On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 19:10 -0400, brian wrote: > Robert Cummings wrote: > > >> Well, this is almost precisely the same thing i have, save for > >> using POSIX character classes, str_pad instead of sprintf(), and > >> incrementing elsewhere. What i was really wondering is if there was > >> a *much simpler* way to do this, not just re-arranging things. > > > > > > You asked for a "Better Way". I gave you a "Better Way". I improved > > the regex, removed the useless basename() call, performed > > incrementation in the extraction step, used better function and > > variable names, and used the str_pad() function because sprintf() is > > overkill. I also removed your redundant else clause. My version is > > much simpler. How much is much? You know... much! Other than using a > > database, it doesn't really get any simpler. Although you obviously > > have race condition issues also. But that's not getting "simpler". > > It's getting more correct but also a bit more complex. > > > > Bad day or something? Nope. > Did it really seem that i was bitching about your > response? Kinda. > If my response to that gave you the impression i was > complaining, i assure you that i wasn't. I was simply suggesting > that i was wondering if there was a *much* simpler way to do this, ie. > without using several functions to process the filename. Yes, your > version *does* have some improvements. I'm not disagreeing with you. > Perhaps i could have been more forthright in my praise for said > improvements (i'm even going to use some of them--how about that?!) Well, I'm not looking for praise... but asking a concise question goes a long way towards meeting your desires. > >>> Note that the moment you get 100 images the code breaks because > >>> _100 sorts before _99 and so you will always write over the 100th > >>> index. To fix this you need to loop through all found files and > >>> pull the index out and record the highest found. > >> > >> For my purposes, if any series gets much beyond 40 i'll have bigger > >> problems to worry about. I'm content to not worry about overflow > >> in this case. > > > > Suit yourself. But better programmer's don't just wave their hands in > > the air and hope for the best. > > While i agree with you in principle, i'm not interested in that aspect > of it. The application would have halted *long* before it could reach > that many. This is why i went to the trouble of pointing this out in the > original mail. IOW, i'm not stupid; i'm well aware that 100 comes after > 99 and that it contains 3 digits, not 2, thanks very much. Nope, 100 comes *before* 99 when lexically sorting. You must be new around here. Cheers, Rob. -- ........................................................... SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com Leveraging the buying power of the masses! ........................................................... -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
