dhammaBum has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:
To quote Larry Wall from the camel book: "Until you start thinking in terms of hashes, you aren't really thinking in Perl."
Okay, but how? I've had a look at other peoples' use of hashes and I'm missing something. Can anyone give a few examples (with brief explanation) on how to use hashes effectively, efficiently and in a creatively satisfying manner?
thanks.
May all beings (incl perl programmers) be happy.
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re: (stephen) Hash Tutorial
by stephen (Priest) on Jun 22, 2001 at 07:11 UTC | |
"look up"For example, say you've got a type of pet (dog, cat, etc.), and you want to look up what they eat. A hash is perfect for this: If $pet_type is 'dog', then $food winds up being 'dog chow', etc. "unique"Next, say you've got a list of all of the types of pets in the store. However, since it's just an inventory list (somebody went down the cages and typed "dog" for every dog, for some reason), you want to eliminate the thousand-and-one duplicates that are there. Hashes to the rescue. Hash keys are stored only once per hash, so you can get a list of unique names, eliminating the duplicates, like so:
"check if it's in X"Say you've got a pet-store application where the user is supposed to enter the type of pet they're looking for. You want to be able to check to make sure they didn't type 'dgo' by accident when they meant 'dog', so we can just check against our list of valid pets:
"named"Say you have a data file like this:Frequently, folks reading through files like this say, "well, I want to just access this stuff by name-- don't know if we're going to start recording serial numbers or ancestry or other stuff, so I just want to have the 'name' field automatically stored in $name, species in $species, etc.'. (There's a way to do it, but it's a bad thing to do.) Then they post messages on Perlmonks asking us how to automatically call variables by name, and kick off a bunch of debate as a bunch of people say "use hashes", then one or two people tell them black-magic techniques, and it turns into a mess. Save yourself (and the rest of us :) ) the time and trouble and use hashes whenever you want to call something by name. Read each record in the file into a hash, and access the parameters by saying things like $pet{'species'}, $pet{'price'}, and so on. You'll be that much closer to an object-oriented program, and you won't have that impossible-to-find bug when your parameter named 'x' collides with $x elsewhere in the program. You can do something like this: That way, everything about the pet is stored in a single variable, and you don't have a bunch of data running around loose like hamsters escaped from their cages. (Okay, so I'm stuck in the theme.) Most folks would return a hash reference from the subroutine instead of the entire hash for efficiency reasons. The concept is the same:
"choose"Kind of an advanced technique, but if you need to choose between a thousand alternate things to do based on the value of a single string, it's generally best to use a hash (unless you can use object-oriented programming and subclassing, but that's another tale.) Say for example that you want to print a different page based on the species that a customer bought. You could, of course, have a billion-and-one if/elsif statements, like so: Instead, it's much better to have a hash table of pet types, plus references to subroutines to call in various situations: That way, you don't need to go rappelling down the huge list of if/thens every time you want to add or remove a pet page. It's a powerful technique, although it can be misused. (Don't use it instead of simple if/thens, for example.) Basically, hashes give incredible flexibility. Combine this with references, and you can have hashes of hashes, and hashes of hashes of hashes (of arrays), until you have data types of whatever structure and complexity you want. Note: Code not tested.
stephen | [reply] [d/l] [select] |
by RhetTbull (Curate) on Jun 22, 2001 at 23:40 UTC | |
Rhet | [reply] |
by bobione (Pilgrim) on Jun 22, 2001 at 17:53 UTC | |
It's clear and illustrated. BobiOne KenoBi ;) | [reply] |
by !unlike (Beadle) on Apr 28, 2003 at 11:52 UTC | |
stephen, Although code didn't answer my question directly it did give me the insiration to come up with the following:
If you run this code you'll see that only "1" get printed. Not the most robust piece of code ever, but I came up with it off my own back and it does a job for me. So cheers for the insiration! !unlike I write my Perl code like how I like my sex: fast and dirty. ;) | [reply] [d/l] |
by broquaint (Abbot) on Apr 28, 2003 at 12:21 UTC | |
Also note that the map() in your snippet is returning a list of three items - a 1 and two empty strings. HTH
_________ | [reply] [d/l] [select] |
by !unlike (Beadle) on Apr 28, 2003 at 13:09 UTC | |
Re (tilly) 1: Hash Tutorial
by tilly (Archbishop) on Jun 22, 2001 at 07:03 UTC | |
Short of that I highly recommend the section in Camel II (possibly in Camel III as well?) in chapter 1 on how Perl data structures map to linguistic operations. The linguistic version of a hashlookup is the word "of". This informs us how we name a hash. If the hash gives us the address of the person, we should say $address{$person}. If it is possible to get an address in several ways we might be more verbose and say $address_by_person{$person}. In either case "talk your way" through the problem in English and wherever you say "of" or an equivalent, that is a good sign that you want a hash. That said, here are some standard uses that I have for them:
UPDATE | [reply] [d/l] [select] |
by jreades (Friar) on Jun 22, 2001 at 18:28 UTC | |
The fundamental key IMHO is this. As long as you are doing a lot of thinking involving positional logic, you are not being very Perlish. I just wanted to qualify this statement with a slightly tangential one of my own -- as a newbie, when you discover the power of hashes in Perl they become intoxicating. Oh, this could be a hash. Oh, and so can this. And this. And this. And... tilly's very erudite description of the hash glosses over this slightly, but only because, as a saint, he's probably forgotten how we men and women in the trenches think. It is important to remember that hashes have higher overhead and are slower to access than an array, but, in contrast, accessing a hash is essentially a constant time operation -- meaning, that as long as I know what item I want, it takes the same amount of time to access the 1st element of the hash as the nth. There is a lot of overlap between arrays and hashes conceptually in Perl (and even more so under the hood), and you need to keep in mind how you are intending to use your data structure and the kind of data it will hold. For instance, a few general examples: The rules/ideas go on for many lines from there, but I guess what I'm getting at, is that Perl makes it possible to see the world through hash-tinted glasses <pun intended>, but always keep in mind that the lowly array is an equally adept tool for many jobs. | [reply] |
Re: Hash Tutorial
by Superbabeteam (Initiate) on Jun 23, 2001 at 07:39 UTC | |
hope that helped | [reply] [d/l] |