Re: Can we do without auxiliary variable here?

Being an old crotchety person by now, I take the Clark Gable Approach™ to such things: “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn”™ about how you write it, as long as what you write is abundantly clear. The original version of this code was, indeed, clear. (Therefore: priceless.) Save the rest for “Obfuscation” and “Poetry.”

Q: Can we do without an auxiliary variable here?
A: Clark Gable.™

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Can we do without auxiliary variable here? by afoken (Chancellor) on Mar 01, 2011 at 06:47 UTC
Right. The only reason to change clear code I see is a massive performance problem in the respective code, typically shown by running a profiler. Everything else is premature optimization and thus evil^TM. Alexander -- Today I will gladly share my knowledge and experience, for there are no sweeter words than "I told you so". ;-)	[reply]
Re^2: Can we do without auxiliary variable here? by rovf (Priest) on Mar 01, 2011 at 11:37 UTC
This is an interesting aspect, because in the end, I found ikegami's solution using map in combination with /^/ easier to understand than my original one, once I understood it. Before this, I was not aware that matching on `/^/` could make sense (Perl's universe of regular expression exceeds my current knowledge by far). Probably that's typical for readability questions: Readability depends also very much on the experience of the reader... -- Ronald Fischer <ynnor@mm.st>	[reply] [d/l] [select]


XP is just a number
	PerlMonks