Re: Re: Re: Re: Producing 2 lists from a grep call

However (you knew that was coming right?), as I can do:
my (@a1,@a2) = ([1,2,3],[3,2,1]);

This doesn't work, sorry. You get @a1 with two array references and @a2 undefined.

tstock

Update : This is your one liner: (someone please -- me down for posting this)

map {
     ($_ ne '.') && ($_ ne '..') &&
     push @{ -d "$base/$_" ? \@dirs : \@files }, $_
} (readdir DIR);
[download]

I think we can agree that the FOR LOOP/IF STATEMENT is probably a nicer solution ? :)

Comment on Re: Re: Re: Re: Producing 2 lists from a grep call Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Producing 2 lists from a grep call by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Jun 17, 2002 at 12:28 UTC
I think we can agree that the FOR LOOP/IF STATEMENT is probably a nicer solution ? :) Especially since it's almost the for loop I posted - just `s/map/for/`, pull the `(readdir DIR)` up top, slip a `next` into the loop, and there you have it. If you actually want something that's not a for loop in disguise, you could pull a really horrible trick like `my @dir; my @files = map { ($_ ne '.') && ($_ ne '..') && -d "$base/$_" ? do { push @dir, $_; () } : -f "$base/$_" && $_ } readdir DIR;` [download] But if the Communications Decency Act had gone through I wouldn't have been able to even post this. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply] [d/l]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^5: Producing 2 lists from a grep call
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Jun 17, 2002 at 12:28 UTC

I think we can agree that the FOR LOOP/IF STATEMENT is probably a nicer solution ? :)

s/map/for/

(readdir DIR)

next

my @dir;
my @files = map {
    ($_ ne '.') && ($_ ne '..') &&
    -d "$base/$_" ?
        do { push @dir, $_; () } :
        -f "$base/$_" && $_
} readdir DIR;
[download]

Makeshifts last the longest.

[reply]
[d/l]