Skip to main content

Learning Perl5i #2

Continuing the exploration of Perl5i beyond part one, I decided to treat perl5i as a language and use it to implement tasks at Rosetta Code.

Since Moose is a complete OO solution, I use a lightweight approach to OO, where used.

The first RC task I implemented is 100 doors: see the full implementation.

In terms of documentation, I gave each routine a small header in which I show how the routine is invoked, specify the inputs and outputs, and summarize the primary actions of the routine.

Since the task is defined in terms of a number of doors, and operations on those doors, it seemed appropriate to use an object. "some object" + "operations on that object" ==> "segregate into an OO implementation".

I used a simple constructor with initialization performed in _init() to simplify subclassing. The constructor doesn't need to be modified, just a new _init() written to handle additional attributes or arguments, if any. The new implementation can handle the duties of the original routine, or better, invoke the original as $self->SUPER::_init( @_ ).

The initializer stores how many doors we are dealing with, then then creates an array of doors. We are interested in doors 1..N, but we actually create one more, 0..N, since that's the way Perl arrays work. We'll simply ignore door zero, it is permanently closed. One subtle detail about the x multiplier: $CLOSED x $N is 0000..., string repetition; list repetition uses parentheses: ($CLOSED) x $N to generate ( 0, 0, 0, ... ).

The instructions say there are N passes, in which you toggle every door, every other door, every Nth door. I created toggle() to toggle a single door, toggle_n() to process a single pass, and toggle_all() to handle all the passes.

Besides eliminating duplication and excessive typing, one advantage of the ternary operator ( ? : ) over an if-block is that it is clear a single l-value is the target.

Simple statement modifier loops like these are, I believe, quicker than more general loops, and they offer simpler optimization in the future into parallel processing, but they also communicate that we are dealing with a set of data. Too often, people coming to Perl from C and Java think in terms of indices: I get the first index; I get the first element in the array; I do something ... I prefer to think in terms of sets, like a Unix pipeline: Take this array of elements, do something to them, ...

Note in toggle_n(), that $n * int( N / $n ) is the largest multiple of $n les than N. Taking the sequence 1.. int($self->{N} / $n ) and multiplying each element by $n produces $n, 2 * $n, 3 * $n, ... $n * int( N / $n ), the list of doors to toggle on that pass.

The final requirement is to print which doors are open.  grep() takes a code block and a list of values. Values are passed if they generate a true value in the block, and barred if they generate a false value.

Putting the routines together into a demonstration of the 100 door task becomes a simple three-line sequence.

Comments

Darren Duncan said…
It seems to me that your perl5i example may have been counter-productive here. Doing that closed doors problem looks much more verbose and complicated in your example than in in any of the other languages nearby on Rosetta code, including vanilla Perl 5, nevermind Perl 6. Using objects you define yourself is the wrong way to attack this problem. Just use plain Perl numbers and arrays.

Popular posts from this blog

Creating Perl5 Objects with Moxie

Having in the previous article prepared data types for car suits and card ranks, I can now combine them to provide a playing card class, using Stevan Little's Moxie module (version 0.04, so definitely early days.) The goal is to provide an object-oriented paradigm to the Perl 5 programming language which is more sophisticated, more powerful and less verbose than manually bless()-ing hashes. To achieve that goal it needs to be faster and light-weight compared to Moose. Currently, Moxie.pm and and MOP.pm are add-on modules, but eventually, when they are more complete, when the wrinkles have been ironed out, and when they have gained acceptance and a community of users, they might be merged into the Perl core.

One significant feature of Moxie is that it reduces boilerplate code. You don't have to specify warnigns or strict. As well, the features or the perl you are using are enabled, among them say, state, signatures, and post_deref.
A Simple Moxie Class package Card { …

Perl5, Moxie and Enumurated Data Types

Moxie - a new object system for Perl5 Stevan Little created the Moose multiverse to upgrade the Perl 5 programming language's object-oriented system more in line with the wonderfull world of Perl 6. Unfortunately, it's grown into a bloated giant, which has inspired light-weight alternatives Moos, Moo, Mo, and others. Now he's trying to create a modern, efficient OO system that can become built into the language.

I've seen a few of his presentations at YAPC (Yet Another Perl Conference, now known as TPC, The Perl Conference), among them ‎p5 mop final final v5 this is the last one i promise tar gz<. So I was delighted to recently see an announcement of the module Moxie, and decided to try implementing a card game.

While the package provides some POD documentation about the main module, Moxie, it doesn't actually explain the enum package, Moxie::Enum. But delving into the tests directory reveals its secrets.
Creating an Enum package Ranks { use Moxie::Enum; …

Adventures in Autovivification

Having recently started a new job, I was exposed to old code with multi-step tests against autovivification in multi-level hashes. You get used to the code you have seen, but in a new environment it‘s irritating and jarring.
Moose does not generally have the problem, first because class structure is pre-declared, because values are accessed using accessor functions rather than directly, and because responsibility is delegated down to attributes, avoiding long chains. On the other hand, Moose has it's own overhead, so hand-rolled objects, and bare structures still have their use.
If you don‘t protect against autovivification, then mis-spelling a key, or referencing keys which haven‘t been instantiated in this instance, causes those keys to instantly come into existence.
#!/usr/bin/perl use warnings; use strict; use Data::Dump 'dump'; use 5.024; my $var = {key1 => {key2 => {key3 => 'a'}}}; say dump $var; if ( $var->{key1}{key2}{key3b}[13]{foob…