RE: Missing the point.

Well, obfuscated code is meant to be a showcase, and it's far more impressive if your code works with warnings and strict. Plus, I'd still do it in two lines:

$_=$ARGV[0]||die;my$x="$_ is ";$x.="not "if($_ ne
join"",reverse split//);print $x," a palindrome";
[download]

(If the errors were helpful, it wouldn't be obfuscated, now, would it?)

Andrew.

Comment on RE: Missing the point. Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

RE: RE: Missing the point.
by frankus (Priest) on Jul 17, 2000 at 16:00 UTC

<shrug type=gallic>If you idea of obfuscation and mine differ, I'm sorry.</shrug>
I spent 4 years in a comp sci cohort with pedants that would 
feel that they had made a valid point if they asked you to run a 
piece of code and input the wrong variable type (in C) and it crash.
The fact that by removing the error checking meant the whole code 
fitted one over-head, escaped them. Perhaps I have the same weary mindset 
to these people and I applied it to you. My apologies if I have mistakenly grouped you with the nerds.

In this case the code doesn't work with strict or warn, and frankly a null word is 
the same reversed, depends on your identification of a palindrome.

I like your changes. It is not too removed from what I did, except 
that you've used interpolation. I was hoping for a response in regex.

I will look at your code and see if I can reduce it more, just for fun.
Thankyou.

:-)

Frankus.

[reply]


Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister
	PerlMonks