[eluser]Pygon[/eluser]
Yea, I'm illiterate.
Your resulting statement would directly call into question your understanding of the text.
The question had been answered before you entered this thread and "imparted different ideas".
Then I suspect you're adding to the "fluff" as well.
Coolfactor clearly stated that the solution must not make any assumptions about format.
No, coolfactor clearly stated that HIS solution did not make any assumptions. I believe that falls under that reading comprehension thing.
Instead, you touted "standards" as if credit card numbers have standards. As if every credit card number has 16 digits.
I "touted" standardizing the card format within the billing system, eliminating the need to rely on REGEX every time the card was processed. The code was never intended as an "end-all, be-all" solution, but did its purpose for what he DID ask for, "XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-1234" (16 digits if there is any kind of counting problem too).
I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't throw ideas around. Everyone has something of value to add. I'm just a bit tired of stubborn posters arguing their questionable solutions to death. A little humility please.
You apparently have comprehension issues with your own writing as well, since you clearly state that:
Coolfactor’s question was very simple and clear, and it deserved an equally lucid, accurate answer. Like the internet in general, there is a lot of fluff floating around these forums.
I'll help you out -- you imply that other "ideas" are equivilent to "fluff", as evident by the second quote above.
I was perfectly fine discussing "over-engineering" and the like until you and your cohort decided it was more important to introduce this "fluff" you speak of rather than discussing the topic of masking credit cards.
Here's some humility for your "everyone else is the problem" attitude:
I appologize for derailing your topic CF; I'll let others continue the fluff from here on.
