Re: Re: Think for yourself.

    my @L = map {
        fix($_->[4]);
        fix($_->[8]);
        [ @$_[0,2,3,6,4,8] ]
    } grep {
        @$_ == 10 and
        ($_->[7] eq 'IP') and ($_->[9] eq 'local')
    } map {
        [ split ]
    } <F>;
[download]

i think map in void context is just fine. if i decided to place my data in a hash for later lookup i just might do so at the end of the first map (instead of returning an array of arrays). i'm sure i wouldn't try and re-craft the code to use a for just to appease.

much in the same way i use the 'useless' cat in my shell pipelines.

$ cat foo.txt | fgrep blah
[download]

it's much easier to decide to add more files to the cat (try that with <file ). or to replace the cat with another command that generates the data. why on earth would i continuously rewrite my commands when i can up-arrow and add easily to the beginning?

$ fgrep blah <foo.txt | consolidate | dump
$ preproc <foo.txt | fgrep blah | consolidate | dump
$ additional <foo.txt | preproc | fgrep blah | consolidate | dump

# vs

$ cat foo.txt | fgrep blah | consolidate | dump
$ cat foo.txt | preproc | fgrep blah | consolidate | dump
$ cat foo.txt bar.txt | additional | preproc | fgrep blah | consolidat
+e | dump
$ real_stream | additional | preproc | fgrep blah | consolidate | dump
[download]

i'll keep my useless cat and my map in void context thank you much. they're my artifacts of iterative development.

Comment on Re: Re: Think for yourself. Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Think for yourself. by MarkM (Curate) on Oct 06, 2003 at 05:47 UTC
I don't get it. You haven't used map in void context. Also, I'm not convinced that you haven't purposefully written your code inefficiently just to prove that map is useful. Why do you have the intermediate grep when an if in the for loop would do just fine? Sure, copying lists around is fairly cheap, but we come to my original point: Did you actually take a step back before designing your code, to ensure that it works best? Or did you just string map and grep together until it worked the way you wanted it to?	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Think for yourself. by tilly (Archbishop) on Oct 06, 2003 at 06:12 UTC
Iterative development is a style where you write something and then modify it in a series of small iterations until it does what you want. Which means that he did indeed string maps and greps together until it worked the way he wanted to. As part of a deliberate coding style. I respect that style because it sometimes is mine as well. I've seen it be particularly popular among people who believe in some or all of; test-first development, dynamic programming techniques, and rapid prototyping. Proponents will claim that it produces more robust code in less development time. They will not claim that it produces the fastest code in the world, but then again there is no need to optimize what is already fast enough...	[reply]
Re^3: Think for yourself. (learn your tools (bash)) by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Oct 06, 2003 at 11:17 UTC
`$ fgrep blah <foo.txt \| consolidate \| dump $ preproc <foo.txt \| fgrep blah \| consolidate \| dump $ additional <foo.txt \| preproc \| fgrep blah \| consolidate \| dump # vs $ cat foo.txt \| fgrep blah \| consolidate \| dump $ cat foo.txt \| preproc \| fgrep blah \| consolidate \| dump $ cat foo.txt bar.txt \| additional \| preproc \| fgrep blah \| consolidat +e \| dump $ real_stream \| additional \| preproc \| fgrep blah \| consolidate \| dump` [download] First of all, you're using a shell that's not braindead. Take the time to absorb its expressiveness. `$ < foo.txt fgrep blah \| consolidate \| dump $ < foo.txt preproc \| fgrep blah \| consolidate \| dump $ < foo.txt additional \| preproc \| fgrep blah \| consolidate \| dump` [download] Yes, that's valid code, go ahead and try. And you still don't need to edit more than one place to add multiple files. `$ < foo.txt fgrep blah \| consolidate \| dump $ < foo.txt preproc \| fgrep blah \| consolidate \| dump $ <(cat foo.txt bar.txt) additional \| preproc \| fgrep blah \| consolida +te \| dump $ real_stream \| additional \| preproc \| fgrep blah \| consolidate \| dump` [download] You don't need crutches in `bash`. If you need them, something is wrong with your tools. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: Re^3: Think for yourself. (learn your tools (bash)) by zengargoyle (Deacon) on Oct 06, 2003 at 11:51 UTC
i couldn't make your `<(cat file ...)` example to work, but i've seen the nice `bash` funcionality in the man pages... sadly i can rarely use it. most of my co-workers are stuck in `csh` hell not even willing to go to `tcsh` for tab-completion and arrow-history, much less `bash` despite my constant proselytization. we still have old Solaris boxes without `bash` that will never have `bash` (but have Perl 5.003 or so). so it's `sh`/`csh` compatible only for me...sigh that and the whole Linux vs Solaris with all of the different versions of commands that do slightly different things keeps me going to Perl for anything complex. when all our boxes are Solaris 9 with `bash` i promise to study it more.	[reply]


Clear questions and runnable code get the best and fastest answer
	PerlMonks