The problem is that the design of List::Util first is broken, no result should be an empty list and not undef! At least in list context ! :(

  DB<28> \@x
 => [1, 2, 3, undef, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]

  DB<29> @a=List::Util::first { !$_ } @x; \@a
 => [undef]

  DB<30> @a=List::Util::first { $_ eq "never" } @x; \@a
 => [undef]
[download]

I wished people would learn the lesson that () is always better then undef for failure in list operations like iterators or filters.

update

grep does it right!

  DB<38> @a=grep { !$_ } @x; \@a
 => [undef]

  DB<39> @a=grep { $_ eq "never" } @x; \@a
 => []
[download]

  DB<25> sub first (&@) { my $code=shift; grep {return $_ if &$code} @
+_ }

  DB<26> first { $_ >5 } 1..10
 => 6

  DB<27> first { $_ >10 } 1..10

  DB<28> sub any (&@) { my $code=shift; grep {return 1 if &$code} @_ ;
+ ()}

  DB<29> any { $_ >10 } 1..10
 => ""

  DB<30> any { $_ >5 } 1..10
 => 1
[download]

Can you spot problems?

update

variation of first for finding position

  DB<40> sub position (&@) { my $code=shift; my $idx=-1; grep {++$idx;
+ return $idx if &$code} @_ ; ()}

  DB<41> position { !$_ } 1..10,undef,11..20
 => 10
[download]

update

changed "" to () for false.

update

even easier

  DB<53> sub first (&@) { my $code=shift; &$code and return $_ for @_ 
+; ()}

  DB<54> sub any (&@) { my $code=shift; &$code and return 1 for @_ ; (
+)}
[download]

These look fine to me. IIRC, older versions of List::Util included a non-XS implementation of first; current versions of List::MoreUtils include a non-XS version of any. So pure Perl versions can probably be pilfered from them too.

use Moops; class Cow :rw { has name => (default => 'Ermintrude') }; say Cow->new->name

I'm starting to doubt if XS is really worth it.

Beside the hard to fix bugs, these modules are not that much faster.

In my benchmarks pure Perl5.10 approaches of any were in the range of 80%-50% of the speed of List::MoreUtils !

Interesting is

• map and grep were faster than for!
• directly hard coding the condition instead of calling a coderef wasn't faster!
• List::Util was slower than pure Perl

                 Rate    PP_for LU_first  PP_grep   PP_map PP_mapdirec
+t  LMU_any
PP_for       323355/s        --      -4%      -9%     -16%         -18
+%     -47%
LU_first     335913/s        4%       --      -6%     -13%         -15
+%     -45%
PP_grep      356464/s       10%       6%       --      -8%         -10
+%     -42%
PP_map       387000/s       20%      15%       9%       --          -2
+%     -37%
PP_mapdirect 395959/s       22%      18%      11%       2%           -
+-     -35%
LMU_any      612649/s       89%      82%      72%      58%          55
+%       --
[download]

Have to repeat the benchmark with more test cases...

Cheers Rolf

( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)