Re: (almost) foldl

First, it's not equivalent since you don't handle the empty list.

my $sum = sub { (map {splice @_, 0, 2, $_[0] + ($_[1] // 0)} @_)[-1] }
+->(@list);
[download]

should be

my $sum = sub { (map {splice @_, 0, 2, $_[0] + ($_[1] // 0)} @_)[-1] }
+->(0, @list);
[download]

A general form of this exists as reduce in List::Util. It's is easier to use (since handling one-element lists is easier) and easier to read (since it uses $a and $b instead of $_[0] and $_[1] and uses less extraneous code).

my $sum = reduce { $a + $b } 0, @list;
[download]

Comment on Re: (almost) foldl Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: (almost) foldl by dk (Chaplain) on Jun 08, 2011 at 04:54 UTC
no extra modules! )	[reply]
Re^3: (almost) foldl by Anonymous Monk on Jun 08, 2011 at 06:13 UTC
Are core modules like List::Util "extra" or not?	[reply]
Re^3: (almost) foldl by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jun 08, 2011 at 07:45 UTC
Your reply doesn't make sense. I pointed out that someone already wrote your code, and wrote it way better. The choice isn't between using a module and using no module, the choice is between using your code and using List::Util's.	[reply]
Re^4: (almost) foldl by dk (Chaplain) on Jun 08, 2011 at 15:40 UTC
Well, actually, it's your reply that doesn't make sense. This section is obfuscation, i.e. pure fun, and not asking how to make the code better. Your statement that you pointed out that someone wrote the code is not true. Where is it? Is it your code? It's not better, because it needs an extra 0 to the list. Also, the topic clearly states "no extra modules". Yes, thank you, I know very well about List::Util, a great module. But you ignored that and answered I question I didn't ask, missing the point altogether.	[reply]
Re^5: (almost) foldl by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jun 14, 2011 at 22:37 UTC