How can I hide a "tie" call from the user so calling an accessor will implicitly do it for them?
I want to do this, because I have a data structure that can be accessed by the user, but values stored in this structure can be modified without the user's knowledge.
If an attribute in the data structure changes, I want any variables referencing that attribute modified as well so the user will always be using fresh data. Since the user will always want fresh data, it's simpler and more intuitive if the user doesn't even need to know it's happening.
This is what I have so far... it doesn't seem to work though, the output is:
hello
hello
What I want is:
hello
goodbye
Code:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use warnings;
use strict;
use feature qw{ say };
{
package File;
use Moose;
has '_text' => (is => 'rw', isa => 'Str', required => 1);
sub text {
my ($self) = #_;
tie my $text, 'FileText', $self;
return $text;
}
}
{
package FileText;
use Tie::Scalar;
sub TIESCALAR {
my ($class, $obj) = #_;
return bless \$obj, $class;
}
sub FETCH {
my ($self) = #_;
return $$self->_text();
}
sub STORE {
die "READ ONLY";
}
}
my $file = 'File'->new('_text' => 'hello');
my $text = $file->text();
say $text;
$file->_text('goodbye');
say $text;
I would not recommend doing this. You're introducing "action at a distance" which leads to some very difficult to catch bugs. The user thinks they're getting a string. A lexical string can only be altered by changing it directly and obviously. It has to be altered in place or obviously passed into a function or a reference attached to something.
my $text = $file->text;
say $text; # let's say it's 'foo'
...do some stuff...
$file->text('bar');
...do some more stuff...
# I should be able to safely assume it will still be 'foo'
say $text;
That block of code is easy to understand because all the things which could affect $text are immediately visible. This is what lexical context is all about, isolating what can change a variable.
By returning a thing which can change at any time, you've quietly broken this assumption. There's no indication to the user that assumption has been broken. When they go to print $text and get bar it is non-obvious what changed $text. Anything in the whole program could change $text. That small block of code is now infinitely more complicated.
Another way to look at it is this: scalar variables in Perl have a defined interface. Part of that interface says how they can be changed. You are breaking this interface and lying to the user. This is how overloaded/tied variables are typically abused.
Whatever problem you're trying to solve, you're solving it by adding more problems, by making the code more complex and difficult to understand. I would step back and ask what problem you're trying to solve with tying.
What I would do instead is to just return a scalar reference. This alerts the user that it can be changed out from under them at any time. No magic to cover up a very important piece of information.
#!/usr/bin/perl
use warnings;
use strict;
use feature qw{ say };
{
package File;
use Moose;
has 'text_ref' => (
is => 'rw',
isa => 'Ref',
default => sub {
return \("");
}
);
sub BUILDARGS {
my $class = shift;
my %args = #_;
# "Cast" a scalar to a scalar ref.
if( defined $args{text} ) {
$args{text_ref} = \(delete $args{text});
}
return \%args;
}
sub text {
my $self = shift;
if( #_ ) {
# Change the existing text object.
${$self->text_ref} = shift;
return;
}
else {
return $self->text_ref;
}
}
}
my $file = 'File'->new('text' => 'hello');
my $text = $file->text();
say $$text;
$file->text('goodbye');
say $$text;
That said, here's how you do what you want.
I would recommend against using tie. It is very slow, considerably slower than a method call, buggy and quirky. One of its quirks is that the tied nature is attached to the variable itself, not the referenced data. That means you can't return a tied variable.
Instead, I would recommend using an overloaded object to store your changing text.
{
package ChangingText;
# Moose wants class types to be in a .pm file. We have to explciitly
# tell it this is a class type.
use Moose::Util::TypeConstraints qw(class_type);
class_type('ChangingText');
use overload
'""' => sub {
my $self = shift;
return $$self;
},
fallback => 1;
sub new {
my $class = shift;
my $text = shift;
return bless \$text, $class;
}
sub set_text {
my $self = shift;
my $new_text = shift;
$$self = $new_text;
return;
}
}
Overloaded objects have their own caveats, mostly due to code which expects strings writing things like if !ref $arg, but they are easier to deal with than the deep tie bugs.
To make this transparent, store the ChangingText object in the File object and then put a hand made text accessor around it to handle plain strings. The accessor makes sure to reuse the same ChangingText object.
To complete the illusion, BUILDARGS is used to change plain text initialization arguments into a ChangingText object.
{
package File;
use Moose;
has 'text_obj' => (
is => 'rw',
isa => 'ChangingText',
default => sub {
return ChangingText->new;
}
);
sub BUILDARGS {
my $class = shift;
my %args = #_;
# "Cast" plain text into a text object
if( defined $args{text} ) {
$args{text_obj} = ChangingText->new(delete $args{text});
}
return \%args;
}
sub text {
my $self = shift;
if( #_ ) {
# Change the existing text object.
$self->text_obj->set_text(shift);
return;
}
else {
return $self->text_obj;
}
}
}
Then it works transparently.
my $file = File->new('text' => 'hello');
my $text = $file->text();
say $text; # hello
$file->text('goodbye');
say $text; # goodbye
return $text just returns the value of the variable, not the variable itself. You can return a reference to it, though:
sub text {
my ($self) = #_;
tie my $text, 'FileText', $self;
return \$text;
}
You then have to use $$text to dereference it:
my $file = 'File'->new('_text' => 'hello');
my $text = $file->text();
say $$text;
$file->_text('goodbye');
say $$text;
Related
I'm pretty new to perl, and I'm getting stuck on a homework problem. I have an object with a class variable that counts the number of instances created. Then I have a subclass with an instance variable.
My first question is, how do I make the class variable hidden from the user? I tried using closures but couldn't figure out how to make inheritance work with that. And the fact that it's a class variable made it worse because the code that increments it executed twice and it said I had two instances when I had one. Not exactly sure why it happened but it makes sense. I tried using scalars but the variable again wasn't incrementing correctly. Haven't tried "inside-out objects" yet and I'm not sure I want to, it seems way over my head. I'm getting the feeling that encapsulating class variables is different than encapsulating instance variables, but I can't find anything that explains how to do it.
My second questions is, as I mentioned, I can't get encapsulation to work with inheritance. With closures when you call the super constructor from the subclass you get a reference to the subroutine right, so there's no way (that I know of) to add the instance variables to that.
Here's my base class:
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;
package Base;
my $count = 1;
sub new {
my $class = shift;
my $self = {
_Count => $count # not hidden
};
$count++; # increment count
bless $self, $class;
return $self;
}
sub Count { # getter
my $self = shift;
return $self->{_Count};
}
1;
Here's my subclass:
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;
package Sub;
use Base;
our #ISA = qw(Base);
sub new {
my $class = shift;
my $self = $class->SUPER::New();
$self->{_Name} = undef; # not hidden
return $self;
}
sub Name { #getter/setter
my($self, $name) = #_;
$self->{_Name} = $name if defined($name);
return $self->{_Name};
}
1;
If you are using bare Perl 5 (rather than employing an OO framework), the usual way to do class variables is as a lexical visible only to the accessor:
{
my $count = 0;
sub Count {
my ($self, $new_count) = #_;
if (defined $new_count) { # NB only works if undef is not a legit value
$count = $new_count;
}
return $count;
}
}
$count is only visible in the enclosing block; not even other methods on the same class can see it. But anyone can manipulate it with either $base_obj->Count or Base->Count, and any such manipulation will affect the shared variable.
You can also employ closure to provide really-hidden instance variables. This is not worth doing unless you are fulfilling the arbitrary rules of a homework assignment.
package Base;
sub new {
my ($class, $name) = #_;
die "Need name!" unless defined $name;
my $age;
return bless sub {
my ($attribute, #args) = #_;
if ($attribute eq 'name') {
if (#args) {
die "Attempt to set read-only attribute!";
}
return $name;
}
if ($attribute eq 'age') {
if (#args) {
($age) = #args;
}
return $age;
}
die "Unknown attribute $attribute";
} => $class;
}
sub name {
my ($self, #args) = #_;
return $self->(name => #args);
}
sub age {
my ($self, #args) = #_;
return $self->(age => #args);
}
What happens here is that the blessed sub returned by new closes over two lexicals, $name and $age. When new returns, those lexicals go out of scope and the only way to access them from that point forward is through the closure. The closure can inspect its arguments to permit or deny access to the values it holds. So long as it never returns a reference, it can be sure that it has the only direct access to those variables.
This works with inheritance, too, without too much added subtlety:
package Derived;
use base 'Base';
sub new {
my ($class, $name, $color) = #_;
my $base_instance = $class->SUPER::new($name);
return bless sub {
my ($attribute, #args) = #_;
if ($attribute eq 'color') {
if (#args) {
($color) = #args;
}
return $color;
}
# base class handles anything we don't, possibly by dying
return $base_instance->($attribute, #args);
} => $class;
}
This emulates what languages with distinct storage for base- and derived-class instance data do, either handling the request locally or passing it on to the base class instance, which has been added to the closure. Deeper inheritance trees will result in closures that close over closures that close over closures, each of them optionally also closing over instance variables needed by that particular class.
This is a pretty big mess to produce and really hard to inspect and debug, which is why I'm going to emphasize one more time that you should never do this. But it is very useful to understand, to which end I refer you to SICP.
As a module-local my variable, $count is already hidden from users of the module/class. It appears as if you're using instance variable _Count as a "current ID" type variable, so that each object (instance) created gets a new ID starting from 1. (If instead it is meant to track the number of active instances, then you need to decrement it in DESTROY and there's no need to store a copy in the object.) If your test code is only creating one instance then its Count() method should return 1 but $count will be 2, since it started as 1 and was incremented after storing the old value in the object.
It is typical in perl to store instance variables in the $self hash as you are doing, without hiding them, although sometimes a prefix is used to avoid collisions. They are protected more by convention (it's not safe to rely on implementation details because they might change) than language features.
Take a look at the Moose suite of modules if you want higher-level control over perl classes.
To quote perldoc perlmodlib, "Perl does not enforce private and public parts of its modules as you may have been used to in other languages like C++, Ada, or Modula-17. Perl doesn't have an infatuation with enforced privacy. It would prefer that you stayed out of its living room because you weren't invited, not because it has a shotgun."
The standard convention in Perl is to put everything into the $self hash and use an underscore prefix to indicate which items should be treated as private... and then trust users of the class to respect that indication. The same convention is also applied to methods. If you use one of my modules and you choose to peek under the covers and modify the contents of $self directly or call $obj->_some_private_method, then you're going off into the woods and may break something, or what works fine in this version may break when you upgrade to the next version; if that happens, you get to keep both pieces.
If you're going to insist on making data inaccessible to anyone outside the class itself, there are ways to do that, but a) they add complexity which is, in almost all cases, unnecessary and b) as you've already seen, they have a tendency to make inheritance a lot more of a hassle to work with.
My question to you, then, is what are you actually attempting to accomplish and why do you feel the need to make your object data Sooper-Sekret and completely inaccessible? What benefit will you gain by doing so which isn't provided by simply marking things that you think should be treated as private, then trusting others to leave them alone (unless they have good reason to do otherwise)?
In Perl, fields are not usually hidden by enforcing this through the semantics of the language, but rather through a contract in the form of documentation. However, fields can be hidden through the use of closures. It is also worth noting that Perl does not semantically differentiate between class methods and instance methods.
One of the standard ways to implement objects is a blessed hash, like you do. This hash contains all instance variables / fields. It is customary to start "private" fields with an underscore. Usually, the contract (the documentation) will not state how these fields are stored, but will require the user of the class to go through various method calls.
Class variables should not be stored with the instance. It is better to use global variables, or lexical variables. In the code you gave, $count is just a counter, but you never access it as a class variable. Instead, you assign each instance an unique ID. To use it as a class variable, provide an appropriate accessor (I stripped out unneccessary stuff like returns):
{
package Base;
my $count = 0;
sub new {
my ($class) = #_;
my $self = {
ID => $count++,
};
bless $self, $class;
}
sub Count { $count }
sub ID { my ($self) = #_; $self->{ID} }
sub report { my ($self) = #_; "I am the Base object ".($self->ID)."." }
}
=head1 Base
A generic base class
=head2 Base->Count
Return the object count.
=head2 $base->ID
Give the unique ID of this object.
=head2 $base->report
Returns a string containing a short description.
=cut
The subclass has no business meddling with the count. This is enforced by the scope of the variable $count above, denoted via the outer curly braces. The subs are closures over this variable.
{
package Sub;
use parent -norequire, qw(Base); # remove `-norequire` if Base in different file
sub new {
my ($class) = #_;
my $self = $class->SUPER::new;
$self->{Name} = undef;
$self;
}
sub Name :lvalue {
my ($self) = #_;
$self->{Name};
}
sub report {
my ($self) = #_;
"I am the Sub object ".($self->ID)." called ".($self->Name).".";
}
}
=head1 Sub
A generic subclass. It subclasses Base.
=head2 $sub->Name [= SCALAR]
Gets or sets the name of $sub.
my $oldname = $sub->Name;
$sub->name = "new name";
=cut
As you can see, the Sub constructor calls the Base initializer, then adds a new field. It has no class methods or class variables. The class has no access to the $count variable, except via the accessor class method. The contract is stated via POD documentation.
(In the Name method, I use an :lvalue annotation. This allows me to simply assign to the appropriate field in the object. However, this disallows argument checking.)
The testcase
my $base1 = Base->new; my $base2 = Base->new;
print "There are now " . Base->Count . " Base objects\n";
my $sub1 = Sub->new; my $sub2 = Sub->new;
print "There are now " . Base->Count . " Base objects\n";
$sub2->Name = "Fred";
print $_->report . "\n" for ($base1, $sub1, $base2, $sub2);
prints
There are now 2 Base objects
There are now 4 Base objects
I am the Base object 0.
I am the Sub object 2 called .
I am the Base object 1.
I am the Sub object 3 called Fred.
Beautiful, isn't it? (Except $sub1, that object is missing its name.)
The documentation can be viewed with perldoc -F FILENAME, and would output something like
Base
A generic base class
Base->Count
Return the object count.
$base->ID
Give the unique ID of this object.
$base->report
Returns a string containing a short description.
Sub
A generic subclass. It subclasses Base.
$sub->Name [= SCALAR]
Gets or sets the name of $sub.
my $oldname = $sub->Name;
$sub->name = "new name";
only typeset more nicely, if you are on a *nix system.
Tested under v5.12.4.
Edit: Inside-out objects
While inside-out objects provide better encapulation, they are a bad idea: difficult to understand, difficult to debug, and difficult to inherit they provide more problems than solutions.
{
package Base;
my $count = 0;
sub new { bless \do{my $o = $count++}, shift }
sub Count { $count }
sub ID { ${+shift} }
sub report { my ($self) = #_; "I am the Base object ".($self->ID)."." }
}
{
package Sub;
my #_obj = ();
my $count = 0;
sub new {
my ($class) = #_;
$count++;
$_obj[$count - 1] = +{
parent => Base->new(),
Name => undef,
};
bless \do{my $o = $count - 1}, shift;
}
sub Name :lvalue { $_obj[${+shift}]{Name} }
sub AUTOLOAD {
my $self = shift;
my $package = __PACKAGE__ . "::";
(my $meth = $AUTOLOAD) =~ s/^$package//;
$_obj[$$self]{parent}->$meth(#_)
}
sub report {
my ($self) = #_;
"I am the Sub object ".($self->ID)." called ".($self->Name).".";
}
}
This implementation has the exact same interface, and completes the test case with the same output. This solution is far from optimal, supports only single inheritance, does some intermediate stuff (autoloading, dynamic method calls), but it does suprisingly work. Each object is actually just a reference to an ID that can be used to look up the actual hash containing the fields. The array holding the hashes is not accessible from the outside. The Base class has no fields, therefore no object array had to be created.
Edit2: Objects as coderefs
Yet another bad idea, but it is fun to code:
{
package Base;
my $count = 0;
sub new {
my ($class) = #_;
my $id = $count++;
bless sub {
my ($field) = #_;
die "Undefined field name" unless defined $field;
if ($field eq "ID") { return $id }
else { die "Unrecognised name $field" }
}, $class;
}
sub Count { $count }
sub ID { my ($self) = #_; $self->("ID") }
sub report { my ($self) = #_; "I am the Base object " . $self->ID . "." }
}
{
package Sub;
use parent -norequire, qw(Base);
sub new {
my ($class) = #_;
my $name = undef;
my $super = $class->SUPER::new;
bless sub {
my ($field, $val ) = #_;
die "Undefined field name" unless defined $field;
if ($field eq "Name") { defined $val ? $name = $val : $name }
else { $super->(#_) }
}, $class;
}
sub Name { my $self = shift; $self->("Name", #_) }
sub report {
my ($self) = #_;
"I am the Sub object ".($self->ID)." called ".($self->Name).".";
}
}
The test case has to be adapted to $sub2->Name("Fred"), and the documentation updated accordingly, as we cannot use an lvalue annotation here safely.
First, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "hidden from the user", but it looks like you may be looking for package scoped variables (our) vs. instance scoped.
package MyBaseClass;
use warnings;
use strict;
our $counter = 0;
sub new {
my $class = shift;
$counter++;
return bless {}, $class;
}
sub howManyInstances {
return $counter;
}
1;
On your second question, I'm not sure what closures have to do with inheritance.
Here's a simple subclass:
package MySubClass;
use warnings;
use strict;
use parent 'MyBaseClass'; # use parent schema, don't mess with #ISA
sub new {
my $class = shift;
my $self = $class->SUPER::new(#_);
$self->{_name} = undef;
return $self;
}
# Your setter/getter looks ok as is, though lowercase is tradional for methods/subs
1;
Now, if this were real code you would not do it like this - you would use Moo or Moose.
I'd like to check on every call to my object's methods some value (in this case: token's age). Is it possible to set it to all methods at once? Like in constructor? I have such simple constructor:
sub new {
my $class = shift;
my %args = #_;
my $self = {};
$self->{key} = $args{key};
bless($self, $class);
($self->{token}, $self->{token_start}) = $self->_get_authorized_token();
return $self;
}
And bunch of methods, which depends of tokens age, like this:
sub add_item {
my $self = shift;
my %args = #_;
...
}
I'd like to avoid including age-checking in every method, so i look for more general way to implement it. Has there some?
All I can think of is to hide all your 'real' methods - either in the classical way with a preceding underscore, or in a hash of subroutines - and use AUTOLOAD to direct the call properly.
The example below shos the idea
module MyClass.pm
package MyClass;
use strict;
use warnings;
sub new {
bless {}, __PACKAGE__;
}
sub _method1 {
print "In method1\n";
}
sub _method2 {
print "In method2\n";
}
sub AUTOLOAD {
our $AUTOLOAD;
my ($class, $method) = $AUTOLOAD =~ /(.+)::(.+)/;
return if $method eq 'DESTROY';
my $newmethod = "${class}::_$method";
unless (exists &$newmethod) {
die qq(Can't locate object method "$method" via package "$class");
}
print "Preprocessing...\n";
goto &$newmethod
}
1;
program
use strict;
use warnings;
use MyClass;
my $thing = MyClass->new;
$thing->method1;
$thing->method2;
$thing->method3;
output
Preprocessing...
In method1
Preprocessing...
In method2
Can't locate object method "method3" via package "MyClass" at MyClass.pm line 23.
See Class::Method::Modifiers or Class::Method::Modifiers::Fast module.
I honestly think that if you're doing OO in Perl and you want to deal with things like attributes, method modifiers and deferred resource loading without the boilerplate, it's worth investing in learning Moose. To illustrate, this is one way to write what you want using Moose:
use Moose;
has key => (isa => 'Str', is => 'ro');
has token => (isa => 'HashRef', is => 'ro', lazy_build => 1);
before [qw(add_item method2 method3)] => sub {
my $self = shift;
if (do something with $self->token) {
# return, die, etc.
}
};
sub _build_token {
my $self = shift;
my $key = $self->key;
return { token => 'foo', token_start => time };
}
These might be helpful:
Moose::Manual::MethodModifiers
Moose::Cookbook::Basics::BinaryTree_BuilderAndLazyBuild
I have a set of fields with each field having different set of validation rules.
I have placed the subroutine reference for validating a hash-ref.
Currently its in my constructor, but I want to take it out of my constructor in a private sub.
I have done it as below
sub new {
my $class = shift;
my $self = {#_};
$class = (ref($class)) ? ref $class : $class;
bless($self, $class);
$self->{Validations} = {
Field1 => {name => sub{$self->checkField1(#_);},args => [qw(a b c)]}
Field2 => {name => sub{$self->checkField2(#_);},args => {key1, val1}}
..
..
..
..
};
return $self;
}
Now I want to take out all this validation rules out of my constructor and want to do some thing like below, so that I have some better control over my validation rules based on types fields.(Say some rules are common in one set of fields and I can overwrite rules for other rules just by overwriting the values of fields.)
bless($self, $class);
$self->{Validations} = $self->_getValidation($self->{type});
return $self;
}
sub _getValidation{
my ($self,$type) = #_;
my $validation = {
Field1 => {name => sub {$self->checkField1(#_);}, args => {key1 => val1}},};
return $validation;
}
But I am getting Can't use string ("") as a subroutine ref while "strict refs" in use at... Can anybody tell me why is this behavior with sub ref. If I check my name key, its coming to be null or sub {DUMMY};
It looks to me like you are getting close to reinventing Moose poorly. Consider using Moose instead of building something similar, but less useful.
The error message means that you are passing in a string in a place where your code expects a code reference. Get a stack trace to figure out where the error is coming from.
You can do this by using Carp::Always, overriding the $SIG{__DIE__} handler to generate a stack trace, or inserting a Carp::confess into your code.
Here's a sigdie solution, stick this in your code where it will run before your module initialization:
$SIG{__DIE__} = sub { Carp::confess(#_) };
You may need to put it in a BEGIN block.
I'd really like to discourage you from taking this approach to building objects. You happily bless any random crap passed in to the constructor as part of your object! You blithely reach into your object internals. Field validation rules *do not belong in the constructor--they belong in the attribute mutators.
If you must use a DIY object, clean up your practices:
# Here's a bunch of validators.
# I set them up so that each attribute supports:
# Multiple validators per attribute
# Distinct error message per attribute
my %VALIDATORS = (
some_attribute => [
[ sub { 'foo1' }, 'Foo 1 is bad thing' ],
[ sub { 'foo2' }, 'Foo 2 is bad thing' ],
[ sub { 'foo3' }, 'Foo 3 is bad thing' ],
],
other_attribute => [ [ sub { 'bar' }, 'Bar is bad thing' ] ],
);
sub new {
my $class = shift; # Get the invocant
my %args = #_; # Get named arguments
# Do NOT make this a clone method as well
my $self = {};
bless $class, $self;
# Initialize the object;
for my $arg ( keys %args ) {
# Make sure we have a sane error message on a bad argument.
croak "Bogus argument $arg not allowed in $class\n"
unless $class->can( $arg );
$self->$arg( $args{$arg} );
}
return $self;
}
# Here's an example getter/setter method combined in one.
# You may prefer to separate get and set behavior.
sub some_attribute {
my $self = shift;
if( #_ ){
my $val = shift;
# Do any validation for the field
$_->[0]->($val) or croak $_->[1]
for #{ $VALIDATORS{some_attribute} || [] };
$self->{some_attribute} = $val;
}
return $self->{some_attribute};
}
All this code is very nice, but you have to repeat your attribute code for every attribute. This means a lot of error-prone boilerplate code. You can get around this issue by learning to use closures or string eval to dynamically create your methods, or you can use one of Perl's many class generation libraries such as Class::Accessor, Class::Struct, Accessor::Tiny and so forth.
Or you can learn [Moose][3]. Moose is the new(ish) object library that has been taking over Perl OOP practice. It provides a powerful set of features and dramatically reduces boilerplate over classical Perl OOP:
use Moose;
type 'Foo'
=> as 'Int'
=> where {
$_ > 23 and $_ < 42
}
=> message 'Monkeys flew out my butt';
has 'some_attribute' => (
is => 'rw',
isa => 'Foo',
);
I haven't read everything you had, but this struck me:
sub new {
my $class = shift;
my $self = {#_};
$class = (ref($class)) ? ref $class : $class;
bless($self, $class);
Normally, when you create a new object, the user doesn't pass $self as one of the objects. That's what you're creating.
You usually see something like this:
sub new {
my $class = shift; #Contains the class
my %params = #_; #What other parameters used
my $self = {}; #You're creating the $self object as a reference to something
foreach my $param (keys (%params)) {
$self->{$param} = $params{$param};
}
bless ($self, $class) #Class is provided. You don't have to check for it.
return $self #This is the object you created.
}
Now, $self doesn't have to be a reference to a hash as in the above example. It could be a reference to an array. Or maybe to a function. But, it's usually a reference. The main point, is that the user doesn't pass in $self because that's getting created by your new subroutine.
Nor, do you have to check the value of $class since that's given when the new subroutine is called.
If you want to do your verification in a private class (an excellent idea, by the way), you can do so after the bless:
sub new {
my $class = shift; #Contains the class
my %params = #_; #What other parameters used
my $self = {}; #You're creating the $self object as a reference to something
foreach my $param (keys (%params)) {
$self->{$param} = $params{$param};
}
bless ($self, $class) #Class is provided. You don't have to check for it.
#Now you can run your verifications since you've blessed the object created
if (not $self->_validate_parameters()) {
croak qq(Invalid parameters passed in class $class);
}
return $self #This is the object you created.
}
I've just started to learn about tie. I have a class named Link which I would like to do the following thing:
if fetched, return the link's address
if stored, store the new address
be able to call methods on it
So far, my code is :
package Link;
sub FETCH {
my $this = shift;
return $this->{"site"};
}
sub STORE {
my ($self,$site) = #_;
$self->{"site"} = $site;
}
sub print_method {
my $self = shift;
print $self->{"site"};
}
sub TIESCALAR {
my $class = shift;
my $link = shift;
my $this = {};
bless($this,$class);
$this->{"site"} = $link;
return $this;
}
1;
And the code I'm using to check the functionality is:
use Link;
tie my $var,"Link","http://somesite.com";
$var->print_method;
When ran, the script will terminate with the following error:
Can't call method "print_method" without a package or object reference at tietest.pl line 4..
If I understand its message correctly, $var->print_method resolves to some string upon which the method print_method is called. How could I benefit from tie, but also use the variable as an object?
EDIT: after experimenting a bit,I found out that if I return $self on fetch , I can call the methods , however , fetch won't return the address .
EDIT 2:the perl monks supplied me the solution : tied . tied will return a reference to the object VARIABLE .
By combining tied with my methods , I can accomplish everything I wanted .
Tie is the wrong tool for this job. You use ties when you want the same interface as normal data types but want to customize how the operations do their work. Since you want to access and store a string just like a scalar already does, tie doesn't do anything for you.
It looks like you want the URI module, or a subclass of it, and perhaps some overloading.
If you really need to do this, you need to use the right variable. The tie hooks up the variable you specify to the class you specify, but it's still a normal scalar (and not a reference). You have to use the object it returns if you want to call methods:
my $secret_object = tie my($normal_scalar), 'Tie::Class', #args;
$secret_object->print_method;
You can also get the secret object if you only have the tied scalar:
my $secret_object = tied $normal_scalar;
I have an entire chapter on tie in Mastering Perl.
I suggest making a normal Perl object and then overloading stringification. You lose the ability to store a value through assignment, but retain the ability to get the value out by printing the object. Once you start wanting to call methods directly, an object is probably what you want.
package Link;
use strict;
use Carp;
use overload
(
'""' => sub { shift->site },
fallback => 1,
);
sub new
{
my $class = shift;
my $self = bless {}, $class;
if(#_)
{
if(#_ == 1)
{
$self->{'site'} = shift;
}
else { croak "$class->new() expects a single URL argument" }
}
return $self;
}
sub site
{
my $self = shift;
$self->{'site'} = shift if(#_);
return $self->{'site'};
}
sub print_method
{
my $self = shift;
print $self->site, "\n";
}
1;
Example usage:
use Link;
my $link = Link->new('http://somesite.com');
print $link, "\n"; # http://somesite.com
$link->print_method; # http://somesite.com
If you really, really want assignment to work too, you can combine a normal object with overloaded stringification (Link, above) with tie:
package LinkTie;
use strict;
use Link;
sub FETCH
{
my $this = shift;
return $this->{'link'};
}
sub STORE
{
my($self, $site) = #_;
$self->{'link'}->site($site);
return $site;
}
# XXX: You could generalize this delegation with Class::Delegation or similar
sub print_method
{
my $self = shift;
print $self->{'link'}->print_method;
}
sub TIESCALAR
{
my $class = shift;
my $self = bless {}, $class;
$self->{'link'} = Link->new(#_);
return $self;
}
1;
Example usage:
tie my $link,'LinkTie','http://somesite.com';
print $link, "\n"; # http://somesite.com
$link->print_method; # http://somesite.com
$link = 'http://othersite.com';
print $link, "\n"; # http://othersite.com
$link->print_method; # http://othersite.com
This is all quite hideous and a long way to go just to get the dubious ability to assign to something that you can also call methods on and also print as-is. A standard URI object with stringification is probably a better bet.
I often find it useful to be able to schedule code to be executed upon leaving the current scope. In my previous life in TCL, a friend created a function we called defer.
It enabled code like:
set fp [open "x"]
defer("close $fp");
which was invoked when the current scope exited. The main benefit is that it's always invoked no matter how/where I leave scope.
So I implemented something similar in Perl but it seems there'd be an easier way. Comments critiques welcome.
The way I did it in Perl:
create a global, tied variable which holds an array of subs to be executed.
whenever I want to schedule a fn to be invoked on exit, I use local to change the array.
when I leave the current scope, Perl changes the global to the previous value
because the global is tied, I know when this value change happens and can invoke the subs in the list.
The actual code is below.
Is there a better way to do this? Seems this would be a commonly needed capability.
use strict;
package tiescalar;
sub TIESCALAR {
my $class = shift;
my $self = {};
bless $self, $class;
return $self;
}
sub FETCH {
my $self = shift;
return $self->{VAL};
}
sub STORE {
my $self = shift;
my $value = shift;
if (defined($self->{VAL}) && defined($value)) {
foreach my $s (#{$self->{VAL}}) { &$s; }
}
$self->{VAL} = $value;
}
1;
package main;
our $h;
tie($h, 'tiescalar');
$h = [];
printf "1\n";
printf "2\n";
sub main {
printf "3\n";
local $h = [sub{printf "9\n"}];
push(#$h, sub {printf "10\n";});
printf "4\n";
{
local $h = [sub {printf "8\n"; }];
mysub();
printf "7\n";
return;
}
}
sub mysub {
local $h = [sub {printf "6\n"; }];
print "5\n";
}
main();
printf "11\n";
Well, your specific case is already handled if you use lexical filehandles (as opposed to the old style bareword filehandles). For other cases, you could always use the DESTROY method of an object guaranteed to go to zero references when it goes out of scope:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
for my $i (1 .. 5) {
my $defer = Defer::Sub->new(sub { print "end\n" });
print "start\n$i\n";
}
package Defer::Sub;
use Carp;
sub new {
my $class = shift;
croak "$class requires a function to call\n" unless #_;
my $self = {
func => shift,
};
return bless $self, $class;
}
sub DESTROY {
my $self = shift;
$self->{func}();
}
ETA: I like brian's name better, Scope::OnExit is a much more descriptive name.
Instead of using tie for this, I think I'd just create an object. You can also avoid the local that way too.
{
my $defer = Scope::OnExit->new( #subs );
$defer->push( $other_sub ); # and pop, shift, etc
...
}
When the variable goes out of scope, you have a chance to do things in the DESTROY method.
Also, in the example you posted, you need to check that the values you store are code references, and it's probably a good idea to check that the VAL value is an array reference:
sub TIESCALAR { bless { VAL => [] }, $_[0] }
sub STORE {
my( $self, $value ) = #_;
carp "Can only store array references!" unless ref $value eq ref [];
foreach { #$value } {
carp "There should only be code refs in the array"
unless ref $_ eq ref sub {}
}
foreach ( #{ $self->{VAL}} ) { $_->() }
$self->{VAL} = $value;
}
You may want to try out B::Hooks::EndOfScope
I Believe this works:
use B::Hooks::EndOfScope;
sub foo {
on_scope_end {
$codehere;
};
$morecode
return 1; # scope end code executes.
}
foo();
I think you want something like Scope::Guard, but it can't be pushed. Hmmm.
Thanks.
Trivially,
sub OnLeavingScope::DESTROY { ${$_[0]}->() }
used like:
{
...
my $onleavingscope = bless \sub { ... }, 'OnLeavingScope';
my $onleavingscope2 = bless \\&whatever, 'OnLeavingScope';
...
}
(The extra level of having a reference to a reference to a sub is necessary only to work around an optimization (that's arguably a bug) when using a non-closure anonymous sub.)