Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2022
breno <oainikusama@gmail.com> writes:
> Dear porters,
>
> when sub bar is not declared at all, 'sub foo { bar() }' compiles under
> strict/warnings without any issues. Same goes for 'my $x = \&bar'.
>
> Is this by design? I understand why glob refs would not warn or croak but
> Is there a reason why explicitly named subroutines that don't exist at
> compile time would not yield even a warning until they are actually called?
>
> On a somewhat related note, how would one detect if a named
> subroutine/subref was declared or not (it's ok if it was declared but is
> empty) at runtime? Right now I'm doing:
>
> sub subref_is_actually_there ($subref) {
> require B;
> my $cv = B::svref_2object($subref);
> return B::class($cv->ROOT) eq 'NULL' && !${ $cv->const_sv };
> }
>
> and it seems to work fine but I'm not confident in it. Is there a better or
> more readable/portable way? One that would not need to rely on B::*, maybe
> just checking if {CODE} is undef?
>
> I looked on perlsub and perlref but could not reach any reasonable
> explanation on either, so any help would be greatly appreciated.
Have a look at how https://metacpan.org/pod/Sub::StrictDecl does it.
Once we decide how to do non-default strictures, would it be worth
bringing it into core?
> Cheers!
> garu
- ilmari
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next