Re^2: Can this code be optimized further?

You can use a hash to reroute things to the lexical arrays so you don't have to eval:

my (@a, @b);
my %router = (a => \@a, b => \@b);
foreach my $value (@temp) {
    push @{$router{$1}}, $2 if $value =~ /([ab])_(.*)/;
}
print "@a <==> @b";
[download]

Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.

Comment on Re^2: Can this code be optimized further? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Can this code be optimized further? by Fletch (Bishop) on Feb 10, 2005 at 15:34 UTC
And if you had 10 arrays you'd want to keep that hash up to date? 20? 30? (Of course not, you'd use a HoA and not screw with this in the first place. :) That being said, in this specific case of just a and b I'd personally have probably used something like BrowserUK's `@{ $1 eq 'a' ? \@a : \@b}` below; but the eval's more flexible if you have a large number of destinations (then again with a large number of destinations you'd probably want an HoA). Of course at the moment I'd be more likely to just use `Enumerable#partition` and be done with it, but that's another language all together.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: Can this code be optimized further? by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on Feb 10, 2005 at 16:43 UTC
And if you had 10 arrays you'd want to keep that hash up to date? 20? 30? The effort is linear with declaring them in the first place: one entry in the hash for each new array. And if your names are simply consecutive letters, the additional effort is constant: just change the ending character in the slice below. `my @temp=qw(a_1 b_1 a_2 a_3 a_4 e_2 a_5 b_3 a_6 b_4); my %router; @router{'a'..'e'} = \(my (@a, @b, @c, @d, @e)); my $keys = join '', keys %router; foreach my $value (@temp) { push @{$router{$1}}, $2 if $value =~ /([$keys])_(.)/; } print "@a <==> @b, @e\n";` [download] Caution:* Contents may have been coded under pressure.	[reply] [d/l]