Re^3: A more elegant way to filter a nested hash?

I had the same idea, but you are effectively iterating twice over the keys if you slice first.

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

Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

Comment on Re^3: A more elegant way to filter a nested hash?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: A more elegant way to filter a nested hash? by Veltro (Hermit) on May 31, 2018 at 18:57 UTC
I don't think so. I am iterating over the 'selected' keys twice. 2018-06-09 Athanasius restored original content	[reply]
Re^5: A more elegant way to filter a nested hash? by LanX (Saint) on May 31, 2018 at 19:11 UTC
I count the slice as iteration. It's fast but doesn't come without a price. I also think there are differences in error handling, a missing value will be reported as undef when you slice, without raising an error. Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re^6: A more elegant way to filter a nested hash? by Veltro (Hermit) on May 31, 2018 at 20:15 UTC
What price is higher then using map or grep? I don't see it. The only iteration that is done twice is over the keys of the result-set which is necessary because of autovivification. The fact that missing values become undefined instead of non-existent is actually something that I would prefer in case the filter asked for it. 2018-06-09 Athanasius restored node content	[reply]
Re^7: A more elegant way to filter a nested hash? by LanX (Saint) on May 31, 2018 at 20:40 UTC
Re^8: A more elegant way to filter a nested hash? by Veltro (Hermit) on May 31, 2018 at 20:56 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here