Help with number conversion

[Mr.T]

Hi,

I am looking for a nice efficient way to convert: 1 to 001; 2 to 002; 3 to 003; ... 10 to 010; ... 60 to 060; etc...

Thanks

[gav^]

sprintf is your friend.

You want:

$fixed = sprintf('%03d', $num);

Hope this helps...

gav^

[wmono]

$number = 1;
$number = "0".$number until length $number >= 3;
print $number,"\n";

Hope that helps..

[Juerd]

$number = 1;
$number = "0".$number until length $number >= 3;
print $number,"\n";

I'm sure merlyn just wanted you to know that although this works as expected, there are better alternatives. To many, "Matt Wright" is a synonym for "clumsy code that does however do what it's supposed to do" (not to be taken literally: merlyn didn't ask if you went to school with clumsy code :)).

Your approach is directly instructing Perl to do what you want it to do. If you feel comfortable with that, you should do it that way. But often there is some efficiency in both coding and run time to be gained when you use Perl's core functions. In this case, it'd be $number = sprintf '%03d', $number;, which is approximately 2.5 times as fast.

Learn about sprintf. It can be very confusing at first, but the %-notation is easy to get used to.

U28geW91IGNhbiBhbGwgcm90MTMgY
W5kIHBhY2soKS4gQnV0IGRvIHlvdS
ByZWNvZ25pc2UgQmFzZTY0IHdoZW4
geW91IHNlZSBpdD8gIC0tIEp1ZXJk

[crazyinsomniac]

I very rarely find the need to delte any content. If anything, you should not be ashamed of your (you posted it here) code, but come back 2-3-6 months from now and see if it makes you chuckle (I often revisit ancient code for just this reason ~ if anything me style has changed quite a bit)

I also find myself quoting this time and (crazyinsomniac) Re^2: monastic wargames time again, and it's good advice (I try to take it myself very often)

Hi all y'all,

Now lokee her'.
All y'all peoples gettin' offended, don't!
Grow som' brains and grow som' brass.

When speakin' expect to be spoken to, even if you' gettin yelled at!!
Suck it up.

And finally, fix that short fuse, relax and be nice, you'll live longer.

We all experience such criticism at one point or another, and whether it is warranted or not, it's irrelevant: discussion is good (good for code, and, well, good for pretty much anything -- as a general strategy, discussion rocks).

btw - I ++ed merlyn ~ he wasn't rude ~ i didn't care to vote for you

 


______crazyinsomniac_____________________________ Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. perl -e "$q=$_;map({chr unpack qq;H*;,$_}split(q;;,q*H*));print;$q/$q;"

[merlyn]

$number = "0".$number until length $number >= 3;

Did you and Matt Wright go to school together?

{sigh}

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker

---

update: You know, when I first posted my comment, and the post was something Matt-Wright-ish, as I commented above, I left my vote neutral. But when it was changed to:

You know what? merlyn wins. Forget it. I'll stop offering advice before running it past him first.

I finally invoked a downvote. Don't post code here unless you can take open criticism, including a little ribbing and being compared to the bad-code-poster-Child.

[tachyon]

This is of course a job for a regex ;-)

$number = 42;
s/.*/"s||000$number|&&join'',reverse chop,chop,chop"/eieio;
print;

cheers

tachyon

s&&rsenoyhcatreve&&&s&n.+t&"$'$`$\"$\&"&ee&&y&srve&&d&&print

[petdance]

Why is "efficient" important here?

Efficient in what way?

xoxo,
Andy
--
<megaphone> Throw down the gun and tiara and come out of the float! </megaphone>

[belg4mit]

Well "efficient" is subjective here I think. Does he mean "wins when you Benchmark"? Or does he mean "least number of bytes of source to accomplish a task"? Or perhaps even "the most elegant and understandable solution"? All of which are laudable goals, at different times and for different reasons, which may of course have conflicting solutions. Though yes, in general the first definition is what is intended. Just some rambling thoughts...

UPDATE: Just wanted to expand on this, when I first started I focused primarily on the second form. For three reasons a) I had a small disk quota b) I did not know how to optimize for the first (and still am not great at it) c) I thought this was optimizing for the first. I figured "the smaller the source the less in memory, the less to handle etc. etc." Which is all of course mostly irrelevant. Insert bit about premature optimization here. Thought this might be some interesting background into how some approach things.

--
perl -pe "s/\b;([st])/'\1/mg"