Piers Cawley pointed out:
%a_students = grep {.key ~~ :i/^a/}, %grades.kv;
I think you could probably get away without the .kv there since, in a
list context you're going to get a list of pairs anyway.
In fact, the code is invalid as it stands. The following variations
work as desired:
%a_s
"Adam D. Lopresto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I don't see why I'd want to do it with arrays, but...
>>
>> %a_students = %grades{grep /^a/i, keys %grades};
>
> Looks like that's just the same as
>
> %a_students = grep {.key ~~ :i/^a/}, %grades.kv;
I think you could probably get away without
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 11:36:50AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> You know, guys, I already discussed this one in A4 or thereabouts.
> It's the use of an explicit boolean operator as a subscript that
> triggers selection.
I thought so, but I couldn't find it.
thanks,
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[
> I don't see why I'd want to do it with arrays, but...
>
> %a_students = %grades{grep /^a/i, keys %grades};
Looks like that's just the same as
%a_students = grep {.key ~~ :i/^a/}, %grades.kv;
(after adjusting for perl6 syntax for a few things)
--
Adam Lopresto ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://cec.
You know, guys, I already discussed this one in A4 or thereabouts.
It's the use of an explicit boolean operator as a subscript that
triggers selection.
Larry
> Will there be some shorter-hand way to say these?
> [list comprehensions]
(bb clarified that this is about hash slicing.)
>From A2:
RFC 201: Hash Slicing
...Concise list comprehensions will require
some other syntax within the subscript...
And
There are many ways we could re
--- Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that if there were a slice-based form of grep, it would most
> likely look like you are indexing by a subroutine (or method)
> reference
> that takes no arguments other than an element of the array.
> Something like:
>
>@a = @grades[{$^x
Piers Cawley wrote:
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Will there be some shorter-hand way to say these?
@a = @grades[grep $_ >= 90, @grades];
@b = @grades[grep 80 <= $_ < 90, @grades];
@c = @grades[grep 70 <= $_ < 80, @grades];
Granted, it's fairly compact as it is but I'm wo
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 12:54:12PM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 2002-11-06 at 11:43:20, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Will there be some shorter-hand way to say these?
@a = @grades[grep $_ >= 90, @grades];
@b = @grades[grep 80 <= $_ < 90, @grades];
@c = @grades[gre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Piers Cawley) writes:
> I confess I never quite understood why the python folks were so proud
> of list comprehensions, AFAICT they're just 'grep' and 'map' given
> fancy descriptions.
Well, sort of. They're more like this:
@array[grep { func() } 0..$#array]
--
"If you
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Will there be some shorter-hand way to say these?
>
> @a = @grades[grep $_ >= 90, @grades];
> @b = @grades[grep 80 <= $_ < 90, @grades];
> @c = @grades[grep 70 <= $_ < 80, @grades];
>
> Granted, it's fairly compact as it is but I'
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 12:54:12PM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>
> On 2002-11-06 at 11:43:20, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> >
> > Will there be some shorter-hand way to say these?
> >
> > @a = @grades[grep $_ >= 90, @grades];
> > @b = @grades[grep 80 <= $_ < 90, @grades];
> > @c = @gra
On 2002-11-06 at 11:43:20, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>
> Will there be some shorter-hand way to say these?
>
> @a = @grades[grep $_ >= 90, @grades];
> @b = @grades[grep 80 <= $_ < 90, @grades];
> @c = @grades[grep 70 <= $_ < 80, @grades];
I think what you mean here is just
"raptor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| hi,
| I haven't used Python... but last days I read some stuff, wanted to compare
| both languages for myself and found something interesting.
| They are proposing extentinon to Pyhon 2
It's already in Python 2.0.
--
http://www.dfan.org
Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 01:12:13PM +0100, raptor wrote:
> > [ for in ]
> > Can this be done easly at the moment OR via some of the new proposals
?!!!?
>
> map { expression } sequence
>
See also RFC 81.
On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 01:12:13PM +0100, raptor wrote:
> [ for in ]
> Can this be done easly at the moment OR via some of the new proposals ?!!!?
map { expression } sequence
--
I used to be disgusted, now I find I'm just amused.
-- Elvis Costello
16 matches
Mail list logo
