Something like this?
Though, I have to admit, your syntax is a bit weird. Most of these would use $_, not @_. This would lead to code like this:#! /usr/bin/perl -l use strict; use warnings; use List::MoreUtils qw(natatime); sub unzip(&$@) { my $c = shift; my $n = shift; my $it = natatime $n, @_; my @rc; while (my @vals = $it->()) { push @rc, $c->(@vals) } @rc; } use Data::Dumper; my %h = qw(k1 v1 k2 v2); print Dumper [ unzip {[$_[0],$_[1]]} 2, @{[%h]} ];
and I'm not entirely convinced that's better. Either way, of course, we need prototypes to get away without the "sub" keyword, and that necessitates the ugliness in passing in %h. If we got rid of the prototype, we'd have to add sub, and then we could just pass in %h:#! /usr/bin/perl -l use strict; use warnings; use List::MoreUtils qw(natatime); sub unzip(&$@) { my $c = shift; my $n = shift; my $it = natatime $n, @_; my @rc; while (my @vals = $it->()) { local $_ = \@vals; push @rc, $c->() } @rc; } use Data::Dumper; my %h = qw(k1 v1 k2 v2); print Dumper [ unzip {[$_->[0],$_->[1]]} 2, @{[%h]} ];
All of these return the same thing, with slightly different syntaxes.#! /usr/bin/perl -l use strict; use warnings; use List::MoreUtils qw(natatime); sub unzip { my $c = shift; my $n = shift; my $it = natatime $n, @_; my @rc; while (my @vals = $it->()) { local $_ = \@vals; push @rc, $c->() } @rc; } use Data::Dumper; my %h = qw(k1 v1 k2 v2); print Dumper [ unzip sub {[$_->[0],$_->[1]]}, 2, %h ];
In reply to Re: functional opposite of zip
by Tanktalus
in thread functional opposite of zip
by Anonymous Monk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |