in reply to Re: A better (ie.more concise) way to write this?
in thread A better (ie.more concise) way to write this?

maybe better readable with a custom function in case of deeply nested HoHoH...

DB<132> sub cycle { $_[1]++; $_[1] %= $_[0] } DB<133> cycle 3 => $h{a}{b}[2]{c}; \%h => { a => { b => [undef, undef, { c => 1 }] } } DB<134> cycle 3 => $h{a}{b}[2]{c}; \%h => { a => { b => [undef, undef, { c => 2 }] } } DB<135> cycle 3 => $h{a}{b}[2]{c}; \%h => { a => { b => [undef, undef, { c => 0 }] } }

unfortunately does Perl have no autoboxing, to allow:

$h{a}{b}[2]{c}->cycle(3)

edit

Ha, it can be emulated with ano-subs! =)

DB<160> $cycle = sub { $_[0]++; $_[0] %= $_[1] } => sub { "???" } DB<161> $h{a}{b}[2]{c}->$cycle(3); \%h => { a => { b => [undef, undef, { c => 1 }] } } DB<162> $h{a}{b}[2]{c}->$cycle(3); \%h => { a => { b => [undef, undef, { c => 2 }] } } DB<163> $h{a}{b}[2]{c}->$cycle(3); \%h => { a => { b => [undef, undef, { c => 0 }] } }

Cheers Rolf

( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)


Comment on Re^2: A better (ie.more concise) way to write this?
Select or Download Code