Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2014
RE: [perl #123090] Not enough arguments for map
Thread Next
From:
Herington, Dean
Date:
October 31, 2014 14:49
Subject:
RE: [perl #123090] Not enough arguments for map
Message ID:
F39D577FA9891F4195A5EEE008DCA7CD3B59C0FE@MX104CL01.corp.emc.com
Thanks for making me realize that the description of `map` has been enhanced since my edition of the Perl bible was published.
Personally, I would have opted for a much simpler rule: If what follows `map` is `{`, it starts a BLOCK. One can always signal an EXPR that's an anonymous hash with `+{`.
I do like the `map +(...), ...` option.
Thanks!
-----Original Message-----
From: Father Chrysostomos via RT [mailto:perlbug-followup@perl.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 5:52 PM
To: Herington, Dean
Subject: [perl #123090] Not enough arguments for map
On Thu Oct 30 13:55:41 2014, dean.herington@emc.com wrote:
> This is a bug report for perl from dean.herington@emc.com, generated
> with the help of perlbug 1.39 running under perl 5.16.3.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> I don't understand the following error. I think the result of the
> following statement should be the same as the similar one shown later.
>
> DB<1> p map { a => 1 } 1,2,3
> Not enough arguments for map at (eval 9)[C:/Perl/lib/perl5db.pl:646]
> line 2, near "} 1"
> syntax error at (eval 9)[C:/Perl/lib/perl5db.pl:646] line 2, near "}
> 1"
>
> DB<2> $a = 'a'
>
> DB<3> p map { $a => 1 } 1,2,3
> a1a1a1
The map entry in perlfunc says:
"{" starts both hash references and blocks, so "map { ..." could be
either the start of map BLOCK LIST or map EXPR, LIST. Because Perl
doesn't look ahead for the closing "}" it has to take a guess at
which it's dealing with based on what it finds just after the "{".
Usually it gets it right, but if it doesn't it won't realize
something is wrong until it gets to the "}" and encounters the
missing (or unexpected) comma. The syntax error will be reported
close to the "}", but you'll need to change something near the "{"
such as using a unary "+" to give Perl some help:
%hash = map { "\L$_" => 1 } @array # perl guesses EXPR. wrong
%hash = map { +"\L$_" => 1 } @array # perl guesses BLOCK. right
%hash = map { ("\L$_" => 1) } @array # this also works
%hash = map { lc($_) => 1 } @array # as does this.
%hash = map +( lc($_) => 1 ), @array # this is EXPR and works!
%hash = map ( lc($_), 1 ), @array # evaluates to (1, @array)
or to force an anon hash constructor use "+{":
@hashes = map +{ lc($_) => 1 }, @array # EXPR, so needs
# comma at end
to get a list of anonymous hashes each with only one entry apiece.
So you could say this is not a bug, or a known limitation. However, I would like to try and fix the most obvious cases, like your examples, so that it just does the right thing. (That means doing look-ahead to see if there is a comma after the closing brace, which can only work for the most simple code.)
Personally I usually do ‘map +(...), LIST’, since it always works, unless I need multiple statements in the block.
--
Father Chrysostomos
Thread Next