in reply to A better (ie.more concise) way to write this?

Not sure this is better but I like the look of it:

( $a[$_] += 1 ) %= 10 for 0..9;

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: A better (ie.more concise) way to write this?
by LanX (Saint) on Dec 13, 2013 at 16:53 UTC
    maybe better readable with a custom function in case of deeply nested HoHoH...

    DB<132> sub cycle { $_[1]++; $_[1] %= $_[0] } DB<133> cycle 3 => $h{a}{b}[2]{c}; \%h => { a => { b => [undef, undef, { c => 1 }] } } DB<134> cycle 3 => $h{a}{b}[2]{c}; \%h => { a => { b => [undef, undef, { c => 2 }] } } DB<135> cycle 3 => $h{a}{b}[2]{c}; \%h => { a => { b => [undef, undef, { c => 0 }] } }

    unfortunately does Perl have no autoboxing, to allow:

    $h{a}{b}[2]{c}->cycle(3)

    edit

    Ha, it can be emulated with ano-subs! =)

    DB<160> $cycle = sub { $_[0]++; $_[0] %= $_[1] } => sub { "???" } DB<161> $h{a}{b}[2]{c}->$cycle(3); \%h => { a => { b => [undef, undef, { c => 1 }] } } DB<162> $h{a}{b}[2]{c}->$cycle(3); \%h => { a => { b => [undef, undef, { c => 2 }] } } DB<163> $h{a}{b}[2]{c}->$cycle(3); \%h => { a => { b => [undef, undef, { c => 0 }] } }

    Cheers Rolf

    ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

Re^2: A better (ie.more concise) way to write this?
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Dec 13, 2013 at 16:22 UTC

    That'll do nicely. Thank you.


    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.

      Why not this:

      for ( @a ) { ++$_; $_ %= 10 }

      And if you really want to process only the first 10, you can still use the slice:

      for ( @a[0..9] ) { ++$_; $_ %= 10 }


      A for will get you from A to Z; a while will get you everywhere.