Home > Archive > PERL Miscellaneous > March 2006 > Concise idiom sought
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Concise idiom sought
|
|
|
| I have the following code snippet:
if ( !defined $base_ref->{pl} ) {
$base_ref->{pl} = 1;
}
following the 'Best practices' guidelines. Previously I had it as:
$base_ref->{pl} = 1 unless defined $base_ref->{pl};
which seems clearer to me...
In bash shell scripting there is the ${variable:=default} idiom. I
understand that Perl 6 will have something similar. Is there anything in
Perl 5 that is better than my three lines above and still within the Best
Practices guidelines?
Thanks
Dave
| |
| Peter Scott 2006-03-25, 7:00 pm |
| On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:14:15 +0100, Dave wrote:
> I have the following code snippet:
>
> if ( !defined $base_ref->{pl} ) {
> $base_ref->{pl} = 1;
> }
>
> following the 'Best practices' guidelines. Previously I had it as:
>
> $base_ref->{pl} = 1 unless defined $base_ref->{pl};
>
> which seems clearer to me...
Then use it. The PBP guidelines are suggestions, not straitjackets.
Personally, I would write it as
$base_ref->{pl} ||= 1;
unless you have some need to distinguish between false and undefined
values.
--
Peter Scott
http://www.perlmedic.com/
http://www.perldebugged.com/
| |
| Anno Siegel 2006-03-25, 7:00 pm |
| Dave <daveandniki@ntlworld.com> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
> I have the following code snippet:
>
> if ( !defined $base_ref->{pl} ) {
> $base_ref->{pl} = 1;
> }
>
> following the 'Best practices' guidelines. Previously I had it as:
>
> $base_ref->{pl} = 1 unless defined $base_ref->{pl};
>
> which seems clearer to me...
If it seems clearer to you, by all means write it that way. PBP isn't
meant to be binding for all Perl coders everywhere, it is a set of
guidelines to use when defining a coding style.
> In bash shell scripting there is the ${variable:=default} idiom. I
> understand that Perl 6 will have something similar. Is there anything in
> Perl 5 that is better than my three lines above and still within the Best
> Practices guidelines?
Perl 5.10.x will have the //= operator for exactly that purpose. (There
is also a patch available that adds it to current Perl.)
$base_ref->{pl} //= 1;
Sometimes, depending on the range of values in the hash,
$base_ref->{pl} ||= 1;
That works if all valid values are boolean true, for instance if they
are references.
Otherwise, these do the same thing:
defined( $base_ref->{pl}) || $base_ref->{pl} = 1;
defined || $_ = 1 for $base_ref->{pl};
Anno
--
If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.
| |
| it_says_BALLS_on_your_forehead 2006-03-25, 7:00 pm |
|
Dave wrote:
> I have the following code snippet:
>
> if ( !defined $base_ref->{pl} ) {
> $base_ref->{pl} = 1;
> }
>
> following the 'Best practices' guidelines. Previously I had it as:
>
> $base_ref->{pl} = 1 unless defined $base_ref->{pl};
>
> which seems clearer to me...
>
> In bash shell scripting there is the ${variable:=default} idiom. I
> understand that Perl 6 will have something similar.
yes, it would be:
$pi //= 3;
which is the equivalent of
defined($pi) ?? $pi :: 3;
(the trinary operator is doubling up since it's essentially a short
circuit operator and should look its part, and also b/c that way it's
more in tune with efficient Huffman Coding)
> Is there anything in
> Perl 5 that is better than my three lines above and still within the Best
> Practices guidelines?
really it's a matter of preference, and what makes sense in your head,
as well as what you think will be easiest to maintain for your current
team and future members of your team (which you really will never
know).
# if you don't like the smell of 'unless', try this...
defined $base_ref->{pl} or $base_ref->{pl} = 1;
| |
| Dr.Ruud 2006-03-25, 7:00 pm |
| Dave schreef:
> I have the following code snippet:
> C<if ( !defined $base_ref->{pl} ) { $base_ref->{pl} = 1 }>
> following the 'Best practices' guidelines. Previously I had it as:
> C<$base_ref->{pl} = 1 unless defined $base_ref->{pl}>
> which seems clearer to me...
>
(some whitespace compressed)
$ perl -MO=Deparse,-x7 -e 'if (!defined $x) {$x=1}'
not defined $x and do { $x = 1 };
$ perl -MO=Deparse,-x7 -e 'unless (defined $x) {$x=1}'
defined $x or do { $x = 1 };
$ perl -MO=Deparse,-x7 -e '$x = 1 unless defined $x'
defined $x or $x = 1;
> Is there anything
> in Perl 5 that is better than my three lines above and still within
> the Best Practices guidelines?
$x ||= 1;
--
Affijn, Ruud
"Gewoon is een tijger."
echo 014C8A26C5DB87DBE85A93DBF |perl -pe 'tr/0-9A-F/JunkshoP cartel,/'
| |
|
|
"Dr.Ruud" <rvtol+news@isolution.nl> wrote in message
news:e03plg.1ic.1@news.isolution.nl...
> Dave schreef:
>
>
> (some whitespace compressed)
>
> $ perl -MO=Deparse,-x7 -e 'if (!defined $x) {$x=1}'
> not defined $x and do { $x = 1 };
>
>
> $ perl -MO=Deparse,-x7 -e 'unless (defined $x) {$x=1}'
> defined $x or do { $x = 1 };
>
>
>
> $ perl -MO=Deparse,-x7 -e '$x = 1 unless defined $x'
> defined $x or $x = 1;
>
>
>
>
> $x ||= 1;
>
> --
> Affijn, Ruud
>
> "Gewoon is een tijger."
> echo 014C8A26C5DB87DBE85A93DBF |perl -pe 'tr/0-9A-F/JunkshoP cartel,/'
Thanks everyone for these answers. In this case 0 is a valid value, so the
||= construct is not suitable (although I think it is the clearest and most
concise when it is). While waiting for //= to be implemented in mainstream
Perl and become widespread I think I'll use:
defined $base_ref->{pl} or $base_ref->{pl} = 1;
Thanks again for all your suggestions
| |
| Abigail 2006-03-25, 7:00 pm |
| Dave (daveandniki@ntlworld.com) wrote on MMMMDLXXXIX September MCMXCIII
in <URL:news:4425503f$0$6641$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>:
__ I have the following code snippet:
__
__ if ( !defined $base_ref->{pl} ) {
__ $base_ref->{pl} = 1;
__ }
__
__ following the 'Best practices' guidelines. Previously I had it as:
__
__ $base_ref->{pl} = 1 unless defined $base_ref->{pl};
__
__ which seems clearer to me...
Replacing something which is correct and not inefficient with something
else that's correct and also not inefficient, but less clear to yourself
is, IMO, very very stupid.
Doing something one way for no other reason it is in PBP is, IMO, very very
stupid, and a sign you didn't understand PBP.
You certainly didn't read, or didn't understand the introduction (chapter 1).
Go read the book again. Chapter 1. Middle paragraph of page 6.
Do not advance and certainly don't implement anything of the book until
you fully understand that paragraph.
It's the most important paragraph of the book.
Abigail
--
perl -MTime::JulianDay -lwe'@r=reverse(M=>(0)x99=>CM=>(0)x399=>D=>(0)x99=>CD=>(
0)x299=>C=>(0)x9=>XC=>(0)x39=>L=>(0)x9=>XL=>(0)x29=>X=>IX=>0=>0=>0=>V=>IV=>0=>0
=>I=>$==-2449231+gm_julian_day+time);do{until($=<$#r){$_.=$r[$#r];$=-=$#r}for(;
!$r[--$#r];){}}while$=;$,="\x20";print+$_=>September=>MCMXCIII=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>'
| |
|
|
"Abigail" <abigail@abigail.nl> wrote in message
news:slrne2b04u.c1.abigail@alexandra.abigail.nl...
> Dave (daveandniki@ntlworld.com) wrote on MMMMDLXXXIX September MCMXCIII
> in <URL:news:4425503f$0$6641$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>:
> __ I have the following code snippet:
> __
> __ if ( !defined $base_ref->{pl} ) {
> __ $base_ref->{pl} = 1;
> __ }
> __
> __ following the 'Best practices' guidelines. Previously I had it as:
> __
> __ $base_ref->{pl} = 1 unless defined $base_ref->{pl};
> __
> __ which seems clearer to me...
>
>
> Replacing something which is correct and not inefficient with something
> else that's correct and also not inefficient, but less clear to yourself
> is, IMO, very very stupid.
>
> Doing something one way for no other reason it is in PBP is, IMO, very
> very
> stupid, and a sign you didn't understand PBP.
>
> You certainly didn't read, or didn't understand the introduction (chapter
> 1).
>
>
> Go read the book again. Chapter 1. Middle paragraph of page 6.
>
> Do not advance and certainly don't implement anything of the book until
> you fully understand that paragraph.
>
> It's the most important paragraph of the book.
>
>
>
> Abigail
> --
> perl -MTime::JulianDay -lwe'@r=reverse(M=>(0)x99=>CM=>(0)x399=>D=>(0)x99=>CD=>(
> 0)x299=>C=>(0)x9=>XC=>(0)x39=>L=>(0)x9=>XL=>(0)x29=>X=>IX=>0=>0=>0=>V=>IV=>0=>0
> =>I=>$==-2449231+gm_julian_day+time);do{until($=<$#r){$_.=$r[$#r];$=-=$#r}for(;
> !$r[--$#r];){}}while$=;$,="\x20";print+$_=>September=>MCMXCIII=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>'
Mmm, I have read the whole book and am going through it again. I have not
blindly implemented any of the guidelines. In this case I agree with the
rationale given in PBP for avoiding both of the 'problems' with my original
code. What I didn't like was the longwindedness of my own rewrite in terms
of 'if (!defined...) {...}'. The 'defined...or...' construct fixes this
perfectly. The //= operator is even better.
Dave
| |
| Uri Guttman 2006-03-25, 7:00 pm |
| >>>>> "isBoyf" == it says BALLS on your forehead <simon.chao@gmail.com> writes:
isBoyf> $pi //= 3;
isBoyf> which is the equivalent of
isBoyf> defined($pi) ?? $pi :: 3;
not really as the first is an assignment and the second isn't. drop the
= to make them the same (just expressions).
uri
--
Uri Guttman ------ uri@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.stemsystems.com
--Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding-
Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org
| |
| robic0 2006-03-26, 9:59 pm |
| On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:14:15 +0100, "Dave" <daveandniki@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>I have the following code snippet:
>
>if ( !defined $base_ref->{pl} ) {
> $base_ref->{pl} = 1;
>}
>
>following the 'Best practices' guidelines. Previously I had it as:
>
>$base_ref->{pl} = 1 unless defined $base_ref->{pl};
>
>which seems clearer to me...
>
>In bash shell scripting there is the ${variable:=default} idiom. I
>understand that Perl 6 will have something similar. Is there anything in
>Perl 5 that is better than my three lines above and still within the Best
>Practices guidelines?
>
>Thanks
>
>Dave
>
I'm going to say this only once. You have an "if/then" construct.
There is *NO* construct closer to the *CPU* in any representation.
No matter how you want to classify it in abstract terms, any substitute
construct will resolve to the simplicity of your original lines.
I've continually harped on this to no avail. As the goddamed "nerve"
of some utterly brain dead individuals that post on this group to post
some absolute *CRAP* substitution to a basic if/then condition.
If anone cares to benchmark a stupid 1 liner and compare it to a
low level if/then construct. Please do so.
Otherwise, all you lame-brained respondents to this post are entirely
"full o shit" !!!
I welcome a benchmark to prove otherwise.
The fact is, the if/then, the if having a not (!) is 'C' style and its
closest to the cpu. That simple construct is not there by accident.
To the bullshit posted by the others here.. As posted above, make a
looping binary with the simple if/then, run a bench on it.
Then do the same in a Perl program. Then do one in 'C'. Compare the
results.
It's almost impossible to control the profanity in this case..
robic0
as posted
| |
| robic0 2006-03-26, 9:59 pm |
| On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:27:22 -0800, robic0 wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:14:15 +0100, "Dave" <daveandniki@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>I'm going to say this only once. You have an "if/then" construct.
>There is *NO* construct closer to the *CPU* in any representation.
>
>No matter how you want to classify it in abstract terms, any substitute
>construct will resolve to the simplicity of your original lines.
>
>I've continually harped on this to no avail. As the goddamed "nerve"
>of some utterly brain dead individuals that post on this group to post
>some absolute *CRAP* substitution to a basic if/then condition.
>
>If anone cares to benchmark a stupid 1 liner and compare it to a
>low level if/then construct. Please do so.
>
>Otherwise, all you lame-brained respondents to this post are entirely
>"full o shit" !!!
>
>I welcome a benchmark to prove otherwise.
>The fact is, the if/then, the if having a not (!) is 'C' style and its
>closest to the cpu. That simple construct is not there by accident.
>
>To the bullshit posted by the others here.. As posted above, make a
assembly compiled binary
>looping binary with the simple if/then, run a bench on it.
>Then do the same in a Perl program. Then do one in 'C'. Compare the
>results.
>
>It's almost impossible to control the profanity in this case..
>
>robic0
>as posted
| |
| Randal L. Schwartz 2006-03-27, 3:59 am |
| >>>>> "Dave" == Dave <daveandniki@ntlworld.com> writes:
Dave> I have the following code snippet:
Dave> if ( !defined $base_ref->{pl} ) {
Dave> $base_ref->{pl} = 1;
Dave> }
Dave> following the 'Best practices' guidelines. Previously I had it as:
Dave> $base_ref->{pl} = 1 unless defined $base_ref->{pl};
Dave> which seems clearer to me...
I don't like repeating the expensive "find the lvalue" stuff. If there's a
complex calculation to get to the variable, do it just one, please.
I'd write that as:
defined $_ or $_ = 1 for $base_ref->{pl};
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
| |
| Dr.Ruud 2006-03-27, 3:59 am |
| Randal L. Schwartz schreef:
> defined $_ or $_ = 1 for $base_ref->{pl};
Alternatively:
{ local $_; defined or $_ = 1 for $v }
{ local $_ = \$v; defined $$_ or $$_ = 1 }
--
Affijn, Ruud
"Gewoon is een tijger."
echo 014C8A26C5DB87DBE85A93DBF |perl -pe 'tr/0-9A-F/JunkshoP cartel,/'
| |
| Anno Siegel 2006-03-27, 3:59 am |
| Dr.Ruud <rvtol+"`ls -al .`"@isolution.nl> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
> Randal L. Schwartz schreef:
>
>
> Alternatively:
Where has $v come from?
> { local $_; defined or $_ = 1 for $v }
You don't need local() here. The assignment through "for" is instrinsically
localized.
> { local $_ = \$v; defined $$_ or $$_ = 1 }
Anno
--
If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.
| |
| Dr.Ruud 2006-03-27, 7:59 am |
| Anno Siegel schreef:
> Dr.Ruud:
[color=darkred]
>
> Where has $v come from?
It is just a replacement for the $base_ref->{pl}
Does $v suffer much less from the <expensive "find the lvalue"> blues
than $v, making it an invalid stand-in?
>
> You don't need local() here. The assignment through "for" is
> instrinsically localized.
Thanks, I didn't realize that while playing with several alternatives.
In perlsyn, it isn't stated explicitly that, inside a foreach, $_ is or
isn't local:
"If VAR is omitted, $_ is set to each value."
Especially because the behaviour of my-declared variables is explained
in detail, I fear that one might get from this text that $_ doesn't get
the same treatment. My proposal:
"If VAR is omitted, a local $_ is set to each value.".
"If VAR is omitted, the localized $_ is set to each value.".
--
Affijn, Ruud
"Gewoon is een tijger."
echo 014C8A26C5DB87DBE85A93DBF |perl -pe 'tr/0-9A-F/JunkshoP cartel,/'
| |
| Brad Baxter 2006-03-27, 7:00 pm |
| robic0 wrote:
> I'm going to say this only once.
Would that it were so.
--
Brad
| |
| Anno Siegel 2006-03-28, 4:00 am |
| Dr.Ruud <rvtol+"`ls -al .`"@isolution.nl> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
> Anno Siegel schreef:
>
>
> It is just a replacement for the $base_ref->{pl}
> Does $v suffer much less from the <expensive "find the lvalue"> blues
> than $v, making it an invalid stand-in?
Well, it's a simple variable, I don't see a reason to alias it to another
simple variable. With arrays and hashes, access to an element is a
two-step process, so "... for $base_ref->{pl}" saves a step for each
time $_ is used on the left side.
Too bad it doesn't work with exists() and delete(), but that would take
more than an lvalue.
Anno
--
If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.
| |
| Dr.Ruud 2006-03-28, 7:00 pm |
| Anno Siegel schreef:
> Dr.Ruud:
[color=darkred]
>
> Well, it's a simple variable, I don't see a reason to alias it to
> another simple variable.
I agree, I lost meaning in my simplification.
> With arrays and hashes, access to an
> element is a two-step process, so "... for $base_ref->{pl}" saves a
> step for each time $_ is used on the left side.
>
> Too bad it doesn't work with exists() and delete(), but that would
> take more than an lvalue.
Ack.
--
Affijn, Ruud
"Gewoon is een tijger."
echo 014C8A26C5DB87DBE85A93DBF |perl -pe 'tr/0-9A-F/JunkshoP cartel,/'
| |
| Tim Kazner 2006-03-28, 7:00 pm |
| On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:05:37 +0200, "Dr.Ruud" <rvtol+news@isolution.nl> wrote:
>Randal L. Schwartz schreef:
>
>
>Alternatively:
>
> { local $_; defined or $_ = 1 for $v }
>
> { local $_ = \$v; defined $$_ or $$_ = 1 }
1. $$v=1 if (!defined $v=\$base_ref->{pl});
2. if (!defined $base_ref->{pl}) {
$base_ref->{pl} = 1;
}
Would seem 1. incurrs an overhead assignment
that 2. doesen't if $base_ref->{pl} is defined.
| |
| Anno Siegel 2006-03-29, 4:00 am |
| <Tim Kazner> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:05:37 +0200, "Dr.Ruud" <rvtol+news@isolution.nl> wrote:
>
>
> 1. $$v=1 if (!defined $v=\$base_ref->{pl});
What is that supposed to do?
As given it produces a run-time error. After adding parentheses for
precedence
$$v=1 if (!defined( $v=\$base_ref->{pl}));
it will set $base_ref{ pl} to 1, no matter what.
> 2. if (!defined $base_ref->{pl}) {
> $base_ref->{pl} = 1;
> }
>
> Would seem 1. incurrs an overhead assignment
> that 2. doesen't if $base_ref->{pl} is defined.
Huh?
Anno
--
If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.
| |
| Tim Kazner 2006-03-29, 7:59 am |
| On 29 Mar 2006 07:29:50 GMT, anno4000@lublin.zrz.tu-berlin.de (Anno Siegel) wrote:
> <Tim Kazner> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
>
>What is that supposed to do?
>
>As given it produces a run-time error. After adding parentheses for
>precedence
>
>$$v=1 if (!defined( $v=\$base_ref->{pl}));
>
>it will set $base_ref{ pl} to 1, no matter what.
>
>
>Huh?
>
>Anno
Revised, however the conclusion remains the same:
1. $$v=1 if ($v=\$base_ref->{pl} and !defined $$v);
2. if (!defined $base_ref->{pl}) {
$base_ref->{pl} = 1;
}
Would seem 1. incurrs an overhead assignment and two de-references
that 2. doesen't if $base_ref->{pl} is defined.
==============================
use strict;
use warnings;
my ($base_ref,$v) = ({});
$$v=1 if ($v=\$base_ref->{pl} and !defined $$v);
print "$$v\n";
($base_ref,$v) = ({pl=>8});
$$v=1 if ($v=\$base_ref->{pl} and !defined $$v);
print "$$v\n";
__END__
1
8
Not really sure why this won't work:
$$v=1 if (!defined $($v=\$base_ref->{pl}));
| |
| Anno Siegel 2006-03-29, 7:59 am |
| <Tim Kazner> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
> On 29 Mar 2006 07:29:50 GMT, anno4000@lublin.zrz.tu-berlin.de (Anno
> Siegel) wrote:
> <rvtol+news@isolution.nl> wrote:
[...]
[color=darkred]
> use strict;
> use warnings;
>
> my ($base_ref,$v) = ({});
>
> $$v=1 if ($v=\$base_ref->{pl} and !defined $$v);
> print "$$v\n";
>
> ($base_ref,$v) = ({pl=>8});
>
> $$v=1 if ($v=\$base_ref->{pl} and !defined $$v);
> print "$$v\n";
>
> __END__
> 1
> 8
What is the advantage over
defined or $_ = 1 for $base_ref->{pl};
Especially considering that $v is undeclared. That would also have
to be done somewhere.
> Not really sure why this won't work:
>
> $$v=1 if (!defined $($v=\$base_ref->{pl}));
That fails because de-referencing doesn't take an arbitrary expression.
You must give it a simple variable or a block:
$$v=1 unless defined ${ $v=\$base_ref->{pl} };
Again, what is the possible advantage?
Anno
--
If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.
| |
| Tim Kazner 2006-03-29, 7:00 pm |
| On 29 Mar 2006 13:31:11 GMT, anno4000@lublin.zrz.tu-berlin.de (Anno Siegel) wrote:
> <Tim Kazner> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
>
>[...]
>
>
>What is the advantage over
>
> defined or $_ = 1 for $base_ref->{pl};
>
>Especially considering that $v is undeclared. That would also have
>to be done somewhere.
>
Yes it might be something to benchmark.
Implicit alias for lvalue works too. $_ and $v are both asignments.
Not really sure but 'for' may have more overhead than 'if'
and aliasing may be internal shorthand so that $_ ~ $$v;
Either way, both these
defined or $_ = 1 for $base_ref->{pl};
$$v=1 unless defined ${ $v=\$base_ref->{pl} };
would seem to incurr an overhead asignment that
if (!defined $base_ref->{pl}) {
$base_ref->{pl} = 1;
}
doesen't, if $base_ref->{pl} is defined.
| |
| it_says_BALLS_on_your_forehead 2006-03-29, 7:00 pm |
|
Anno Siegel wrote:
> <Tim Kazner> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
>
> [...]
>
>
> What is the advantage over
>
> defined or $_ = 1 for $base_ref->{pl};
>
> Especially considering that $v is undeclared. That would also have
> to be done somewhere.
>
>
> That fails because de-referencing doesn't take an arbitrary expression.
> You must give it a simple variable or a block:
>
> $$v=1 unless defined ${ $v=\$base_ref->{pl} };
>
> Again, what is the possible advantage?
might take you one step closer to winning an obfuscation award?
|
|
|
|
|