Re^2: Miscellaneous.pm?

Are you aware of List::MoreUtils? It contains a "uniq" function much like this.

BTW, there seems to be bug in your routine. I think you meant something like !$seen{$_}++.

That illustrates the value of having even a "simple" routine in a re-usable module!

Comment on Re^2: Miscellaneous.pm? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Miscellaneous.pm? by diotalevi (Canon) on Mar 03, 2006 at 00:35 UTC
That module is on my to-avoid list. It's poisoned with prototypes and is chock full of functions of dubious utility and quality. Thanks for the note about the bug in my response. I don't make the same mistake when I'm typing at source code. In general, I'd prefer to inline these sorts of tasks anyway. It's only while experimenting that I use these as broken out functions. ⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊	[reply]
Re^4: Miscellaneous.pm? by bart (Canon) on Mar 04, 2006 at 16:23 UTC
Thanks for the note about the bug in my response. I don't make the same mistake when I'm typing at source code. LOL! Yeah, right. You've shown a perfect example why people ought to put such often used code in a module, instead of typing it in, again and again.	[reply]
Re^5: Miscellaneous.pm? by diotalevi (Canon) on Mar 04, 2006 at 16:30 UTC
Well I've never made it /before/... ⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊	[reply]
Re^4: Miscellaneous.pm? by polettix (Vicar) on Mar 06, 2006 at 11:41 UTC
[List::MoreUtils]... is chock full of functions of dubious utility and quality. Could you elaborate a bit about the quality? Just curious, could be an interesting source for guidelines and best practices (and probably a meditation by its own). Flavio perl -ple'$_=reverse' <<<ti.xittelop@oivalf Don't fool yourself.	[reply]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.