To me, using *map *in such a context is not the best (although it can
obviously be done).
IMHO, *map *is really intended to generate a list from another list. In
your case, a *for *loop would make more sense to me. Even the use of *grep *(or
*first*) would be more natural than *map*.
But that's probably a matter of personal taste.
Best,
Laurent.
Le jeu. 8 nov. 2018 à 23:46, Paul Procacci <pproca...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Had time to think about this on the drive home.
> I've eliminated the for loop which was my goal.
> Any "better" or "cleaner" way of doing this, I'm all ears. ;)
>
> die Some::Exception.new.throw
> if %!panels.elems && !%!panels.values.map({
> $end_y < .start_y || $start_x > .end_x ||
> $start_y > .end_y || $end_x < .start_x
> }).so;
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 4:27 PM Paul Procacci <pproca...@bizjournals.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I don't like this:
>>
>>
>> for %!panels<>:k {
>> die Some::Exception.new.throw
>> unless $start_y > %!panels{$_}.end_y || $end_y <
>> %!panels{$_}.start_y ||
>> $end_x < %!panels{$_}.start_x || $start_x >
>> %!panels{$_}.end_x;
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>> In short, I have a objects stored in hash %!panels that contain the
>> (x,y) coordinates of a square.
>>
>> The function above works; throwing an exception if any of the squares
>> overlap, but I don't like using the for loop here.
>>
>> I'm hoping someone here can provide a similar golfed example.
>>
>> I've been looking at `map` and `so`, but I just can't get my brain to
>> work.
>>
>>
>> Thanks in Advance,
>>
>> ~Paul
>>
>>
>
> --
> __________________
>
> :(){ :|:& };:
>
