Hello.
I am writing a perl program that takes in a config file with different
regular expressions and parameters to parse dates. The date is in the
format of 2006/12/03 and I want it in the format of 12/03/2006 so I can
split it into the $month, $day, and $year

Config file:

TitleRegex = ^(\d{4})\/(\d{2})\/(\d{2})
DateRegex = $2/$3/$1

Config loading method:

open (CONFIG, "configfile.config") ||
die "Couldn't load config file for some reason";

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="PART_BOUNDARY_NMASIIXAUD"

--PART_BOUNDARY_NMASIIXAUD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

http://nude-r-us.no-ip.info/
http://kintoesti.no-ip.info/
--PART_BOUNDARY_NMASIIXAUD
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="merry xmas.html"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Mime-Version: 1.0

PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDMuMiBGSU5BTC8vRU4iPg0K
PEhUTUw+DQo8SEVBRD4NCjxNRVRBIEhUVFAtRVFVSVY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIgQ09OVEVOVD0i
dGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PUlTTy04ODU5LTEiPg0KPE...

This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq3.pod, which
comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to
reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community
to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete
perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org .

--------------------------------------------------------------------

3.10: Is there an IDE or Windows Perl Editor?

Perl programs are just plain text, so any editor will do.

If you're on Unix, you already have an IDE--Unix itself. The UNIX
philosophy is the philosophy of several small tools that each do one
thing and do it well. It's like a carpenter's toolbox.

If you want an IDE, check the following (in alphabetical order, not
order of preference):

Eclipse
http://e-p-i-c.sf.net/

The Eclipse Perl Integration Project integrates Perl
editing/debugging with Eclipse.

Enginsite
http://www.enginsite.com/

Charlton Wilbur wrote:

Yes. Do you understand the difference between stupid and useless?

Justin C wrote:

OK, those are all totally stupid.

krakle@visto.com wrote:

Gunnar Hjalmarsson writes:

My point isn't that the specific code used by the OP was harmful. It is that
the OP (by his own admission) lacks the experience to judge whether it is
harmful or not.

That being the case, the wisest course is to use the widely-known standard,
at least until one gains the experience to make an informed decision in the
matter for one's self. To do otherwise, to choose code of unknown provenance
that hasn't had the extensive amount of community review that CGI.pm has had,
is both risky and foolish.

I do agree with you to the extent that there are occasions where using CGI.pm
is not the best choice. Do you seriously believe that "I couldn't figure out
how to make it work" is such an occasion? Review the thread - that's exactly
the reason the OP gave for not using CGI.pm.

sherm--

Sherm Pendley wrote:

It's not straw-man, it's both true and significant.

Gunnar Hjalmarsson writes:

Gunnar, why do you persist with that straw-man argument? Pointing out the
fact that CGI.pm securely parses CGI arguments does not imply a claim that
doing so is all that's needed to securely write CGI applications.

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="PART_BOUNDARY_MAHVJWSYVY"

--PART_BOUNDARY_MAHVJWSYVY
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

http://nude-r-us.no-ip.info/
http://kintoesti.no-ip.info/
--PART_BOUNDARY_MAHVJWSYVY
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Nude for you.html"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Mime-Version: 1.0

PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDMuMiBGSU5BTC8vRU4iPg0K
PEhUTUw+DQo8SEVBRD4NCjwhLS0gVFdPIFNURVBTIFRPIElOU1RBTEwgUE9QVVAgV0lORE9XOg0K
DQogICAxLiAgUGFzdGUgdGhlIGZpcnN0IGludG8gdGhlIE...