Is Perl *that* good?

[Carl Banks]

claird at lairds.com (Cameron Laird) wrote in message news:<108v74768o9sb9f at corp.supernews.com>...
> In article <XwEjc.31513$Vp5.16074 at fe2.columbus.rr.com>,
> Carl Banks  <imbosol at aerojockey.invalid> wrote:
> 			.
> 			.
> 			.
> >If you do stuff recursively (as I often do) or break up code into
> >smaller functions (as I often do) so that the functions with these
> >regexps get called numerous times, it can help performance to move the
> >compile step out of the functions.
> >
> >The point is, the existence re.compile encourages people to make
> >regexp objects global so they only need to be compiled once, when the
> >module is loaded.  Because of this, and especially because regexps are
> >prone to being used in recursive functions and such, it's dangerous to
> >allow them to have state.
> 			.
> 			.
> 			.
> I wrote the subject line for this subthread.  Here's
> my provisional conclusion:  my past attempts to track
> down claims of the "Perl is tops for string-handling"
> sort generally reinforced the proposition that the
> speaker simply meant, "Perl privileges REs" (and that
> the speaker had no familiarity with Python, let alone
> Icon or Prolog).  Now I see there's a likelihood of
> definite attraction to the hidden-variable, dangerous
> implicitness goop so characteristic of Perl.  That's
> good to understand.  Thanks, Carl; good analysis.

In file x.pl:

    sub muck() {
      $_ = "sucker\n";
    }

    while(<>) {
      if (/^abc/) {
        muck();
        print $_;
      }
    }

Command line:

    echo abcdefg | perl x.pl

Output:

    sucker


I had actually thought it restored $_.
It never ceases to amaze me how bad Perl is.


-- 
CARL BANKS