I have created this simple subroutine.
use List::Util qw(pairmap);
sub pairGroupBy(&#) {
my($irCode, #iaItems) = #_;
my %laResult = ();
pairmap {
my $lsKey = $irCode->();
if (!defined($lsKey)) {
die "Trying to pairGroup by nonexisting key '$lsKey'";
}
push #{$laResult{$lsKey}}, $a => $b;
} #iaItems;
return %laResult;
}
It works well until the subroutine is used from the same file where it is defined. When I move it to some package then variables $a and $b becomes undefined inside the $irCode->() callback.
I have learned from the List::Util source code that this code do the trick:
my $caller = caller;
local(*{$caller."::a"}) = \my $a;
local(*{$caller."::b"}) = \my $b;
So I'have modified my subroutine in this way:
use List::Util qw(pairmap);
sub pairGroupBy(&#) {
my($irCode, #iaItems) = #_;
my $caller = caller;
my %laResult = ();
pairmap {
no strict 'refs';
local(*{$caller."::a"}) = \$a; # <---- the line 96
local(*{$caller."::b"}) = \$b;
my $lsKey = $irCode->();
if (!defined($lsKey)) {
die "Trying to pairGroup by nonexisting key '$lsKey'";
}
push #{$laResult{$lsKey}}, $a => $b;
} #iaItems;
return %laResult;
}
But I need to use the no strict 'refs'; line (the List::Util source code does not use it). Otherwise the error message appears:
Can't use string ("main::a") as a symbol ref while "strict refs" in use at /home/.../bin/SatFunc.pm line 96.
My question is: Is there some better way how to define $a and $b variables in the caller's context without using no strict 'refs';?
I want my function will be used in the same way as pairmap, pairgrep etc.
EDIT:
#simbabque asked for an example, how the function is used. So this is an example:
my %laHoH = (
aa => {
color => 'yellow',
item => 'sun',
active => 1
},
bb => {
color => 'blue',
item => 'sky',
active => 1
},
cc => {
color => 'green',
item => 'grass',
active => 0
},
dd => {
color => 'blue',
item => 'watter',
active => 1
}
);
my %laGrouped = pairGroupBy {
$b->{color}
} pairgrep {
$b->{active}
} %laHoH;
The function then returns this structure:
{
'yellow' => [
'aa',
{
'color' => 'yellow',
'item' => 'sun',
'active' => 1
}
],
'blue' => [
'dd',
{
'active' => 1,
'item' => 'watter',
'color' => 'blue'
},
'bb',
{
'color' => 'blue',
'item' => 'sky',
'active' => 1
}
]
};
I'm not sure why you're seeing that problem, but I suspect you're overthinking matters. Using pairmap in void context like that seems a bad idea.
Can't you just convert your array into a hash and then iterate across that?
my %iaItemsHash = #iaItams;
while (my ($k, $v) = each %iaItemsHash) {
my $lsKey = $irCode->();
if (!defined($lsKey)) {
die "Trying to pairGroup by nonexisting key '$lsKey'";
}
push #{$laResult{$lsKey}}, $k => $v;
}
Update: In light of your comment, I've re-read your original question and spotted that you are talking about accessing the variables with the $irCode->() call.
The problem with my solution is that $k and $v are lexical variables and, therefore, aren't available outside of their lexical scope (this is generally seen as a feature!) The solution is to resort to good programming practice and to send the values into the subroutine as parameters.
Is there some better way how to define $a and $b variables in the caller's context without using no strict 'refs';?
You're asking us how to perform symbolic dereferences while asking Perl to prevent you from symbolic deferences. There's no reason to do that. If you want to perform symbolic dereferences, don't ask Perl to prevent you from doing it.
Even if Perl doesn't catch you doing it (i.e. if you manage to find a way to not trigger use strict qw( refs );), you'll still be using symbolic dereferences! You'd just be lying to yourself and to your readers.
Instead, it's best to document what you are doing. Use no strict qw( refs ); to signal that you are using doing something use strict qw( refs ); is suppose to block.
The following approach for building the same structure as your code is much less wasteful:
my %laGrouped;
for my $key (keys(%laHoH)) {
my $rec = $laHoH{$key};
next if !$rec->{active};
push #{ $laGrouped{ $rec->{color} } }, $key, $rec;
}
But let's improve the structure as well. The following approach produces a structure that's easier to use:
my %laGrouped;
for my $key (keys(%laHoH)) {
my $rec = $laHoH{$key};
next if !$rec->{active};
$laGrouped{ $rec->{color} }{$key} = $rec;
}
If you find yourself using pairGroupBy, you've probably went wrong somewhere. But here's a better implementation of it for educational purposes:
sub pairGroupBy(&#) {
my $cb = shift;
my $caller = caller;
my $ap = do { no strict 'refs'; \*{ $caller.'::a' } }; local *$ap;
my $bp = do { no strict 'refs'; \*{ $caller.'::b' } }; local *$bp;
my %groups;
while (#_) {
*$ap = \shift;
*$bp = \shift;
my $group = $cb->();
push #{ $groups{$group} }, $a, $b;
}
return %groups;
}
Related
sub funcA{
my ($A) = #_; <--require 1
}
sub funcB{
my ($A, $B) = #_; <--require 2
}
sub funcC{
my ($A, $B, $C) = #_; <--require 3
}
sub funcRun{
my ($param) = #_;
my $other1, $other2, $other3; <--will be assigned at ',,,,,'
,,,,,
if($param eq 'a'){
funcA, $other1;
return;
}elsif($param eq = 'b'){
funcB, $other1, $other2;
return;
}elsif($param eq = 'c'){
funcC, $other1, $other2, $other3;
return;
}
}
I want to change this to next code
sub funcA{
my ($A) = #_; #<--require 1
}
sub funcB{
my ($A, $B) = #_; #<--require 2
}
sub funcC{
my ($A, $B, $C) = #_; #<--require 3
}
my $hash_ref = {
'a' => \&funcA,
'b' => \&funcB,
'c' => \&funcC
}
sub funcRun{
my ($param) = #_;
my $other1, $other2, $other3; #<--will be assigned at ',,,,,'
,,,,,
$hash_ref->{$param}(ARGUMENTS); #<--my problem
}
But I can't think how to make ARGUMENTS section including variable number of arguments.
I considered each function to be defined in the funcRun code, but then I don't know the difference with if/else code. And I heard that passing 3 arguments values and accepting parameters in order from first, is not good from someone
Updated following a clarification. The very last code segment may be exactly what is asked for.
The design where a parameter decides what argument set to use from a list generated at runtime is what is giving you trouble; it's complicated. Not knowing about the actual problem I don't know what else to offer though (other than guesses). Perhaps clarify the use of this?
Having said that, one way to complete what you want is to store a specification of what arguments go with a function along with the function name in the hashref; another would be to have a separate structure with argument sets for each parameter.
For example
use warnings;
use strict;
use feature 'say';
my $dispatch = {
'a' => { name => \&funcA, lastidx => 0 },
'b' => { name => \&funcB, lastidx => 1 },
'c' => { name => \&funcC, lastidx => 2 }
};
sub funcRun {
my ($param) = #_;
my #args = qw(one two three);
my $func = $dispatch->{$param}{name};
my $lastidx = $dispatch->{$param}{lastidx};
$func->( #args[0..$lastidx] );
}
sub funcA { say "#_" }
sub funcB { say "#_" }
sub funcC { say "#_" }
funcRun($_) for qw(a b c);
Prints
one
one two
one two three
If you really need to pick arguments positionally from a list then use an array.
However, I suggest that you clarify what this is for so that we can offer a simpler design.
Following an explanation in a comment, a property I thought was accidental may in fact help.
If the function funcA indeed takes only the first argument, funcB the first two and funcC all three (from a list built at runtime), then you can nicely pass all to all of them
$func->( #args );
sub funcA {
my ($A) = #_; # arguments other than the first are discarded
...
}
Each function takes what it needs and the rest of the arguments are discarded.
Further, if functions in any way know which of a given list of arguments to take then again you can simply pass all of them. Then they can pick their arguments either positionally
sub funcB {
my ($A, undef, $B) = #_; # if it needs first and third
...
}
or by a named key
# Work out what arguments are for which function
my $args = { for_A => ..., for_B => ..., for_C => ... };
...
$func->( $args );
sub funcA {
my ($args) = #_
my $A = $args->{for_A};
...
}
where now arguments need be stored in a hash.
Finally and best, this can all be worked out ahead of the call
my $dispatch = { a => \&funcA, b => \&funcB, c => \&funcC };
sub funcRun {
my ($param) = #_;
# Work out arguments for functions
my $args = { a => ..., b => ..., c => ... };
$dispatch->{$param}->( $args->{$param} );
}
# subs funcA, funcB, funcC are the same
funcRun($_) for qw(a b c);
what requires minimal changes to your code (just store arguments in a hash).
Here neither the functions nor the dispatch table need knowledge of the possible argument lists, what is all resolved in funcRun. This avoids entangling functions with outside code.
Your problem stems from the fact that you're passing in a selection of values from arbitrary, unrelated variables. The solution, therefore, is to put all the data you might want to pass to you subroutines in a single data structure and define a mechanism for extracting the correct data for each call. You already have a solution which uses an array for this, but I think it's slightly easier to understand in a hash.
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use feature 'say';
sub funcA{
my ($A) = #_;
say $A;
}
sub funcB{
my ($A, $B) = #_;
say "$A / $B";
}
sub funcC{
my ($A, $B, $C) = #_;
say "$A / $B / $C";
}
my $hash_ref = {
'a' => { func => \&funcA, args => [ qw[ other1 ] ] },
'b' => { func => \&funcB, args => [ qw[ other1 other2 ] ] },
'c' => { func => \&funcC, args => [ qw[ other1 other2 other3 ] ] },
};
sub funcRun{
my ($param) = #_;
my %args = (
other1 => 'foo',
other2 => 'bar',
other3 => 'baz',
);
# $hash_ref->{$param}{args} is an array reference containing
# the names of the arguments you need.
# #{ ... } turns that array reference into an array.
# #args{ ... } uses that array to look up those keys in the
# %args hash (this is called a hash slice)
$hash_ref->{$param}{func}(#args{ #{ $hash_ref->{$param}{args} } });
}
funcRun($_) for qw[a b c];
But, to be honest, having stored your data in a hash, it's only a small step to passing the whole hash into every subroutine and letting them determine which data they want to use. Or even turning your hash into an object.
I have a string as input, say apple.mango.orange = 100
I also have a hash reference:
$inst = {
'banana' => 2,
'guava' => 3,
'apple' => {
'mango' => {
'orange' => 80
}
}
};
I want to modify the value of orange using the input string. Can someone please help me how I could do this?
I tried splitting the string into (key, value) pair. I then did the following on the key string:
my $key2 = "\$inst->{".$key."}";
$key2 =~ s/\./}->{/g;
$$key2 = $value;
This does not work as intended. Can someone help me out here? I have read the Perl FAQ about not using a variable value as variable but I am unable to think of an alternative.
You are building string that consists of (buggy) Perl code, but you never ask Perl to execute it. ...but that's not the right approach.
sub dive_val :lvalue {
my $p = \shift;
$p = \($$p->{$_}) for #_;
$$p
}
my #key = split /\./, "apple.mango.orange";
dive_val($inst, #key) = $value;
or
use Data::Diver qw( DiveVal );
my #key = split /\./, "apple.mango.orange";
DiveVal($inst, map \$_, #key) = $value;
Not only is a symbolic reference a very bad idea here, it doesn't even solve your problem. You're building an expression in $key2, and just jamming another dollar sign in front of its name won't make perl execute that code. For that you would need eval, which is another bad idea
You can install and use the Data::Diver module, which does exactly this sort of thing, or you can simply loop over the list of hash keys, picking up a new hash reference each time and assigning the value to the element with the last key
The biggest issue is actually parsing the incoming string into a list of keys and a value. This code implements a subroutine apply which applies the implied operation in the string to a nested hash. Unless you are confident of your data, it needs some error checking addingto make sure each of the keys in the list exists. The Data:;Dumper output is just to demonstrate the validity of the result
use strict;
use warnings 'all';
use Data::Dumper;
my $inst = { 'banana' => 2, 'guava' => 3, 'apple' => { 'mango' => { 'orange' => 80 } } };
my $s = 'apple.mango.orange = 100';
apply($s, $inst);
print Dumper $inst;
sub apply {
my ($operation, $data) = #_;
my ($keys, $val) = $operation =~ /([\w.]+)\s*=\s*(\d+)/;
my #keys = split /\./, $keys;
my $last = pop #keys;
my $hash = $data;
$hash = $hash->{$_} for #keys;
$hash->{$last} = $val;
}
output
$VAR1 = {
'banana' => 2,
'apple' => {
'mango' => {
'orange' => '100'
}
},
'guava' => 3
};
I have a hash with a few values that are not scalar data but rather anonymous subroutines that return scalar data. I want to make this completely transparent to the part of the code that looks up values in the hash, so that it doesn't have to be aware that some of the hash values may be anonymous subroutines that return scalar data rather than just plain old scalar data.
To that effect, is there any way to have the anonymous subroutines executed when their keys are accessed, without using any special syntax? Here's a simplified example that illustrates the goal and the problem:
#!/usr/bin/perl
my %hash = (
key1 => "value1",
key2 => sub {
return "value2"; # In the real code, this value can differ
},
);
foreach my $key (sort keys %hash) {
print $hash{$key} . "\n";
}
The output I would like is:
perl ./test.pl
value1
value2
Instead, this is what I get:
perl ./test.pl
value1
CODE(0x7fb30282cfe0)
As noted by Oleg, it's possible to do this using various more or less arcane tricks like tie, overloading or magic variables. However, this would be both needlessly complicated and pointlessly obfuscated. As cool as such tricks are, using them in real code would be a mistake at least 99% of the time.
In practice, the simplest and cleanest solution is probably to write a helper subroutine that takes a scalar and, if it's a code reference, executes it and returns the result:
sub evaluate {
my $val = shift;
return $val->() if ref($val) eq 'CODE';
return $val; # otherwise
}
and use it like this:
foreach my $key (sort keys %hash) {
print evaluate($hash{$key}) . "\n";
}
I don't believe that the words that others have written in disapproval of the tie mechanism are warranted. None of the authors seem to properly understand how it works and what core library backup is available
Here's a tie example based on Tie::StdHash
If you tie a hash to the Tie::StdHash class then it works exactly as a normal hash. That means there's nothing left to write except for methods that you may want to override
In this case I've overridden TIEHASH so that I could specify the initialisation list in the same statement as the tie command, and FETCH, which calls the superclass's FETCH and then makes a call to it if it happens to be a subroutine reference
Your tied hash will work as normal except for the change that you have asked for. I hope it is obvious that there is no longer a direct way to retrieve a subroutine reference if you have stored it as a hash value. Such a value will always be replaced by the result of calling it without any parameters
SpecialHash.pm
package SpecialHash;
use Tie::Hash;
use base 'Tie::StdHash';
sub TIEHASH {
my $class = shift;
bless { #_ }, $class;
}
sub FETCH {
my $self = shift;
my $val = $self->SUPER::FETCH(#_);
ref $val eq 'CODE' ? $val->() : $val;
}
1;
main.pl
use strict;
use warnings 'all';
use SpecialHash;
tie my %hash, SpecialHash => (
key1 => "value1",
key2 => sub {
return "value2"; # In the real code, this value can differ
},
);
print "$hash{$_}\n" for sort keys %hash;
output
value1
value2
Update
It sounds like your real situation is with an existing hash that looks something like this
my %hash = (
a => {
key_a1 => 'value_a1',
key_a2 => sub { 'value_a2' },
},
b => {
key_b1 => sub { 'value_b1' },
key_b2 => 'value_b2',
},
);
Using tie on already-populated variables isn't so neat as tying then at the point of declaration and then inserting the values as the data must be copied to the tied object. However the way I have written the TIEHASH method in the SpecialHash class makes this simple to do in the tie statement
If possible, it would be much better to tie each hash before you put data into it and add it to the primary hash
This program ties every value of %hash that happens to be a hash reference. The core of this is the statement
tie %$val, SpecialHash => ( %$val )
which functions identically to
tie my %hash, SpecialHash => ( ... )
in the previous code but dereferences $val to make the syntax valid, and also uses the current contents of the hash as the initialisation data for the tied hash. That is how the data gets copied
After that there is just a couple of nested loops that dump the whole of %hash to verify that the ties are working
use strict;
use warnings 'all';
use SpecialHash;
my %hash = (
a => {
key_a1 => 'value_a1',
key_a2 => sub { 'value_a2' },
},
b => {
key_b1 => sub { 'value_b1' },
key_b2 => 'value_b2',
},
);
# Tie all the secondary hashes that are hash references
#
for my $val ( values %hash ) {
tie %$val, SpecialHash => ( %$val ) if ref $val eq 'HASH';
}
# Dump all the elements of the second-level hashes
#
for my $k ( sort keys %hash ) {
my $v = $hash{$k};
next unless ref $v eq 'HASH';
print "$k =>\n";
for my $kk ( sort keys %$v ) {
my $vv = $v->{$kk};
print " $kk => $v->{$kk}\n"
}
}
output
a =>
key_a1 => value_a1
key_a2 => value_a2
b =>
key_b1 => value_b1
key_b2 => value_b2
There's a feature called "magic" that allows code to be called when variables are accessed.
Adding magic to a variable greatly slows down access to that variable, but some are more expensive than others.
There's no need to make access to every element of the hash magical, just some values.
tie is an more expensive form of magic, and it's not needed here.
As such, the most efficient solution is the following:
use Time::HiRes qw( time );
use Variable::Magic qw( cast wizard );
{
my $wiz = wizard(
data => sub { my $code = $_[1]; $code },
get => sub { ${ $_[0] } = $_[1]->(); },
);
sub make_evaluator { cast($_[0], $wiz, $_[1]) }
}
my %hash;
$hash{key1} = 'value1';
make_evaluator($hash{key2}, sub { 'value2#'.time });
print("$hash{$_}\n") for qw( key1 key2 key2 );
Output:
value1
value2#1462548850.76715
value2#1462548850.76721
Other examples:
my %hash; make_evaluator($hash{key}, sub { ... });
my $hash; make_evaluator($hash->{$key}, sub { ... });
my $x; make_evaluator($x, sub { ... });
make_evaluator(my $x, sub { ... });
make_evaluator(..., sub { ... });
make_evaluator(..., \&some_sub);
You can also "fix up" an existing hash. In your hash-of-hashes scenario,
my $hoh = {
{
key1 => 'value1',
key2 => sub { ... },
...
},
...
);
for my $h (values(%$hoh)) {
for my $v (values(%$h)) {
if (ref($v) eq 'CODE') {
make_evaluator($v, $v);
}
}
}
Yes you can. You can either tie hash to implementation that will resolve coderefs to their return values or you can use blessed scalars as values with overloaded mehods for stringification, numification and whatever else context you want to resolve automatically.
One of perl's special features for just such a use case is tie. This allows you to attach object oriented style methods, to a scalar or hash.
It should be used with caution, because it can mean that your code is doing really strange things, in unexpected ways.
But as an example:
#!/usr/bin/env perl
package RandomScalar;
my $random_range = 10;
sub TIESCALAR {
my ( $class, $range ) = #_;
my $value = 0;
bless \$value, $class;
}
sub FETCH {
my ($self) = #_;
return rand($random_range);
}
sub STORE {
my ( $self, $range ) = #_;
$random_range = $range;
}
package main;
use strict;
use warnings;
tie my $random_var, 'RandomScalar', 5;
for ( 1 .. 10 ) {
print $random_var, "\n";
}
$random_var = 100;
for ( 1 .. 10 ) {
print $random_var, "\n";
}
As you can see - this lets you take an 'ordinary' scalar, and do fruity things with it. You can use a very similar mechanism with a hash - an example might be to do database lookups.
However, you also need to be quite cautious - because you're creating action at a distance by doing so. Future maintenance programmers might well not expect your $random_var to actually change each time you run it, and a value assignment to not actually 'set'.
It can be really useful for e.g. testing though, which is why I give an example.
In your example - you could potentially 'tie' the hash:
#!/usr/bin/env perl
package MagicHash;
sub TIEHASH {
my ($class) = #_;
my $self = {};
return bless $self, $class;
}
sub FETCH {
my ( $self, $key ) = #_;
if ( ref( $self->{$key} ) eq 'CODE' ) {
return $self->{$key}->();
}
else {
return $self->{$key};
}
}
sub STORE {
my ( $self, $key, $value ) = #_;
$self->{$key} = $value;
}
sub CLEAR {
my ($self) = #_;
$self = {};
}
sub FIRSTKEY {
my ($self) = #_;
my $null = keys %$self; #reset iterator
return each %$self;
}
sub NEXTKEY {
my ($self) = #_;
return each %$self;
}
package main;
use strict;
use warnings;
use Data::Dumper;
tie my %magic_hash, 'MagicHash';
%magic_hash = (
key1 => 2,
key2 => sub { return "beefcake" },
);
$magic_hash{random} = sub { return rand 10 };
foreach my $key ( keys %magic_hash ) {
print "$key => $magic_hash{$key}\n";
}
foreach my $key ( keys %magic_hash ) {
print "$key => $magic_hash{$key}\n";
}
foreach my $key ( keys %magic_hash ) {
print "$key => $magic_hash{$key}\n";
}
This is slightly less evil, because future maintenance programmers can use your 'hash' normally. But dynamic eval can shoot the unwary in the foot, so still - caution is advised.
And alternative is to do it 'proper' object oriented - create a 'storage object' that's ... basically like the above - only it creates an object, rather than using tie. This should be much clearer for long term usage, because you won't get unexpected behaviour. (It's an object doing magic, which is normal, not a hash that 'works funny').
You need to identify when a code ref is present, then execute it as an actual call:
foreach my $key (sort keys %hash) {
if (ref $hash{$key} eq 'CODE'){
print $hash{$key}->() . "\n";
}
else {
print "$hash{$key}\n";
}
}
Note that you may consider making all of the hash values subs (a true dispatch table) instead of having some that return non-coderefs and some that return refs.
However, if you define the hash as such, you don't have to do any special trickery when it comes time to use the hash. It calls the sub and returns the value directly when the key is looked up.
key2 => sub {
return "value2";
}->(),
No, not without some ancillary code. You are asking for a simple scalar value and a code reference to behave in the same way. The code that would do that is far from simple and also injects complexity between your hash and its use. You might find the following approach simpler and cleaner.
You can make all values code references, making the hash a dispatch table, for uniform invocation
my %hash = (
key1 => sub { return "value1" },
key2 => sub {
# carry on some processing ...
return "value2"; # In the real code, this value can differ
},
);
print $hash{$_}->() . "\n" for sort keys %hash;
But of course there is a minimal overhead to this approach.
I almost feel like saying "it's me again!".
Anyway, here we go.
I like using while $object->next() style constructs. They appeal to me and seem "neat".
Now, when the thing I'm iterating over is an array, it's straightforward ("shift #ary or return undef")
sub next {
my ( $self, $args ) = #_;
my $next = shift #{ $self->{list_of_things} } or return undef;
my ( $car, $engine_size, $color )
= split( /\Q$opts->{fieldsep}/, $next );
$self->car = $host;
$self->engine_size = $engine_size;
$self->color = $color;
}
In this example I use AUTOLOAD to create the getters and setters and then have those instance variables available in my object during the while loop.
I'd like to do something similar but with the "list_of_things" being a %hash.
Here's a non-OO example that doesn't make it into the first iteration. Any ideas why?
(The total "list_of_things" is not that big - maybe 100 entries - so to do a keys(%{$hash}) every time doesn't seem too wasteful to me).
use strict;
use warnings;
use Data::Dumper;
my $list_of_things = {
volvo => {
color => "red",
engine_size => 2000,
},
bmw => {
color => "black",
engine_size => 2500,
},
mini => {
color => "british racing green",
engine_size => 1200,
}
};
sub next {
my $args = $_;
my #list = keys( %{$list_of_things} );
return undef if scalar #list == "0";
my $next = $list_of_things->{ $list[0] };
delete $list_of_things->{ $list[0] };
return $next;
}
while ( next()) {
print Dumper $_;
print scalar keys %{ $list_of_things }
}
Is there a better way of doing this? Am I doing something crazy?
EDIT:
I tried Ikegami's suggestion. Of course, Ikegami's example works flawlessly. When I try and abstract a little, so that all that is exposed to the object is a next->() method, I get the same "perl-going-to-100%-cpu" problem as in my original example.
Here's a non-OO example:
use Data::Dumper qw( Dumper );
sub make_list_iter {
my #list = #_;
return sub { #list ? shift(#list) : () };
}
sub next {
make_list_iter( keys %$hash );
}
my $hash = { ... };
while ( my ($k) = next->() ) {
print Dumper $hash->{$k};
}
It does not seem to get past the first step of the while() loop.
I am obviously missing something here...
If you don't want to rely on the hash's builtin iterator (used by each, keys and values), there's nothing stopping you from making your own.
use Data::Dumper qw( Dumper );
sub make_list_iter {
my #list = #_;
return sub { #list ? shift(#list) : () };
}
my $list_of_things = { ... };
my $i = make_list_iter(keys %$list_of_things);
while (my ($k) = $i->()) {
local $Data::Dumper::Terse = 1;
local $Data::Dumper::Indent = 0;
say "$k: " . Dumper($list_of_things->{$k});
}
The each operator is a builtin that iterates over hashes. It returns undef when it runs out of elements to return. So you could so something like
package SomeObject;
# creates new object instance
sub new {
my $class = shift;
return bless { hash_of_things => { #_ } }, $class
}
sub next {
my $self = shift;
my ($key,$value) = each %{ $self->{hash_of_things} };
return $key; # or return $value
}
Calling keys on the hash will reset the each iterator. It's good to know this so you can reset it on purpose:
sub reset {
my $self = shift;
keys %{ $self->{hash_of_things} }
}
and so you can avoid resetting it on accident.
The section on tie'ing hashes in perltie also has an example like this.
Here's how List::Gen could be used to create an iterator from a list:
use strict;
use warnings;
use List::Gen 'makegen';
my #list_of_things = ( # This structure is more suitable IMO
{
make => 'volvo',
color => 'red',
engine_size => 2000,
},
{
make => 'bmw',
color => 'black',
engine_size => 2500,
},
{
make => 'mini',
color => 'british racing green',
engine_size => 1200,
}
);
my $cars = makegen #list_of_things;
print $_->{make}, "\n" while $cars->next;
Well, if you don't need $list_of_things for later, you can always do something like
while(keys %$list_of_things)
{
my $temp=(sort keys %$list_of_things)[0];
print "key: $temp, value array: " . join(",",#{$list_of_things->{$temp}}) . "\n";
delete $list_of_things->{$temp};
}
And if you do need it, you can always assign it to a temporary hash reference and perform the same while loop on it.
I need some help regarding the arrays in Perl
This is the constructor I have.
BuildPacket.pm
sub new {
my $class = shift;
my $Packet = {
_PacketName => shift,
_Platform => shift,
_Version => shift,
_IncludePath => [#_],
};
bless $Packet, $class;
return $Packet;
}
sub SetPacketName {
my ( $Packet, $PacketName ) = #_;
$Packet->{_PacketName} = $PacketName if defined($PacketName);
return $Packet->{_PacketName};
}
sub SetIncludePath {
my ( $Packet, #IncludePath ) = #_;
$Packet->{_IncludePath} = \#IncludePath;
}
sub GetPacketName {
my( $Packet ) = #_;
return $Packet->{_PacketName};
}
sub GetIncludePath {
my( $Packet ) = #_;
#{ $Packet->{_IncludePath} };
}
(The code has been modified according to the suggestions from 'gbacon', thank you)
I am pushing the relative paths into 'includeobjects' array in a dynamic way. The includepaths are being read from an xml file and are pushed into this array.
# PacketInput.pm
if($element eq 'Include')
{
while( my( $key, $value ) = each( %attrs ))
{
if($key eq 'Path')
push(#includeobjects, $value);
}
}
So, the includeobject will be this way:
#includeobjects = (
"./input/myMockPacketName",
"./input/myPacket/my3/*.txt",
"./input/myPacket/in.html",
);
I am using this line for set include path
$newPacket->SetIncludePath(#includeobjects);
Also in PacketInput.pm, I have
sub CreateStringPath
{
my $packet = shift;
print "printing packet in CreateStringPath".$packet."\n";
my $append = "";
my #arr = #{$packet->GetIncludePath()};
foreach my $inc (#arr)
{
$append = $append + $inc;
print "print append :".$append."\n";
}
}
I have many packets, so I am looping through each packet
# PacketCreation.pl
my #packets = PacketInput::GetPackets();
foreach my $packet (PacketInput::GetPackets())
{
print "printing packet in loop packet".$packet."\n";
PacketInput::CreateStringPath($packet);
$packet->CreateTar($platform, $input);
$packet->GetValidateOutputFile($platform);
}
The get and set methods work fine for PacketName. But since IncludePath is an array, I could not get it to work, I mean the relative paths are not being printed.
If you enable the strict pragma, the code doesn't even compile:
Global symbol "#_IncludePath" requires explicit package name at Packet.pm line 15.
Global symbol "#_IncludePath" requires explicit package name at Packet.pm line 29.
Global symbol "#_IncludePath" requires explicit package name at Packet.pm line 30.
Global symbol "#_IncludePath" requires explicit package name at Packet.pm line 40.
Don't use # unquoted in your keys because it will confuse the parser. I recommend removing them entirely to avoid confusing human readers of your code.
You seem to want to pull all the attribute values from the arguments to the constructor, so continue peeling off the scalar values with shift, and then everything left must be the include path.
I assume that the components of the include path will be simple scalars and not references; if the latter is the case, then you'll want to make deep copies for safety.
sub new {
my $class = shift;
my $Packet = {
_PacketName => shift,
_Platform => shift,
_Version => shift,
_IncludePath => [ #_ ],
};
bless $Packet, $class;
}
Note that there's no need to store the blessed object in a temporary variable and then immediately return it because of the semantics of Perl subs:
If no return is found and if the last statement is an expression, its value is returned.
The methods below will also make use of this feature.
Given the constructor above, GetIncludePath becomes
sub GetIncludePath {
my( $Packet ) = #_;
my #path = #{ $Packet->{_IncludePath} };
wantarray ? #path : \#path;
}
There are a couple of things going on here. First, note that we're careful to return a copy of the include path rather than a direct reference to the internal array. This way, the user can modify the value returned from GetIncludePath without having to worry about mucking up the packet's state.
The wantarray operator allows a sub to determine the context of its call and respond accordingly. In list context, GetIncludePath will return the list of values in the array. Otherwise, it returns a reference to a copy of the array. This way, client code can call it either as in
foreach my $path (#{ $packet->GetIncludePath }) { ... }
or
foreach my $path ($packet->GetIncludePath) { ... }
SetIncludePath is then
sub SetIncludePath {
my ( $Packet, #IncludePath ) = #_;
$Packet->{_IncludePath} = \#IncludePath;
}
Note that you could have used similar code in the constructor rather than removing one parameter at a time with shift.
You might use the class defined above as in
#! /usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use Packet;
sub print_packet {
my($p) = #_;
print $p->GetPacketName, "\n",
map(" - [$_]\n", $p->GetIncludePath),
"\n";
}
my $p = Packet->new("MyName", "platform", "v1.0", qw/ foo bar baz /);
print_packet $p;
my #includeobjects = (
"./input/myMockPacketName",
"./input/myPacket/my3/*.txt",
"./input/myPacket/in.html",
);
$p->SetIncludePath(#includeobjects);
print_packet $p;
print "In scalar context:\n";
foreach my $path (#{ $p->GetIncludePath }) {
print $path, "\n";
}
Output:
MyName
- [foo]
- [bar]
- [baz]
MyName
- [./input/myMockPacketName]
- [./input/myPacket/my3/*.txt]
- [./input/myPacket/in.html]
In scalar context:
./input/myMockPacketName
./input/myPacket/my3/*.txt
./input/myPacket/in.html
Another way to reduce typing is to use Moose.
package Packet;
use Moose::Policy 'Moose::Policy::JavaAccessors';
use Moose;
has 'PacketName' => (
is => 'rw',
isa => 'Str',
required => 1,
);
has 'Platform' => (
is => 'rw',
isa => 'Str',
required => 1,
);
has 'Version' => (
is => 'rw',
isa => 'Int',
required => 1,
);
has 'IncludePath' => (
is => 'ro',
isa => 'ArrayRef[Str]',
default => sub {[]},
traits => [ 'Array' ],
handles => {
getIncludePath => 'elements',
getIncludePathMember => 'get',
setIncludePathMember => 'set',
},
);
__PACKAGE__->meta->make_immutable;
no Moose;
1;
Check out Moose::Manual::Unsweetened for another example of how Moose saves time.
If you are adamant in your desire to learn classical Perl OOP, read the following perldoc articles: perlboot, perltoot, perlfreftut and perldsc.
A great book about classical Perl OO is Damian Conway's Object Oriented Perl. It will give you a sense of the possibilities in Perl's object.
Once you understand #gbacon's answer, you can save some typing by using Class::Accessor::Fast:
#!/usr/bin/perl
package My::Class;
use strict; use warnings;
use base 'Class::Accessor::Fast';
__PACKAGE__->follow_best_practice;
__PACKAGE__->mk_accessors( qw(
IncludePath
PacketName
Platform
Version
));
use overload '""' => 'to_string';
sub to_string {
my $self = shift;
sprintf(
"%s [ %s:%s ]: %s",
$self->get_PacketName,
$self->get_Platform,
$self->get_Version,
join(':', #{ $self->get_IncludePath })
);
}
my $obj = My::Class->new({
PacketName => 'dummy', Platform => 'Linux'
});
$obj->set_IncludePath([ qw( /home/include /opt/include )]);
$obj->set_Version( '1.05b' );
print "$obj\n";