Try re-writing this without aliasing and it will either be much less clear syntactically; or vastly less efficient...
BrowserUk operates in an environment in which it is vital to squeeze every last, living computron from any processor, algorithm or function with which he deals, so I am not inclined to dispute his assertion that indirect access is "vastly less efficient".
I would argue with his assertion about clarity. This, of course, is very much a matter of personal taste; I'm not aware of any widely accepted metric for benchmarking 'clarity' – or even for defining its meaning! I would say that the (untested) way I have re-written mmMxM() below is, to my taste, at least as clear as the original. (Again, all issues of performance are entirely neglected. And I don't understand what this thing is doing in the first place... some kind of matrix multiply?)
use constant N => 3; sub mmMxM { my ($ar_A, # ref. to array of ... $ar_B, # ref. to array of ... ) = @_; my @c = map [ map 0, 0..N ], 0..N; # AoA of zeros for my $i (0..N) { for my $j (0..N) { $c[$i][$j] += $ar_A->[$i][$_] * $ar_B->[$_][$j] for 0..N; } } return \@c; }
I have, believe me, the utmost respect for BrowserUk, a most subtle and puissant (that's puissant, not pissant!) monk whose programming boots I am not fit to lick clean, but I felt compelled to offer my USD0.02 on the subject of clarity.
In reply to Re^3: aliasing arrays using typeglob under strict
by AnomalousMonk
in thread aliasing arrays using typeglob under strict
by RockyMtn
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |