Re^3: Adding Unique Elements to Array

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Adding Unique Elements to Array by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on Feb 28, 2005 at 22:19 UTC
I'm not sure whether you're making your case based on cargo cultism or micro-optimization; neither is a good idea. Abusing undef benchmarks at about 20% faster than assigning empty list, but it relies on undocumented behavior. You can get within 2% by saying `@hash{@list} x= 0;` [download] which is still odd (and gives a warning for using uninitialized values), but is at least documented, if your code is bottlenecking at your key-creation section. In the absence of a bottleneck, it is better to write clear code than marginally faster code. Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: Adding Unique Elements to Array by ihb (Deacon) on Mar 01, 2005 at 03:19 UTC
The fact is that your `x=` tricks works as just as much as the `undef()` because of undocumented behaviour. This is shown by `my $foo; sub context :lvalue { $foo = wantarray ? 'list' : 'scalar' } context() x= 1; print $foo; __END__ scalar` [download] or using simpler means: `use Data::Dumper; my %foo = qw/ a 1 b 2 /; @foo{qw/ a b /} x= 0; print Dumper \%foo; __END__ $VAR1 = { 'a' => '1', 'b' => '' };` [download] A trick that does work though is the reference trick. All these other solutions work because of autovivification. So let's use `\` whose behaviour explicitly is documented. `\@foo{@list};` [download] `ihb` See perltoc if you don't know which perldoc to read!	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^6: Adding Unique Elements to Array by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on Mar 01, 2005 at 03:43 UTC
The fact is that your x= tricks works is just as much as the undef() because of undocumented behaviour. No, the behavior of assignment and the x operator are defined for array slices. If you don't like the zero, one works just as well. That said, I like the ref trick. It's fast, documented, and not too bizarre. ++ I've thought about it a little more, and I wonder whether it actually is documented behavior. Is \ documented for array slices? Dumper tells me it's behaving like \(), making a list of references, which is sensible. I guess a slice is a list, even without surrounding parentheses... Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.	[reply]
Re^7: Adding Unique Elements to Array by ihb (Deacon) on Mar 01, 2005 at 21:19 UTC
Re^8: Adding Unique Elements to Array by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on Mar 01, 2005 at 21:32 UTC
Re^5: Adding Unique Elements to Array by RazorbladeBidet (Friar) on Mar 01, 2005 at 13:34 UTC
My only argument was to show some sort of precedence, benchmark results and optional ways of doing things. Of course there are going to be sub-optimal ways of doing things, balancing out clarity and performance. I think it is inappropriate to charge either of those with "cargo cultism" or "micro-optimization". The two ways presented were simply options at the disposal of the user. I agree undocumented or obfuscated code should be used with care or not at all, however I also know plenty of people that tend away from "use strict". To each their own. -------------- It's sad that a family can be torn apart by such a such a simple thing as a pack of wild dogs	[reply]
Re^6: Adding Unique Elements to Array by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on Mar 01, 2005 at 14:05 UTC
When I pointed out that your examples were not good code, your response was to direct me, without further explanation, to another post which had recommended the same thing based on a slight speed advantage. So I had to surmise your reasoning: if you were defending the code based on the fact that someone else did it, it's cargo cultism; if you were defending the code based on the slight speed advantage, it's micro-optimization. The OP's question indicates a low level of experience (it is in the FAQ, after all -- `perldoc -q duplicate`). Novices especially need to be given good examples. You can't just throw bad examples at them without any warning. They don't have the experience they need to be able to judge for themselves. If you didn't realize that they were bad examples, well, that's why we have the ability to respond. Everybody throws out bad answers once in a while, and having them corrected is a Good Thing. Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.	[reply] [d/l]