Geez. This isn't supposed to be obfuscation, but it ended up that way, in the sense that the algorithm is a bit difficult to extract. The swapping is the easy part... those two parallel arrays are not. 
# reorder an array using only swap(ARRAY, X, Y),
# given a new set of indices

my @array = qw( put these in a different order );
my @order = qw( 1 3 5 4 2 0 );
reorder_swap(\@array, \@order);

# expected outcome:
# qw( these a order different in put )

sub reorder_swap {
  my ($a, $o) = @_;
  my @P = my @R = 0 .. $#$o;

  for (0 .. $#$o) {
    next if $P[$$o[$_]] == $_;
    swap($a, $P[$$o[$_]], $_);
    (@P[$R[$_],$$o[$_]], @R[$P[$$o[$_]],$_]) =
    (@P[$$o[$_],$R[$_]], @R[$_,$P[$$o[$_]]]);
  }
}

sub swap {
  my ($a, $x, $y) = @_;
  @$a[$x,$y] = @$a[$y,$x];
}

[download]
For simplicity's sake, here's the for loop with a temporary variable instead: 
  for (0 .. $#$o) {
    my $idx = $$o[$_];
    next if $P[$idx] == $_;
    swap($a, $P[$idx], $_);
    (@P[$R[$_],$idx], @R[$P[$idx],$_]) =
    (@P[$idx,$R[$_]], @R[$_,$P[$idx]]);
  }

[download]
_____________________________________________________
Jeff japhy Pinyan, P.L., P.M., P.O.D, X.S.: Perl, regex, and perl hacker
How can we ever be the sold short or the cheated, we who for every service have long ago been overpaid? ~~ Meister Eckhart

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: (CLPM) reorder via swap
by o0lit3 (Friar) on Aug 17, 2004 at 18:53 UTC

    Without using swap, we have a slightly less obfuscated and (uninteresting) way...

    @array = qw(put these in a different order);
@order = qw(1 3 5 4 2 0);

print reorder(\@array, \@order);

sub reorder() {
   #23456789012345678901234
   map${@_[0]}[$_],@{$_[1]}
}

    [download]

    Uninteresting as it may be, it might make for a decent golf... Can this be done in fewer strokes?

    What if the input were two strings on <STDIN>, separated by a line feed? We then might have something like:

    #!/perl -ln0a
map$F[$_],@F[@F/2..$#F]

    [download]
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
      Assuming we want to return a list in the ordered fashion: 
      sub reorder {
#234567890123456
@{+pop}[@{+pop}]
}

      [download]
      I'm taking an array slice instead of using map(). And we can get even shorter if we call it as reorder(@elements, \@neworder): 
      sub reorder {
#2345678901
@_[@{+pop}]
}

      [download]
      _____________________________________________________
      Jeff japhy Pinyan, P.L., P.M., P.O.D, X.S.: Perl, regex, and perl hacker
      How can we ever be the sold short or the cheated, we who for every service have long ago been overpaid? ~~ Meister Eckhart
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

        Beautiful and elegant... it's simplicity like this that always reminds me why I love this language.

        But please help me out a little. What is the + operator doing here? I know that @{+pop} is somehow saying the same as @{pop()}, but I'm not sure why. ...And while I'm on the subject, why am I not allowed to simply say @{pop} (besides the fact that I've used a split infinitve)?

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

Back to Obfuscated Code