Don't suggest that the OP use and support that big chunk of complex code.

What are you on about?

If it works for him, then he has no need to "support it". If it doesn't quite work for him, he stands a far better chance of understanding and modifying

Than

And far more chance of modifying code that is entirely within his own control. in a timely manner, than of making a persuasive enough case to have a remote author make application specific changes to a complex, generic routine.

nFor degrades to nFor { print map $lists[$_][ $_[$_] ], 0..$#_; } map 0+@$_, @lists;

I wrote that and I can't even read it.

No, neither can I. Nor whatever obscure point you are trying to make by it. Why should it "degrade"? Unless as a result of your corrosive comments.

I offered the OP a simple, correct, perlish solution to his question. As have others.

It is his choice to use whichever he finds most suitable.

Why the **** are you jumping up and down over my correct solution, whilst ignoring the incorrect ones?