Le 06/04/2012 09:58, Thierry Vignaud a écrit :
On 6 April 2012 00:00,<[email protected]> wrote:
Fix partition numbering on GPT (mga#3091)
(...)
@@ -27,9 +28,20 @@
$p{start} = $5;
$p{size} = $7;
}
- \%p;
+ $p{part_number} => \%p;
} c::get_disk_partitions($hd->{file});
+ my @pt = map {
+ my $part_number = $_;
+ if ($parts{$part_number}) {
+ $parts{$part_number};
+ } else {
+ my %p;
+ $p{part_number} = $part_number;
+ \%p;
This is simpler& more readable:
{ part_number => $part_number };
anyway it would be maybe simpler go one of the way I attach.
WDYT?
I like the 'simpler' adjective when I have to read this stuff at least 3
times to get an idea of what it happening... A simple comment wouldn't
hurt there.
Anyway, allocating the list content in a single pass seems simpler to
understand for me. I'd rather use something as:
# create an exhaustive list including %parts content if existing
# for given partition number, a default structure otherwise
my @pt = map {
$parts{$_} ? $parts{$_} : { part_number => $_ }
} 1..$nb_primary;
More general remarks:
What about using consistent variable names ? If you have a collection of
'something' stored in a hash, why should it suddenly became of
collection of 'st' when transfering them into an array ? Or using a
consistent format for variables storing numbers, rather than having both
nb_foo and bar_number ?
And I don't underestand the interest of using an hash for storing
content with numerical indexes only. Especially if you have to convert
it to an array at the end...
--
BOFH excuse #79:
Look, buddy: Windows 3.1 IS A General Protection Fault.
