What I've lately been fond of explaining to friends is that "Perl6" is
the somewhat misleading name attached to Perl's skunkworks lab. It
develops, implements and tests various crazy ideas for new language
features, the best of which Perl adopts...
Yes, but no. But revealing.
Yes, a few
> Is there a better regexp than \$(\w+) to identify anything that
> the perl parser would identify as a variable?
This seems to be the crux of whether you feel comfortable
using s/// rather than something else.
Unfortunately, I don't know the answer with complete and
absolute certainty.
\w is
Jason McIntosh wrote:
> What I've lately been fond of explaining to friends is that "Perl6" is
> the somewhat misleading name attached to Perl's skunkworks lab. It
> develops, implements and tests various crazy ideas for new language
> features, the best of which Perl adopts...
Yes, exactly.
>
> "JP" == Jerrad Pierce writes:
JP> Uri,
>> i am confused by your statement. i have no abstract fear of tied.
JP> I was referring to the OP's earlier statements.
JP> Tie may be 'overkill', but arguments have been made that a full templating
JP> system is too.
>> when simpler
Uri,
>i am confused by your statement. i have no abstract fear of tied.
I was referring to the OP's earlier statements.
Tie may be 'overkill', but arguments have been made that a full templating
system is too.
>when simpler ones exist? and where did i say not to use interpolation?
Not
> "AA" == Alex Aminoff writes:
AA> I hope that is clear.
AA> I misunderstood what someone was suggesting, but basically
AA> s/\$(\w+)/$object->$1()/sgex;
AA> will work, except that I did not trust my own regexp. Better:
that is just a basic templater as i said before. now the
Sure, let me try to explain what I want to do.
We have a bunch of objects of different classes. They all have a lot of
methods, more than I would want to list by hand.
Not knowing until run time which class or which methods I will want, I
would like to be able to interpolate method calls
> "JP" == Jerrad Pierce writes:
JP> Other than some abstract fear of tie, what's wrong with Interpolation?
JP> As implemented, you could easily Memoize the subroutine you bind as your
JP> handler. You can even easily bind two versions, one that memoizes and
JP> another that does not.
Other than some abstract fear of tie, what's wrong with Interpolation?
As implemented, you could easily Memoize the subroutine you bind as your
handler. You can even easily bind two versions, one that memoizes and
another that does not.
--
Free map of local environmental resources:
> "AA" == Alex Aminoff writes:
AA> On Tue, 25 May 2010, Kenneth Graves wrote:
>> In the simple case (known methods/no side effects), then one of Uri's
solutions will work.
>>
>> For the case of unknown methods, a two pass solution might work: collect
the method names from the
> "AA" == Alex Aminoff writes:
AA> On Tue, 25 May 2010, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> so that is 6 ways to do it without eval and tied. :)
AA> Thanks, I did in fact consider, and in a couple cases implement, all
AA> of those possible solutions, but was not happy with any of them.
AA>
On Tue, 25 May 2010, Kenneth Graves wrote:
In the simple case (known methods/no side effects), then one of Uri's solutions
will work.
For the case of unknown methods, a two pass solution might work: collect the
method names from the template, then call them with $object->$method() syntax,
On Tue, 25 May 2010, Uri Guttman wrote:
so that is 6 ways to do it without eval and tied. :)
Thanks, I did in fact consider, and in a couple cases implement, all of
those possible solutions, but was not happy with any of them.
Basically, either the template is too cluttered:
13 matches
Mail list logo
