Re^3: help with 2D arrays with perl requested

Wouldn't this accomplish the task more simply?

#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use warnings;
use strict;

my %count;
 
while (<DATA>) {
    chomp; 
    my ($x,$y) = split /\s/;
    ($x,$y) = ($y,$x) if ($x gt $y);
    $count{"$x $y"}++;
}

foreach (sort keys %count) {
    print "people with $_: $count{$_}\n";
}


__DATA__
cat dog
cat fish
pig dog
horse fish
pig fish
dog fish
fish cat
[download]

Comment on Re^3: help with 2D arrays with perl requested Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: help with 2D arrays with perl requested by roboticus (Chancellor) on Apr 30, 2006 at 14:17 UTC
ruzam: Thanks! That tip will certainly come in handy. Collapsing both keys into one certainly saves a bit of effort. Major Update: Someone downvoted this, and I suspect that it's because they thought I was sarcastic or because I didn't mention why I thought it would save effort. So I'll elaborate a little: In my array version, I had to use those "next if !defined" bits to prevent error messages from printing. By collapsing both keys into one, all those error checks disappear from the code. So the net improvement is: We remove an inner loop (for each use!) and we remove the "next" statements (again, for each use). Expecting another downvote at any time now..... 8^) --roboticus	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: help with 2D arrays with perl requested
by roboticus (Chancellor) on Apr 30, 2006 at 14:17 UTC

Thanks! That tip will certainly come in handy. Collapsing both keys into one certainly saves a bit of effort.

Major Update: Someone downvoted this, and I suspect that it's because they thought I was sarcastic or because I didn't mention *why* I thought it would save effort. So I'll elaborate a little: In my array version, I had to use those "next if !defined" bits to prevent error messages from printing. By collapsing both keys into one, all those error checks disappear from the code. So the net improvement is: We remove an inner loop (for *each* use!) and we remove the "next" statements (again, for *each* use).

Expecting another downvote at any time now..... 8^)

--roboticus

[reply]