Re^4: Is there a more functional regex syntax?

[tobyink]

in reply to Re^3: Is there a more functional regex syntax?
in thread Is there a more functional regex syntax?

Some parts of List::Util are a little ill-conceived. For example, the existence of separate min and minstr functions (and max/maxstr). Perl gets by with a single sort function that can take an optional block. Obviously there is a limit to what can be done with prototypes, but if List::Util were to be adopted into the Perl language itself, I'd hope that would be addressed.

But certainly, the functions in List::Util would be a lot more useful in core than getgrent, setnetent and getgrgid.

I'd also add uniq from List::MoreUtils and about half of Scalar::Util.

[BrowserUk]

Some parts of List::Util are a little ill-conceived. For example, the existence of separate min and minstr functions (and max/maxstr).

Two points:

1. All of List::Utils function except shuffle, can be reproduce using reduce alone.

   Adding uniq() would be nice if it ran more quickly than a pure perl implementation: sub uniq{ my %h; undef @h{ @_ }; keys %h }

2. The need for min/minstr is forced by being non-core.

   min amd minstr run more quickly than their equivalents using reduce, because they avoid the need to callback to Perl for every item.

   Sort gets away with using a callback by recognising the simple patterns of callback block {$a<=>$b} & {$a cmp $b} and bypassing them in favour of dedicate opcodes for those simple cases.

   Effectively, sort{$a <=> $b } is the subroutine name. sortn would be shorter, easier to type and remember. Ditto for sorts

   List::Util doesn't have that option because it is outside the core.