Re^2: Sort Hash of Hash numerically

Is reverse sort optimized away (it would be cool if it swapped the meaning of $a and $b) or do you really mean:

for (sort { $HoH{$b}{head_count} <=> $HoH{$a}{head_count} } keys %HoH)
+ {
    print "$_ House Type: $HoH{$_}{house_type} Head Count: $HoH{$_}{he
+ad_count}\n";
}
[download]

Update: toolic++. I went searching for the definition of "newer perls" and found that this optimization has been around for some time. From perl586delta:

reverse sort ... is now optimized to sort in reverse, avoiding the generation of a temporary intermediate list.

for (reverse @foo) now iterates in reverse, avoiding the generation of a temporary reversed list.

Good Day,
Dean

Comment on Re^2: Sort Hash of Hash numerically Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Sort Hash of Hash numerically by toolic (Bishop) on Jun 13, 2011 at 14:50 UTC
I really meant to use reverse. According to Perl::Critic::Policy::BuiltinFunctions::ProhibitReverseSortBlock Conway says that it is much clearer to use reverse than to flip $a and $b around in a sort block. He also suggests that, in newer perls, reverse is specifically looked for and optimized, and in the case of a simple reversed string sort, using reverse with a sort with no block is faster even in old perls.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Sort Hash of Hash numerically
by toolic (Bishop) on Jun 13, 2011 at 14:50 UTC

reverse

Perl::Critic::Policy::BuiltinFunctions::ProhibitReverseSortBlock

Conway says that it is much clearer to use reverse than to flip $a and $b around in a sort block. He also suggests that, in newer perls, reverse is specifically looked for and optimized, and in the case of a simple reversed string sort, using reverse with a sort with no block is faster even in old perls.

[reply]