I have to write Perl although I'm much more comfortable with Java, Python and functional languages. I'd like to know if there's some idiomatic way to parse a simple file like
# comment line - ignore
# ignore also empty lines
key1 = value
key2 = value1, value2, value3
I want a function that I pass an iterator over the lines of the files and that returns a map from keys to list of values. But to be functional and structured I'd like to:
use a filter that wraps the given iterator and returns an iterator without empty lines or comment lines
The mentioned filter(s) should be defined outside of the function for reusability by other functions.
use another function that is given the line and returns a tuple of key and values string
use another function that breaks the comma separated values into a list of values.
What is the most modern, idiomatic, cleanest and still functional way to do this? The different parts of the code should be separately testable and reusable.
For reference, here is (a quick hack) how I might do it in Python:
re_is_comment_line = re.compile(r"^\s*#")
re_key_values = re.compile(r"^\s*(\w+)\s*=\s*(.*)$")
re_splitter = re.compile(r"\s*,\s*")
is_interesting_line = lambda line: not ("" == line or re_is_comment_line.match(line))
and re_key_values.match(line)
def parse(lines):
interesting_lines = ifilter(is_interesting_line, imap(strip, lines))
key_values = imap(lambda x: re_key_values.match(x).groups(), interesting_lines)
splitted_values = imap(lambda (k,v): (k, re_splitter.split(v)), key_values)
return dict(splitted_values)
A direct translation of your Python would be
my $re_is_comment_line = qr/^\s*#/;
my $re_key_values = qr/^\s*(\w+)\s*=\s*(.*)$/;
my $re_splitter = qr/\s*,\s*/;
my $is_interesting_line= sub {
my $_ = shift;
length($_) and not /$re_is_comment_line/ and /$re_key_values/;
};
sub parse {
my #lines = #_;
my #interesting_lines = grep $is_interesting_line->($_), #lines;
my #key_values = map [/$re_key_values/], #interesting_lines;
my %splitted_values = map { $_->[0], [split $re_splitter, $_->[1]] } #key_values;
return %splitted_values;
}
Differences are:
ifilter is called grep, and can take an expression instead of a block as first argument. These are roughly equivalent to a lambda. The current item is given in the $_ variable. The same applies to map.
Perl doesn't emphazise laziness, and seldomly uses iterators. There are instances where this is required, but usually the whole list is evaluated at once.
In the next example, the following will be added:
Regexes don't have to be precompiled, Perl is very good with regex optimizations.
Instead of extracting key/values with regexes, we use split. It takes an optional third argument that limits the number of resulting fragments.
The whole map/filter stuff can be written in one expression. This doesn't make it more efficient, but emphazises the flow of data. Read the map-map-grep from bottom upwards (actually right to left, think of APL).
.
sub parse {
my %splitted_values =
map { $_->[0], [split /\s*,\s*/, $_->[1]] }
map {[split /\s*=\s*/, $_, 2]}
grep{ length and !/^\s*#/ and /^\s*\w+\s*=\s*\S/ }
#_;
return \%splitted_values; # returning a reference improves efficiency
}
But I think a more elegant solution here is to use a traditional loop:
sub parse {
my %splitted_values;
LINE: for (#_) {
next LINE if !length or /^\s*#/;
s/\A\s*|\s*\z//g; # Trimming the string—omitted in previous examples
my ($key, $vals) = split /\s*=\s*/, $_, 2;
defined $vals or next LINE; # check if $vals was assigned
#{ $splitted_values{$key} } = split /\s*,\s*/, $vals; # Automatically create array in $splitted_values{$key}
}
return \%splitted_values
}
If we decide to pass a filehandle instead, the loop would be replaced with
my $fh = shift;
LOOP: while (<$fh>) {
chomp;
...;
}
which would use an actual iterator.
You could now go and add function parameters, but do this only iff you are optimizing for flexibility and nothing else. I already used a code reference in the first example. You can invoke them with the $code->(#args) syntax.
use Carp; # Error handling for writing APIs
sub parse {
my $args = shift;
my $interesting = $args->{interesting} or croak qq("interesting" callback required);
my $kv_splitter = $args->{kv_splitter} or croak qq("kv_splitter" callback required);
my $val_transform= $args->{val_transform} || sub { $_[0] }; # identity by default
my %splitted_values;
LINE: for (#_) {
next LINE unless $interesting->($_);
s/\A\s*|\s*\z//g;
my ($key, $vals) = $kv_splitter->($_);
defined $vals or next LINE;
$splitted_values{$key} = $val_transform->($vals);
}
return \%splitted_values;
}
This could then be called like
my $data = parse {
interesting => sub { length($_[0]) and not $_[0] =~ /^\s*#/ },
kv_splitter => sub { split /\s*=\s*/, $_[0], 2 },
val_transform => sub { [ split /\s*,\s*/, $_[0] ] }, # returns anonymous arrayref
}, #lines;
I think the most modern approach consists in taking advantage of the CPAN modules. In your example, Config::Properties may helps:
use strict;
use warnings;
use Config::Properties;
my $config = Config::Properties->new(file => 'example.properties') or die $!;
my $value = $config->getProperty('key');
As indicated in the posts linked to by #collapsar, Higher-Order Perl is a great read for exploring functional techniques in Perl.
Here is an example that hits your bullet points:
use strict;
use warnings;
use Data::Dumper;
my #filt_rx = ( qr{^\s*\#},
qr{^[\r\n]+$} );
my $kv_rx = qr{^\s*(\w+)\s*=\s*([^\r\n]*)};
my $spl_rx = qr{\s*,\s*};
my $iterator = sub {
my ($fh) = #_;
return sub {
my $line = readline($fh);
return $line;
};
};
my $filter = sub {
my ($it,#r) = #_;
return sub {
my $line;
do {
$line = $it->();
} while ( defined $line
&& grep { $line =~ m/$_/} #r );
return $line;
};
};
my $kv = sub {
my ($line,$rx) = #_;
return ($line =~ m/$rx/);
};
my $spl = sub {
my ($values,$rx) = #_;
return split $rx, $values;
};
my $it = $iterator->( \*DATA );
my $f = $filter->($it,#filt_rx);
my %map;
while ( my $line = $f->() ) {
my ($k,$v) = $kv->($line,$kv_rx);
$map{$k} = [ $spl->($v,$spl_rx) ];
}
print Dumper \%map;
__DATA__
# comment line - ignore
# ignore also empty lines
key1 = value
key2 = value1, value2, value3
It produces the following hash on the provided input:
$VAR1 = {
'key2' => [
'value1',
'value2',
'value3'
],
'key1' => [
'value'
]
};
you might be interested in this SO question as well as this one.
the following code is a self-contained perl script destined to give you an idea of how to implement in perl (only partially in a functional style; in case you don't revulse seeing the particular coding style and/or language construct, i can refine the solution somewhat).
Miguel Prz is right that in most cases you'd search CPAN for solutions to match your requirements.
my (
$is_interesting_line
, $re_is_comment_line
, $re_key_values
, $re_splitter
);
$re_is_comment_line = qr(^\s*#);
$re_key_values = qr(^\s*(\w+)\s*=\s*(.*)$);
$re_splitter = qr(\s*,\s*);
$is_interesting_line = sub {
my $line = shift;
return (
(!(
!defined($line)
|| ($line eq '')
))
&& ($line =~ /$re_key_values/)
);
};
sub strip {
my $line = shift;
# your implementation goes here
return $line;
}
sub parse {
my #lines = #_;
#
my (
$dict
, $interesting_lines
, $k
, $v
);
#
#$interesting_lines =
grep {
&{$is_interesting_line} ( $_ );
} ( map { strip($_); } #lines )
;
$dict = {};
map {
if ($_ =~ /$re_key_values/) {
($k, $v) = ($1, [split(/$re_splitter/, $2)]);
$$dict{$k} = $v;
}
} #$interesting_lines;
return $dict;
} # parse
#
# sample execution goes here
#
my $parse =<<EOL;
# comment
what = is, this, you, wonder
it = is, perl
EOL
parse ( split (/[\r\n]+/, $parse) );
Related
i am very new to perl. i am trying to use the below code from CPAN.
my $C;
# Recursive version of C<each>;
sub reach {
my $ref = shift;
if (ref $ref eq 'HASH') {
if (defined $C->{$ref}{v}) {
if (ref $C->{$ref}{v} eq 'HASH') {
if (my #rec = reach($C->{$ref}{v})) {
return ($C->{$ref}{k},#rec);
}
} elsif (ref $C->{$ref}{v} eq 'ARRAY') {
if (my #rec = reach($C->{$ref}{v})) {
if (defined $C->{$ref}{k}) {
return $C->{$ref}{k},#rec;
}
return #rec;
}
}
undef $C->{$ref};
}
if (my ($k,$v) = each %$ref) {
$C->{$ref}{v} = $v;
$C->{$ref}{k} = $k;
return ($k,reach($v));
}
return ();
} elsif (ref $ref eq 'ARRAY') {
if (defined $C->{$ref}{v}) {
if (ref $C->{$ref}{v} eq 'HASH' ||
ref $C->{$ref}{v} eq 'ARRAY') {
if (my #rec = reach($C->{$ref}{v})) {
if (defined $C->{$ref}{k}) {
return $C->{$ref}{k},#rec;
}
return #rec;
}
}
}
if (my $v = $ref->[$C->{$ref}{i}++ || 0]) {
$C->{$ref}{v} = $v;
return (reach($v));
}
return ();
}
return $ref;
}
input:
bar => {cmd_opts => { gld_upf => ['abc' , 'def']} }
current output:
[bar, cmd_opts, gld_upf, abc]
[bar, cmd_opts, gld_upf, def]
desired output:
[bar, cmd_opts, gld_upf, ['abc', 'def']]
also, what are the concepts that are being used in this code?
are there any books/courses i can take for this?
also, what are the concepts that are being used in this code? are there any books/courses i can take for this?
The code mentioned by you from the Deep::Hash::Utils CPAN module is mainly handling nested data structures.
A couple of places to read about these:
the official docs: perldsc ; perlreftut ; perlref ;
Modern Perl by chromatic has a section on Nested Data Structures around page 60
Intermediate Perl: Beyond The Basics of Learning Perl 2nd edition has a section about Nested Data Structures around page 44.
In the most basic case, in these nested data structures, every node has one of the following types:
scalar
hashref
arrayref
In turn, the values in the array pointed to by an arrayref can be of type scalar/hashref/arrayref.
The same goes for the values of the hash pointed to by an arrayref, it can be of type scalar/hashref/arrayref.
This induces a tree-like structure. The algorithm for traversing such a tree is depth-first search
where some additional logic is required to check the type of the node and depending on the type decide how to proceed further down the tree.
To make a parallel, all of this is not that much different from traversing a filesystem hierarchy (see link1, link2).
A bigger list called perlres on Perl resources is available.
In this specific case, the function reach from Deep::Hash::Utils acts as an iterator, and it returns all paths descending from the root down to each leaf.
Whenever a #path to a leaf is found, its elements are compared side-by-side with another list called #output, and there are three cases:
there's no element on that position, so we store it
the elements are equal, so we skip them
the elements are different, so we merge them together in a list
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use Data::Dumper;
use Deep::Hash::Utils qw/reach/;
my $input = { bar => {cmd_opts => { gld_upf => ['abc' , 'def']} } };
my #output = ();
while (my #path = reach($input)) {
for(my $i=0;$i<=$#path;$i++){
if(defined $output[$i]) {
if(ref($output[$i]) eq "") {
if($output[$i] eq $path[$i]) {
next;
};
my $e1 = $output[$i];
my $e2 = $path[$i];
$output[$i] = [$e1,$e2];
}elsif(ref($output[$i]) eq "ARRAY"){
push #{$output[$i]}, $path[$i];
};
} else {
$output[$i] = $path[$i];
};
};
}
print Dumper \#output;
OUTPUT:
$VAR1 = [
'bar',
'cmd_opts',
'gld_upf',
[
'abc',
'def'
]
];
at the moment im a little confused..
I am looking for a way to write a string with an indefinite number of words (separated by a slash) in a recursive hash.
These "strings" are output from a text database.
Given is for example
"office/1/hardware/mouse/count/200"
the next one can be longer or shorter..
This must be created from it:
{
office {
1{
hardware {
mouse {
count => 200
}
}
}
}
}
Any idea ?
Work backwards. Split the string. Use the last two elements to make the inner-most hash. While more words exist, make each one the key of a new hash, with the inner hash as its value.
my $s = "office/1/hardware/mouse/count/200";
my #word = split(/\//, $s);
# Bottom level taken explicitly
my $val = pop #word;
my $key = pop #word;
my $h = { $key => $val };
while ( my $key = pop #word )
{
$h = { $key => $h };
}
Simple recursive function should do
use strict;
use warnings;
use Data::Dumper;
sub foo {
my $str = shift;
my ($key, $rest) = split m|/|, $str, 2;
if (defined $rest) {
return { $key => foo($rest) };
} else {
return $key;
}
}
my $hash = foo("foo/bar/baz/2");
print Dumper $hash;
Gives output
$VAR1 = {
'foo' => {
'bar' => {
'baz' => '2'
}
}
};
But like I said in the comment: What do you intend to use this for? It is not a terribly useful structure.
If there are many lines to be read into a single hash and the lines have a variable number of fields, you have big problems and the other two answers will clobber data by either smashing sibling keys or overwriting final values. I'm supposing this because there is no rational reason to convert a single line into a hash.
You will have to walk down the hash with each field. This will also give you the most control over the process.
our $hash = {};
our $eolmark = "\000";
while (my $line = <...>) {
chomp $line;
my #fields = split /\//, $line;
my $count = #fields;
my $h = $hash;
my $i = 0;
map { (++$i == $count) ?
($h->{$_}{$eolmark} = 1) :
($h = $h->{$_} ||= {});
} #fields;
}
$h->{$_}{$eolmark} = 1 You need the special "end of line" key so that you can recognize the end of a record and still permit longer records to coexist. If you had two records
foo/bar/baz foo/bar/baz/quux, the second would overwrite the final value of the first.
$h = $h->{$_} ||= {} This statement is a very handy idiom to both create and populate a cache in one step and then take a shortcut reference to it. Never do a hash lookup more than once.
HTH
Is it safe to take reference of elements of #_ in a subroutine in order to avoid duplicating code? I also wonder if the following is good practice or can be simplified. I have a subroutine mod_str that takes an option saying if a string argument should be modified in-place or not:
use feature qw(say);
use strict;
use warnings;
my $str = 'abc';
my $mstr = mod_str( $str, in_place => 0 );
say $mstr;
mod_str( $str, in_place => 1 );
say $str;
sub mod_str {
my %opt;
%opt = #_[1..$#_];
if ( $opt{in_place} ) {
$_[0] =~ s/a/A/g;
# .. do more stuff with $_[0]
return;
}
else {
my $str = $_[0];
$str =~ s/a/A/g;
# .. do more stuff with $str
return $str;
}
}
In order to avoid repeating/duplicating code in the if and else blocks above, I tried to improve mod_str:
sub mod_str {
my %opt;
%opt = #_[1..$#_];
my $ref;
my $str;
if ( $opt{in_place} ) {
$ref = \$_[0];
}
else {
$str = $_[0]; # make copy
$ref = \$str;
}
$$ref =~ s/a/A/g;
# .. do more stuff with $$ref
$opt{in_place} ? return : return $$ref;
}
The "in place" flag changes the function's interface to the point where it should be a new function. It will simplify the interface, testing, documentation and the internals to have two functions. Rather than having to parse arguments and have a big if/else block, the user has already made that choice for you.
Another way to look at it is the in_place option will always be set to a constant. Because it fundamentally changes how the function behaves, there's no sensible case where you'd write in_place => $flag.
Once you do that, the reuse becomes more obvious. Write one function to do the operation in place. Write another which calls that on a copy.
sub mod_str_in_place {
# ...Do work on $_[0]...
return;
}
sub mod_str {
my $str = $_[0]; # string is copied
mod_str_in_place($str);
return $str;
}
In the absence of the disgraced given I like using for as a topicalizer. This effectively aliases $_ to either $_[0] or the local copy depending on the value of the in_place hash element. It's directly comparable to your $ref but with aliases, and a lot cleaner
I see no reason to return a useless undef / () in the case that the string is modified in place; the subroutine may as well return the new value of the string. (I suspect the old value might be more useful, after the fashion of $x++, but that makes for uglier code!)
I'm not sure whether this is readable code to anyone but me, so comments are welcome!
use strict;
use warnings;
my $ss = 'abcabc';
printf "%s %s\n", mod_str($ss), $ss;
$ss = 'abcabc';
printf "%s %s\n", mod_str($ss, in_place => 1), $ss;
sub mod_str {
my ($copy, %opt) = #_;
for ( $opt{in_place} ? $_[0] : $copy ) {
s/a/A/g;
# .. do more stuff with $_
return $_;
}
}
output
AbcAbc abcabc
AbcAbc AbcAbc
I have a sub that reads a FASTA text file in chunks.
sub reader {
foreach my $line (<IN>) { # read line by line
chomp $line;
if ($line =~ m/^>/) { # if it's a title
&initiator($title, $seq) unless $firsttitle == 1;
$firsttitle = 0;
($title = $line) =~ s/^>//; # title without > at start
$seq = ''; # new seq
} else {
$seq = $seq . $line; # append seq lines
}
}
&initiator($title, $seq); # Do the thing for the last seq.
}
In the middle of several loops, &initiator is called. I'd like to have this in a module that I can "use" but substitute &initiator with other subs from other modules. These subs will need to have their own inputs as well. Would something like the following work or is there a more elegant solution?
use Reader qw(reader);
use Othersub qw(subroutine);
my #par = ('Mary', 'Lamb');
my %functions = (foo => \&Othersub::subroutine);
&reader($file_to_read, $functions{'foo'}($par[0], $par[1]));
Note: Final file structure is Othersub.pm, Reader.pm and the script that uses both modules.
Perl allows you to create references to things, and that includes both subroutines and arrays.
If you've got differing arguments to pass, then I would suggest you want to do so via array reference rather than what you're doing. A bit like this:
use strict;
use warnings;
sub variable_args {
my ( $code_ref, $array_ref ) = #_;
#dereference code ref;
#dereference array ref;
&$code_ref( #$array_ref, "optional", "extra", "arg" );
}
sub foo_func {
foreach (#_) {
print "Foo $_\n";
}
}
sub bar_func {
print "BAR: ", join( ":", #_ ), "\n";
}
#could inline the functions as anonymous subs. I would avoid doing that
#unless they're pretty short/clear.
my %functions = (
'foo' => \&foo_func,
'bar' => \&bar_func,
);
my %args_to_pass = (
'foo' => [ "Mary", "Lamb" ],
'bar' => [ "Some", "Fish", "Pie" ],
);
for my $thing ( "foo", "bar" ) {
variable_args( $functions{$thing}, $args_to_pass{$thing} );
}
Note - in the example above, you call &initiator. You shouldn't do this. It's deprecated syntax from Perl 4, and is redundant (and may have some undesired consequences in certain scenarios).
But I would suggest doing it this way rather than the way you've got. You could get this to work:
&reader($file_to_read, $functions{'foo'}($par[0], $par[1]));
But what will happen when you try and do that is you'll (potentially) just run your function immediately, and pass it's result into reader.
E.g.:
variable_args ( &{$functions{'foo'}}("Mary", "Lamb"), ["more stuff"] );
Won't work, because you're 'running' it immediately, and then sending the result - which'll make your $code_ref whatever the result of the subroutine was.
However you could make an anonymous sub, and pass that:
variable_args( sub {
&{ $functions{'foo'} }( "Special", "Argument", #_ )
},
$args_to_pass{'foo'} );
I would suggest you're getting needlessly convoluted by that point though :)
As far as I can guess, you want to pass a function (reference) as parameter.
Something like this should work for you
# Script
use Reader qw(reader);
use Othersub qw(subroutine);
my #par = .... ;
reader( $file_to_read , \&subroutine , #par);
# Reader.pm
sub reader {
my $file = shift;
my $initiator = shift;
my #par = #_;
...
$initiator->( $file , #par)
...
}
Remark: In the last line of your code, you are not passing the function subroutine to reader, as you might have intendend; instead, you invoke it and pass the result of soubroutine, given the paramers par to reader.
At the moment, I'm writing these arrays by hand.
For example, the Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-A block has an entry in hash like this:
my %symbols = (
...
miscellaneous_mathematical_symbols_a => [(0x27C0..0x27CA), 0x27CC,
(0x27D0..0x27EF)],
...
)
The simpler, 'continuous' array
miscellaneous_mathematical_symbols_a => [0x27C0..0x27EF]
doesn't work because Unicode blocks have holes in them. For example, there's nothing at 0x27CB. Take a look at the code chart [PDF].
Writing these arrays by hand is tedious, error-prone and a bit fun. And I get the feeling that someone has already tackled this in Perl!
Perhaps you want Unicode::UCD? Use its charblock routine to get the range of any named block. If you want to get those names, you can use charblocks.
This module is really just an interface to the Unicode databases that come with Perl already, so if you have to do something fancier, you can look at the lib/5.x.y/unicore/UnicodeData.txt or the various other files in that same directory to get what you need.
Here's what I came up with to create your %symbols. I go through all the blocks (although in this sample I skip that ones without "Math" in their name. I get the starting and ending code points and check which ones are assigned. From that, I create a custom property that I can use to check if a character is in the range and assigned.
use strict;
use warnings;
digest_blocks();
my $property = 'My::InMiscellaneousMathematicalSymbolsA';
foreach ( 0x27BA..0x27F3 )
{
my $in = chr =~ m/\p{$property}/;
printf "%X is %sin $property\n",
$_, $in ? '' : ' not ';
}
sub digest_blocks {
use Unicode::UCD qw(charblocks);
my $blocks = charblocks();
foreach my $block ( keys %$blocks )
{
next unless $block =~ /Math/; # just to make the output small
my( $start, $stop ) = #{ $blocks->{$block}[0] };
$blocks->{$block} = {
assigned => [ grep { chr =~ /\A\p{Assigned}\z/ } $start .. $stop ],
unassigned => [ grep { chr !~ /\A\p{Assigned}\z/ } $start .. $stop ],
start => $start,
stop => $stop,
name => $block,
};
define_my_property( $blocks->{$block} );
}
}
sub define_my_property {
my $block = shift;
(my $subname = $block->{name}) =~ s/\W//g;
$block->{my_property} = "My::In$subname"; # needs In or Is
no strict 'refs';
my $string = join "\n", # can do ranges here too
map { sprintf "%X", $_ }
#{ $block->{assigned} };
*{"My::In$subname"} = sub { $string };
}
If I were going to do this a lot, I'd use the same thing to create a Perl source file that has the custom properties already defined so I can just use them right away in any of my work. None of the data should change until you update your Unicode data.
sub define_my_property {
my $block = shift;
(my $subname = $block->{name}) =~ s/\W//g;
$block->{my_property} = "My::In$subname"; # needs In or Is
no strict 'refs';
my $string = num2range( #{ $block->{assigned} } );
print <<"HERE";
sub My::In$subname {
return <<'CODEPOINTS';
$string
CODEPOINTS
}
HERE
}
# http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=87538
sub num2range {
local $_ = join ',' => sort { $a <=> $b } #_;
s/(?<!\d)(\d+)(?:,((??{$++1})))+(?!\d)/$1\t$+/g;
s/(\d+)/ sprintf "%X", $1/eg;
s/,/\n/g;
return $_;
}
That gives me output suitable for a Perl library:
sub My::InMiscellaneousMathematicalSymbolsA {
return <<'CODEPOINTS';
27C0 27CA
27CC
27D0 27EF
CODEPOINTS
}
sub My::InSupplementalMathematicalOperators {
return <<'CODEPOINTS';
2A00 2AFF
CODEPOINTS
}
sub My::InMathematicalAlphanumericSymbols {
return <<'CODEPOINTS';
1D400 1D454
1D456 1D49C
1D49E 1D49F
1D4A2
1D4A5 1D4A6
1D4A9 1D4AC
1D4AE 1D4B9
1D4BB
1D4BD 1D4C3
1D4C5 1D505
1D507 1D50A
1D50D 1D514
1D516 1D51C
1D51E 1D539
1D53B 1D53E
1D540 1D544
1D546
1D54A 1D550
1D552 1D6A5
1D6A8 1D7CB
1D7CE 1D7FF
CODEPOINTS
}
sub My::InMiscellaneousMathematicalSymbolsB {
return <<'CODEPOINTS';
2980 29FF
CODEPOINTS
}
sub My::InMathematicalOperators {
return <<'CODEPOINTS';
2200 22FF
CODEPOINTS
}
Maybe this?
my #list =
grep {chr ($_) =~ /^\p{Assigned}$/}
0x27C0..0x27EF;
#list = map { $_ = sprintf ("%X", $_ )} #list;
print "#list\n";
Gives me
27C0 27C1 27C2 27C3 27C4 27C5 27C6 27C7 27C8 27C9 27CA 27D0 27D1 27D2 27D3
27D4 27D5 27D6 27D7 27D8 27D9 27DA 27DB 27DC 27DD 27DE 27DF 27E0 27E1 27E2
27E3 27E4 27E5 27E6 27E7 27E8 27E9 27EA 27EB
I don't know why you wouldn't say miscellaneous_mathematical_symbols_a => [0x27C0..0x27EF], because that's how the Unicode standard is defined according to the PDF.
What do you mean when you say it doesn't "work"? If it's giving you some sort of error when you check the existence of the character in the block, then why not just weed them out of the block when your checker comes across an error?