Re^3: processing file content as string vs arrayby Marshall (Canon)
|on May 17, 2019 at 01:13 UTC||Need Help??|
but what if the final line is supposed to be processed by some other piece of code? You can't just ungetc a readline...
You are correct in that there is no "unget" or "un-read" for a line that has already been read. There are various ways of handling that sort of situation. In the case where the process() sub needs to deal with the first line, I pass that first line as a parameter to the process() sub. Usually these sorts of things are record oriented.... something has to be done with a record that was read and the process() sub's job is to assemble a complete record. If you want the code that "does something to the record" to be in the main driver, then just have process() return a structure or modify a struct ref that is passed in. I don't see any issue here at all. Can't use Perl's single action "if" in that situation, but I don't see any issue.
Also, note that your process_record is making use of a global variable, DATA, and three of your four examples will throw an undef warning if the end-of-file is reached before the closing line is seen.
As far as global DATA goes, I have no issue with that for a short (<1 page) piece of code. In a larger program I would pass a lexical file handle to the sub. Note: You can make a lexical file handle out of DATA like this: my $fh = *DATA; print while (<fh>); Pass $fh to the sub.
In almost all of the situations I deal with, throwing an error for a malformed file input is the correct behaviour. This is a usually good thing and the input file needs to be fixed. It is rare for me to throw away or silently ignore a malformed record. Of course "seldom" does not mean "never". It could certainly be argued that the program that doesn't throw an undef warning is in error! Of course the programs I demoed can be modified to have either behaviour.
I think a state machine type approach would be better, because it is more flexible and can handle the above cases specially, if needed.
I guess we disagree. I don't see any case for "more flexible". However, having said that, there is no real quibble on my part with having a state variable approach. Using a sub() to keep track of the "inside record" state is very clean. I actually think the Perl flip-flop operator is very cool. No problem with that either! When I use it, I have to go to Grandfather's classic post and look at the various start/end regex situations.
I often have to write "one-off" programs to convert wierd file formats. I will attach such a program that I wrote a few days ago. For such a thing, efficiency doesn't matter, "general purpose" doesn't matter - I will never see a file like this again. My job was to convert this file as part of a larger project. This is not "perfect" but it did its job.