On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 09:17:43 -0400 (EDT), "Fred L. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Could you descibe how get_next_argument() and
> get_next_optional_argument() should be used, and why you think they're
> better?
In my opinion, get_next_argument should be defined such that one could say:
$arg = &get_next_argument($_);
or ($arg,$pat) = &get_next_argument($_);
and get_next_optional_argument should be defined similarly. IMHO, this is
much better because
1. It is much more intuitive and it is immediately obvious what is
happening here. Compare this with
s/$next_pair_rx/$arg=$2;$pat=$&;''/eo;
2. In the long run it makes it much easier to maintenance l2h. For
example, suppose we wish to reduce l2h's memory requirements and
process the input line-by-line. With get_next_argument this would
simply be a matter of rewriting the subroutine. With the current
approach one would have to change almost the entire script.
3. This is how I implemented it in l2h-ng. 8-)
Marcus
