$ ruby -e ‘puts $ARGF.readlines.reverse’
Gennady.
On May 4, 2006, at 11:59 AM, Gennady B. wrote:
$ ruby -e ‘puts $ARGF.readlines.reverse’
Gennady.
Someone didn’t test their code 
(It’s ARGF not $ARGF)
If you find yourself trying Perl before Ruby, however, seek
psychiatric help immediately
Sometimes you’ll find a machine that doesn’t have ruby installed.
Besides, it’s not that bad. Really I promise it won’t hurt a bit.
$ perl -ne 'push @a, $_; END { print reverse @a }'
It’s not any worse than the awk (but not a pretty as the ruby). Like
it was said before, use the tools you have:
$ tac test.rbOn 4-May-06, at 4:14 PM, Louis J Scoras wrote:
it was said before, use the tools you have:
If you are going to resort to perl then you should probably use
$ perl -e ‘print reverse <>’
Mike
–
Mike S. [email protected]
http://www.stok.ca/~mike/
The “`Stok’ disclaimers” apply.
If you are going to resort to perl then you should probably use
$ perl -e ‘print reverse <>’
Heh. Very true, that’s much better. I had awk on the brain.
Louis J Scoras wrote:
If you are going to resort to perl then you should probably use
$ perl -e ‘print reverse <>’
Heh. Very true, that’s much better. I had awk on the brain.
ruby -e ‘$><<[*$<].reverse’
This looks like Perl is supposed to look, too.
[email protected] wrote:
ruby -e ‘$><<[*$<].reverse’
A great big +1 for that one
Just to prove that ruby can be every bit
as ugly (shows flexibility, right?) as any other language
I initially misread that as:
ruby -e ‘$><<[*$<].perverse’
which seems somehow far more appropriate…
ruby -e ‘$><<[*$<].reverse’
A great big +1 for that one Just to prove that ruby can be every
bit as ugly (shows flexibility, right?) as any other language