Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Keep It Simple, Stupid
 
PerlMonks  

Re^3: Secret Perl Operators: the boolean list squash operator, x!! (grep disqualified?)

by tye (Cardinal)
on Aug 02, 2006 at 16:21 UTC ( #565257=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: Secret Perl Operators: the boolean list squash operator, x!! (grep disqualified)
in thread Secret Perl Operators: the boolean list squash operator, x!!

Update: You appear to be updating your reply significantly without noting the updates so this reply does not yet reflect any of these updates. I may choose to update or reply again after your node content appears to have settled down. I've now quoted your entire original response as seen when I started replying to it:

OK, so my example only used single-element lists, so it was an insufficiently ornery problem to show that only the ternary and push are generically appropriate. Here’s an example to disqualify grep:
my $name = join '-', @prefix, ( defined $path and length $path ) ? ( s +plit /:/, $path ) : (), $suffix;

Not at all. Where did you get the idea that grep can't handle more than one item in a list?

To repeat myself, the following three constructs are interchangeable:

( LIST ) x!! COND ( grep COND, LIST ) COND ? ( LIST ) : ()

except that only the middle one doesn't require an extra set of parens in some rare cases and only the last one short-circuits evaluation of LIST if COND is false (and perhaps some other more subtle differences, I suspect, though none occur to me at the moment).

(Update: And the second may evaluate COND more than once.)

So, I don't see much recommending the first choice over the second (two keystrokes is hardly a worthy deciding factor) and find the less-than-typical use of grep to be less confusing than the invention of an "x!!" "operator". So I'd use grep rather than x!! if I had reason to not use the third option or even the clearer conditional use of push or some other solution (such as filtering out undefined values as already demonstrated).

So your new example can be rewritten as:

my $name = join '-', @prefix, ( grep { defined $path and length $path } split /:/, $path ), $suffix;

to demonstrate the use of the second option on a list that might contain more than one item.

Trying to rewrite that using the first option will likely cause you new problems because of your use of "and" (which I wouldn't use in a such a simple Boolean expression, since "&&" is better suited for that task). Perhaps your new idiom needs to be renamed "( ()x!!() )" to not make it error-prone? (:

And note that $path being undefined would result in a warning (if enabled) in both my grep construct and your x!! construct. So I doubt I'd use either in that particular case.

Since split on an empty string returns an empty list, for this particular case I'd likely instead use:

( split /:/, $path || '' ),

but replacing "||" with "//" (or a suitable replacement) if $path might be "0".

Update: And I find it telling that when your update added an actual use of "x!!", you went and removed your use of "and" to avoid demonstrating this weakness in your idiom. :)

- tye        


Comment on Re^3: Secret Perl Operators: the boolean list squash operator, x!! (grep disqualified?)
Select or Download Code
Significant updates (was: Secret Perl Operators: the boolean list squash operator, x!!)
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Aug 02, 2006 at 16:46 UTC

    You appear to be updating your reply significantly without noting the updates

    Yes, I do that relatively frequently on non-root nodes within the first couple minutes of their existence. In this case –

    I find it telling that when your update added an actual use of "x!!", you went and removed your use of "and" to avoid demonstrating this weakness in your idiom.

    – it was to remove easy ways of just using split unconditionally, as in your ( split /:/, $path || '' ) suggestion.

    Grmf.

    Makeshifts last the longest.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://565257]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others exploiting the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-12-21 22:35 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Is guessing a good strategy for surviving in the IT business?





    Results (108 votes), past polls