Re^5: A more elegant way to filter a nested hash?

I count the slice as iteration. It's fast but doesn't come without a price.

I also think there are differences in error handling, a missing value will be reported as undef when you slice, without raising an error.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)

Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

Comment on Re^5: A more elegant way to filter a nested hash?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: A more elegant way to filter a nested hash? by Veltro (Hermit) on May 31, 2018 at 20:15 UTC
What price is higher then using map or grep? I don't see it. The only iteration that is done twice is over the keys of the result-set which is necessary because of autovivification. The fact that missing values become undefined instead of non-existent is actually something that I would prefer in case the filter asked for it. 2018-06-09 Athanasius restored node content	[reply]
Re^7: A more elegant way to filter a nested hash? by LanX (Saint) on May 31, 2018 at 20:40 UTC
But the op wanted to croak on different types. IMHO all the edge cases are easier covered with a for loop over the filter and if-else chains. Just my 0.02$ Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re^8: A more elegant way to filter a nested hash? by Veltro (Hermit) on May 31, 2018 at 20:56 UTC
I agree with you. But I don't understand why you are ignoring my point that I am trying to make. The point regards the answer that gets the highest amount of votes regards using map and grep in favor of using hash slices! I don't know what you mean with 'edge cases' but if you mean checking for hashes or undefined values they can easily be added with some simple if then else statements. E.g.: `if ( !defined $n->{ $_ } && exists $f->{ $_ } ) { print "Hello a undefined value was detected\n" ; }` 2018-06-09 Athanasius restored node content	[reply] [d/l]
Re^9: A more elegant way to filter a nested hash? by LanX (Saint) on May 31, 2018 at 21:04 UTC