Dan Klose wrote:
Hello Everyone.
I have the following code:
### CODE BLOCK ###
my %hash_of_arrays2;
Have you considered a hash of hashes? For me, given the sample below, I
would prefer it, but obviously I haven't seen your whole script.
for (keys %hash_of_arrays) {
my
On Aug 2, Dan Klose said:
my %hash_of_arrays2;
for (keys %hash_of_arrays) {
my @array_of_data = exists($hash_of_arrays{$_})
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
:();
Given that you're iterating over the list of keys in %hash_of_arrays,
there's NO reason to be using exists() here.
my
Hi,
I have gone for the following code:
my %avs_dev = map{
$_ = [mean($hoa{$_}), dev($hoa{$_})]
} keys %hoa;
for (sort {$avs_dev{$a}[0] = $avs_dev{$b}[0]} keys %avs_dev) {
print $_, $avs_dev{$_}[0], $avs_dev{$_}[1]\n;
}
I have never used MAP before... it looks handy!
Works a treat.
Thanks
Brian Ling wrote:
Hi List,
I have the following bit of code, that works but doesn't feel like the
best way, can anyone think of a better neater answer maybe a one liner?
my $target = getTarget();
If ( target eq MAIN ) { return }
#do lots of other stuff with value of target
well this
Stefan,
Personally, I'd prefer:
if (target ne MAIN)
{
#do lots of other stuff
}
I think general programming practice discourages multiple return points
in subroutines.
RobR
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
Thanks for that, I had not released you could effectively use the
getTarget() return value twice :-)
well this works:
return if 'MAIN' eq (my $target = getTarget());
/Stefan
BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
personal views
Rob Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stefan,
Personally, I'd prefer:
if (target ne MAIN)
{
#do lots of other stuff
}
I think general programming practice discourages multiple return points
in subroutines.
Yes, and it's no more dangerous than
Brian Ling wrote:
Thanks for that, I had not released you could effectively use the
getTarget() return value twice :-)
well this works:
return if 'MAIN' eq (my $target = getTarget());
/Stefan
Personally, I prefer:
( my $target = getTarget() ) eq 'MAIN' and return;
as I believe
Rob Dixon said:
Rob Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stefan,
Personally, I'd prefer:
if (target ne MAIN)
{
#do lots of other stuff
}
I think general programming practice discourages multiple return points
in subroutines.
Yes, and it's no
Paul Johnson wrote:
Rob Dixon said:
Rob Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stefan,
Personally, I'd prefer:
if (target ne MAIN)
{
#do lots of other stuff
}
I think general programming practice discourages multiple return points
Rob Richardson wrote:
Stefan,
Personally, I'd prefer:
if (target ne MAIN)
{
#do lots of other stuff
}
I think general programming practice discourages multiple return points
in subroutines.
RobR
I disagree. While one should certainly exercise care when making an early return,
Paul Johnson wrote:
To my mind,
return if $target eq MAIN;
at the top of a sub is a lot more helpful than making me search all the
way down to the botttom to see if there is anything after the conditional.
And it's probably a lot less likely that the next person to edit that sub
will
R. Joseph Newton said:
The only thing it
lacked was a meaningful return value. Since the getTarget function
provided enough information to decide in favor of an early exit, this
information should probably be passed on more explicitly,
Paul Johnson wrote:
R. Joseph Newton said:
The only thing it
lacked was a meaningful return value. Since the getTarget function
provided enough information to decide in favor of an early exit, this
information should probably be
R. Joseph Newton wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
To my mind,
return if $target eq MAIN;
at the top of a sub is a lot more helpful than making me search all the
way down to the botttom to see if there is anything after the conditional.
And it's probably a lot less likely that the next
Rob Dixon wrote:
Unless the $target variable was meant simply to decide on a return, it makes more
sense to assign its value--one task, one line, and check it for validity--another
task
entirely, on a line of its own.
So presumably you're against
while ( my $line = FH ) {
On Jan 22, david said:
@data_ = map { (my $copy = $_) =~ s/^ //; $copy } @data;
s/^ // for(@data_ = @data);
Sigh. I usually do that. I was a little slow on the idiom-uptake.
--
Jeff japhy Pinyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~japhy/
RPI Acacia brother #734
On Jan 22, Jerry Preston said:
I am looking for a better way, a perl way for the following:
foreach ( @data ) ) {
s/^ //;
$data_[ $jp++ ] = $_;
}
You do realize that you're modifying the elements in @data as well, right?
So that, unless $jp starts at some value other than 0,
.--[ Jerry Preston wrote (2003/01/22 at 11:59:14) ]--
|
| I am looking for a better way, a perl way for the following:
|
| foreach ( @data ) ) {
|s/^ //;
|$data_[ $jp++ ] = $_;
| }
|
`-
I'm
Frank Wiles wrote:
.--[ Jerry Preston wrote (2003/01/22 at 11:59:14) ]-- |
| I am looking for a better way, a perl way for the following: |
| foreach ( @data ) ) {
|s/^ //;
|$data_[ $jp++ ] = $_;
| }
|
Jeff 'Japhy' Pinyan wrote:
If you DON'T want that, you'd have to do:
for (@data) {
(my $copy = $_) =~ s/^ //;
push @data_, $copy;
}
Or something to that effect. Here's a one-liner:
@data_ = map { (my $copy = $_) =~ s/^ //; $copy } @data;
a bit shorter:
From: Johnstone, Colin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for example I read my form variables into a hash for processing.
I then reference them by the form fieldname.
#read STDIN, $PostData, $ENV{'CONTENT_LENGTH'};
#print post data =$PostDatabr;
#postdata will look like this
#[EMAIL
From: chris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am looking for a less cryptic way to handle array index.
most cryptic
$array[0]
better
use constant NAME = 0;
$array[NAME]
This all depends on what do you want to do with the data structure.
But most probably you do want to use a hash.
And if you're really stuck with using arrays, you can always:
my @bases = ();
my $first = 0;
$bases[$first] = 'who';
-Original Message-
From: Johnstone, Colin
To: 'chris'
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Sent: 10/19/02 5:47 PM
Subject: RE: A better way to handle array index?
That would
That would be a hash. (or an associative array)
for example I read my form variables into a hash for processing.
I then reference them by the form fieldname.
#read STDIN, $PostData, $ENV{'CONTENT_LENGTH'};
#print post data =$PostDatabr;
#postdata will look like this
#[EMAIL
open(FILE, yourfile) or die $!;
chomp(my(@lots) = FILE);
close FILE;
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Preston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 11:30 AM
To: Beginners Perl
Subject: a better way?
Hi!
Is there a better way? A Perl way?
$j = 0;
On Sep 26, Jerry Preston said:
Is there a better way? A Perl way?
$j = 0;
while( file ) {
chomp;
( $lots[ $j++ ] ) = $_;
That's usually written as
push @lots, $_;
}
Well, you could do:
chomp(@lines = FILE);
but why do you need the file in an array?
--
Jeff japhy
: Thursday, September 26, 2002 11:36 AM
To: Jerry Preston
Cc: Beginners Perl
Subject: Re: a better way?
but why do you need the file in an array?
The views and opinions expressed in this email
: Beginners Perl
Subject: Re: a better way?
On Sep 26, Jerry Preston said:
Is there a better way? A Perl way?
$j = 0;
while( file ) {
chomp;
( $lots[ $j++ ] ) = $_;
That's usually written as
push @lots, $_;
}
Well, you could do:
chomp(@lines = FILE);
but why do you need
Preston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 11:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Beginners Perl
Subject: RE: a better way?
Jeff,
I guess it an old 'c' habit. I do this to check each line
for the item I am
looking for.
I there a better way and why?
Thanks
On Sep 26, Jerry Preston said:
I guess it an old 'c' habit. I do this to check each line for the item I am
looking for.
I there a better way and why?
my $found = 0;# have we found 'jeff'?
while (FILE) { # reads ONE LINE at a time, and stores it in $_
if (/jeff/) { # if the line
Thank you. Now I can quit the horizontal scrolling.
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 20:52:59 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob
Showalter) wrote:
I know beans about formats, but perldoc perlform contains this statement:
The expressions may be spread out to more than one line if enclosed in
braces. If so, the
Oops. $$
@$myStuff{qw/column1 column2 column3/};
is definitely an improvement but my list is very long. I think I will
have to assign new variables just to make the listing in multiple
lines. Horizontal scrolling to read off-page code is not nice.
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:42:10 -0700,
At 11:44 AM 8/8/02 -0700, drieux wrote:
On Thursday, August 8, 2002, at 11:04 , Peter Scott wrote:
At 10:38 AM 8/8/02 -0700, drieux wrote:
I'm not sure the average normal person would feel at home with say:
%{$by_os{$os_key}}-{$_}++ for(@$found);
Especially since it's only by
Connie -
Try this (not really much better) from Perl Cookbook #2.17:
use strict;
use warnings;
my $num = commify (1_000_000);
print $num\n;
sub commify
{
my $text = reverse $_[0];
$text =~ s/(\d\d\d)(?=\d)(?!\d*\.)/$1,/g;
return scalar reverse ($text);
}
Aloha
This works for me
http://search.cpan.org/doc/WRW/Number-Format-1.44/Format.pm
use strict;
use warnings;
use Number::Format qw(:subs :vars);
$THOUSANDS_SEP = '.';
$DECIMAL_POINT = ',';
my @number = (123456789,123);
foreach my $number (@number) {
print format_number($number) . \n;
}
use
--- Teresa Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Curtis,
What part of the code that you posted actually does the untainting?
Here's one way to grab the data and untaint it in one line:
my ( $name ) = ( $q-param('name') =~ /^(\w+)$/ );
Note that the parentheses around *both side* of the
--- Mark Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I'm curious how I can condense this code. I'm pulling
my values from a Web submitted form (using CGI), and I
need to untaint them.
But, each form field has different requirement for
what characters it can match (account number should
only
Curtis,
What part of the code that you posted actually does the untainting?
--- Mark Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I'm curious how I can condense this code. I'm pulling
my values from a Web submitted form (using CGI), and I
need to untaint them.
But, each form field has
--- Tim Musson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey all,
I have this code fragment.
if ($Var eq String) {
Sub($Var1);
} elsif ($Var2 =~ /$STRING/) {
Sub($Var1);
}
Is this a better way?
if (($Var eq String) || ($Var2 =~ /$STRING/)) {
Sub($Var1);
}
I like it better.
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Tim Musson wrote:
Is this a better way?
if (($Var eq String) || ($Var2 =~ /$STRING/)) {
Sub($Var1);
}
I usually write...
if ($Var eq String or $Var2 =~ /$STRING/) {
...as I like the diffrent precidence of the 'or' operator.
You can also leave off the if you are
41 matches
Mail list logo
