Re^3: Suggestion on rewriting small code

I have adopted the convention of using $#... when I actually mean "index of the last element" and @... when I mean a "count" of elements. A very small advantage is that this does not depend on the default value of "$[". (I have not used that in since I got over my FORTRAN habits years ago)

Bill

Comment on Re^3: Suggestion on rewriting small code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Suggestion on rewriting small code by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Aug 21, 2019 at 20:04 UTC
... when I mean a "count" of elements. Yeah, I guess the multiplier really is "one less than the number of array elements". Thank you for satisfying my curiosity. ... the default value of "$[". In Perl 5, ~~changes~~ \| assignment to `$[` ~~have~~ \| has been increasingly constrained over the years and in the most recent versions ~~are~~ \| is completely disabled, but I still can't help thinking when I write something like `0 .. $#ra` to list all possible indices of an array that I should perhaps really be writing `$[ .. $#ra` instead. Give a man a fish: `<%-{-{-{-<`	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Suggestion on rewriting small code
by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Aug 21, 2019 at 20:04 UTC

... when I mean a "count" of elements.

Yeah, I guess the multiplier really is "one less than the number of array elements". Thank you for satisfying my curiosity.

... the default value of "$[".

In Perl 5, ~~changes~~ | assignment to $[ ~~have~~ | has been increasingly constrained over the years and in the most recent versions ~~are~~ | is completely disabled, but I still can't help thinking when I write something like 0 .. $#ra to list all possible indices of an array that I should perhaps really be writing $[ .. $#ra instead.

Give a man a fish: <%-{-{-{-<

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]