I recently saw some Perl code that confused me. I took out all of the extra parts to see how it was working, but I still don't understand why it works.
Basically, I created this dummy "module" (TTT.pm):
use strict;
use warnings;
package TTT;
sub new {
my $class = shift;
return bless {'Test' => 'Test'}, $class;
}
sub acquire {
my $tt = new TTT();
return $tt;
}
1;
Then I created this script to use the module (ttt.pl):
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use TTT;
our $VERSION = 1;
my $tt = acquire TTT;
print $tt->{Test};
The line that confuses me, that I thought would not work, is:
my $tt = acquire TTT;
I thought it would not work since the "acquire" sub was never exported. But it does work.
I was confused by the "TTT" after the call to acquire, so I removed that, leaving the line like this:
my $tt = acquire;
And it complained of a bareword, like I thought it would. I added parens, like this:
my $tt = acquire();
And it complained that there wasn't a main::acquire, like I thought it would.
I'm used to the subroutines being available to the object, or subroutines being exported, but I've never seen a subroutine get called with the package name on the end. I don't even know how to search for this on Google.
So my question is, How does adding the package name after the subroutine call work? I've never seen anything like that before, and it probably isn't good practice, but can someone explain what Perl is doing?
Thanks!
You are using the indirect object syntax that Perl allows (but in modern code is discouraged). Basically, if a name is not predeclared, it can be placed in front of an object (or class name) separated with a space.
So the line acquire TTT actually means TTT->acquire. If you actually had a subroutine named acquire in scope, it would instead be interpreted as aquire(TTT) which is can lead to ambiguity (hence why it is discouraged).
You should also update the new TTT(); line in the method to read TTT->new;
It's the indirect object syntax for method calls, which lets you put the method name before the object name.
As the documentation there shows, it's best avoided because it's unwieldy and it can break in unpredictable ways, for example if there is an imported or defined subroutine named acquire — but it used to be more common than it is today, and so you will find it pretty often in old code and docs.
Related
I keep getting :: confused with -> when calling subroutines from modules. I know that :: is more related to paths and where the module/subroutine is and -> is used for objects, but I don't really understand why I can seemingly interchange both and it not come up with immediate errors.
I have perl modules which are part of a larger package, e.g. FullProgram::Part1
I'm just about getting to grips with modules, but still am on wobbly grounds when it comes to Perl objects, but I've been accidentally doing this:
FullProgram::Part1::subroutine1();
instead of
FullProgram::Part1->subroutine1();
so when I've been passing a hash ref to subroutine1 and been careful about using $class/$self to deal with the object reference and accidentally use :: I end up pulling my hair out wondering why my hash ref seems to disappear. I have learnt my lesson, but would really like an explanation of the difference. I have read the perldocs and various websites on these but I haven't seen any comparisons between the two (quite hard to google...)
All help appreciated - always good to understand what I'm doing!
There's no inherent difference between a vanilla sub and one's that's a method. It's all in how you call it.
Class::foo('a');
This will call Class::foo. If Class::foo doesn't exist, the inheritance tree will not be checked. Class::foo will be passed only the provided arguments ('a').
It's roughly the same as: my $sub = \&Class::foo; $sub->('a');
Class->foo('a');
This will call Class::foo, or foo in one of its base classes if Class::foo doesn't exist. The invocant (what's on the left of the ->) will be passed as an argument.
It's roughly the same as: my $sub = Class->can('foo'); $sub->('Class', 'a');
FullProgram::Part1::subroutine1();
calls the subroutine subroutine1 of the package FullProgram::Part1 with an empty parameter list while
FullProgram::Part1->subroutine1();
calls the same subroutine with the package name as the first argument (note that it gets a little bit more complex when you're subclassing). This syntax is used by constructor methods that need the class name for building objects of subclasses like
sub new {
my ($class, #args) = #_;
...
return bless $thing, $class;
}
FYI: in Perl OO you see $object->method(#args) which calls Class::method with the object (a blessed reference) as the first argument instead of the package/class name. In a method like this, the subroutine could work like this:
sub method {
my ($self, $foo, $bar) = #_;
$self->do_something_with($bar);
# ...
}
which will call the subroutine do_something_with with the object as first argument again followed by the value of $bar which was the second list element you originally passed to method in #args. That way the object itself doesn't get lost.
For more informations about how the inheritance tree becomes important when calling methods, please see ikegami's answer!
Use both!
use Module::Two;
Module::Two::->class_method();
Note that this works but also protects you against an ambiguity there; the simple
Module::Two->class_method();
will be interpreted as:
Module::Two()->class_method();
(calling the subroutine Two in Module and trying to call class_method on its return value - likely resulting in a runtime error or calling a class or instance method in some completely different class) if there happens to be a sub Two in Module - something that you shouldn't depend on one way or the other, since it's not any of your code's business what is in Module.
Historically, Perl dont had any OO. And functions from packages called with FullProgram::Part1::subroutine1(); sytax. Or even before with FullProgram'Part1'subroutine1(); syntax(deprecated).
Later, they implemented OOP with -> sign, but dont changed too much actually. FullProgram::Part1->subroutine1(); calls subroutine1 and FullProgram::Part1 goes as 1st parameter. you can see usage of this when you create an object: my $cgi = CGI->new(). Now, when you call a method from this object, left part also goes as first parameter to function: $cgi->param(''). Thats how param gets object he called from (usually named $self). Thats it. -> is hack for OOP. So as a result Perl does not have classes(packages work as them) but does have objects("objects" hacks too - they are blessed scalars).
Offtop: Also you can call with my $cgi = new CGI; syntax. This is same as CGI->new. Same when you say print STDOUT "text\n";. Yeah, just just calling IOHandle::print().
I try to intercept nonexistent methods call in some subclass.
Yes, I know about AUTOLOAD,
but (for methods) it try to call parent::method first, then UNIVERSAL::method and only then ::AUTOLOAD.
But I need call (something like) ::AUTOLOAD at first.
Because I want to know what methods subclass try to call from parent.
Give me some advice about it please.
If you just want to know what methods are being used, you can use some profiling module like Devel::NYTProf.
If you want to react to that during your program execution, you can intercept directly the entersub opcode just as the profiling modules do. See the perlguts or profiling module code for more details.
You could probably create a 'Monitor' class with FETCH and EXISTS and tie it to the symbol table hash like: tie %Module::Name:: , Monitor;
But unless we know exactly what you are trying to do and why, it's hard to guess what would be the right solution for you.
Please heavily consider Jiri Klouda's suggestion that you step back and reconsider what you are trying to accomplish. You almost never want to do what you're trying to do.
But, if you're really sure you want to, here's how to get enough pure Perl rope to hang yourself...
The subs pragma takes a list of sub names to predeclare. As tchrist says above, you can predeclare subs but never actually define them. This will short-circuit method dispatch to superclasses and call your AUTOLOAD immediately.
As for the list of sub names to pass to the pragma, you could use Class::Inspector->methods (thanks to Nic Gibson's answer for teaching me about this module).
According to brian d foy's comment to Nic Gibson's answer, Class::Inspector will not handle methods defined in UNIVERSAL. If you need to do those separately, you can get inspiration from the 'use subs' line in my Class::LazyObject module.
Why not create an AUTOLOAD sub in the sub-class package which 1) reports the missing method and then 2) dispatches the call to the parent. For this to work you don't defined #ISA in the sub-class.
Something like:
package my_parent;
sub foo { warn "in my_parent::foo" }
package my_subclass;
my $PARENT_CLASS = "my_parent"; # assume only one parent
# Note: no #ISA defined here
sub AUTOLOAD {
warn "non-existent method $AUTOLOAD called\n";
my $self = shift;
(my $method = $AUTOLOAD) =~ s{.*::}{};
my $super = $PARENT_CLASS . '::' . $method;
$self->$super(#_);
}
package main;
my $x = bless {}, 'my_subclass';
$x->foo;
The syntax: $self->$super(#_) where $super has double-colons in it tells perl in which package to start looking for the method, e.g.:
$self->my_parent::foo(...)
will look for the foo method starting in the package my_parent regarless of what class $self is blessed into.
Can you intercept a method call in Perl, do something with the arguments, and then execute it?
Yes, you can intercept Perl subroutine calls. I have an entire chapter about that sort of thing in Mastering Perl. Check out the Hook::LexWrap module, which lets you do it without going through all of the details. Perl's methods are just subroutines.
You can also create a subclass and override the method you want to catch. That's a slightly better way to do it because that's the way object-oriented programming wants you do to it. However, sometimes people write code that doesn't allow you to do this properly. There's more about that in Mastering Perl too.
To describe briefly, Perl has the aptitude to modify symbol table. You call a subroutine (method) via symbol table of the package, to which the method belongs. If you modify the symbol table (and this is not considered very dirty), you can substitute most method calls with calling the other methods you specify. This demonstrates the approach:
# The subroutine we'll interrupt calls to
sub call_me
{
print shift,"\n";
}
# Intercepting factory
sub aspectate
{
my $callee = shift;
my $value = shift;
return sub { $callee->($value + shift); };
}
my $aspectated_call_me = aspectate \&call_me, 100;
# Rewrite symbol table of main package (lasts to the end of the block).
# Replace "main" with the name of the package (class) you're intercepting
local *main::call_me = $aspectated_call_me;
# Voila! Prints 105!
call_me(5);
This also shows that, once someone takes reference of the subroutine and calls it via the reference, you can no longer influence such calls.
I am pretty sure there are frameworks to do aspectation in perl, but this, I hope, demonstrates the approach.
This looks like a job for Moose! Moose is an object system for Perl that can do that and lots more. The docs will do a much better job at explaining than I can, but what you'll likely want is a Method Modifier, specifically before.
You can, and Pavel describes a good way to do it, but you should probably elaborate as to why you are wanting to do this in the first place.
If you're looking for advanced ways of intercepting calls to arbitrary subroutines, then fiddling with symbol tables will work for you, but if you want to be adding functionality to functions perhaps exported to the namespace you are currently working in, then you might need to know of ways to call functions that exist in other namespaces.
Data::Dumper, for example, normally exports the function 'Dumper' to the calling namespace, but you can override or disable that and provide your own Dumper function which then calls the original by way of the fully qualified name.
e.g.
use Data::Dumper;
sub Dumper {
warn 'Dumping variables';
print Data::Dumper::Dumper(#_);
}
my $foo = {
bar => 'barval',
};
Dumper($foo);
Again, this is an alternate solution that may be more appropriate depending on the original problem. A lot of fun can be had when playing with the symbol table, but it may be overkill and could lead to hard to maintain code if you don't need it.
Yes.
You need three things:
The arguments to a call are in #_ which is just another dynamically scoped variable.
Then, goto supports a reference-sub argument which preserves the current #_ but makes another (tail) function call.
Finally local can be used to create lexically scoped global variables, and the symbol tables are buried in %::.
So you've got:
sub foo {
my($x,$y)=(#_);
print "$x / $y = " . ((0.0+$x)/$y)."\n";
}
sub doit {
foo(3,4);
}
doit();
which of course prints out:
3 / 4 = 0.75
We can replace foo using local and go:
my $oldfoo = \&foo;
local *foo = sub { (#_)=($_[1], $_[0]); goto $oldfoo; };
doit();
And now we get:
4 / 3 = 1.33333333333333
If you wanted to modify *foo without using its name, and you didn't want to use eval, then you could modify it by manipulating %::, for example:
$::{"foo"} = sub { (#_)=($_[0], 1); goto $oldfoo; };
doit();
And now we get:
3 / 1 = 3
I keep the name of the subroutine I want to call at runtime in a variable called $action. Then I use this to call that sub at the right time:
&{\&{$action}}();
Works fine. The only thing I don't like is that it's ugly and every time I do it, I feel beholden to add a comment for the next developer:
# call the sub by the name of $action
Anyone know a prettier way of doing this?
UPDATE: The idea here was to avoid having to maintain a dispatch table every time I added a new callable sub, since I am the sole developer, I'm not worried about other programmers following or not following the 'rules'. Sacrificing a bit of security for my convenience. Instead my dispatch module would check $action to make sure that 1) it is the name of a defined subroutine and not malicious code to run with eval, and 2) that it wouldn't run any sub prefaced by an underscore, which would be marked as internal-only subs by this naming convention.
Any thoughts on this approach? Whitelisting subroutines in the dispatch table is something I will forget all the time, and my clients would rather me err on the side of "it works" than "it's wicked secure". (very limited time to develop apps)
FINAL UPDATE: I think I've decided on a dispatch table after all. Although I'd be curious if anyone who reads this question has ever tried to do away with one and how they did it, I have to bow to the collective wisdom here. Thanks to all, many great responses.
Rather than storing subroutine names in a variable and calling them, a better way to do this is to use a hash of subroutine references (otherwise known as a dispatch table.)
my %actions = ( foo => \&foo,
bar => \&bar,
baz => sub { print 'baz!' }
...
);
Then you can call the right one easily:
$actions{$action}->();
You can also add some checking to make sure $action is a valid key in the hash, and so forth.
In general, you should avoid symbolic references (what you're doing now) as they cause all kinds of problems. In addition, using real subroutine references will work with strict turned on.
Just &$action(), but usually it's nicer to use coderefs from the beginning, or use a dispatcher hash. For example:
my $disp = {foo => \&some_sub, bar => \&some_other_sub };
$disp->{'foo'}->();
Huh? You can just say
$action->()
Example:
sub f { return 11 }
$action = 'f';
print $action->();
$ perl subfromscalar.pl
11
Constructions like
'f'->() # equivalent to &f()
also work.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. (I think this is another in a recent group of "How can I use a variable as a variable name?" questions, but maybe not.)
In any case, you should be able to assign an entire subroutine to a variable (as a reference), and then call it straightforwardly:
# create the $action variable - a reference to the subroutine
my $action = \&sing_out;
# later - perhaps much later - I call it
$action->();
sub sing_out {
print "La, la, la, la, la!\n"
}
The most important thing is: why do you want to use variable as function name. What will happen if it will be 'eval'?
Is there a list of functions that can be used? Or can it be any function? If list exists - how long it is?
Generally, the best way to handle such cases is to use dispatch tables:
my %dispatch = (
'addition' => \&some_addition_function,
'multiplication' => sub { $self->call_method( #_ ) },
);
And then just:
$dispatch{ $your_variable }->( 'any', 'args' );
__PACKAGE__->can($action)->(#args);
For more info on can(): http://perldoc.perl.org/UNIVERSAL.html
I do something similar. I split it into two lines to make it slightly more identifiable, but it's not a lot prettier.
my $sub = \&{$action};
$sub->();
I do not know of a more correct or prettier way of doing it. For what it's worth, we have production code that does what you are doing, and it works without having to disable use strict.
Every package in Perl is already a hash table. You can add elements and reference them by the normal hash operations. In general it is not necessary to duplicate the functionality by an additional hash table.
#! /usr/bin/perl -T
use strict;
use warnings;
my $tag = 'HTML';
*::->{$tag} = sub { print '<html>', #_, '</html>', "\n" };
HTML("body1");
*::->{$tag}("body2");
The code prints:
<html>body1</html>
<html>body2</html>
If you need a separate name space, you can define a dedicated package.
See perlmod for further information.
Either use
&{\&{$action}}();
Or use eval to execute the function:
eval("$action()");
I did it in this way:
#func = qw(cpu mem net disk);
foreach my $item (#func){
$ret .= &$item(1);
}
If it's only in one program, write a function that calls a subroutine using a variable name, and only have to document it/apologize once?
I used this: it works for me.
(\$action)->();
Or you can use 'do', quite similar with previous posts:
$p = do { \&$conn;};
$p->();
According to this
http://perldoc.perl.org/UNIVERSAL.html
I shouldn't use UNIVERSAL::isa() and should instead use $obj->isa() or CLASS->isa().
This means that to find out if something is a reference in the first place and then is reference to this class I have to do
eval { $poss->isa("Class") }
and check $# and all that gumph, or else
use Scalar::Util 'blessed';
blessed $ref && $ref->isa($class);
My question is why? What's wrong with UNIVERSAL::isa called like that? It's much cleaner for things like:
my $self = shift if UNIVERSAL::isa($_[0], __PACKAGE__)
To see whether this function is being called on the object or not. And is there a nice clean alternative that doesn't get cumbersome with ampersands and potentially long lines?
The primary problem is that if you call UNIVERSAL::isa directly, you are bypassing any classes that have overloaded isa. If those classes rely on the overloaded behavior (which they probably do or else they would not have overridden it), then this is a problem. If you invoke isa directly on your blessed object, then the correct isa method will be called in either case (overloaded if it exists, UNIVERSAL:: if not).
The second problem is that UNIVERSAL::isa will only perform the test you want on a blessed reference just like every other use of isa. It has different behavior for non-blessed references and simple scalars. So your example that doesn't check whether $ref is blessed is not doing the right thing, you're ignoring an error condition and using UNIVERSAL's alternate behavior. In certain circumstances this can cause subtle errors (for example, if your variable contains the name of a class).
Consider:
use CGI;
my $a = CGI->new();
my $b = "CGI";
print UNIVERSAL::isa($a,"CGI"); # prints 1, $a is a CGI object.
print UNIVERSAL::isa($b,"CGI"); # Also prints 1!! Uh-oh!!
So, in summary, don't use UNIVERSAL::isa... Do the extra error check and invoke isa on your object directly.
See the docs for UNIVERSAL::isa and UNIVERSAL::can for why you shouldn't do it.
In a nutshell, there are important modules with a genuine need to override 'isa' (such as Test::MockObject), and if you call it as a function, you break this.
I have to say, my $self = shift if UNIVERSAL::isa($_[0], __PACKAGE__) doesn't look terribly clean to me - anti-Perl advocates would be complaining about line noise. :)
To directly answer your question, the answer is at the bottom of the page you linked to, namely that if a package defines an isa method, then calling UNIVERSAL::isa directly will not call the package isa method. This is very unintuitive behaviour from an object-orientation point of view.
The rest of this post is just more questions about why you're doing this in the first place.
In code like the above, in what cases would that specific isa test fail? i.e., if it's a method, in which case would the first argument not be the package class or an instance thereof?
I ask this because I wonder if there is a legitimate reason why you would want to test whether the first argument is an object in the first place. i.e., are you just trying to catch people saying FooBar::method instead of FooBar->method or $foobar->method? I guess Perl isn't designed for that sort of coddling, and if people mistakenly use FooBar::method they'll find out soon enough.
Your mileage may vary.
Everyone else has told you why you don't want to use UNIVERSAL::isa, because it breaks when things overload isa. If they've gone to all the habit of overloading that very special method, you certainly want to respect it. Sure, you could do this by writing:
if (eval { $foo->isa("thing") }) {
# Do thingish things
}
because eval guarantees to return false if it throws an exception, and the last value otherwise. But that looks awful, and you shouldn't need to write your code in funny ways because the language wants you to. What we really want is to write just:
if ( $foo->isa("thing") ) {
# Do thingish things
}
To do that, we'd have to make sure that $foo is always an object. But $foo could be a string, a number, a reference, an undefined value, or all sorts of weird stuff. What a shame Perl can't make everything a first class object.
Oh, wait, it can...
use autobox; # Everything is now a first class object.
use CGI; # Because I know you have it installed.
my $x = 5;
my $y = CGI->new;
print "\$x is a CGI object\n" if $x->isa('CGI'); # This isn't printed.
print "\$y is a CGI object\n" if $y->isa('CGI'); # This is!
You can grab autobox from the CPAN. You can also use it with lexical scope, so everything can be a first class object just for the files or blocks where you want to use ->isa() without all the extra headaches. It also does a lot more than what I've covered in this simple example.
Assuming your example of what you want to be able to do is within an object method, you're being unnecessarily paranoid. The first passed item will always be either a reference to an object of the appropriate class (or a subclass) or it will be the name of the class (or a subclass). It will never be a reference of any other type, unless the method has been deliberately called as a function. You can, therefore, safely just use ref to distinguish between the two cases.
if (ref $_[0]) {
my $self = shift;
# called on instance, so do instancey things
} else {
my $class = shift;
# called as a class/static method, so do classy things
}
Right. It does a wrong thing for classes that overload isa. Just use the following idiom:
if (eval { $obj->isa($class) }) {
It is easily understood and commonly accepted.
Update for 2020: Perl v5.32 has the class infix operator, isa, which handles any sort of thing on the lefthand side. If the $something is not an object, you get back false with no blowup.
use v5.32;
if( $something isa 'Animal' ) { ... }