Re^4: map question (hash slice)

Except your code assumes strings too. For "objects", you'd need

my %required;
@required{ map key($_), @required } = @required;
delete @required{ map key($_), @got };

warn "Skipper is missing: ", values %required;
[download]

Where key is a suitable key-producing sub.

Comment on Re^4: map question (hash slice) Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: map question (hash slice) by LanX (Saint) on Jul 30, 2019 at 12:21 UTC
> For "objects", you'd need No not if the array has only refs. Collision can only happen if a string looks like a string representation of a ref. Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery FootballPerl is like chess, only without the dice}	[reply]
Re^6: map question (hash slice) by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jul 31, 2019 at 06:17 UTC
Maybe. Depends on whether you are checking for identity or equality. If you are checking for identify, then yeah, the `key` sub could simply return its argument, giving your original code. So my comment stands. Your solution is a specific case of my code that only works if one makes multiple assumptions.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: map question (hash slice) by LanX (Saint) on Jul 30, 2019 at 00:50 UTC
Well, I have the impression a little tweak on the C-sources to add a little magic onto ref-stringification would be enough to implement native set operations. Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery FootballPerl is like chess, only without the dice}	[reply]