Re: Simplifying for loop and applying multiple push function

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Simplifying for loop and applying multiple push function by xdg (Monsignor) on Dec 14, 2005 at 20:59 UTC
Great solution! And if anyone else was wondering, yes, these will both be properly ordered: From keys: `The keys are returned in an apparently random order. The act +ual random order is subject to change in future versions of perl +, but it is guaranteed to be the same order as either the "val +ues" or "each" function produces (given that the hash has not bee +n modified).` [download] -xdg Code written by xdg and posted on PerlMonks is public domain. It is provided as is with no warranties, express or implied, of any kind. Posted code may not have been tested. Use of posted code is at your own risk.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^2: Simplifying for loop and applying multiple push function by VSarkiss (Monsignor) on Dec 14, 2005 at 21:22 UTC
To my way of thinking, it's simpler to write: `@one = values %hash; @two = keys %hash;` [download] Even though the net result is the same. Just wanted to show another WTDI. Update Whoops, Roy Johnson is right, this is equivalent only in some circumstances. Do not rebuke them with harsh words ... but rather lead them gently - with URLs - so that they may learn wisdom.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: Simplifying for loop and applying multiple push function by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on Dec 14, 2005 at 21:23 UTC
That's only the same if @one and @two started out empty. Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.	[reply]
Re^4: Simplifying for loop and applying multiple push function by diotalevi (Canon) on Dec 14, 2005 at 23:40 UTC
Why does it matter whether @one or @two are empty beforehand? Won't the status of the hash and the arrays be identical regardless?	[reply]
Re^5: Simplifying for loop and applying multiple push function by eric256 (Parson) on Dec 14, 2005 at 23:58 UTC


There's more than one way to do things
	PerlMonks