On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 11:15:53PM -0800, Joshua ben Jore wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Nicholas Clark n...@ccl4.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 10:23:38AM -0800, Bill Ward wrote:
Personally I always use hashes for objects. Hashes are pretty fast in
Perl,
especially when
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 08:22:24PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Hash lookup should be O(1), independent of number of keys. Of course, a hash
with more keys uses more memory, but so does an array with more elements.
But that's a bigger value of 1 from that required for an array lookup.
--
This is addressed to the participants of this conversation in general:
I think getting to discussions of O(1) or whatever is a bit much for a
language like Perl. It's not designed for speed, though speed is
certainly nice to have. It's also got a fantastic (well, it's got a
bit of a learning
Jonathan:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Jonathan Rockway j...@jrock.us wrote:
* On Tue, Mar 03 2009, Jonathan Yu wrote:
Choosing array-based parameterization instead of hashes seems to be a
bad idea to me, because you could potentially end up with lots of
cases of sparse arrays.
...
I
David Cantrell da...@cantrell.org.uk writes:
Tie::Hash::Vivify is useful for detecting this:
my $hashref = Tie::Hash::Vivify-new(sub {
confess(No auto-vivifying (did you mis-spell
something?)\n.Dumper(\...@_))
});
What's wrong with lock_keys from Hash::Util?
-- Johan
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 09:17:22AM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
David Cantrell da...@cantrell.org.uk writes:
Tie::Hash::Vivify is useful for detecting this:
my $hashref = Tie::Hash::Vivify-new(sub {
confess(No auto-vivifying (did you mis-spell
something?)\n.Dumper(\...@_))
});
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Roger Hall raha...@ualr.edu wrote:
All,
...
Do I have to redesign the module to get past this syntatical doppelganger?
If you redesigned, replacing your hash with an array would be harder
to typo, faster, smaller, not as nice to dump with Dumper, and harder
# from Joshua ben Jore
# on Monday 02 March 2009 08:20:
If you redesigned, replacing your hash with an array would be harder
to typo, faster, smaller, not as nice to dump with Dumper, and harder
for 3rd parties to extend.
Is harder to extend a design goal? You also make it harder to use.
And
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Eric Wilhelm enoba...@gmail.com wrote:
# from Joshua ben Jore
# on Monday 02 March 2009 08:20:
If you redesigned, replacing your hash with an array would be harder
to typo, faster, smaller, not as nice to dump with Dumper, and harder
for 3rd parties to
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 10:09:00AM -0800, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
# from Joshua ben Jore
# on Monday 02 March 2009 08:20:
If you redesigned, replacing your hash with an array would be harder
to typo, faster, smaller, not as nice to dump with Dumper, and harder
for 3rd parties to extend.
Is
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 10:23:38AM -0800, Bill Ward wrote:
Personally I always use hashes for objects. Hashes are pretty fast in Perl,
especially when there aren't many keys, so I don't think the benefits of
using arrays are worth it. The risk of typos is pretty small, and the
Hash lookup
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Nicholas Clark n...@ccl4.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 10:23:38AM -0800, Bill Ward wrote:
Personally I always use hashes for objects. Hashes are pretty fast in Perl,
especially when there aren't many keys, so I don't think the benefits of
using arrays
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Nicholas Clark n...@ccl4.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 10:23:38AM -0800, Bill Ward wrote:
Personally I always use hashes for objects. Hashes are pretty fast in
Perl,
especially when there aren't many keys, so I don't think the benefits of
using
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:58:46PM -0800, Ovid wrote:
Mostly agreed. Objects should be about responsibilities (behavior) and not
so much about state (data). That being said, hashes are notorious for
$gimme-{feild} (note the misspelling)
Tie::Hash::Vivify is useful for detecting this:
my
On Wednesday 18 February 2009 18:05:13 Roger Hall wrote:
All,
I'm a fan of Class::Std and Dr. Conway's efforts, but I'm bemused by a
failing perlcritic test on a new module. I used a hash reference to hold
several values to make it easier to dump with YAML, so my code is peppered
with code
...@iglu.org.il]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 11:14 AM
To: module-authors@perl.org; raha...@ualr.edu
Subject: Re: Perl Critic and (honest) hash references
On Wednesday 18 February 2009 18:05:13 Roger Hall wrote:
All,
I'm a fan of Class::Std and Dr. Conway's efforts, but I'm bemused
- Original Message
From: Roger Hall raha...@ualr.edu
Personally though, I wouldn't create an object unless there were methods
(which there are not in this case). Without methods, an object just seems
like a too-fat hash to me! :}
Mostly agreed. Objects should be about
The spelling issue in hash is resolved with the use fields pragma. That
requires you predeclare (horrors!) your hash keys.
--Original Message--
From: Ovid
To: raha...@ualr.edu
To: Shlomi Fish
To: module-authors@perl.org
Sent: Feb 18, 2009 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: Perl Critic and (honest
On Wednesday 18 February 2009 22.04.27 Dana Hudes wrote:
The spelling issue in hash is resolved with the use fields pragma. That
requires you predeclare (horrors!) your hash keys.
That is in no way different from using strict and having to declare your
variables. It might heavy but in no way
19 matches
Mail list logo
