You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com> on 1998/03/04 14:28:18 UTC
Re: cvs commit: apache-1.3/src/helpers UpdateHide
Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>
> - next if ($name =~ m:^ap(_)|(api):);
> + next if ($name =~ m/^ap(?:_|api)/);
I'm not going to veto, but I *am* going to complain: I find
this an UNimprovement. IMO it makes things harder to read
rather than easier. What's your point?
As long as the function it performs isn't removed from the
script, that's all I'm going to say about it.
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Group member <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://WWW.Dummies.Com/
Re: cvs commit: apache-1.3/src/helpers UpdateHide
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> Paul Sutton wrote:
> >
> > Er, pardon? Ralf's code works, the original regex doesn't. There shouldn't
> > even be a question of a complaint here, let alone a veto. For what its
> > worth, -1 on the original regex (it doesn't work), +1 for Ralf's.
D'oh! Never mind me, I'm full of ants. Major brain-fart here. All
objections hastily withdrawn.
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Group member <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://WWW.Dummies.Com/
Re: cvs commit: apache-1.3/src/helpers UpdateHide
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Paul Sutton wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> > >
> > > - next if ($name =~ m:^ap(_)|(api):);
> > > + next if ($name =~ m/^ap(?:_|api)/);
>
> Er, pardon? Ralf's code works, the original regex doesn't. There shouldn't
> even be a question of a complaint here, let alone a veto. For what its
> worth, -1 on the original regex (it doesn't work), +1 for Ralf's.
Sure there can be a question of a complaint; everyone's entitled to
their opinion, however wrong it may be. I'm sure I tested the regex
before coding it, but my surety has had a confidence level of less than
1.0 before. ;-) In other words, I admit that I may have been wrong,
but I disagree that I'm not allowed to complain.
Since two people I respect say I'm wrong, I'd better go back and
do a refresher on this stuff. 'Nuff said..
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Group member <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://WWW.Dummies.Com/
Re: cvs commit: apache-1.3/src/helpers UpdateHide
Posted by Paul Sutton <pa...@c2.net>.
On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> >
> > - next if ($name =~ m:^ap(_)|(api):);
> > + next if ($name =~ m/^ap(?:_|api)/);
>
> I'm not going to veto, but I *am* going to complain: I find
> this an UNimprovement. IMO it makes things harder to read
> rather than easier. What's your point?
Er, pardon? Ralf's code works, the original regex doesn't. There shouldn't
even be a question of a complaint here, let alone a veto. For what its
worth, -1 on the original regex (it doesn't work), +1 for Ralf's.
You could argue about perl4 compatibility, though (?: isn't in perl4, is
it?).
//pcs