Perl: if ( element in list ) - perl

I'm looking for presence of an element in a list.
In Python there is an in keyword and I would do something like:
if element in list:
doTask
Is there something equivalent in Perl without having to manually iterate through the entire list?

UPDATE:
The smartmatch family of features are now experimental
Smart match, added in v5.10.0 and significantly revised in v5.10.1, has been a regular point of complaint. Although there are a number of ways in which it is useful, it has also proven problematic and confusing for both users and implementors of Perl. There have been a number of proposals on how to best address the problem. It is clear that smartmatch is almost certainly either going to change or go away in the future. Relying on its current behavior is not recommended.
Warnings will now be issued when the parser sees ~~, given, or when.
If you can get away with requiring Perl v5.10, then you can use any of the following examples.
The smart match ~~ operator.
if( $element ~~ #list ){ ... }
if( $element ~~ [ 1, 2, 3 ] ){ ... }
You could also use the given/when construct. Which uses the smart match functionality internally.
given( $element ){
when( #list ){ ... }
}
You can also use a for loop as a "topicalizer" ( meaning it sets $_ ).
for( #elements ){
when( #list ){ ... }
}
One thing that will come out in Perl 5.12 is the ability to use the post-fix version of when. Which makes it even more like if and unless.
given( $element ){
... when #list;
}
If you have to be able to run on older versions of Perl, there still are several options.
You might think you can get away with using List::Util::first, but there are some edge conditions that make it problematic.
In this example it is fairly obvious that we want to successfully match against 0. Unfortunately this code will print failure every time.
use List::Util qw'first';
my $element = 0;
if( first { $element eq $_ } 0..9 ){
print "success\n";
} else {
print "failure\n";
}
You could check the return value of first for defined-ness, but that will fail if we actually want a match against undef to succeed.
You can safely use grep however.
if( grep { $element eq $_ } 0..9 ){ ... }
This is safe because grep gets called in a scalar context. Arrays return the number of elements when called in scalar context. So this will continue to work even if we try to match against undef.
You could use an enclosing for loop. Just make sure you call last, to exit out of the loop on a successful match. Otherwise you might end up running your code more than once.
for( #array ){
if( $element eq $_ ){
...
last;
}
}
You could put the for loop inside the condition of the if statement ...
if(
do{
my $match = 0;
for( #list ){
if( $element eq $_ ){
$match = 1;
last;
}
}
$match; # the return value of the do block
}
){
...
}
... but it might be more clear to put the for loop before the if statement.
my $match = 0;
for( #list ){
if( $_ eq $element ){
$match = 1;
last;
}
}
if( $match ){ ... }
If you're only matching against strings, you could also use a hash. This can speed up your program if #list is large and, you are going to match against %hash several times. Especially if #array doesn't change, because then you only have to load up %hash once.
my %hash = map { $_, 1 } #array;
if( $hash{ $element } ){ ... }
You could also make your own subroutine. This is one of the cases where it is useful to use prototypes.
sub in(&#){
local $_;
my $code = shift;
for( #_ ){ # sets $_
if( $code->() ){
return 1;
}
}
return 0;
}
if( in { $element eq $_ } #list ){ ... }

if( $element ~~ #list ){
do_task
}
~~ is the "smart match operator", and does more than just list membership detection.

grep is helpful here
if (grep { $_ eq $element } #list) {
....
}

If you plan to do this many times, you can trade-off space for lookup time:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict; use warnings;
my #array = qw( one ten twenty one );
my %lookup = map { $_ => undef } #array;
for my $element ( qw( one two three ) ) {
if ( exists $lookup{ $element }) {
print "$element\n";
}
}
assuming that the number of times the element appears in #array is not important and the contents of #array are simple scalars.

List::Util::first
$foo = first { ($_ && $_ eq "value" } #list; # first defined value in #list
Or for hand-rolling types:
my $is_in_list = 0;
foreach my $elem (#list) {
if ($elem && $elem eq $value_to_find) {
$is_in_list = 1;
last;
}
}
if ($is_in_list) {
...
A slightly different version MIGHT be somewhat faster on very long lists:
my $is_in_list = 0;
for (my $i = 0; i < scalar(#list); ++$i) {
if ($list[i] && $list[i] eq $value_to_find) {
$is_in_list = 1;
last;
}
}
if ($is_in_list) {
...

TIMTOWTDI
sub is (&#) {
my $test = shift;
$test->() and return 1 for #_;
0
}
sub in (#) {#_}
if( is {$_ eq "a"} in qw(d c b a) ) {
print "Welcome in perl!\n";
}

List::MoreUtils
On perl >= 5.10 the smart match operator is surely the easiest way, as many others have already said.
On older versions of perl, I would instead suggest List::MoreUtils::any.
List::MoreUtils is not a core module (some say it should be) but it's very popular and it's included in major perl distributions.
It has the following advantages:
it returns true/false (as Python's in does) and not the value of the element, as List::Util::first does (which makes it hard to test, as noted above);
unlike grep, it stops at the first element which passes the test (perl's smart match operator short circuits as well);
it works with any perl version (well, >= 5.00503 at least).
Here is an example which works with any searched (scalar) value, including undef:
use List::MoreUtils qw(any);
my $value = 'test'; # or any other scalar
my #array = (1, 2, undef, 'test', 5, 6);
no warnings 'uninitialized';
if ( any { $_ eq $value } #array ) {
print "$value present\n"
}
P.S.
(In production code it's better to narrow the scope of no warnings 'uninitialized').

Probably Perl6::Junction is the clearest way to do. No XS dependencies, no mess and no new perl version required.
use Perl6::Junction qw/ any /;
if (any(#grant) eq 'su') {
...
}

This blog post discusses the best answers to this question.
As a short summary, if you can install CPAN modules then the best solutions are:
if any(#ingredients) eq 'flour';
or
if #ingredients->contains('flour');
However, a more usual idiom is:
if #any { $_ eq 'flour' } #ingredients
which i find less clear.
But please don't use the first() function! It doesn't express the intent of your code at all. Don't use the "Smart match" operator: it is broken. And don't use grep() nor the solution with a hash: they iterate through the whole list. While any() will stop as soon as it finds your value.
Check out the blog post for more details.
PS: i'm answering for people who will have the same question in the future.

You can accomplish a similar enough syntax in Perl if you do some Autoload hacking.
Create a small package to handle the autoload:
package Autoloader;
use strict;
use warnings;
our $AUTOLOAD;
sub AUTOLOAD {
my $self = shift;
my ($method) = (split(/::/, $AUTOLOAD))[-1];
die "Object does not contain method '$method'" if not ref $self->{$method} eq 'CODE';
goto &{$self->{$method}};
}
1;
Then your other package or main script will contain a subroutine that returns the blessed object which gets handled by Autoload when its method attempts to be called.
sub element {
my $elem = shift;
my $sub = {
in => sub {
return if not $_[0];
# you could also implement this as any of the other suggested grep/first/any solutions already posted.
my %hash; #hash{#_} = ();
return (exists $hash{$elem}) ? 1 : ();
}
};
bless($sub, 'Autoloader');
}
This leaves you with usage looking like:
doTask if element('something')->in(#array);
If you reorganize the closure and its arguments, you can switch the syntax around the other way to make it look like this, which is a bit closer to the autobox style:
doTask if search(#array)->contains('something');
function to do that:
sub search {
my #arr = #_;
my $sub = {
contains => sub {
my $elem = shift or return;
my %hash; #hash{#arr} = ();
return (exists $hash{$elem}) ? 1 : ();
}
};
bless($sub, 'Autoloader');
}

Related

Use of reference to elements in #_ to avoid duplicating code

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

How to call a subroutine with a variable pre-assigned to some value?

In Perl, when one uses the sort function with a custom comparison, the variables $a and $b are already assigned to the current pair of elements to compare, e.g. in:
#decreasing = sort { $b <=> $a } #list;
How can I write other subroutines with a similar functionality? For example, imagine that I want to write sort of process_and_store function that does something special with each item of a list and then stores it in a database; and where the variable $item is already assigned to the current item being processed. I would like to write for example something like:
process_and_store { do_something_with($item); } #list;
Rather than
process_and_store { my $item = shift; do_something_with($item); } #list;
How should I go about doing this?
UPDATE: For completeness, although flesk's answer works without problems, in order to “properly” localize the changes I make to the $item variable I had to follow the advice from Axeman. In SomePackage.pm I placed something like:
package SomePackage;
use strict;
require Exporter;
our #ISA = qw/Exporter/;
our #EXPORT = qw(process_and_store);
our $item;
sub import {
my $import_caller = caller();
{ no strict 'refs';
*{ $import_caller . '::item' } = \*item;
}
# Now, cue Exporter!
goto &{ Exporter->can( 'import' ) };
}
sub process_and_store (&#) {
my $code = shift;
for my $x (#_) {
local *item = \$x;
$code->();
print "stored: $item\n"
}
}
1;
Then I call this from main.pl with something like:
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;
use SomePackage;
process_and_store { print "seen: $item\n"; } (1, 2, 3);
And get the expected result:
seen: 1
stored: 1
seen: 2
stored: 2
seen: 3
stored: 3
In my "associative array" processing library, I do something similar. The user can export the variables $k and $v (key-value) so that they can do things like this:
each_pair { "$k => $v" } some_source_list()
Here's how I do it:
I declare our ( $k, $v ) in the implementing package.
In import I allow packages to export those symbols and alias them in the
receiving package: *{$import_caller.'::'.$name} = \*{ $name };
In the pair processors, I do the following:
local *::_ = \$_[0];
local *k = \$_[0];
local *v = \$_[1];
#res = $block->( $_[0], $_[1] );
Thus $k and $v are aliases of what's in the queue. If this doesn't have to be the case, then you might be happy enough with something like the following:
local ( $k, $v ) = splice( #_, 0, 2 );
local $_ = $k;
But modifiable copies also allow me to do things like:
each_pair { substr( $k, 0, 1 ) eq '-' and $v++ } %some_hash;
UPDATE:
It seems that you're neglecting step #2. You have to make sure that the symbol in the client package maps to your symbol. It can be as simple as:
our $item;
sub import {
my $import_caller = caller();
{ no strict 'refs';
*{ $import_caller . '::item' } = \*item;
}
# Now, cue Exporter!
goto &{ Exporter->can( 'import' ) };
}
Then when you localize your own symbol, the aliased symbol in the client package is localized as well.
The main way that I can see that it would work without the local, is if you were calling it from the same package. Otherwise, $SomePackage::item and $ClientPackage::item are two distinct things.
I think it's a bit of a hack, but you could do something like this:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
my $item;
sub process_and_store(&#) {
my $code = shift;
for (#_) {
$item = $_;
&$code();
}
undef $item;
}
The thing is, $item has to be a global scalar for this to work, so process_and_store has to update that scalar while looping over the list. You should also undef $item at the end of the sub routine to limit any potential side-effects. If I were to write something like this, I'd tuck it away in a module and make it possible to define the iterator variable, so as to limit name conflicts.
Test:
my #list = qw(apples pears bananas);
process_and_store { do_something_with($item) } #list;
sub do_something_with {
my $fruit = shift;
print "$fruit\n";
}
Output:
apples
pears
bananas
The $a and $b variables are special in Perl; they're real global variables and hence exempt from use strict, and also used specifically by the sort() function.
Most other similar uses in Perl would use the $_ global for this sort of thing:
process_and_store { do_something_with( $_ ) } #list;
Which is already handled by the normal $_ rules. Don't forget to localise $_:
sub process_and_store(&#)
{
my $code = shift;
foreach my $item (#_) {
local $_ = $item;
$code->();
}
}

Can Perl's "exists" modify data structure values?

I have a nested hash table that looks like this:
my %myhash = (
"val1" => {
"A/B.c" => {
"funct1" => 1
}
},
"val2" => {
"C/D.c" => {
"funct2" => 1
}
}
)
My objective with this data structure is to produce different values based on whether certain hash tables exist. For example,
sub mysub
{
my $val = shift;
my $file = shift;
my $funct = shift;
if (exists $myhash{$val}{$file}{$funct}) {
return "return1";
}
if (exists $myhash{$val}{$file}) {
return "return2";
}
return "return3";
}
The behavior I'm encountering is as follows. I have an instance in time when
my $val = "val1";
my $file = "C/D.c";
my $funct = "funct3";
At this point in time, the return value I get "return2". These are my observations with the Perl debugger:
Break at first "if" in mysub
Print p $proxToBugs{"val1"}{"C/D.c"} ==> Returns blank line. Okay. Continue and this "if" is skipped.
Continue and break at the second "if" in mysub
Print p $proxToBugs{"val1"}{"C/D.c"} ==> Returns "HASH(0x...)". WTF moment. Function returns "return2".
This tells me that running the first if modified the data structure, which allows the second if to pass when in fact it shouldn't. The function I'm running is identical to the function shown above; this one is just sanitized. Anyone has an explanation for me? :)
Yes. This is because of autovivification. See the bottom of the exists documentation:
Although the mostly deeply nested array or hash will not spring into existence just because its existence was tested, any intervening ones [autovivified arrays or hashes] will [spring into existance]. Thus $ref->{"A"} and $ref->{"A"}->{"B"} will spring into existence due to the existence test for the $key element above. This happens anywhere the arrow operator is used...
Where "...test for the $key element above..." refers to:
if (exists $ref->{A}->{B}->{$key}) { }
if (exists $hash{A}{B}{$key}) { } # same idea, implicit arrow
Happy coding.
As pst rightly points out, this is autovivification. There are at least two ways to avoid it. The first (and most common in my experience) is to test at each level:
if (
exists $h{a} and
exists $h{a}{b} and
exists $h{a}{b}{c}
) {
...
}
The short-circuit nature of and causes the second and third calls to exists to not be executed if the earlier levels don't exist.
A more recent solution is the autovivification pragma (available from CPAN):
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use Data::Dumper;
$Data::Dumper::Useqq = 1;
{
my %h;
if (exists $h{a}{b}{c}) {
print "impossible, it is empty\n";
}
print Dumper \%h;
}
{
no autovivification;
my %h;
if (exists $h{a}{b}{c}) {
print "impossible, it is empty\n";
}
print Dumper \%h;
}
A third method that ysth mentions in the comments has the benefits of being in core (like the first example) and of not repeating the exists function call; however, I believe it does so at the expense of readability:
if (exists ${ ${ $h{a} || {} }{b} || {} }{c}) {
...
}
It works by replacing any level that doesn't exist with a hashref to take the autovivification. These hashrefs will be discarded after the if statement is done executing. Again we see the value of short-circuiting logic.
Of course, all three of these methods makes an assumption about the data the hash is expected to hold, a more robust method includes calls to ref or reftype depending on how you want to treat objects (there is a third option that takes into account classes that overload the hash indexing operator, but I can't remember its name):
if (
exists $h{a} and
ref $h{a} eq ref {} and
exists $h{a} and
ref $h{a}{b} eq ref {} and
exists $h{a}{b}{c}
) {
...
}
In the comments, pst asked if something like myExists($ref,"a","b","c") exists. I am certain there is a module in CPAN that does something like that, but I am not aware of it. There are too many edge cases for me to find that useful, but a simple implementation would be:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use Data::Dumper;
sub safe_exists {
my ($ref, #keys) = #_;
for my $k (#keys) {
return 0 unless ref $ref eq ref {} and exists $ref->{$k};
$ref = $ref->{$k};
}
return 1;
}
my %h = (
a => {
b => {
c => 5,
},
},
);
unless (safe_exists \%h, qw/x y z/) {
print "x/y/z doesn't exist\n";
}
unless (safe_exists \%h, qw/a b c d/) {
print "a/b/c/d doesn't exist\n";
}
if (safe_exists \%h, qw/a b c/) {
print "a/b/c does exist\n";
}
print Dumper \%h;
If you want to turn off autovivification, you can do that lexically with the autovivification pragma:
{
no autovivification;
if( exists $hash{A}{B}{$key} ) { ... }
}
I wrote more about this at The Effective Perler as Turn off autovivification when you don’t want it.

Perl, check if pair exists in hash of hashes

In Perl, I have a hash of hashes created with a loop similar to the following
my %HoH
for my $i (1..10) {
$HoH{$a}{$b} = $i;
}
$a and $b are variables that do have some value when the HoH gets filled in. After creating the HoH, how can I check if a particular pair ($c, $d) exists in the HoH? The following does not work
if (defined $HoH{$c}{$d}) {...}
because if $c does not exist in HoH already, it will be created as a key without a value.
Writing
if (defined $HoH{$c}{$d}) {...}
will "work" insomuch as it will tell you whether or not $HoH{$c}{$d} has a defined value. The problem is that if $HoH{$c} doesn't already exist it will be created (with an appropriate value) so that $HoH{$c}{$d} can be tested. This process is called "autovivification." It's convenient when setting values, e.g.
my %hoh;
$hoh{a}{b} = 1; # Don't need to set '$hoh{a} = {}' first
but inconvenient when retrieving possibly non-existent values. I wish that Perl was smart enough to only perform autovivification for expressions used as lvalues and short-circuit to return undef for rvalues but, alas, it's not that magical. The autovivification pragma (available on CPAN) adds the functionality to do this.
To avoid autovivification you need to test the intermediate values first:
if (exists $HoH{$c} && defined $HoH{$c}{$d}) {
...
}
use Data::Dumper;
my %HoH;
$HoH{A}{B} = 1;
if(exists $HoH{C} && exists $HoH{C}{D}) {
print "exists\n";
}
print Dumper(\%HoH);
if(exists $HoH{C}{D}) {
print "exists\n";
}
print Dumper(\%HoH);
Output:
$VAR1 = {
'A' => {
'B' => 1
}
};
$VAR1 = {
'A' => {
'B' => 1
},
'C' => {}
};
Autovivification is causing the keys to be created. "exists" in my second example shows this so the first example checks both keys individually.
Several ways:
if ( $HoH{$c} && defined $HoH{$c}{$d} ) {...}
or
if ( defined ${ $HoH{$c} || {} }{$d} ) {...}
or
no autovivification;
if (defined $HoH{$c}{$d}) {...}
or
use Data::Diver;
if ( defined Data::Diver::Dive( \%HoH, $c, $d ) ) {...}
You have to use the exists function
exists EXPR
Given an expression that specifies an
element of a hash, returns true if the
specified element in the hash has ever
been initialized, even if the
corresponding value is undefined.
Note that the EXPR can be arbitrarily
complicated as long as the final
operation is a hash or array key
lookup or subroutine name:
if (exists $ref->{A}->{B}->{$key}) { }
if (exists $hash{A}{B}{$key}) { }
My take:
use List::Util qw<first>;
use Params::Util qw<_HASH>;
sub exists_deep (\[%$]#) {
my $ref = shift;
return unless my $h = _HASH( $ref ) // _HASH( $$ref )
and defined( my $last_key = pop )
;
# Note that this *must* be a hash ref, for anything else to make sense.
return if first { !( $h = _HASH( $h->{ $_ } )) } #_;
return exists $h->{ $last_key };
}
You could also do this recursively. You could also create a descent structure allowing intermediate and even terminal arrayref with just a little additional coding.

Where can I find an array of the (un)assigned Unicode code points for a particular block?

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?