Simply for the laziness of using List::Util. But if you're gonna optimize it, why check both conditions? An element can't be the maximum and the minimum at the same time. You're also pulling the list of all keys twice.
my ($min, $max) = (scalar each %h) x 2; ($min, $max) = ( $h{$_} < $h{$min} ? ($_, $max) : $h{$_} > $h{$max} ? ($min, $_) : ($min, $max) ) for keys %h;
You could even go all out on each to remove the last bit of redundant work, and to reduce memory footprint.
my $min = each %h; my $max = each %h; if(defined $max) { local $_; ($min, $max) = ( $h{$_} < $h{$min} ? ($_, $max) : $h{$_} > $h{$max} ? ($min, $_) : ($min, $max) ) while defined($_ = each %h); } else { $max = $min; }
That's all cool if your hash is really huge. If it's just a couple pairs, I'll prefer the lazy route any day.

Makeshifts last the longest.


In reply to Re^3: Interchanging hash values (single pass - or not) by Aristotle
in thread Interchanging hash values by mjab

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":