in reply to Re^11: Specializing Functions with Currying
in thread Specializing Functions with Currying

I did... :)

P:\lib\auto\List\Util>strings Util.dll | grep Usage Usage: List::Util::reduce(block, ...) Usage: List::Util::first(block, ...) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Usage: Scalar::Util::dualvar(num, str) Usage: Scalar::Util::blessed(sv) Usage: Scalar::Util::reftype(sv) Usage: Scalar::Util::refaddr(sv) Usage: Scalar::Util::weaken(sv) Usage: Scalar::Util::isweak(sv) Usage: Scalar::Util::readonly(sv) Usage: Scalar::Util::tainted(sv) Usage: Scalar::Util::isvstring(sv) Usage: Scalar::Util::looks_like_number(sv) Usage: Scalar::Util::set_prototype(subref, proto)

Examine what is said, not who speaks.
"Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
"Think for yourself!" - Abigail
"Memory, processor, disk in that order on the hardware side. Algorithm, algorithm, algorithm on the code side." - tachyon

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^13: Specializing Functions with Currying
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Aug 09, 2004 at 14:39 UTC

    Weird.

    use Benchmark qw(cmpthese); use List::Util qw(first); @_= ( (0)x1000, 1, (0)x8999 ); cmpthese -1, { func => sub { first { $_ == 1 } @_ }, imper => sub { for ( @_ ) { next unless $_ == 1; return $_ } }, } __END__ Rate imper func imper 518950/s -- -20% func 649177/s 25% --

    Makeshifts last the longest.

      This is closer to what I was doing

      #! perl -slw use strict; use Benchmark qw[ cmpthese ]; use List::Util qw[ first ]; our @array = 1 .. 100_000; cmpthese( -1, { func_10th => q[ my $first = first{ length > 3 } @array; # print "F:$first"; ], iter_10th => q[ my $first; for ( @array ) { next unless length > 3; $first = $_; last; } # print "I:$first"; ], func_last => q[ my $first = first{ length > 5 } @array; # print "F:$first"; ], iter_last => q[ my $first; for ( @array ) { next unless length > 5; $first = $_; last; } # print "I:$first"; ], }); __END__ P:\test>381208 Rate func_last iter_last func_10th iter_10th func_last 22.0/s -- -16% -98% -99% iter_last 26.1/s 18% -- -98% -99% func_10th 1196/s 5336% 4488% -- -56% iter_10th 2706/s 12201% 10282% 126% --

      Examine what is said, not who speaks.
      "Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
      "Think for yourself!" - Abigail
      "Memory, processor, disk in that order on the hardware side. Algorithm, algorithm, algorithm on the code side." - tachyon

        I prefer not to compare apples and oranges:

        use Benchmark qw[ cmpthese ]; use List::Util qw[ first ]; our @array = 1 .. 100_000; cmpthese( -1, { func_10th => sub { first { length > 3 } @array; }, iter_10th => sub { for ( @array ) { return $_ if length > 3; } }, }); cmpthese( -1, { func_last => sub { first { length > 5 } @array; }, iter_last => sub { for ( @array ) { return $_ if length > 5; } }, }); __END__ Rate func_10th iter_10th func_10th 718/s -- -77% iter_10th 3139/s 337% -- Rate iter_last func_last iter_last 29.4/s -- -29% func_last 41.1/s 40% --

        The results are similar if I run your code though.

        Over here, first always wins given a sufficiently large number of iterations.

        Makeshifts last the longest.