Re^5: Fastest way to lookup a point in a set

From the docs: The default subscript separator is "\034", the same as SUBSEP in awk

It's not "," , that's just the placeholder in Perl's syntax.

I don't know and can't think of any number format or localization which uses chr(28) .

Printable characters start from chr(32) onwards.

update

to avoid confusion

hex, oct, dez

perl -e "print 0x1c,034,28"
282828
[download]

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)

Je suis Charlie!}

Comment on Re^5: Fastest way to lookup a point in a set Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Fastest way to lookup a point in a set by swl (Prior) on Aug 07, 2017 at 23:53 UTC
Thanks for clarifying. Here are some more examples for those reading later and who haven't previously had to work with non-printing characters in this way (e.g. me a few hours ago): `# default $; does not print perl -e 'print join $;, 1..5' 12345 # but $; is still in the string perl -e '@x = split ($;, join ($;, 1..5)); print join ":", @x' 1:2:3:4:5` [download] That still does leave the issue of debugging using print statements, as `[5,55]` and `[55,5]` will both print as `555` on a terminal. The point is effectively moot, though, as the other posts have shown multidimensional indexing is slower and should probably not be used in this case.	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^6: Fastest way to lookup a point in a set
by swl (Prior) on Aug 07, 2017 at 23:53 UTC

Thanks for clarifying.

Here are some more examples for those reading later and who haven't previously had to work with non-printing characters in this way (e.g. me a few hours ago):

#  default $; does not print
perl -e 'print join $;, 1..5'
12345

#  but $; is still in the string
perl -e '@x = split ($;, join ($;, 1..5)); print join ":", @x'
1:2:3:4:5
[download]

That still does leave the issue of debugging using print statements, as [5,55] and [55,5] will both print as 555 on a terminal. The point is effectively moot, though, as the other posts have shown multidimensional indexing is slower and should probably not be used in this case.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]