Re^4: vec overflow?

I think using a foreach alias like shown in the docs for substr is a clearer alternative to lvalue-refs.

Maybe, though I've been aware of LVALUE refs, and using them regularly, for a long time, but I've never seen a use of a for alias used that way until I followed your link to a newer set of docs than I have locally.

Comparing:

my $ref = \ substr( $astring, $start, $len );
vec( $$ref, $offset, $size ) = 1;
[download]

To:

vec( $_, $offset, $size ) = 1 for substr( $astring, $start, $len );
[download]

The first one is very familiar (to me), whereas the latter just looks weird.

The presence of \ and $$ref seem stronger clues than the $_ and for.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Comment on Re^4: vec overflow? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: vec overflow? by LanX (Saint) on Jun 25, 2013 at 14:04 UTC
A matter of taste ... for me `vec( $_, $offset, $size ) = 1 for substr( $astring, $start, $len );` has no big advantage over `vec( substr( $astring, $start, $len ), $offset, $size ) = 1;` but `for my $chunk ( substr( $astring, $start, $len ) ) { ... vec( $chunk, $offset, $size ) = 1; ... }` [download] looks better for me than de/referencing and has the advantage to be documented in the docs. And your use of `\ substr( $astring, $start, $len );` is less frequent and makes me wondering about precedences. (The practice to reference lvalues is still somehow new for me...) OTOH your approach has the (dis?)advantage that the ref can be passed around w/o being restricted to the body of a `for` loop... Well ... I'll better continue meditating about it after seeing more use cases! :) Cheers Rolf ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^6: vec overflow? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jun 25, 2013 at 14:18 UTC
`vec( $_, $offset, $size ) = 1 for substr( $astring, $start, $len );` has no big advantage over `vec( substr( $astring, $start, $len ), $offset, $size ) = 1;` I agree. But I've only very recently 'discovered' nested lvalue subs -- this thread is the first time I've ever used the construct publicly -- and I've never seen it used anywhere else. I can well imagine that there are lot of silent readers looking at `vec( vec( ... ), ... ) = 1;` `vec( substr(... ), ... ) = 1;` `substr( vec( ... ), ... ) = $stuff;` `substr( substr( ...), ... ) = $stuff;` `substr( vec( substr( vec( substr( ...), ... ), ... ), ... ), ... ) = $something;` and thinking: "I'd never use such an unholy constructs even if it meant my code running a 1000 times more slowly." With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^7: vec overflow? by LanX (Saint) on Jun 25, 2013 at 14:32 UTC
Perl never stops to surprise ... I also learned new things again. =) > I'd never use such an unholy constructs Unholy constructs are like exorcism, only experienced priests should be allowed to and only behind closed doors (subs). Who cares how an imported sub `bigvec` does the workaround as long as it works and is well documented, i.e. has pointers to the perldoc? Cheers Rolf ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)	[reply] [d/l]