You can try if you want. If you attack the problem directly opening an editor, I assure you, it will certainly be not so simple.
I can tell that, because it's what I've done. And I must say I lost almost a complete day at work trying to resolve this. Each time, I made a try, each time I was close, but not on the solution. There was also, many small problems around that make me lose more than two days for this problem.
Why after two days did I was unable to resolve this problem which seems so simple?
I thought about how to resolve the problem but with the eyes of a *pragmatic engineer*. I was saying:
> That should be a simple perl search and replace program.
> Let's begin to write code
This is the second sentence that was plainly wrong. Because of old external errors I started in the wrong direction. And the workflow did not work from this entry point.
Let's have a look at the *engineer workflow*. In fact, it is a simple algorithm which start from some point, and ameliorate himself at each step until it reach a solution. The key point is, you have a bad start, you can potentially never reach a solution point.
## spoiler
In the end, the program should be a simple list of search and replace:
It should seems a bit paradoxal, but sometimes the most pragmatic approach to a pragmatic problem is to use the theoretical methodology. Not the commonly accepted pragmatic one. This simple experience prove this point.
