> ${$pkg.'::'.$var} = $val;
> ${"$pkg\::$var} = $val;
>
> Still ugly, but not quite as bad as what you came up with.
Thanks - once I saw the first one my brain went "Oh, yeah...."
> Ooop, didn't even notice and didn't see the discussion. Let me see if
> I missed anything... I didn't discuss class methods as opposed to
> object methods. Will ponder.
It's really dicey. I think it's probably bad, because there's no way to
tell here:
print "Your name is Class->name";
Whether Class is 'Class' or Class(). The phrase "avoid at all costs"
comes to mind. ;-)
> Its a common newbie mistake to do something like this:
>
> $var1 = "this";
> $var2 = "that";
> $var3 = "wibble";
>
> foreach $num (1..3) {
> print ${"var".$num};
> }
You're right. A more experienced Perl hacker would have correctly
written that as:
$var1 = "this";
$var2 = "that";
$var3 = "wibble";
foreach $num (1..3) {
print ${"var$num"}; # implicit .
}
(Kidding, point taken) ;-)
> Ambiguous. Consider the following:
>
> $class = "Class::Special";
> $file = "lib/foo/bar.pl";
>
> require $class; # want: load "Class/Special.pm" from @INC
> require $file; # want: load "lib/foo/bar.pl" from @INC
!@()*&!@@!$(*&!_)(@*_!
I knew I forgot something.
Ah, well, a man can dream...
> C<eval "require $class"> isn't that hard, but I wouldn't mind seeing a
> more obvious way.
Nothin' leaps out. My brain hurst.
> This combines the problems of symbolic references PLUS busting
> encapsulation. Shouldn't be easy.
I'd just settle for easiER than this:
&{"${mypkg}::do_stuff"}(@a) # &{$mypkg.'::'."do_stuff"}(@_) too
It only busts encapsulation if you're using it as an object. If you just
want to get to a function without importing it, then you've gotta type
lots.
But I agree this should remain at least somewhat dicey.
I'm feelin' an RFC retraction comin' on...
-Nate
