get the best and fastest answer
|
|
|
|
Clear questions and runnable code get the best and fastest answer |
|
| PerlMonks |
comment on |
| ( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
|
I'm not sure that $k, $l are any more meaningful than $_[0], $_[1] and you pay a small performance penalty for obtaining those names. Does $diff really capture what it is naming? I've used $xor or $mask for that in the past, but I wonder if it isn't best left unnamed. I don't see any purpose in naming the return value, just to return it. Better to say return <EXPR>; and give the function a proper name like hammingDistance() and allow it to name the return value. While using tr/\0//c produces the same result as length - tr/\0/\0/, On the short strings in the OP this is insignificant. But the technique works for any length strings, and as DNA strings can get very large indeed, the difference then becomes very significant. Overall, I prefer my version to yours, but each to their preference :) Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
The "good enough" maybe good enough for the now, and perfection maybe unobtainable, but that should not preclude us from striving for perfection, when time, circumstance or desire allow.
In reply to Re^3:Hamming Distance Between 2 Strings - Fast(est) Way?
by BrowserUk
|
|