Try it.

Update: lodin has pointed out my confusion between @ and \@. However, this only makes my point even clearer - I know how to manage prototypes, but I get them confused. Furthermore, lodin pointed out a place where \@ would be poor (uniq( map { ... } @foo )). Given that, it's good that someone who actually gives a damn about prototypes has thought about the issues and provided the best solution.

---

My criteria for good software:

1. Does it work?
2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?

That sounds weird. Which perl are you using? For all I know, that difference in parsing shouldn't happen.

lodin

Try it. The difference in parsing is specifically why prototypes exist.

---

My criteria for good software:

1. Does it work?
2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?

perl -MO=Deparse -MList::MoreUtils=uniq -e '
   @arr1=(1,2,1); @arr2=(2,3,3);
   my @foo = map { $_ } uniq @arr1, @arr2; 
   print @foo
'
use List::MoreUtils (split(/,/, 'uniq', 0));
@arr1 = (1, 2, 1);
@arr2 = (2, 3, 3);
my(@foo) = map({$_;} uniq(@arr1, @arr2));
print @foo;
-e syntax OK
[download]

perl -MList::MoreUtils=uniq -e '
   @arr1=(1,2,1); 
   @arr2=(2,3,3);
   my @foo = map {$_ } uniq @arr1, @arr2;
   print @foo
'
123
[download]

What if the arrays are (1, 2, 2, 3) and (1, 3, 5) and I want my map to run over (1, 2, 3, 1, 3, 5) ? Doesn't matter why ... what if that is the requirement?

---

My criteria for good software:

1. Does it work?
2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?

Well then an alternative is to use brackets.

 
map { something } uniq(@arr1), uniq (@arr2).
[download]

The saving of 4 brackets

map { something } uniq @arr1, uniq @arr2.
[download]

comes at the cost of looking in the code and finding out (and remembering) the signature. If the whole developing team uses List::MoreUtils and prototypes are well understood by everyone then its ok to save the brackets. Otherwise, and that is my personal opinion, preserve the default semantic of list flattening and be explicit by using brackets.

---

print+qq(\L@{[ref\&@]}@{['@'x7^'!#2/"!4']});