On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:48:38AM -0600, Mumia W. wrote:
> On 12/21/2006 12:42 AM, Tom Smith wrote:
> >Mumia W. wrote:
> >>
> >>use strict;
> >>use warnings;
> >>$_ = `id $ARGV[0]`;
> >>s/.*?groups=// && print "@{[ /\((\w+)\)/g ]}\n";
> >
> >I'm not trying to be argumentative or say that this is "wrong"... But
> >does anyone else agree with this? If so, why is this way better than the
> >pure Perl way?
> >
>
> I should have put a smiley in my post :-)
Whew. I was considering mentioning that appeared rather more obfuscated
than Tom's example. Clever, though.
Of course, in both cases, I might mention that you can eliminate a \n in
a printed string by using the -l option in the shebang line. For your
example, though, I guess the \n just adds to the "snoopy swearing"
appearance that seems to be your aim.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
unix virus: If you're using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response>
