002 million dollars worth,
            --- Shawn

            "Probability is now one. Any problems that are left are your own."
            SS Heart of Gold, _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_

            * Perl tutorials at http://perlmonks.org/?node=Tutorials
            * A searchable perldoc is available at http://perldoc.perl.org/
          • merlyn@stonehenge.com
            ... Shawn The key phrase being in that context . My issue is that the default Shawn depends on the context. If it was the same throughout the regardless of
            Message 5 of 20 , Jan 3, 2006
              >>>>> "Shawn" == Shawn Corey <shawn.corey@...> writes:

              Shawn> The key phrase being "in that context". My issue is that the default
              Shawn> depends on the context. If it was the same throughout the regardless of
              Shawn> context, I wouldn't have a problem. The problem is that when I see a
              Shawn> naked shift, I have to stop and remember the context. One more thing to
              Shawn> worry about while reading a program.

              That's why I said "10 line program". If this were a 200 line program,
              I wouldn't bury "shift" in the middle, unless it was within 10 lines
              of the start of a subroutine.

              I believe it is reasonable to ask a programmer to look back about
              ten lines to figure out the general flow of the program. I don't
              think it's reasonable to have to maintain "state" further than that,
              which is why I argue for 10-20 line subroutines instead of most of
              the monoliths that I see most people write.

              --
              Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
              <merlyn@...> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
              Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
              See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
            • Shawn Corey
              ... Large monoliths have given me the willies ever since 2001: A Space Odyssey came out ;) -- Just my 0.00000002 million dollars worth, ... Probability is
              Message 6 of 20 , Jan 3, 2006
                Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
                > I believe it is reasonable to ask a programmer to look back about
                > ten lines to figure out the general flow of the program. I don't
                > think it's reasonable to have to maintain "state" further than that,
                > which is why I argue for 10-20 line subroutines instead of most of
                > the monoliths that I see most people write.
                >

                Large monoliths have given me the willies ever since "2001: A Space
                Odyssey" came out ;)


                --

                Just my 0.00000002 million dollars worth,
                --- Shawn

                "Probability is now one. Any problems that are left are your own."
                SS Heart of Gold, _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_

                * Perl tutorials at http://perlmonks.org/?node=Tutorials
                * A searchable perldoc is available at http://perldoc.perl.org/
              • mail meda
                Hi Frnds, Thanks for your response. Bye. ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Message 7 of 20 , Jan 5, 2006
                  Hi Frnds,

                  Thanks for your response.

                  Bye.


                  On 1/4/06, Shawn Corey <shawn.corey@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
                  > > I believe it is reasonable to ask a programmer to look back about
                  > > ten lines to figure out the general flow of the program. I don't
                  > > think it's reasonable to have to maintain "state" further than that,
                  > > which is why I argue for 10-20 line subroutines instead of most of
                  > > the monoliths that I see most people write.
                  > >
                  >
                  > Large monoliths have given me the willies ever since "2001: A Space
                  > Odyssey" came out ;)
                  >
                  >
                  > --
                  >
                  > Just my 0.00000002 million dollars worth,
                  > --- Shawn
                  >
                  > "Probability is now one. Any problems that are left are your own."
                  > SS Heart of Gold, _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_
                  >
                  > * Perl tutorials at http://perlmonks.org/?node=Tutorials
                  > * A searchable perldoc is available at http://perldoc.perl.org/
                  >
                  >
                  > Unsubscribing info is here:
                  > http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/groups-32.html
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.