If you think that a question deserves a useless answer, then why bother answering?
Furthermore we were given exact input and an exact desired result. What additional detail could have made the question any clearer?
My attitude is that unless I am willing to provide an answer that I believe will be helpful, I won't answer. When the question indicates to me that the questioner may not know much Perl at all, my definition of a useful answer becomes very detailed. A higher level summary is OK when I think the questioner will understand it.
And a final note. Your answer had a severe error. You cannot possibly do exactly what the questioner requested using symbolic references. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to test and/or read documentation to discover why. | [reply] |
If you think that a question deserves a useless answer, then why bother answering?
I didn't think my answer was useless.
Furthermore we were given exact input and an exact desired result.
One way to get that result would be to ignore the input entirely and just hardcode the assignments. But it wasn't a question about achieving a result, it was about what techniques would be used, and I answered that question.
Your approach is your approach, and mine is mine. The wonderful thing about PerlMonks is that there are many different approaches, and no one approach of them will be ideal for every situation, but often enough, at least one of them will hit the nail on the head.
In this case, my approach was to give the OP a few key concepts about which he could educate himself to achieve the desired result. I'm sorry that it chafed you so much.
The PerlMonk tr/// Advocate
| [reply] |
