From: Richard Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Jenda Krynicky wrote:
> > You may do something like this:
> >
> > for my $wanted (
> > [outsideroute_group_m => route_name => \$routename,
> > route_group_id => \$routegroupid],
> > [outsideroute_trunk_m => route_group_id => \$routegroupid,
> > trunkgroup_id => \$trunkgroupid],
> > [outsideotrunkgroup_m => trunkgroup_id => \$trunkgroupid,
> > carrier_id => \$carrierid],
> > [outsidecarrier_m => carrier_id => \$carrierid, carrier_name =>
> > \$carriername],
> > [outsidecarrier_m => carrier_id => \$carrierid, active =>
> > \$carrier_active],
> > ) {
> > if (exists $_->{$wanted->[0]}{$wanted->[1]}
> > and $_->{$wanted->[0]}{$wanted->[1]} eq ${$wanted->[2]}) {
> > ${$wanted->[4]} = $_->{$wanted->[0]}{$wanted->[3]};
> > last;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > return($trunkgroupid,$carriername,$carrier_active);
> > }
> >
> thanks.. I am looking at your solution(looks very complicated) and also
> will alos look into DBD::SQLite as well
It's not terribly complicated once you get used to references. I just
extracted the differing parts from your loops so that I could replace
them by a single one.
And I made a mistake doing so, the code should have been like this:
for my $wanted (
[outsideroute_group_m => route_name => \$routename,
route_group_id => \$routegroupid],
[outsideroute_trunk_m => route_group_id => \$routegroupid,
trunkgroup_id => \$trunkgroupid],
[outsideotrunkgroup_m => trunkgroup_id => \$trunkgroupid,
carrier_id => \$carrierid],
[outsidecarrier_m => carrier_id => \$carrierid, carrier_name =>
\$carriername],
[outsidecarrier_m => carrier_id => \$carrierid, active =>
\$carrier_active],
) {
for (@dat) {
if (exists $_->{$wanted->[0]}{$wanted->[1]}
and $_->{$wanted->[0]}{$wanted->[1]} eq ${$wanted->[2]}) {
${$wanted->[4]} = $_->{$wanted->[0]}{$wanted->[3]};
last;
}
}
}
return($trunkgroupid,$carriername,$carrier_active);
}
I've forgotten the inner loop.
Maybe you'd like it better if I would have hidden the inner loop in a
subroutine:
my $routegroupid = findValue( 'outsideroute_group_m', 'route_name',
$routename, 'route_group_id');
my $trunkgroupid = findValue( 'outsideroute_trunk_m',
'route_group_id', $routegroupid, 'trunkgroup_id');
my $carrierid = findValue( 'outsideotrunkgroup_m', 'trunkgroup_id',
$trunkgroupid, 'carrier_id');
my $carriername = findValue( 'outsidecarrier_m', 'carrier_id',
$carrierid, 'carrier_name');
my $carrier_active = findValue( 'outsidecarrier_m', 'carrier_id',
$carrierid, 'active');
return($trunkgroupid,$carriername,$carrier_active);
}
sub findValue {
my ($dat, $section, $lookup_key, $lookup_value, $value_key) = @_;
for (@$dat) {
if (exists $_->{$section}{$lookup_key}
and $_->{$section}{$lookup_key} eq $lookup_value) {
return $_->{$section}{$value_key};
}
}
}
Looking at it again, I would like it better as well.
Jenda
P.S.: The => (sometimes called "fat comma") is almost equivalent to
an ordinary comma, the only difference is that if the thing to the
left of the => looks like a word it's automaticaly quoted. So
[one => two => $three]
is equivalent to
['one', 'two', $three]
It's just syntactic sugar.
===== [EMAIL PROTECTED] === http://Jenda.Krynicky.cz =====
When it comes to wine, women and song, wizards are allowed
to get drunk and croon as much as they like.
-- Terry Pratchett in Sourcery
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://learn.perl.org/
