Re: alternative to feature 'signatures'?

2017-11-22 Thread Gil Magno
On 19/11/17 13:57, hw wrote: > without being able to use feature 'signatures', how do I verify > that parameters passed to a function have been passed to it by > the caller? https://metacpan.org/pod/signatures https://metacpan.org/pod/signatures#SEE-ALSO https://metacpan.org/pod/Sub::Signatures

Re: alternative to feature 'signatures'?

2017-11-22 Thread hw
Chas. Owens wrote: What no one has said so far is the importance of using Carp when throwing errors related to how the function was called. The Carp module provides versions of warn (carp) and die (croak) that give the line and file where the call to the function occurred rather than the

Re: alternative to feature 'signatures'?

2017-11-22 Thread hw
Gil Magno wrote: On 19/11/17 13:57, hw wrote: without being able to use feature 'signatures', how do I verify that parameters passed to a function have been passed to it by the caller? If you're dealing with positional parameters[1] (and not with named ones) you can check for the size of @_

Re: alternative to feature 'signatures'?

2017-11-22 Thread hw
Andrew Solomon wrote: This is how I'd go about it: https://gist.github.com/andrewsolomon/323a2b317ea5903f662fbaaded254798 "exists" is true if there's a key in a hash even if the key's value is undef. Does that provide a solution for you, or are there other constraints? That would require to