Thanks -- I see how to do this with a string eval, but I'm hoping to avoid having to keep the functions as text strings.
If I can't find any other way, it's what I will have to fall back on, but I'm hoping there's some way to avoid this. Ricky On Oct 29, 2014, at 2:56 PM, Ben Tilly <[email protected]> wrote: > What our does is binds the package variable to lexical scope. So a > package after an our doesn't change the variable. But if you have the > our *after* the package then it will bind the correct package. So in > your eval put the package statement before our %map and you'll be > fine. > > Incidentally if you are using eval in this horrible way, I strongly > recommend studying > http://perldoc.perl.org/perlsyn.html#Plain-Old-Comments-(Not!) for how > to make it clear in any error messages where your subroutines were > actually defined. > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Morse, Richard E.,MGH > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi! I'm running into an odd desire, and I'm hoping someone here can at least >> tell me where to look, as so far Google and DDG are not telling me what I >> want. >> >> I have a bunch of modules which have the same subroutines in each. Mostly, >> the code for the subroutines is the same, but there is a chance that any >> particular subroutine might be slightly different in any module (the context >> here involves internationalization). So, for instance: >> >> package PKG::en_US; >> our %map; >> sub handle_ages { ; } >> sub handle_dests { ; } >> >> package PKG::fr; >> our %map; >> sub handle_ages { ; } >> sub handle_dests { ; } >> >> package PKG::pt_BR; >> our %map; >> sub handle_ages { ; } >> sub handle_dests { ; } >> >> What I want to do is be able to create a base module, something like >> >> package PKG::_base; >> sub handle_ages { ; } >> sub handle_dests { ; } >> >> I could then define the rest of them as >> >> package PKG::en_US; >> our %map; >> >> package PKG::fr; >> our %map; >> sub handle_dests { ; } >> >> package PKG::pt_BR; >> our %map; >> >> Then use some kind of symbol table mungery to add the undefined functions to >> each package. >> >> This I can do. >> >> However, where I need help, is that I want to be able to have the package >> variable "%map" be properly used by the functions added to each package. >> That is, if I call PKG::en_US::handle_ages, it should use %PKG::en_US::map, >> not (the nonexistant) %PKG::_base::map. >> >> I've tried various things, but from what I can understand, even with >> everything declared "our", the sub definition closes over the package that >> it's in when defined. I've seen references to doing an `eval ("package >> $package; sub handle_ages { ; }")`, but this makes maintaining everything >> much harder, as I now don't have a base module, but rather a bunch of text >> strings. >> >> Thanks, >> Ricky >> >> >> The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is >> addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail >> contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance >> HelpLine at >> http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in >> error >> but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and >> properly >> dispose of the e-mail. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Boston-pm mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
