I much prefer the far simpler syntax of nFor.
And nothing's stopping you from providing that interface.
#! perl -slw use strict; use Algorithm::Loops qw( NestedLoops ); sub nFor(&@) { my $cb = shift; NestedLoops([ map [ 0..$_-1 ], @_ ], $cb); } my @digits = 1 .. 3; nFor { print join '', @digits[ @_ ]; } ( 3 ) x 4;
than the tortuous documentation for NestedLoops which I've still never wrapped by brain around.
Say you want
fromapple, dog, 1 apple, dog, 2 apple, dog, III apple, cat, 1 apple, cat, 2 apple, cat, III apple, platypus, 1 apple, platypus, 2 apple, platypus, III orange, dog, 1 orange, dog, 2 orange, dog, III orange, cat, 1 orange, cat, 2 orange, cat, III orange, platypus, 1 orange, platypus, 2 orange, platypus, III tomato, dog, 1 tomato, dog, 2 tomato, dog, III tomato, cat, 1 tomato, cat, 2 tomato, cat, III tomato, platypus, 1 tomato, platypus, 2 tomato, platypus, III
# Variable number of lists of variable length my @lists = ( [qw( apple orange tomato )], [qw( dog cat platypus )], [qw( 1 2 III )], );
That's what NestedLoops is for:
local $, = ", "; local $\ = "\n"; NestedLoops(\@lists, sub { print @_ });
nFor would require:
local $, = ", "; local $\ = "\n"; nFor { print map $lists[$_][ $_[$_] ], 0..$#_; } map 0+@$_, @lists;
Maybe you wouldn't have a problem understanding NestedLoops if it provided a map-ish interface?
sub nested(&@) { my $cb = shift; NestedLoops(\@_, $cb); } local $, = ", "; local $\ = "\n"; nested { print @_; } @lists;
Update: Switched initial line to something less rude.
In reply to Re^4: Generating lists of strings
by ikegami
in thread Generating lists of strings
by Anonymous Monk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |