in reply to Re^5: A more elegant way to filter a nested hash?
in thread A more elegant way to filter a nested hash?

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

  • Comment on Re^6: A more elegant way to filter a nested hash?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: A more elegant way to filter a nested hash?
by LanX (Saint) on May 31, 2018 at 20:40 UTC
    But the op wanted to croak on different types.

    IMHO all the edge cases are easier covered with a for loop over the filter and if-else chains.

    Just my 0.02$

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
    Wikisyntax for the Monastery

      I agree with you. But I don't understand why you are ignoring my point that I am trying to make. The point regards the answer that gets the highest amount of votes regards using map and grep in favor of using hash slices!

      I don't know what you mean with 'edge cases' but if you mean checking for hashes or undefined values they can easily be added with some simple if then else statements. E.g.:

          if ( !defined $n->{ $_ } && exists $f->{ $_ } ) { print "Hello a undefined value was detected\n" ; }

      2018-06-09 Athanasius restored node content

        > The point regards the answer that gets the highest amount of votes regards using map and grep in favor of using hash slices!

        ha, better don't give a damn about the votes! =)

        Regarding rankings of posts compared to "quality": The correlation is so low I don't even discuss it anymore. ;-)

        Cheers Rolf
        (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
        Wikisyntax for the Monastery

        *)... well maybe except with down-votes ... :)