It is producing a named subroutine for each name in @x. Even if somefunction() returns names which would be illegal for a sub, a function of the name will be provided.
use strict;
use warnings;
sub somefunction { qw/foo bar 123/ }
my @x = somefunction();
for (@x) {
my $foo = "${_}_func";
*{;no strict 'refs'; \*$_}
= sub { $foo };
}
print &123(),$/; # omitting the & sigil gives syntax error
__END__
123_func
The tight scope of no strict 'refs'; is remarkable. I've never seen it done that way. I think it is the primary advantage of doing this: stricture in in force in the sub definition. The construction seems to be equivalent to,
*{
+do {
no strict 'refs';
\*$_
}
} = sub {
# . . .
};
-
Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
-
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big>
<blockquote> <br /> <dd>
<dl> <dt> <em> <font>
<h1> <h2> <h3> <h4>
<h5> <h6> <hr /> <i>
<li> <nbsp> <ol> <p>
<small> <strike> <strong>
<sub> <sup> <table>
<td> <th> <tr> <tt>
<u> <ul>
-
Snippets of code should be wrapped in
<code> tags not
<pre> tags. In fact, <pre>
tags should generally be avoided. If they must
be used, extreme care should be
taken to ensure that their contents do not
have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent
horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor
intervention).
-
Want more info? How to link
or How to display code and escape characters
are good places to start.
|