Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
No such thing as a small change
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Is modifying the symbol table to redefine subroutines evil?

by NetWallah (Abbot)
on Apr 11, 2007 at 23:33 UTC ( #609525=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Is modifying the symbol table to redefine subroutines evil?

Assuming code-tampering is not an issue, how about this:

my $foo; # Global, because this is the only visible (subroutine ref) $foo=sub{ print qq[First call - do first processing here \n]; # First processing code goes here ... # Now setup for subsequent calls .... $foo=sub{ print qq[subsequent calls\n] # Code for subsequent calls goes here } }; $foo->() for 0..5; # OK - so the subroutine call looks slightly weird +to newbies.
Unfortunately, Murphy's laws will kick in if the caller decides to use a copy/clone of the $foo scalar, so don't do that.

     "Choose a job you like and you will never have to work a day of your life" - Confucius


Comment on Re: Is modifying the symbol table to redefine subroutines evil?
Download Code

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://609525]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others lurking in the Monastery: (3)
As of 2015-07-07 02:29 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    The top three priorities of my open tasks are (in descending order of likelihood to be worked on) ...









    Results (86 votes), past polls