Do you use
require "name"
or
local name = require "name"
Also, do you explicitly declare system modules as local variables? E.g.
local io = require "io"
Please explain your choice.
Programming in Lua 2ed says "if she prefers to use a shorter name for a module, she can set a local name for it" and nothing about local m = require "mod" being faster than require "mod". If there's no difference I'd rather use the cleaner require "mod" declaration and wouldn't bother writing declarations for pre-loaded system modules.
Either of them works. Storing it in a local will not change the fact that the module may have registered global functions.
Some libraries work only one way, and some only work the other way
The require "name" syntax was the one introduced in lua 5.1; as a note; this call does not always return the module; but it was expected a global would be created with the name of the library (so, you now have a _G.name to use the library with). eg, earlier versions of gsl-if you did local draw = require"draw" the local draw would contain true; and shadow the global draw created by the library.
The behaviour above is encouraged by the module function ==> now relatively deprecated, any well written new code will not use it.
The local name = require"name" syntax became preferred recently (about 2008?); when it was decided that modules setting any globals for you was a bad thing.
As a point: all my libraries do not set globals, and just return a table of functions; or in some other cases, they return an function that works as an initialiser for the root object.
tldr;
In new code, you should use the latter local name = require"name" syntax; it works in the vast majority of cases, but if you're working with some older modules, they may not support it, and you'll have to just use require"module".
To answer your added question:
do you require the system modules?: no; you just assume they are already required; but I do localise all functions I use (usually grouped into lines by the module they came from), including those from external libraries. This allows you to easily see which functions your code actually relies on; as well as removing all GETGLOBALs from your bytecode.
Edit: localising functions is now discouraged. To find accidental globals use a linter like luacheck
Sample module in (my) preferred style; will only work with the local name = require"name" syntax.
local my_lib = require"my_lib"
local function foo()
print("foo")
end
local function bar()
print("bar", my_lib.new())
end
return {
foo = foo;
bar = bar;
}
I would say it mainly boils down to what you prefer, but there are some exceptions depending on what you are writing. Creating a local reference will gain you some speed, but in most cases this isn't a meaningful optimization to do. You should also point your local to the function you are using and not the module table.
If you are writing on a library then I would recommend creating local references for all the global variables you use. Even if you aren’t using the module() function, which changes the global scope for the code that follows. The reason for this is that it prevents your library from calling globals which have been altered after the library was loaded.
Doing local io = require’io’ will ensure you that you get the table from package.loaded.io, even if _G.io has been replaced by another table. I generally don’t do this myself. I expect io to already be loaded and unmodified when I write Lua.
You also have to remember that there are several ways to write a Lua module. Some modules don't return their module table, while others don't create any global variable. The most common solution is to both create and return a global, but you can't always rely on this.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I am confused about Perl modules. I get that a module can be used to dump a whole bunch of subs into, tidying main code.
But, what is the relationship between modules?
Can modules "use" other modules?
Must I use export, or can I get away with dropping that stuff?
How do I solve circular use? (Security.pm uses Html.pm and Html.pm uses Security.pm). I know the obvious answer, but in some cases I need to use Security.pm routines in Html.pm and vice versa - not sure how to get around the problem.
If I remove all "use" clauses from all of my modules ... Then I have to use full sub qualifiers. For example, Pm::Html::get_user_friends($dbh, $uid) will use Security to determine if a friend is a banned user or not (banned is part of Security).
I just don't get this module thing. All the "tutorials" only speak of one module, never multiple, nor do they use real world examples.
The only time I've come across multiple modules is when using OO code. But nothing that tells me definitively one way or another how multiple modules interact.
Modules in Perl come in several flavors and have several different things that make them a module.
Definition
Something qualifies as a module if the following things are true:
the filename ends in .pm,
there is a package declaration in the file,
the package name matches the filename and path; Data/Dumper.pm contains package Data::Dumper,
it ends with a 1 or another true value.
Conventions
Then there are some accepted conventions:
modules should usually only contain one package,
module names should be camel case and should not contain underscores _ (example: Data::Dumper, WWW::Mechanize::Firefox)
modules that are in small letters completely are not modules, they are pragmas.
Usually a module either contains a collection of functions (subs) or it is object oriented. Let's look at the collections first.
Modules as function collections
A typical module that bundles a bunch of functionality that is related uses a way to export those functions into your code's namespace. A typical example is List::Util. There are several ways to export things. The most common one is Exporter.
When you take a function from a module to put it into your code, that's called importing it. That is useful if you want to use the function a lot of times, as it keeps the name short. When you import it, you can call it directly by its name.
use List::Util 'max';
print max(1, 2, 3);
When you don't import it, you need to use the fully qualified name.
use List::Util (); # there's an empty list to say you don't want to import anything
print List::Util::max(1, 2, 3); # now it's explicit
This works because Perl installs a reference to the function behind List::Util::max into your namespace under the name max. If you don't do that, you need to use the full name. It's a bit like a shortcut on your desktop in Windows.
Your module does not have to provide exporting/importing. You can just use it as a collection of stuff and call them by their full names.
Modules as a collection of packages
While every .pm file called a module, people often also refer to a whole collection of things that are a distribution as a module. Something like DBI comes to mind, which contains a lot of .pm files, which are all modules, but still people talk about the DBI module only.
Object oriented modules
Not every module needs to contain stand-alone functions. A module (now we're more talking about the one directly above) can also contain a class. In that case it usually does not export any functions. In fact, we do not call the subs functions any more, but rather methods. The package name becomes the name of the class, you create instances of the class called objects, and you call methods on those objects, which ends up being the functions in your package.
Loading modules
There are two main ways of loading a module in Perl. You can do it at compile time and at run time. The perl1 compiler (yes, there is a compiler although it's interpreted language) loads files, compiles them, then switches to run time to run the compiled code. When it encounters a new file to load, it switches back to compile time, compiles the new code, and so on.
Compile time
To load a module at compile time, you use it.
use Data::Dumper;
use List::Util qw( min max );
use JSON ();
This is equivalent to the following.
BEGIN {
require Data::Dumper;
Data::Dumper->import;
require List::Util;
List::Util->import('min', 'max');
require JSON;
# no import here
}
The BEGIN block gets called during compile time. The example in the linked doc helps understand the concept of those switches back and forth.
The use statements usually go at the top of you program. You do pragmas first (use strict and use warnings should always be your very first things after the shebang), then use statements. They should be used so your program loads everything it needs during startup. That way at run time, it will be faster. For things that run for a long time, or where startup time doesn't matter, like a web application that runs on Plack this is what you want.
Run time
When you want to load something during run time, you use require. It does not import anything for you. It also switches to compile time for the new file momentarily, but then goes back to run time where it left of. That makes it possible to load modules conditionally, which can be useful especially in a CGI context, where the additional time it takes to parse a new file during the run outweighs the cost of loading everything for every invocation of the program although it might not be needed.
require Data::Dumper;
if ($foo) {
require List::Util;
return List::Util::max( 1, 2, 3, $foo );
}
It is also possible to pass a string or a variable to require, so you can not only conditionally load things, but also dynamically.
my $format = 'CSV'; # or JSON or XML or whatever
require "My::Parser::$format";
This is pretty advanced, but there are use-cases for it.
In addition, it's also possible to require normal Perl files with a .pl ending at run time. This is often done in legacy code (which I would call spaghetti). Don't do it in new code. Also don't do it in old code. It's bad practice.
Where to load what
In general you should always use or require every module that you depend on in any given module. Never rely on the fact that some other downstream part of your code loads things for you. Modules are meant to encapsulate functionality, so they should be able to at least stand on their own a little bit. If you want to reuse one of your modules later, and you forgot to include a dependency it will cause you grief.
It also makes it easier to read your code, as clearly stated dependencies and imports at the top help the maintenance guy (or future you) to understand what your code is about, what it does and how it does it.
Not loading the same thing twice
Perl takes care of that for you. When it parses the code at compile time, it keeps track of what it has loaded. Those things to into the super-global variable %INC, which is a hash of names that have been loaded, and where they came from.
$ perl -e 'use Data::Dumper; print Dumper \%INC'
$VAR1 = {
'Carp.pm' => '/home/foo/perl5/perlbrew/perls/perl-5.20.1/lib/site_perl/5.20.1/Carp.pm',
'warnings.pm' => '/home/foo/perl5/perlbrew/perls/perl-5.20.1/lib/5.20.1/warnings.pm',
'strict.pm' => '/home/foo/perl5/perlbrew/perls/perl-5.20.1/lib/5.20.1/strict.pm',
'constant.pm' => '/home/foo/perl5/perlbrew/perls/perl-5.20.1/lib/site_perl/5.20.1/constant.pm',
'XSLoader.pm' => '/home/foo/perl5/perlbrew/perls/perl-5.20.1/lib/site_perl/5.20.1/x86_64-linux/XSLoader.pm',
'overloading.pm' => '/home/foo/perl5/perlbrew/perls/perl-5.20.1/lib/5.20.1/overloading.pm',
'bytes.pm' => '/home/foo/perl5/perlbrew/perls/perl-5.20.1/lib/5.20.1/bytes.pm',
'warnings/register.pm' => '/home/julien/perl5/perlbrew/perls/perl-5.20.1/lib/5.20.1/warnings/register.pm',
'Exporter.pm' => '/home/foo/perl5/perlbrew/perls/perl-5.20.1/lib/site_perl/5.20.1/Exporter.pm',
'Data/Dumper.pm' => '/home/foo/perl5/perlbrew/perls/perl-5.20.1/lib/5.20.1/x86_64-linux/Data/Dumper.pm',
'overload.pm' => '/home/foo/perl5/perlbrew/perls/perl-5.20.1/lib/5.20.1/overload.pm'
};
Every call to use and require adds a new entry in that hash, unless it's already there. In that case, Perl does not load it again. It still imports names for you if you used the module though. This makes sure that there are no circular dependencies.
Another important thing to keep in mind with regards to legacy code is that if you require normal .pl files, you need to get the path right. Because the key in %INC will not be the module name, but instead the string you passed, doing the following will result in the same file being loaded twice.
perl -MData::Dumper -e 'require "scratch.pl"; require "./scratch.pl"; print Dumper \%INC'
$VAR1 = {
'./scratch.pl' => './scratch.pl',
'scratch.pl' => 'scratch.pl',
# ...
};
Where modules are loaded from
Just like %INC, there is also a super global variable #INC, which contains the paths that Perl looks for modules in. You can add stuff to it by using the lib pragma, or via the environment variable PERL5LIB among other things.
use lib `lib`;
use My::Module; # this is in lib/My/Module.pm
Namespaces
The packages you use in your modules define namespaces in Perl. By default when you create a Perl script without a package, you are in the package main.
#!/usr/bin/env perl
use strict;
use warnings;
sub foo { ... }
our $bar;
The sub foo will be available as foo inside the main .pl file, but also as main::foo from anywhere else. The shorthand is ::foo. The same goes for the package variable $bar. It's really $main::bar or just $::bar. Use this sparingly. You don't want stuff from your script to leak over in your modules. That's a very bad practice that will come back and bite you later.
In your modules, things are in the namespace of the package they are declared in. That way, you can access them from the outside (unless they are lexically scoped with my, which you should do for most things). That is mostly ok, but you should not be messing with internals of other code. Use the defined interface instead unless you want to break stuff.
When you import something into your namespace, all it is is a shortcut as described above. This can be useful, but you also do not want to pollute your namespaces. If you import a lot of things from one module to another module, those thing will become available in that module too.
package Foo;
use List::Util 'max';
sub foo { return max(1, 2, 3) }
package main; # this is how you switch back
use Foo;
print Foo::max(3, 4, 5); # this will work
Because you often do not want this to happen, you should chose carefully what you want to import into your namespace. On the other hand you might not care, which can be fine, too.
Making things private
Perl does not understand the concept of private or public. When you know how the namespaces work you can pretty much get to everything that is not lexical. There are even ways to get to lexicals to, but they involve some arcane black magic and I'll not go into them.
However, there is a convention on how to mark things as private. Whenever a function or variable starts with an underscore, it should be considered private. Modern tools like Data::Printer take that into account when displaying data.
package Foo;
# this is considered part of the public interface
sub foo {
_bar();
}
# this is considered private
sub _bar {
...
}
It's good practice to start doing things like that, and to keep away from the internals of modules on CPAN. Things that are named like that are not considered stable, they are not part of the API and they can change at any time.
Conclusion
This was a very broad overview of some of the concepts involved here. Most of it will quickly become second nature to you once you've used it a few times. I remember that it took me about a year during my training as a developer to wrap my head around that, especially exporting.
When you start a new module, the perldoc page perlnewmod is very helpful. You should read that and make sure you understand what it says.
1: notice the small p in perl? I'm talking about the program here, not the name of the language, which is Perl.
(Your question would be a lot easier to read if you used capital letters.)
can modules "use" other modules?
Yes. You can load a module within another module. If you had looked at almost any CPAN module code, you would have seen examples of this.
must i use export, or can i get away with dropping that stuff?
You can stop using Exporter.pm if you want. But if you want to export symbol names from your modules then you either use Exporter.pm or you implement your own export mechanism. Most people choose to go with Export.pm as it's easier. Or you could look at alternatives like Exporter::Lite and Exporter::Simple.
how do i solve circular use (security.pm uses html.pm and html.pm uses security.pm)
By repartitioning your libraries to get rid of these circular dependencies. It might mean that you're putting too much into one module. Perhaps make smaller, more specialised, modules. Without seeing more explicit examples, it's hard to be much help here.
if i remove all "use" clauses from all of my PM's...then i have to use full sub qualifiers. for example, pm::html::get_user_friends($dbh, $uid) will use security to determine if a friend is a banned user or not (banned is part of security)
You're misunderstanding things here.
Calling use does two things. Firstly, it loads the module and secondly, it runs the module's import() subroutine. And it's the import() subroutine that does all of the Exporter.pm magic. And it's the Exporter.pm magic that allows you to call subroutines from other modules using short names rather than fully-qualified names.
So, yes, if you remove use statements from a module, then you will probably lose the ability to use short names for subroutines from other modules. But you're also relying on some other code in your program to actually load the module. So if you remove all use statements that load a particular module, then you won't be able to call the subroutines from that module. Which seems counter-productive.
It's generally a very good idea for all code (whether it's your main calling program or a module) to explicitly load (with use) any modules that it needs. Perl keeps track of modules that have already been loaded, so there is no problem with inefficiency due to modules being loaded multiple times. If you want to load a module and turn off any exporting of symbol names, then you can do that using syntax like:
use Some::Module (); # turn off exports
The rest of your question just seems like a rant. I can't find any more questions to answer.
I have a bunch of Perl 6 tests that start off with some basic tests where I put the class name to test in a variable the use that variable throughout the test:
my $package = 'Some::Class';
use-ok $package;
my $class = ::($package);
can-ok $class, 'new';
I hadn't paid attention to this for a bit, but it no longer works because classes are lexically loaded now:
No such symbol 'Some::Class'
It's not a hard fix. Load the module without use-ok and in the scope where I want ::($package):
use Some::Class;
...
The other solutions (discounting an ugly EVAL perhaps) have the issue I'm trying to avoid.
But, I don't particularly like that since the name shows up twice in the file. I've particularly liked my formerly-working idiom that I carried over from Perl 5. If I wanted to change a class name, it only showed up once in the file. I could easily generate boilerplate tests (although, it's not that much harder for the fix).
Is there a way I can get back to the ideal I wanted? (Although I figure lexical loading in the next version will get in the way again).
To sum up the problem: You want to load modules using a symbol instead of hardcoding it.
Using a constant should do this for you:
constant some-module = 'Some::Module';
use ::(some-module);
You can also load the module at runtime using require, which would allow runtime computed values:
my $some-module = 'Some::Module';
require ::($some-module);
::($some-module).foo
It would make sense to do this after trying a use-ok.
For extra credit, you may find the techniques in this article useful.
http://rakudo.org/2017/03/18/lexical-require-upgrade-info/
As much as I can (mostly for clarity/documentation), I've been trying to say
use Some::Module;
use Another::Module qw( some namespaces );
in my Perl modules that use other modules.
I've been cleaning up some old code and see some places where I reference modules in my code without ever having used them:
my $example = Yet::Another::Module->AFunction($data); # EXAMPLE 1
my $demo = Whats::The::Difference::Here($data); # EXAMPLE 2
So my questions are:
Is there a performance impact (I'm thinking compile time) by not stating use x and simply referencing it in the code?
I assume that I shouldn't use modules that aren't utilized in the code - I'm telling the compiler to compile code that is unnecessary.
What's the difference between calling functions in example 1's style versus example 2's style?
I would say that this falls firmly into the category of preemptive optimisation and if you're not sure, then leave it in. You would have to be including some vast unused libraries if removing them helped at all
It is typical of Perl to hide a complex issue behind a simple mechanism that will generally do what you mean without too much thought
The simple mechanisms are these
use My::Module 'function' is the same as writing
BEGIN {
require My::Module;
My::Module->import( 'function' );
}
The first time perl successfully executes a require statement, it adds an element to the global %INC hash which has the "pathified" module name (in this case, My/Module.pm) for a key and the absolute location where it found the source as a value
If another require for the same module is encountered (that is, it already exists in the %INC hash) then require does nothing
So your question
What happens if I reference a package but don't use/require it?
We're going to have a problem with use, utilise, include and reference here, so I'm code-quoting only use and require when I mean the Perl language words.
Keeping things simple, these are the three possibilities
As above, if require is seen more than once for the same module source, then it is ignored after the first time. The only overhead is checking to see whether there is a corresponding element in %INC
Clearly, if you use source files that aren't needed then you are doing unnecessary compilation. But Perl is damn fast, and you will be able to shave only fractions of a second from the build time unless you have a program that uses enormous libraries and looks like use Catalyst; print "Hello, world!\n";
We know what happens if you make method calls to a class library that has never been compiled. We get
Can't locate object method "new" via package "My::Class" (perhaps you forgot to load "My::Class"?)
If you're using a function library, then what matters is the part of use that says
My::Module->import( 'function' );
because the first part is require and we already know that require never does anything twice. Calling import is usually a simple function call, and you would be saving nothing significant by avoiding it
What is perhaps less obvious is that big modules that include multiple subsidiaries. For instance, if I write just
use LWP::UserAgent;
then it knows what it is likely to need, and these modules will also be compiled
Carp
Config
Exporter
Exporter::Heavy
Fcntl
HTTP::Date
HTTP::Headers
HTTP::Message
HTTP::Request
HTTP::Response
HTTP::Status
LWP
LWP::MemberMixin
LWP::Protocol
LWP::UserAgent
Storable
Time::Local
URI
URI::Escape
and that's ignoring the pragmas!
Did you ever feel like you were kicking your heels, waiting for an LWP program to compile?
I would say that, in the interests of keeping your Perl code clear and tidy, it may be an idea to remove unnecessary modules from the compilation phase. But don't agonise over it, and benchmark your build times before doing any pre-handover tidy. No one will thank you for reducing the build time by 20ms and then causing them hours of work because you removed a non-obvious requirement.
You actually have a bunch of questions.
Is there a performance impact (thinking compile time) by not stating use x and simply referencing it in the code?
No, there is no performance impact, because you can't do that. Every namespace you are using in a working program gets defined somewhere. Either you used or required it earlier to where it's called, or one of your dependencies did, or another way1 was used to make Perl aware of it
Perl keeps track of those things in symbol tables. They hold all the knowledge about namespaces and variable names. So if your Some::Module is not in the referenced symbol table, Perl will complain.
I assume that I shouldn't use modules that aren't utilized in the code - I'm telling the compiler to compile code that is unnecessary.
There is no question here. But yes, you should not do that.
It's hard to say if this is a performance impact. If you have a large Catalyst application that just runs and runs for months it doesn't really matter. Startup cost is usually not relevant in that case. But if this is a cronjob that runs every minute and processes a huge pile of data, then an additional module might well be a performance impact.
That's actually also a reason why all use and require statements should be at the top. So it's easy to find them if you need to add or remove some.
What's the difference between calling functions in example 1's style versus example 2's style?
Those are for different purposes mostly.
my $example = Yet::Another::Module->AFunction($data); # EXAMPLE 1
This syntax is very similar to the following:
my $e = Yet::Another::Module::AFunction('Yet::Another::Module', $data)
It's used for class methods in OOP. The most well-known one would be new, as in Foo->new. It passes the thing in front of the -> to the function named AFunction in the package of the thing on the left (either if it's blessed, or if it's an identifier) as the first argument. But it does more. Because it's a method call, it also takes inheritance into account.
package Yet::Another::Module;
use parent 'A::First::Module';
1;
package A::First::Module;
sub AFunction { ... }
In this case, your example would also call AFunction because it's inherited from A::First::Module. In addition to the symbol table referenced above, it uses #ISA to keep track of who inherits from whom. See perlobj for more details.
my $demo = Whats::The:Difference::Here($data); # EXAMPLE 2
This has a syntax error. There is a : missing after The.
my $demo = Whats::The::Difference::Here($data); # EXAMPLE 2
This is a function call. It calls the function Here in the package Whats::The::Difference and passes $data and nothing else.
Note that as Borodin points out in a comment, your function names are very atypical and confusing. Usually functions in Perl are written with all lowercase and with underscores _ instead of camel case. So AFunction should be a_function, and Here should be here.
1) for example, you can have multiple package definitions in one file, which you should not normally do, or you could assign stuff into a namespace directly with syntax like *Some::Namespace::frobnicate = sub {...}. There are other ways, but that's a bit out of scope for this answer.
My current project sets an environment variable in a perl module and then later on makes a call from a SystemVerilog file to a function that uses that variable. The requirement is that whatever we added in the perl module is present in the environment variable on time of the call.
The problem however is that something between the perl module and systemverilog call meddles with my variable. I can't figure out what it is and fixing this issue is not pertinent to my project so I just want to set the variable to whatever the perl module sets it to and move on.
There's a handy getenv function in Perl and I am able to use getenv in SV as well. But there doesn't seem to be a setenv. What is the appropriate way to set an environment variable in SV?
Is the perl code invoked from within SystemVerilog using a $system() call? If so, environment changes made by the perl code will definitely NOT propagate back to the SV world, because those changes are made only in the $system() subprocess's environment.
The setenv() system call works for me via SystemVerilog DPI-C in all the tools I use (recent Fedora OS, recent versions of Mentor/Cadence/Synopsys simulators), but there may be some older *nix systems on which it's not available. I used the prototype as given in "man 3 setenv". Looking at discussions on other StackOverflow forums, it seems that using putenv() is not a great idea, especially from the DPI where you have no idea what will happen to the memory used for the DPI string argument. setenv() makes a copy of its argument strings, and should not be at risk from that problem.
It seems to me that if your tool flow isn't correctly propagating environment variables in the way you intend, then you have bigger problems than how to mess with the env from SystemVerilog. I specifically chose NOT to add environment-modifying functions to the svlib utility library, precisely because using the environment is a very bad way to communicate information within a SV simulation. I guess it would make sense if you need to set up an environment for some external program that you would then invoke using a SV $system() call.
Mh... Turns out the answer is trivial but this is the only thread to this question so I'll leave it up in case someone else finds themselve in a similar situation:
SystemVerilog does not have a setenv( ) or getenv( ) function. They're actually implemented from C using the following construct:
module/program foo();
import "DPI-C" function <return type> foonction(<function arguments>);
endmodule/program;
Apparently in my case someone had done this for getenv( ) but never setenv ( ). Reason I didn't catch it was because my code in question was included the following way:
**foo.sv**
if(var.bit) begin
call_function();
use_environment_variable();
end
**bar.sv**
module bar();
<do stuff>
`include foo.sv <-- foo code is copied in after calculations have occured.
endmodule
Trying to import DPI-C in foo.sv will trigger an error because the import will arrive after calculations have taken place. To solve this we need to import in bar.sv like so:
module bar();
import "DPI-C" function int setenv(string name, string value, int override);
<do stuff>
`include foo.sv
endmodule
Setting environment variables from SV is not very useful unless you are running another executable from SV.
If you want to get environment variables, you can use Verilab's svlib functions:
function automatic string sys_getEnv(string envVar);
function automatic bit sys_hasEnv(string envVar);
How can I perform a "shallow" syntax check on perl files. The standard perl -c is useful but it checks the syntax of imports. This is sometimes nice but not great when you work in a code repository and push to a running environment and you have a function defined in the repository but not yet pushed to the running environment. It fails checking a function because the imports reference system paths (ie. use Custom::Project::Lib qw(foo bar baz)).
It can't practically be done, because imports have the ability to influence the parsing of the code that follows. For example use strict makes it so that barewords aren't parsed as strings (and changes the rules for how variable names can be used), use constant causes constant subs to be defined, and use Try::Tiny changes the parse of expressions involving try, catch, or finally (by giving them & prototypes). More generally, any module that exports anything into the caller's namespace can influence parsing because the perl parser resolves ambiguity in different ways when a name refers to an existing subroutine than when it doesn't.
There are two problems with this:
How to not fail -c if the required modules are missing?
There are two solutions:
A. Add a fake/stub module in production
B. In all your modules, use a special catch-all #INC subroutine entry (using subs in #INC is explained here). This obviously has a problem of having the module NOT fail in real production runtime if the libraries are missing - DoublePlusNotGood in my book.
Even if you could somehow skip failing on missing modules, you would STILL fail on any use of the identifiers imported from the missing module or used explicitly from that module's namespace.
The only realistic solution to this is to go back to #1a and use a fake stub module, but this time one that has a declared and (as needed) exported identifier for every public interface. E.g. do-nothing subs or dummy variables.
However, even that will fail for some advanced modules that dynamically determine what to create in their own namespace and what to export in runtime (and the caller code could dynamically determine which subs to call - heck, sometimes which modules to import).
But this approach would work just fine for normal "Java/C-like" OO or procedural code that only calls statically named predefined public subs, methods and accesses exported variables.
I would suggest that it's better to include your code repository in your syntax check. perl -I/path/to/working/code/repo/local_perl/ -c or set PERL5LIB=/path/to/working/code/repo/local_perl/ prior to running perl -c. Either option should allow you to check against your working code, assuming you have it in a directory structure similar to your live code.
I guess you could make stubs for the missing libraries in your home folder.
Have you looked into PPI? I think it does follow imports, however it could perhaps be more easily modified to guess what looks like a function name.