Re: alternative to List::Compare

I agree with your point -- this might be one of those modules that just "objectifies" something that's already pretty simple (so why bother?). Your alternative is a common, simple approach that is bound to be appropriate for the reviewer's main example -- comparing the output of "find" from two different machines -- because there won't be any duplications within a single set. But of course if one element happens to appear more than once in a single list, you get a false report about it being in both lists. This is easy to fix (in fact, fixing it makes the code simpler):

my @ary1 = qw/1 2 3 4 5 4 6/;
my @ary2 = qw/5 6 7 8 7 9 10/;
my %h;
$h{$_} .= "a" for ( @ary1 );
$h{$_} .= "b" for ( @ary2 );
compare( "Only in ary1", "a\$", \%h );
compare( "Only in ary2", "^b", \%h );
compare( "Common to both", "ab", \%h );

sub compare {
    my ( $text, $regex, $hash ) = @_;
    print join "\n", $text, grep { $$hash{$_} =~ /$regex/ } keys %$has
+h;
    print "\n";
}
[download]

Comment on Re: alternative to List::Compare Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: alternative to List::Compare by McMahon (Chaplain) on Mar 26, 2004 at 15:37 UTC
graff and tachyon: Thanks for the demonstrations. As I mentioned in the review, I'm not entirely comfortable manipulating hashes yet-- and as graff points out succinctly, a small slip can give odd results that are hard to find. (This, BTW, is why I'm spending time at perlmonks-- I'm at the point where I know enough Perl to really screw stuff up if I don't understand what I'm doing-- I need to read other people's code as much as I can.) And that's another reason why I thought the review was appropriate-- the module author points to his inspiration (much like your code) in the Perl Cookbook, and also to other modules that do similar things. This is a great way to learn, while also not making silly mistakes in production code. Does it objectify something simple? Sure-- but it gives me a lot more confidence that my script is working correctly, and also points me to a starting place for when I have to do something more complex later.	[reply]
Re^2: alternative to List::Compare by jkeenan1 (Deacon) on Jun 04, 2004 at 14:48 UTC
I've always been upfront about the fact that the very first thing List::Compare did was to put an object-oriented wrapper around well-known, Cookbook-style code for list comparisons. The reason I bothered was the Perl virtue of Laziness: I was comparing lists so often, I was tired of re-typing the code. Once I perfected it for my own use, I poked around on CPAN and discovered (to my surprise) that nobody had beaten me to it. That being said, I've expanded List::Compare's functionality over the last two years and, in particular, have provided considerable flexibility in its interface. One of its interface's is functional, not object-oriented. So List::Compare is well past the point of merely 'objectifying' something. Jim Keenan (author of List::Compare)	[reply]
Re: Re: alternative to List::Compare by QM (Parson) on Mar 26, 2004 at 22:27 UTC
<generalizing> Do you need `"a\$"` and `"^b"`? That seems rather specific, and doesn't generalize. Perhaps `"^a+\$"` and `"^b+\$"` would be a better choice? Then it doesn't matter which one is processed first, or how many there are (e.g., `"^c+\$"`). </generalizing> BTW, I like the `$h{$_} .= "a"` idea. To scale it much larger, I'd probably go with a bit vector, something like this: `my @AoA = ( [1..10], [2..11], [3..12] ); my %h; foreach my $i ( 0..#@AoA ) { vec($h{$_},$i,1) = 1 for @{$AoA[$i]}; }` [download] Of course, it's a bit more work to get the "only"s and "common"s out %( -QM -- Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of	[reply] [d/l] [select]