Re^3: The Cost of Nested Referencing

[Aristotle]

They're both far too verbose.

for my $subhash (@hash{@keyset1}) {
    print $subhash->{$_} for @keyset2;
}

or if you really only have a single statement in there, even print @{$_}{@keyset2} for @hash{@keyset1}; You can be efficient and readable all at the same time.

Makeshifts last the longest.

[lestrrat]

I *personally* would rather stay away from

   statement if condition
   statement for(@list)

...because that way I'm less likely to be bashed by others claiming that (my) perl code is unreadable ;)

[Aristotle]

Why? What's more readable about

foreach my $foo (@bar) {
    do_something($foo);
}

than do_something($_) foreach @bar; ? All I see is twice as much to type and read with absolutely no difference to the clarity. Especially when you nest a few of those and it ends up something like

    for $blah (@blah) {
        # ...
        # ...
        # ...
        if($whatever) {
            last;
        }
        while($foo) {
            if(@bar) {
                # ...
                while($baz) {
                    # ...
                    # ...
                    # ...

                }
                if($whatever) {
                    next;
                }
                elsif($snafu) {
                    last;
                }
                else {
                    # ...
                }
                # ...
                # ...
            }
            # ...
        }
    }
    # ...
    # ...
}

It's atrocious. Please use a few last if ... and spare me the effort of having to eyeparse 15 levels of indentation.

Makeshifts last the longest.

[lestrrat]

All I can say is that you probably don't have non-Perl programmers around you who look at your perl-ism laden perl code. I don't care myself - I think the perl-isms are cool, so I use them when it's code that only I look at. But when other people may look into it - who are not perl programmers - I try to write code that is as close to the common denominator