Shorter Code

Lhamo_rin has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Shorter Code by davorg (Chancellor) on Jul 02, 2003 at 12:15 UTC
Not really much shorter but... `s/i_// for @info; s/d_// for @data;` [download] -- <http://www.dave.org.uk> "The first rule of Perl club is you do not talk about Perl club." -- Chip Salzenberg	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Shorter Code by Zaxo (Archbishop) on Jul 02, 2003 at 12:19 UTC
I don't see any logical reason to combine them, but they can be shortened with the modifier form of the loop: `s/i_// for @info; s/d_// for @data;` [download] If such a substitution is a common operation, you could make a subroutine that modifies its operands: `# Usage: erase STRING, LIST sub erase { my $re = quotemeta shift; s/$re//g for @_; 1; }` [download] After Compline, Zaxo	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: Shorter Code by Joost (Canon) on Jul 02, 2003 at 12:23 UTC
If @info does not contain "d_" and @data does not contain "i_" you can do: `s/d_\|i_//for@info,@data;` [download] Joost. `-- #!/usr/bin/perl -np BEGIN{@ARGV=$0}s(^([^=].*)\|=)()s; =Just another perl hacker\` [download]	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: Shorter Code by Abstraction (Friar) on Jul 02, 2003 at 12:19 UTC
`s/i_// for @info;` and `s/d_// for @data;`	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: Shorter Code by rir (Vicar) on Jul 02, 2003 at 13:53 UTC
I read this and first worry that the code is too short. Should those regexes be anchored? `s/^i_//` instead of `s/i_//`. -- rir Live the dream.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: Shorter Code by tilly (Archbishop) on Jul 02, 2003 at 17:43 UTC
Why is shortening it your immediate goal? See The path to mastery for my thoughts on why it shouldn't be.	[reply]