Re: Will Perl 6 abbreviate this indirection for me?

You should be able to use Perl 6's given something like this:

for my $k (@required_fields) { 
    given $href->{$k} {
        StripLTSpace($_); 
        $_ or return DIRTY $row, "ERROR: required field $k not present
+"; 
    };
}
[download]

However, if you're worrying about this sort of thing for efficiency reasons something is seriously wrong somewhere ;-)

Comment on Re: Will Perl 6 abbreviate this indirection for me? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Will Perl 6 abbreviate this indirection for me? by princepawn (Parson) on Sep 08, 2003 at 22:55 UTC
Thanks for the reply. If you're worrying about this sort of thing for efficiency reasons something is seriously wrong somewhere Actually though, just imagine if each `FETCH` were tied to something compute intensive. Also, I am very serious about reducing redundancy in my code. Carter's compass: I know I'm on the right track when by deleting something, I'm adding functionality... download and use The Emacs Code Browser	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: Will Perl 6 abbreviate this indirection for me? by adrianh (Chancellor) on Sep 09, 2003 at 01:24 UTC
Actually though, just imagine if each FETCH were tied to something compute intensive. I can certainly imagine it - however I would still see it as a sign of something being seriously wrong. Creating a system where a computationally intensive operation became hidden behind an operation that is traditionally computationally cheap would be a design mistake in my book. It confounds expectations. The reduction in redundancy is a fair point, and I wouldn't want to argue with that being a fan of once and only once myself.	[reply]