I have two packages. There is one hash in one package. I want to pass this hash to a method in another package, manipulate it and see the results in the previous package. Here's my code:
{
package Statistical_Analysis;
use Moose;
our $data;
our $ref;
our $k;
our $v;
sub countUseCase
{
my ($self, $value, $hash) = #_;
print "Passed value: ".$value."\n";
print "Hash Address: ".$hash."\n";
$self->{ref} = $hash;
$self->{%$ref}{'country'} = "something";
#print "IP Address: ".$self->{data}."\n";
#print "Hash Value: ".$self->{ref{'ip_count'}}."\n";
}
}
{
package Parse;
use Moose;
our %ip_address;
sub getFields
{
our $stanalyze_obj = Statistical_Analysis->new();
my $ref = \%ip_address;
$stanalyze_obj->countUseCase($ref);
dispHashMap();
}
sub dispHashMap
{
print \%ip_address."\n";
while ( my ($k,$v) = each %ip_address )
{
print "$k => $v\n";
}
}
But I cant see the changes in the hash. Any help?
You don't see any change because you never change it. Since it makes no sense, I presume you meant to change the $ip_address{country} when you do
$self->{%$ref}{'country'} = 'something';
If so, that should be
$hash->{country} = 'something';
Of course, $hash is stored in $self->{ref}, so you could also use
$self->{ref}->{country} = 'something';
which can be shortened to
$self->{ref}{country} = 'something';
PS — What's with all the our variables? You should almost never have to use our. #ISA and #EXPORT_OK are about the only uses I can think of. All of those should be my.
PSS — Actually, almost none of those should exist at all. What's with declaring variables you don't even use? One of these declarations is making your error a lot less obvious.
It seems that you called countUseCase with only one parameter, $ref. Calling that method with only one parameter, causes $hash to be undef.
Related
I have come across an odd problem in one of my Perl scripts. I have a Perl object. Within a certain scope I want one of the objects attributes to be changed, but I want the attribute to be restored to it's old value after it leaves the scope.
Example:
my $object = Object->new('name' => 'Bob');
{
# I know this doesn't work, but it is the best way
# I can represent what I amd trying to do.
local $object->name('Lenny');
# Prints "Lenny"
print $object->name();
}
# Prints "Bob"
print $object->name();
Is there a way to achieve something like this?
This might not be as much encapsulation as you were asking for, but you can local-ize an attribute of a hash. This outputs "CarlLennyCarl"
sub Object::new { bless { _name => $_[1] }, $_[0] } }
sub Object::name { $_[0]->{_name} }
my $obj = Object->new("Carl");
print $obj->name;
{
local $obj->{_name} = "Lenny";
print $obj->name;
}
print $obj->name;
You could also local-ize the entire method. This also outputs "CarlLennyCarl":
sub Object::new { bless { _name => $_[1] }, $_[0] } }
sub Object::name { $_[0]->{_name} }
my $obj = Object->new("Carl");
print $obj->name;
{
local *Object::name = sub { "Lenny" };
print $obj->name;
}
print $obj->name;
I was completely misunderstanding what was occurring there. You cannot use local on subroutine calls, that is the issue you are having.
Lets use a code example from one that I know works and try to explain what eval is actually doing.
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use Data::Dumper;
use Cwd;
print getcwd() . "\n";
eval{
local #INC = ('/tmp');
require 'test.pl';
print 'local: ' . Dumper(\#INC);
};
print Dumper(\#INC);
That works because I am modifying a variable, not calling on another subroutine to modify my variable.
In order for it to work as you are expecting, you would have to create a deep copy of the object to modify in local scope or something of the sort. (which I'm pretty sure is what is occurring in the first place)
local creates scope for the given brackets, eval, OR file (your problem there)
If you were able to access the elements directly without the method call (bad practice IMHO) you would likely be able to localize the scope of that element in the object.
Example:
name.pm:
package name;
use strict;
use warnings;
{
sub new {
my ($class,$name) = #_;
my $self = bless {}, $class;
$self->{'name'} = $name if defined $name;
return $self;
}
sub name
{
my ($self,$name) = #_;
$self->{'name'} = $name if defined $name;
return $self->{'name'};
}
}
index.pl:
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;
use warnings FATAL => 'all';
use name;
my $obj = name->new('test');
print $obj->{'name'} . "\n";
{
local $obj->{'name'} = 'test2';
print $obj->{'name'} . "\n";
}
print $obj->{'name'} . "\n";
If perlcritic says "having no returns in a sub is wrong", what is the alternative if they really aren't needed?
I've developed two apparently bad habits:
I explicitly assign variables to the '$main::' namespace.
I then play with those variables in subs.
For example, I might do..
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
#main::array = (1,4,2,6,1,8,5,5,2);
&sort_array;
&push_array;
&pop_array;
sub sort_array{
#main::array = sort #main::array;
for (#main::array){
print "$_\n";
}
}
sub push_array{
for ( 1 .. 9 ){
push #main::array, $_;
}
}
sub pop_array {
for ( 1 .. 3 ){
pop #main::array;
}
}
I don't do this all the time. But in the above, it makes sense, because I can segregate the operations, not have to worry about passing values back and forth and it generally looks tidy to me.
But as I said, perl critic says its wrong - because there's no return..
So, is anyone able to interpret what I'm trying to do and suggest a better way of approaching this style of coding in perl? eg. am I sort of doing OOP?
In short - yes, you're basically doing OO, but in a way that's going to confuse everyone.
The danger of doing subs like that is that you're acting at a distance. It's a bad coding style to have to look somewhere else entirely for what might be breaking your code.
This is generally why 'globals' are to be avoided wherever possible.
For a short script, it doesn't matter too much.
Regarding return values - Perl returns the result of the last expression by default. (See: return)
(In the absence of an explicit return, a subroutine, eval, or do FILE automatically returns the value of the last expression evaluated.)
The reason Perl critic flags it is:
Require all subroutines to terminate explicitly with one of the following: return, carp, croak, die, exec, exit, goto, or throw.
Subroutines without explicit return statements at their ends can be confusing. It can be challenging to deduce what the return value will be.
Furthermore, if the programmer did not mean for there to be a significant return value, and omits a return statement, some of the subroutine's inner data can leak to the outside.
Perlcritic isn't always right though - if there's good reason for doing what you're doing, then turn it off. Just as long as you've thought about it and are aware of the risks an consequences.
Personally I think it's better style to explicitly return something, even if it is just return;.
Anyway, redrafting your code in a (crude) OO fashion:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
package MyArray;
my $default_array = [ 1,4,2,6,1,8,5,5,2 ];
sub new {
my ( $class ) = #_;
my $self = {};
$self -> {myarray} = $default_array;
bless ( $self, $class );
return $self;
}
sub get_array {
my ( $self ) = #_;
return ( $self -> {myarray} );
}
sub sort_array{
my ( $self ) = #_;
#{ $self -> {myarray} } = sort ( #{ $self -> {myarray} } );
for ( #{ $self -> {myarray} } ) {
print $_,"\n";
}
return 1;
}
sub push_array{
my ( $self ) = #_;
for ( 1 .. 9 ){
push #{$self -> {myarray}}, $_;
}
return 1;
}
sub pop_array {
my ( $self ) = #_;
for ( 1 .. 3 ){
pop #{$self -> {myarray}};
}
return 1;
}
1;
And then call it with:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use MyArray;
my $array = MyArray -> new();
print "Started:\n";
print join (",", #{ $array -> get_array()} ),"\n";
print "Reshuffling:\n";
$array -> sort_array();
$array -> push_array();
$array -> pop_array();
print "Finished:\n";
print join (",", #{ $array -> get_array()} ),"\n";
It can probably be tidied up a bit, but hopefully this illustrates - within your object, you've got an internal 'array' which you then 'do stuff with' by making your calls.
Result is much the same (I think I've replicated the logic, but don't trust that entirely!) but you have a self contained thing going on.
If the function doesn't mean to return anything, there's no need to use return!
No, you don't use any aspects of OO (encapsulation, polymorphism, etc). What you are doing is called procedural programming. Nothing wrong with that. All my work for nuclear power plants was written in that style.
The problem is using #main::array, and I'm not talking about the fact that you could abbreviate that to #::array. Fully-qualified names escape strict checks, so they are far, far more error-prone. Mistyped var name won't get caught as easily, and it's easy to have two pieces of code collide by using the same variable name.
If you're just using one file, you can use my #array, but I presume you are using #main::array because you are accessing it from multiple files/modules. I suggest placing our #array in a module, and exporting it.
package MyData;
use Exporter qw( import );
our #EXPORT = qw( #array );
our #array;
1;
Having some kind of hint in the variable name (such as a prefix or suffix) indicating this is a variable used across many modules would be nice.
By the way, if you wanted do create an object, it would look like
package MyArray;
sub new {
my $class = shift;
my $self = bless({}, $class);
$self->{array} = [ #_ ];
return $self;
}
sub get_elements {
my ($self) = #_;
return #{ $self->{array} };
}
sub sort {
my ($self) = #_;
#{ $self->{array} } = sort #{ $self->{array} };
}
sub push {
my $self = shift;
push #{ $self->{array} }, #_;
}
sub pop {
my ($self, $n) = #_;
return splice(#{ $self->{array} }, 0, $n//1);
}
my $array = MyArray->new(1,4,2,6,1,8,5,5,2);
$array->sort;
print("$_\n") for $array->get_elements();
$array->push_array(1..9);
$array->pop_array(3);
I improved your interface a bit. (Sorting shouldn't print. Would be nice to push different things and to pop other than three elements.)
I have a Perl class/module that I created to display Bible verses. In it there is a hash that stores several verses, with the key being the book/chapter/verse and the value being the text. This hash is returned from the module.
I'm including the Bible class in a controller class, and that connection seems to work. The problem is I keep getting errors on executing. My IDE because I'm following a Lynda tutorial, is Eclipse with the EPIC plugin.
The error is:
Reference found where even-sized list expected at C:/Documents and Settings/nunya/eric.hepperle_codebase/lynda/lamp/perl5/Exercise Files/14 Modules/eh_bibleInspiration_controller.pl line 42.
Use of uninitialized value $value in concatenation (.) or string at C:/Documents and Settings/nunya/eric.hepperle_codebase/lynda/lamp/perl5/Exercise Files/14 Modules/eh_bibleInspiration_controller.pl line 45.
HASH(0x19ad454) =>
Here is the CONTROLLER class:
#!/usr/bin/perl
# eh_bibleInspiration_controller.pl by Eric Hepperle - 06/23/13
#
use strict;
use warnings;
use Data::Dumper;
use EHW_BibleInspiration;
main(#ARGV);
sub main
{
my $o = EHW_BibleInspiration->new; # instantiate new object.
my %bo_ref = $o->getBibleObj();
print "\$o is type: " . ref($o) . ".\n";
print "\%bo_ref is type: " . ref(\%bo_ref) . ".\n";
# exit;
$o->getVerseObj();
listHash(\%bo_ref);
message("Done.");
}
sub message
{
my $m = shift or return;
print("$m\n");
}
sub error
{
my $e = shift || 'unkown error';
print("$0: $e\n");
exit 0;
}
sub listHash
{
my %hash = #_;
foreach my $key (sort keys %hash) {
my $value = $hash{$key};
message("$key => $value\n");
}
}
Here is the class that returns the verses and has the method to pick a random verse:
# EHW_BibleInspiration.pm
# EHW_BibleInspiration.
#
package EHW_BibleInspiration;
use strict;
use warnings;
use IO::File;
use Data::Dumper;
our $VERSION = "0.1";
sub new
{
my $class = shift;
my $self = {};
bless($self, $class); # turns hash into object
return $self;
}
sub getVerseObj
{
my ($self) = #_;
print "My Bible Verse:\n";
my $verses = $self->getBibleObj();
# get random verse
#$knockknocks{(keys %knockknocks)[rand keys %knockknocks]};
# sub mysub {
# my $params = shift;
# my %paramhash = %$params;
# }
# my %verses = %{$verses};
# my $random_value = %verses{(keys %verses)[rand keys %verses]};
# print Dumper(%{$random_value});
}
sub getBibleObj
{
my ($self) = #_;
# create bible verse object (ESV)
my $bibleObj_ref = {
'john 3:16' => 'For God so loved the world,that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.',
'matt 10:8' => 'Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying; give without pay.',
'Luke 6:38' => 'Give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.',
'John 16:24' => 'Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.',
'Psalms 32:7' => 'You are a hiding place for me; you preserve me from trouble; you surround me with shouts of deliverance. Selah',
'Proverbs 3:5-6' => 'Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. 6 In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.',
'John 14:1' => 'Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me.'
};
my $out = "The BIBLE is awesome!\n";
return $bibleObj_ref;
}
1;
What am I doing wrong? I suspect it has something to do with hash vs hash reference, but I don't know how to fix it. My dereferencing attempts had failed miserably because I don't really know what I'm doing. I modeled my random getter off of something I saw on perlmonks. #$knockknocks{(keys %knockknocks)[rand keys %knockknocks]};
In the main, you have:
my %bo_ref = $o->getBibleObj();
but, in package EHW_BibleInspiration;, the method getBibleObj returns : return $bibleObj_ref;
You'd do, in the main : my $bo_ref = $o->getBibleObj();
and then call listHash($bo_ref);
Finaly, don't forget to change sub listHash to:
sub listHash
{
my ($hash) = #_;
foreach my $key (sort keys %{$hash}) {
my $value = $hash->{$key};
message("$key => $value\n");
}
}
In your main, you do
listHash(\%bo_ref);
This passes a hash reference to the sub. However, it tries to unpack its arguments like
my %hash = #_;
Oops, it wants a hash.
Either, we pass it a hash: listHash(%bo_ref). This saves us much typing.
Or, we handle the reference inside the sub, like
sub listHash {
my ($hashref) = #_;
foreach my $key (sort keys %$hashref) {
my $value = $hashref->{$key};
print "$key => $value\n";
}
}
Notice how the reference uses the dereference arrow -> to access hash entries, and how it is dereferenced to a hash for keys.
I suspect that your suspicion is correct. In your method sub listHash you're correctly passing in the hash but you're trying to use a hash instead of a hash reference for the internal variable. Try using my ($hash) = #_; instead of my %hash = #_;.
When using references you can use the -> operator to de-reference it to get to the underlying values. The rest of your method should look like this:
sub listHash
{
my ($hash) = #_;
foreach my $key (sort keys %{$hash}) {
my $value = $hash->{$key};
message("$key => $value\n");
}
}
On line 43 of your program I had to tell Perl that the reference should be a hash reference by calling keys %{$hash}. Then on line 44 I de-referenced the hash to get the correct value by calling $hash->{$key}. For more information on Perl and references you can read the through the tutorial.
listHash is expecting a hash and you're passing it a hash reference. Change:
listHash(\%bo_ref);
to:
listHash(%bo_ref);
I'm trying to add some functionality to our code base by using tied scalars.
We have a function which is specified to return scalars. I thought I could add some features to the system by tie-ing these scalars before returning them, but it looks like the FETCH method is called just before the return, which results in an untied scalar being returned.
Is there any way around this?
I really want to keep the subroutine's interface (returning scalars) intact if it's at all possible.
use strict;
use warnings;
main();
sub GetThing{
my $thing;
tie $thing, 'mything', #_;
return $thing;
}
sub main {
my %m;
$m{pre} = GetThing('Fred');
print "1\n";
print $m{pre};
print "2\n";
print $m{pre};
print "3\n";
}
package mything;
require Tie::Scalar;
my #ISA = qw(Tie::StdScalar);
sub TIESCALAR {
my $class = shift;
bless {
name => shift || 'noname',
}, $class;
}
sub FETCH {
my $self = shift;
print "ACCESS ALERT!\n";
return " NAME: '$self->{name}'\n";
}
Desired output:
1
ACCESS ALERT!
NAME: 'Fred'
2
ACCESS ALERT!
NAME: 'Fred'
3
I can get the desired output by returning a reference, and dereferencing on each access, but that ruins our established interface, and makes it more confusing for our users.
--Buck
As DVK said, tie applies to containers, so isn't useful for returned values.
For that, you use overloading. An example (not all the possible overloaded operations are supplied; see http://perldoc.perl.org/overload.html#Minimal-set-of-overloaded-operations):
use strict;
use warnings;
main();
sub GetThing{
my $thing;
$thing = "mything"->new(#_);
return $thing;
}
sub main {
my %m;
$m{pre} = GetThing('Fred');
print "1\n";
print $m{pre};
print "2\n";
print $m{pre};
print "3\n";
}
package mything;
use overload 'fallback' => 1, '""' => 'FETCH';
sub new {
my $class = shift;
bless {
name => shift || 'noname',
}, $class;
}
sub FETCH {
my $self = shift;
print "ACCESS ALERT!\n";
return " NAME: '$self->{name}'\n";
}
As mentioned in other answers, tie applies to containers, and not to values, so there is no way to assign a tied variable to another variable and retain the tied properties.
Since assignment is out, you need to pass the container into the GetThing routine. You can do this by reference as follows:
use strict;
use warnings;
main();
sub GetThing{
tie ${$_[1]}, 'mything', $_[0];
}
sub main {
my %m;
GetThing('Fred' => \$m{pre});
print "1\n";
print $m{pre};
print "2\n";
print $m{pre};
print "3\n";
}
package mything;
require Tie::Scalar;
my #ISA = qw(Tie::StdScalar);
sub TIESCALAR {
my $class = shift;
bless {
name => shift || 'noname',
}, $class;
}
sub FETCH {
my $self = shift;
print "ACCESS ALERT!\n";
return " NAME: '$self->{name}'\n";
}
which produces the correct output.
However, if you want to retain the assignment, you will need to use overloading, which applies to values (actually to objects, but they themselves are values). Without more detail on your intended purpose it is hard to give a complete answer, but this will meet your stated requirements:
use strict;
use warnings;
main();
sub GetThing{
return mything->new( shift );
}
sub main {
my %m;
$m{pre} = GetThing('Fred');
print "1\n";
print $m{pre};
print "2\n";
print $m{pre};
print "3\n";
}
package mything;
sub new {
my $class = shift;
bless {
name => shift || 'noname',
}, $class;
}
use overload '""' => sub { # '""' means to overload stringification
my $self = shift;
print "ACCESS ALERT!\n";
return " NAME: '$self->{name}'\n";
};
Both ties and overloads can get complicated, so read through all of the documentation if anything is not clear.
First, the exact method of doing what you are proposing seems technically impossible:
Tied variables have the tie attached to the variable itself, not to its value.
In Perl, subroutine's return values are returned by value, meaning you take the value passed to return, access it (in you case, accessing the tied variable and calling FETCH in the process) - and then copy that value! Which means that what the caller gets is a scalar VALUE, not a scalar variable (tied or untied).
Your confusion, in short, seems to stem from mixing together variables (locations in program's symbol table) and values stored in those variables.
Second, you were somewhat unclear as to what exactly you are trying to achieve, so it's hard to propose how to achieve what you want. But assuming, based on your description, that you wanted to call some method upon subroutine's return (possibly passing it the return value), you CAN do that.
To do so, you need to employ what fancy people call aspect programming. The politically (and technically) correct way of doing it in Perl is by using Moose.
However, you can DIY it, by basically replacing the original method with a wrapper method.
The exact mechanics of both Moose and DIY approaches can be seen in the first two answers to the following SO question, so I won't copy/paste them here, hope you don't mind:
Simulating aspects of static-typing in a duck-typed language
If you're feeling adventurous, you could also use the Scalar::Defer module which provides a general-purpose mechanism for a scalar variable to compute a value lazily, either once or on each access.
I am doing pass-by-reference like this:
use strict;
use warnings;
sub repl {
local *line = \$_[0]; our $line;
$line = "new value";
}
sub doRepl {
my ($replFunc) = #_;
my $foo = "old value";
$replFunc->($foo);
print $foo; # prints "new value";
}
doRepl(\&repl);
Is there a cleaner way of doing it?
Prototypes don't work because I'm using a function reference (trust me that there's a good reason for using a function reference).
I also don't want to use $_[0] everywhere in repl because it's ugly.
Have you looked at Data::Alias? It lets you create lexically-scoped aliases with a clean syntax.
You can use it to create pass-by-reference semantics like this:
use strict;
use warnings;
use Data::Alias;
sub foo {
alias my ($arg) = #_;
$arg++;
}
my $count = 0;
foo($count);
print "$count\n";
The output is 1, indicating that the call to foo modified its argument.
There are a couple of ways to do this. Explicitly pass a scalar ref to $foo, or take advantage of Perl's built-in pass by reference semantics.
Explicit reference:
my $foo = "old value";
doRepl( \&repl, \$foo );
print $foo; # prints "new value";
sub repl {
my $line = shift;
$$line = "new value";
}
sub doRepl {
my ($replFunc, $foo) = #_;
$replFunc->($foo);
}
Pass by reference:
my $foo = "old value";
doRepl( \&repl, $foo );
print $foo; # prints "new value";
sub repl {
$_[0] = "new value";
}
sub doRepl {
my $replFunc = shift;
$replFunc->(#_);
}
Even fancier pass by reference:
my $foo = "old value";
doRepl( \&repl, $foo );
print $foo; # prints "new value";
sub repl {
$_[0] = "new value";
}
sub doRepl {
my $replFunc = shift;
&$replFunc;
}
The first one use normal perl hard references to do the job.
The first pass by ref method uses the fact that Perl passes arguments to all functions as references. The elements of #_ are actually aliases to the values in the argument list when the subroutine is called. By altering $_[0] in foo(), you actually alter the first argument to foo().
The second pass by ref method use the fact that a sub called with an & sigil and no parens gets the #_ array of its caller. Otherwise it is identical.
Update: I just noticed you desire to avoid $_[0]. You can do this in repl if you want:
sub repl {
for my $line( $_[0] ) {
$line = 'new value';
}
}
sub repl {
my $line = \$_[0]; # or: my $line = \shift
$$line = "new value";
}
I don't think there is anything wrong with using local to create the alias in this case.
Dynamic scope is of course a powerful feature, but so long as you are aware of the side effects (new value is visible in functions called from its scope, if a lexical of the same name is in scope, it can't be localized, ...) then it is a useful addition to the already overflowing Perl toolbox.
The main reason for the warnings in the Perl docs about local are to keep people from inadvertently using it instead of my and to ease the transition from perl4. But there are definitely times when local is useful, and this is one.
Using for to create your alias is also an option, but I find the explicit syntax with local clearer in its intent. It is also a bit faster if performance is a concern.