Re^3: Mass file renaming

I quite agree that your version with for reads better than map. However, having followed the linked discussion as you suggest, I see no justification for going as far as calling it 'bad' to use map in void context and consider that part an overreaction.

One world, one people

Comment on Re^3: Mass file renaming

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Mass file renaming by davorg (Chancellor) on Jul 20, 2005 at 14:16 UTC
That'll teach me to link to discussions without reading them thoroughly :) The point I was expecting that discussion to make was that before the application of the patch in 5.8.1, map in a void context used to build up a return list before discarding it. So in older perls it was slower than using the equivalent "for" construct. Nowadays, speed is no longer an issue but readability still is. -- <http://www.dave.org.uk> "The first rule of Perl club is you do not talk about Perl club." -- Chip Salzenberg	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Mass file renaming
by davorg (Chancellor) on Jul 20, 2005 at 14:16 UTC

That'll teach me to link to discussions without reading them thoroughly :)

The point I was expecting that discussion to make was that before the application of the patch in 5.8.1, map in a void context used to build up a return list before discarding it. So in older perls it was slower than using the equivalent "for" construct. Nowadays, speed is no longer an issue but readability still is.

--
<http://www.dave.org.uk>

"The first rule of Perl club is you do not talk about Perl club."
-- Chip Salzenberg

[reply]