Chad Perrin wrote:
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.
Yeah, the smiley may have clarified the intentions a little... My first
reaction when I saw the code was one of great surprise--I just wasn't
seeing how that would be easier to understand or the "cleaner" way to
achieve what I wanted. But now I get it. :-)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response>
