Perl: Syntactical Sugar for Latter Coderef Arguments? - perl

Using sub prototypes, we can define our own subs that look like map or grep. That is, the first coderef argument has shorter syntax than a normal anonymous sub. For example:
sub thunked (&) { $_[0] }
my $val = thunked { 2 * 4 };
Works great here, since the first argument is the coderef. For latter arguments however, it simple won't parse properly.
I made a with sub designed to make writing GTK2 code cleaner. It's meant to look like this (untested since it's hypothetical code):
use 5.012;
use warnings;
use Gtk2 '-init';
sub with ($&) {
local $_ = $_[0];
$_[1]->();
$_;
}
for (Gtk2::Window->new('toplevel')) {
$_->set_title('Test Application');
$_->add(with Gtk2::VBox->new {
my $box = $_;
$box->add(Gtk2::Button->new("Button $_")) for (1..4);
});
$_->show_all;
}
Gtk2->main;
It doesn't work because with needs to take the block as a first argument for the nice syntax to work. Is there any way to pull it off?

The module Devel::Declare contains tools for extending Perl's syntax in a relatively safe way.
Using Devel::Declare you would create a hook on the with token, which will stop the parser when it reaches that word. From there, you have control over the parser and you can read ahead until you reach a { symbol. At that point, you have what you need to work with, so you rewrite it into valid Perl, and pass it back to the parser.
in the file With.pm:
package With;
use warnings;
use strict;
use Devel::Declare;
sub import {
my $caller = caller;
Devel::Declare->setup_for (
$caller => {with => {const => \&parser}}
);
no strict 'refs';
*{$caller.'::with'} = sub ($&) {
$_[1]() for $_[0];
$_[0]
}
}
our $prefix = '';
sub get {substr Devel::Declare::get_linestr, length $prefix}
sub set { Devel::Declare::set_linestr $prefix . $_[0]}
sub parser {
local $prefix = substr get, 0, length($_[0]) + $_[1];
my $with = strip_with();
strip_space();
set "scalar($with), sub " . get;
}
sub strip_space {
my $skip = Devel::Declare::toke_skipspace length $prefix;
set substr get, $skip;
}
sub strip_with {
strip_space;
my $with;
until (get =~ /^\{/) {
(my $line = get) =~ s/^([^{]+)//;
$with .= $1;
set $line;
strip_space;
}
$with =~ s/\s+/ /g;
$with
}
and to use it:
use With;
sub Window::add {say "window add: ", $_[1]->str}
sub Window::new {bless [] => 'Window'}
sub Box::new {bless [] => 'Box'}
sub Box::add {push #{$_[0]}, #_[1..$#_]}
sub Box::str {"Box(#{$_[0]})"}
sub Button::new {"Button($_[1])"}
with Window->new {
$_->add(with Box->new {
for my $num (1 .. 4) {
$_->add(Button->new($num))
}
})
};
Which prints:
window add: Box(Button(1) Button(2) Button(3) Button(4))
A completely different approach would be to skip the with keyword altogether and write a routine to generate constructor subroutines:
BEGIN {
for my $name (qw(VBox)) { # and any others you want
no strict 'refs';
*$name = sub (&#) {
use strict;
my $code = shift;
my $with = "Gtk2::$name"->new(#_);
$code->() for $with;
$with
}
}
}
and then your code could look like
for (Gtk2::Window->new('toplevel')) {
$_->set_title('Test Application');
$_->add(VBox {
my $box = $_;
$box->add(Gtk2::Button->new("Button $_")) for (1..4);
});
$_->show_all;
}

One way that you could deal with it is to add a fairly useless keyword:
sub perform(&) { $_[0] }
with GTK2::VBox->new, perform { ... }
where perform is really just a sugarier alternative to sub.
Another way is to write a Devel::Declare filter or a Syntax::Keyword:: plugin to implement your with, as long as you have some way to tell when you're done parsing the with argument and ready to start parsing the block — balanced parentheses would do (so would an opening curly brace, but then hashes become a problem). Then you could support something like
with (GTK2::VBox->new) { ... }
and let the filter rewrite it to something like
do {
local $_ = GTK2::VBox->new;
do {
...;
};
$_;
}
which, if it works, has the advantage of not actually creating a sub, and thus not interfering with #_, return, and a few other things. The two layers of do-age I think are necessary for being able to install an EndOfScope hook in the proper place.
The obvious disadvantages of this are that it's tricky, it's hairy, and it's a source filter (even if it's a tame one) which means there are problems you have to solve if you want any code using it to be debuggable at all.

Related

Use of reference to elements in #_ to avoid duplicating code

Is it safe to take reference of elements of #_ in a subroutine in order to avoid duplicating code? I also wonder if the following is good practice or can be simplified. I have a subroutine mod_str that takes an option saying if a string argument should be modified in-place or not:
use feature qw(say);
use strict;
use warnings;
my $str = 'abc';
my $mstr = mod_str( $str, in_place => 0 );
say $mstr;
mod_str( $str, in_place => 1 );
say $str;
sub mod_str {
my %opt;
%opt = #_[1..$#_];
if ( $opt{in_place} ) {
$_[0] =~ s/a/A/g;
# .. do more stuff with $_[0]
return;
}
else {
my $str = $_[0];
$str =~ s/a/A/g;
# .. do more stuff with $str
return $str;
}
}
In order to avoid repeating/duplicating code in the if and else blocks above, I tried to improve mod_str:
sub mod_str {
my %opt;
%opt = #_[1..$#_];
my $ref;
my $str;
if ( $opt{in_place} ) {
$ref = \$_[0];
}
else {
$str = $_[0]; # make copy
$ref = \$str;
}
$$ref =~ s/a/A/g;
# .. do more stuff with $$ref
$opt{in_place} ? return : return $$ref;
}
The "in place" flag changes the function's interface to the point where it should be a new function. It will simplify the interface, testing, documentation and the internals to have two functions. Rather than having to parse arguments and have a big if/else block, the user has already made that choice for you.
Another way to look at it is the in_place option will always be set to a constant. Because it fundamentally changes how the function behaves, there's no sensible case where you'd write in_place => $flag.
Once you do that, the reuse becomes more obvious. Write one function to do the operation in place. Write another which calls that on a copy.
sub mod_str_in_place {
# ...Do work on $_[0]...
return;
}
sub mod_str {
my $str = $_[0]; # string is copied
mod_str_in_place($str);
return $str;
}
In the absence of the disgraced given I like using for as a topicalizer. This effectively aliases $_ to either $_[0] or the local copy depending on the value of the in_place hash element. It's directly comparable to your $ref but with aliases, and a lot cleaner
I see no reason to return a useless undef / () in the case that the string is modified in place; the subroutine may as well return the new value of the string. (I suspect the old value might be more useful, after the fashion of $x++, but that makes for uglier code!)
I'm not sure whether this is readable code to anyone but me, so comments are welcome!
use strict;
use warnings;
my $ss = 'abcabc';
printf "%s %s\n", mod_str($ss), $ss;
$ss = 'abcabc';
printf "%s %s\n", mod_str($ss, in_place => 1), $ss;
sub mod_str {
my ($copy, %opt) = #_;
for ( $opt{in_place} ? $_[0] : $copy ) {
s/a/A/g;
# .. do more stuff with $_
return $_;
}
}
output
AbcAbc abcabc
AbcAbc AbcAbc

How do you create a callback function (dispatch table) in Perl using hashes?

I want to call a main controller function that dispatches other function dynamically, something like this:
package Controller;
my %callback_funcs = ();
sub register_callback{
my ($class,$callback,$options) = _#;
#apppend to %callback_funcs hash ... ?
}
sub main{
%callback_funcs = ( add => 'add_func', rem => 'remove_func', edit => 'edit_func');
while(<STDIN>){
last if ($_ =~ /^\s*$/);
if($_ == 'add' || _$ == 'rem' || _$ == 'edit'){
$result = ${callback_funcs['add']['func']}(callback_funcs['add']['options']);
}
}
}
sub add_func{
...
}
One caveat is that the subs are defined in other Modules, so the callbacks would have to be able to reference them... plus
I'm having a hard time getting the hashes right!
So, it's possible to have a hash that contains anonymous subroutines that you can invoke from stdin.
my %callbacks = (
add => sub {
# do stuff
},
fuzzerbligh => sub {
# other stuff
},
);
And you can insert more hashvalues into the hash:
$callbacks{next} = sub {
...
};
And you would invoke one like this
$callbacks{next}->(#args);
Or
my $coderef = $callbacks{next};
$coderef->(#args);
You can get the hashkey from STDIN, or anywhere else.
You can also define them nonymously and then take a reference to them.
sub delete {
# regular sub definition
}
$callbacks{delete} = \&delete;
I wouldn't call these callbacks, however. Callbacks are subs that get called after another subroutine has returned.
Your code is also rife with syntax errors which may be obscuring the deeper issues here. It's also not clear to me what you're trying to do with the second level of arrays. When are you defining these subs, and who is using them when, and for what?
Perhaps this simplified example will help:
# Very important.
use strict;
use warnings;
# Define some functions.
sub multiply { $_[0] * $_[1] }
sub divide { $_[0] / $_[1] }
sub add { $_[0] + $_[1] }
sub subtract { $_[0] - $_[1] }
# Create a hash of references to those functions (dispatch table).
my %funcs = (
multiply => \&multiply,
divide => \&divide,
add => \&add,
subtract => \&subtract,
);
# Register some more functions.
sub register {
my ($key, $func) = #_;
$funcs{$key} = $func;
}
register('+', \&add); # As above.
register('sum', sub { # Or using an anonymous subroutine.
my $s = 0;
$s += $_ for #_;
return $s;
});
# Invoke them dynamically.
while (<>){
my ($op, #args) = split;
last unless $op and exists $funcs{$op}; # No need for equality tests.
print $funcs{$op}->(#args), "\n";
}
You've already got some good answers on how to build a dispatch table and call functions through it within a single file, but you also keep talking about wanting the functions to be defined in other modules. If that's the case, then wouldn't it be better to build the dispatch table dynamically based on what dispatchable functions each module says it has rather than having to worry about keeping it up to date manually? Of course it would!
Demonstrating this requires multiple files, of course, and I'm using Module::Pluggable from CPAN to find the modules which provide the function definitions.
dispatch_core.pl:
#!/usr/bin/env perl
use strict;
use warnings;
my %dispatch;
use lib '.'; # a demo is easier if I can put modules in the same directory
use Module::Pluggable require => 1, search_path => 'DTable';
for my $plugin (plugins) {
%dispatch = (%dispatch, $plugin->dispatchable);
}
for my $func (sort keys %dispatch) {
print "$func:\n";
$dispatch{$func}->(2, 5);
}
DTable/Add.pm:
package DTable::Add;
use strict;
use warnings;
sub dispatchable {
return (add => \&add);
}
sub add {
my ($num1, $num2) = #_;
print "$num1 + $num2 = ", $num1 + $num2, "\n";
}
1;
DTable/MultDiv.pm:
package DTable::MultDiv;
use strict;
use warnings;
sub dispatchable {
return (multiply => \&multiply, divide => \&divide);
}
sub multiply {
my ($num1, $num2) = #_;
print "$num1 * $num2 = ", $num1 * $num2, "\n";
}
sub divide {
my ($num1, $num2) = #_;
print "$num1 / $num2 = ", $num1 / $num2, "\n";
}
1;
Then, on the command line:
$ ./dispatch_core.pl
add:
2 + 5 = 7
divide:
2 / 5 = 0.4
multiply:
2 * 5 = 10
Adding new functions is now as simple as dropping a new file into the DTable directory with an appropriate dispatchable sub. No need to ever touch dispatch_core.pl just to add a new function again.
Edit: In response to the comment's question about whether this can be done without Module::Pluggable, here's a modified dispatch_core.pl which doesn't use any external modules other than the ones defining the dispatchable functions:
#!/usr/bin/env perl
use strict;
use warnings;
my %dispatch;
my #dtable = qw(
DTable::Add
DTable::MultDiv
);
use lib '.';
for my $plugin (#dtable) {
eval "use $plugin";
%dispatch = (%dispatch, $plugin->dispatchable);
}
for my $func (sort keys %dispatch) {
print "$func:\n";
$dispatch{$func}->(2, 5);
}

In Perl, can I call a method before executing every function in a package?

I am writing a module and I want a specific piece of code to be executed before each of the functions in it.
How do I do that?
Is there no other way than to just have a function-call at the beginning of every function?
You can do this in Moose with method modifiers:
package Example;
use Moose;
sub foo {
print "foo\n";
}
before 'foo' => sub { print "about to call foo\n"; };
Wrapping a method is also possible with method attributes, but this route is not well-used in Perl and is still evolving, so I wouldn't recommend it. For normal use-cases, I would simply put the common code in another method and call it at the top of each of your functions:
Package MyApp::Foo;
sub do_common_stuff { ... }
sub method_one
{
my ($this, #args) = #_;
$this->do_common_stuff();
# ...
}
sub method_two
{
my ($this, #args) = #_;
$this->do_common_stuff();
# ...
}
And, in case someone is wondering how to achieve the effect of Hook* modules or Moose's "before" explicitly (e.g. what actual Perl mechanism can be used to do it), here's an example:
use strict;
package foo;
sub call_before { print "BEFORE\n"; } # This will be called before any sub
my $call_after = sub { print "AFTER - $_[0]\n"; };
sub fooBar { print "fooBar body\n\n"; }
sub fooBaz { print "fooBaz body\n\n"; }
no strict; # Wonder if we can get away without 'no strict'? Hate doing that!
foreach my $glob (keys %foo::) { # Iterate over symbol table of the package
next if not defined *{$foo::{$glob}}{CODE}; # Only subroutines needed
next if $glob eq "call_before" || $glob eq "import" || $glob =~ /^___OLD_/;
*{"foo::___OLD_$glob"} = \&{"foo::$glob"}; # Save original sub reference
*{"foo::$glob"} = sub {
call_before(#_); &{"foo::___OLD_$glob"}(#_); &$call_after(#_);
};
}
use strict;
1;
package main;
foo::fooBar();
foo::fooBaz();
The explanation for what we're excluding via "next" line:
"call_before" is of course the name I gave to our "before" example sub - only need this if it is actually defined as a real sub in the same package and not anonymously or code ref from outside the package.
import() has a special meaning and purpose and should generally be excluded from "run this before every sub" scenario. YMMV.
___OLD_ is a prefix we will give to "renamed" old subs - you don't need to include it here unless you're worried about this loop being execute twice. Better safe than sorry.
UPDATE: Below section about generalization is no longer relevant - at the end of the answer I pasted a general "before_after" package doing just that!!!
The loop above can obviously be easily generalized to be a separately-packaged subroutine which accepts, as arguments:
an arbitrary package
a code ref to arbitrary "before" subroutine (or as you can see, after)
and a list of sub names to exclude (or sub ref that checks if a name is to be excluded) aside from standard ones like "import").
... and/or a list of sub names to include (or sub ref that checks if a name is to be included) aside from standard ones like "import"). Mine just takes ALL subs in a package.
NOTE: I don't know whether Moose's "before" does it just this way. What I do know is that I'd obviously recommend going with a standard CPAN module than my own just-written snippet, unless:
Moose or any of the Hook modules can't be installed and/or are too heavy weight for you
You're good enough with Perl that you can read the code above and analyze it for flaws.
You like this code very much, AND the risk of using it over CPAN stuff is low IYHO :)
I supplied it more for informational "this is how the underlying work is done" purposes rather than practical "use this in your codebase" purposes, though feel free to use it if you wish :)
UPDATE
Here's a more generic version as mentioned before:
#######################################################################
package before_after;
# Generic inserter of before/after wrapper code to all subs in any package.
# See below package "foo" for example of how to use.
my $default_prefix = "___OLD_";
my %used_prefixes = (); # To prevent multiple calls from stepping on each other
sub insert_before_after {
my ($package, $prefix, $before_code, $after_code
, $before_filter, $after_filter) = #_;
# filters are subs taking 2 args - subroutine name and package name.
# How the heck do I get the caller package without import() for a defalut?
$prefix ||= $default_prefix; # Also, default $before/after to sub {} ?
while ($used_prefixes{$prefix}) { $prefix = "_$prefix"; }; # Uniqueness
no strict;
foreach my $glob (keys %{$package . "::"}) {
next if not defined *{$package. "::$glob"}{CODE};
next if $glob =~ /import|__ANON__|BEGIN/; # Any otrher standard subs?
next if $glob =~ /^$prefix/; # Already done.
$before = (ref($before_filter) ne "CODE"
|| &$before_filter($glob, $package));
$after = (ref($after_filter) ne "CODE"
|| &$after_filter($glob, $package));
*{$package."::$prefix$glob"} = \&{$package . "::$glob"};
if ($before && $after) { # We do these ifs for performance gain only.
# Else, could wrap before/after calls in "if"
*{$package."::$glob"} = sub {
my $retval;
&$before_code(#_); # We don't save returns from before/after.
if (wantarray) {
$retval = [ &{$package . "::$prefix$glob"}(#_) ];
} else {
$retval = &{$package . "::$prefix$glob"}(#_);
}
&$after_code(#_);
return (wantarray && ref $retval eq 'ARRAY')
? #$retval : $retval;
};
} elsif ($before && !$after) {
*{$package . "::$glob"} = sub {
&$before_code(#_);
&{$package . "::$prefix$glob"}(#_);
};
} elsif (!$before && $after) {
*{$package . "::$glob"} = sub {
my $retval;
if (wantarray) {
$retval = [ &{$package . "::$prefix$glob"}(#_) ];
} else {
$retval = &{$package . "::$prefix$glob"}(#_);
}
&$after_code(#_);
return (wantarray && ref $retval eq 'ARRAY')
? #$retval : $retval;
};
}
}
use strict;
}
# May be add import() that calls insert_before_after()?
# The caller will just need "use before_after qq(args)".
1;
#######################################################################
package foo;
use strict;
sub call_before { print "BEFORE - $_[0]\n"; };
my $call_after = sub { print "AFTER - $_[0]\n"; };
sub fooBar { print "fooBar body - $_[0]\n\n"; };
sub fooBaz { print "fooBaz body - $_[0]\n\n"; };
sub fooBazNoB { print "fooBazNoB body - $_[0]\n\n"; };
sub fooBazNoA { print "fooBazNoA body - $_[0]\n\n"; };
sub fooBazNoBNoA { print "fooBazNoBNoA body - $_[0]\n\n"; };
before_after::insert_before_after(__PACKAGE__, undef
, \&call_before, $call_after
, sub { return 0 if $_[0] eq "call_before"; $_[0] !~ /NoB(NoA)?$/ }
, sub { return 0 if $_[0] eq "call_before"; $_[0] !~ /NoA$/ } );
1;
#######################################################################
package main;
use strict;
foo::fooBar("ARG1");
foo::fooBaz("ARG2");
foo::fooBazNoB("ARG3");
foo::fooBazNoA("ARG4");
foo::fooBazNoBNoA("ARG5");
#######################################################################
If you search CPAN for 'hook', and then branch out from there, you'll find several options, such as:
Hook::WrapSub
Hook::PrePostCall
Hook::LexWrap
Sub::Prepend
Here's an example using Hook::LexWrap. I don't have experience with this module except for debugging. It worked fine for that purpose.
# In Frob.pm
package Frob;
sub new { bless {}, shift }
sub foo { print "foo()\n" }
sub bar { print "bar()\n" }
sub pre { print "pre()\n" }
use Hook::LexWrap qw(wrap);
my #wrappable_methods = qw(foo bar);
sub wrap_em {
wrap($_, pre => \&pre) for #wrappable_methods;
}
# In script.pl
use Frob;
my $frob = Frob->new;
print "\nOrig:\n";
$frob->foo;
$frob->bar;
print "\nWrapped:\n";
Frob->wrap_em();
$frob->foo;
$frob->bar;
See the Aspect package on CPAN for aspect-oriented computing.
before { Class->method; } qr/^Package::\w+$/;

How can I code in a functional style in Perl?

How do you either:
have a sub return a sub
or
execute text as code
in Perl?
Also, how do I have an anonymous function store state?
A sub returns a sub as a coderef:
# example 1: return a sub that is defined inline.
sub foo
{
return sub {
my $this = shift;
my #other_params = #_;
do_stuff();
return $some_value;
};
}
# example 2: return a sub that is defined elsewhere.
sub bar
{
return \&foo;
}
Arbitrary text can be executed with the eval function: see the documentation at perldoc -f eval:
eval q{print "hello world!\n"};
Note that this is very dangerous if you are evaluating anything extracted from user input, and is generally a poor practice anyway as you can generally define your code in a coderef as in the earlier examples above.
You can store state with a state variable (new in perl5.10), or with a variable scoped higher than the sub itself, as a closure:
use feature 'state';
sub baz
{
state $x;
return ++$x;
}
# create a new scope so that $y is not visible to other functions in this package
{
my $y;
sub quux
{
return ++$y;
}
}
Return a subroutine reference.
Here's a simple example that creates sub refs closed over a value:
my $add_5_to = add_x_to(5);
print $add_5_to->(7), "\n";
sub add_x_to {
my $x = shift;
return sub { my $value = shift; return $x + $value; };
}
You can also work with named subs like this:
sub op {
my $name = shift;
return $op eq 'add' ? \&add : sub {};
}
sub add {
my $l = shift;
my $r = shift;
return $l + $r;
}
You can use eval with an arbitrary string, but don't do it. The code is hard to read and it restarts compilation, which slows everything down. There are a small number of cases where string eval is the best tool for the job. Any time string eval seems like a good idea, you are almost certainly better off with another approach.
Almost anything you would like to do with string eval can be achieved with closures.
Returning subs is easy by using the sub keyword. The returned sub closes over the lexical variables it uses:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict; use warnings;
sub mk_count_from_to {
my ($from, $to) = #_;
return sub {
return if $from > $to;
return $from ++;
};
}
my $c = mk_count_from_to(-5, 5);
while ( defined( my $n = $c->() ) ) {
print "$n\n";
}
5.10 introduced state variables.
Executing text as Perl is accomplished using eval EXPR:
the return value of EXPR is parsed and executed as if it were a little Perl program. The value of the expression (which is itself determined within scalar context) is first parsed, and if there weren't any errors, executed in the lexical context of the current Perl program, so that any variable settings or subroutine and format definitions remain afterwards. Note that the value is parsed every time the eval executes
Executing arbitrary strings will open up huge gaping security holes.
You can create anonymous subroutines and access them via a reference; this reference can of course be assigned to a scalar:
my $subref = sub { ... code ... }
or returned from another subroutine
return sub { ... code ... }
If you need to store states, you can create closures with lexical variables defined in an outer scope like:
sub create_func {
my $state;
return sub { ... code that can refer to $state ... }
}
You can run code with eval

Can I overload Perl's =? (And a problem while use Tie)

I choose to use tie and find this:
package Galaxy::IO::INI;
sub new {
my $invocant = shift;
my $class = ref($invocant) || $invocant;
my $self = {']' => []}; # ini section can never be ']'
tie %{$self},'INIHash';
return bless $self, $class;
}
package INIHash;
use Carp;
require Tie::Hash;
#INIHash::ISA = qw(Tie::StdHash);
sub STORE {
#$_[0]->{$_[1]} = $_[2];
push #{$_[0]->{']'}},$_[1] unless exists $_[0]->{$_[1]};
for (keys %{$_[2]}) {
next if $_ eq '=';
push #{$_[0]->{$_[1]}->{'='}},$_ unless exists $_[0]->{$_[1]}->{$_};
$_[0]->{$_[1]}->{$_}=$_[2]->{$_};
}
$_[0]->{$_[1]}->{'='};
}
if I remove the last "$[0]->{$[1]}->{'='};", it does not work correctly.
Why ?
I know a return value is required. But "$[0]->{$[1]};" cannot work correctly either, and $[0]->{$[1]}->{'='} is not the whole thing.
Old post:
I am write a package in Perl for parsing INI files.
Just something based on Config::Tiny.
I want to keep the order of sections & keys, so I use extra array to store the order.
But when I use " $Config->{newsection} = { this => 'that' }; # Add a section ", I need to overload '=' so that "newsection" and "this" can be pushed in the array.
Is this possible to make "$Config->{newsection} = { this => 'that' };" work without influence other parts ?
Part of the code is:
sub new {
my $invocant = shift;
my $class = ref($invocant) || $invocant;
my $self = {']' => []}; # ini section can never be ']'
return bless $self, $class;
}
sub read_string {
if ( /^\s*\[\s*(.+?)\s*\]\s*$/ ) {
$self->{$ns = $1} ||= {'=' => []}; # ini key can never be '='
push #{$$self{']'}},$ns;
next;
}
if ( /^\s*([^=]+?)\s*=\s*(.*?)\s*$/ ) {
push #{$$self{$ns}{'='}},$1 unless defined $$self{$ns}{$1};
$self->{$ns}->{$1} = $2;
next;
}
}
sub write_string {
my $self = shift;
my $contents = '';
foreach my $section (#{$$self{']'}}) {
}}
Special Symbols for Overload
lists the behaviour of Perl overloading for '='.
The value for "=" is a reference to a function with three arguments, i.e., it looks like the other values in use overload. However, it does not overload the Perl assignment operator. This would go against Camel hair.
So you will probably need to rethink your approach.
This is not exactly JUST operator overloading, but if you absolutely need this functionality, you can try a perl tie:
http://perldoc.perl.org/functions/tie.html
Do you know about Config::IniFiles? You might consider that before you go off and reinvent it. With some proper subclassing, you can add ordering to it.
Also, I think you have the wrong interface. You're exposing the internal structure of your object and modifying it through magical assignments. Using methods would make your life much easier.