Re: On the rejected additions to List::Util

Statistics::Basic might be what you're looking for.

But I agree with your sentiments that it's better to have an abstraction — even a simple one — written once than re-invented.

Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.

Comment on Re: On the rejected additions to List::Util

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: On the rejected additions to List::Util by JavaFan (Canon) on Apr 28, 2009 at 20:01 UTC
Just that some people want an abstraction isn't a reason to put in List::Util. Feel free to create a module with the abstraction you want and distribute it.	[reply]
Re^3: On the rejected additions to List::Util by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on Apr 28, 2009 at 20:14 UTC
What are legitimate reasons to put it in List::Util? Having List::Utils, List::MoreUtils, List::EvenMoreUtils, List::SomeMoreUtilsByMe, List::AnotherCoupleUtilsTheyForgot, etc. seems like it might be a Bad Thing. Better to have basic list utilities in one List::Utils module, I think. And the reason they're not included? They're "too basic". It's a perfectly good reason to include them in List::Util. It's not an absolute mandate that they be included, but it is a reason. Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.	[reply]
Re^4: On the rejected additions to List::Util by Anonymous Monk on Apr 28, 2009 at 20:51 UTC
List::AllUtils :)	[reply]
Re^5: On the rejected additions to List::Util by ikegami (Patriarch) on Apr 29, 2009 at 15:04 UTC

In Section Meditations