Some parts of List::Util are a little ill-conceived. For example, the existence of separate min and minstr functions (and max/maxstr). Perl gets by with a single sort function that can take an optional block. Obviously there is a limit to what can be done with prototypes, but if List::Util were to be adopted into the Perl language itself, I'd hope that would be addressed.
But certainly, the functions in List::Util would be a lot more useful in core than getgrent, setnetent and getgrgid.
I'd also add uniq from List::MoreUtils and about half of Scalar::Util.
perl -E'sub Monkey::do{say$_,for@_,do{($monkey=[caller(0)]->[3])=~s{::}{ }and$monkey}}"Monkey say"->Monkey::do'
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
Some parts of List::Util are a little ill-conceived. For example, the existence of separate min and minstr functions (and max/maxstr).
Two points:
- All of List::Utils function except shuffle, can be reproduce using reduce alone.
Adding uniq() would be nice if it ran more quickly than a pure perl implementation: sub uniq{ my %h; undef @h{ @_ }; keys %h }
- The need for min/minstr is forced by being non-core.
min amd minstr run more quickly than their equivalents using reduce, because they avoid the need to callback to Perl for every item.
Sort gets away with using a callback by recognising the simple patterns of callback block {$a<=>$b} & {$a cmp $b} and bypassing them in favour of dedicate opcodes for those simple cases.
Effectively, sort{$a <=> $b } is the subroutine name. sortn would be shorter, easier to type and remember. Ditto for sorts
List::Util doesn't have that option because it is outside the core.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
RIP Neil Armstrong
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |