(tye)Re: Stupid question

Nearly every Perl script I write follows this format:

#!/usr/bin/perl -w

use strict;

use Other::Modules qw< ImportedFunction >;

use vars qw< $Globals >;

Main( @ARGV );
exit;

sub Routine
{
    ...
}

BEGIN {
    my $static= "Initial value";

    sub usesStatic
    {
        ...
    }
}

sub Main
{
    my $putMainVarsHere;
    ...
}
__END__
[download]

So you can prevent your subroutine from accessing your "main" variables by putting them where I wrote $putMainVarsHere.

This style has evolved for quite a while and there are specific reasons for almost every aspect of it. I find it catches quite a few errors for me.

I was going to explain my reasons for most aspects of this style, but I decided that that would be more appropriate elsewhere.

(updated twice)

Update: Here are some justifications for some of my decisions that I collected quite a while ago planning to write this up more formally. Instead I've just moved them from my scratchpad to here:

#!/usr/bin/perl is the standard place for Perl as declared by Larry himself. Even if you install /usr/local/bin/perl, please also put a link in /usr/bin and please use #!/usr/bin/perl in scripts that you make public
Explicitly listing what you want exported from a module means that when I read your code and see GnarfleTheGarthock(), I can search for "GnarfleTheGarthock" and I'll find the "use Coneheads qw( GnarfleTheGarthock );" line and know where to go find documentation and/or code for that subroutine even if Gnarfle or Garthock appear to be an "obvious" Coneheads reference to _you_ ;)
Lets you distinguish file-scoped lexicals declared at the top of your scripts that act as global variables from "sub Main" lexicals that should not be directly accessed by other subroutines.
Gives you a handy place for a break point ("c Main") when debugging (stepping over module and global variable initialization can get boring)
Since Perl's "global destruction" phase doesn't obey reference counts, it can cause problems when objects refer to each other. "sub Main" can aid debugging of such destruction issues because you can break after returning from Main()...
Main(@ARGV) allows you to parse the command line via @_ which makes it easier to refactor that code later
exit; means that no code outside of a sub below will get executed. This can bite you, but I really like it because I know I don't have to search the entire script looking for random bits of code.
That previous item also forces you to use BEGIN to initialize any "static" lexicals, which ensures that you never call a subroutine before any "static" lexicals that it uses are initialized
The BEGIN block also prevents "will not stay shared" warnings that break the use of file-scoped lexicals in subroutines with Apache::Registry under mod_perl

- tye (but my friends call me "Tye")

Comment on (tye)Re: Stupid question Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Stupid question by runrig (Abbot) on May 19, 2011 at 16:29 UTC
Posted only to maybe help someone else at some point in time... Update: It's all about this Carp bug (w/this solution) and modifying global variables ( @ARGV in this case - GetOptions modifies @ARGV ) after they get passed to functions. Although I agree with this format (but have mostly not gotten in the habit of using it myself), one of my co-workers was doing something similar, and got the following error during a Carp::confess from deep within the code (perl 5.8.8 - and we could not come up with a simple test case): `Bizarre copy of HASH in sassign at ...../Carp/Heavy.pm line 45` [download] Although it seemed to be a completely unrelated part of the code, moving the Getopt::Long::GetOptions() call from inside to outside of Main() fixed the problem, and we got the proper confess with stack trace that we wanted to see. Though I'm sure when something with this much deep magic goes wrong, we've probably only fixed a symptom of the problem :-)	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: Stupid question (heisenbugs) by tye (Sage) on May 19, 2011 at 16:47 UTC
Yes, those kind of errors are where any random change can prevent / postpone the error. For example, running under the Perl debugger is frequently one way to make the error go away. This can be a convenient way to get the stack trace and it can be very inconvenient in preventing you from being able to use the debugger to get more information. I've also often seen turning up trace or adding "debug prints" make such bugs no longer reproduce. But such voodoo changes usually just postpone the problem for a while. I'm glad you got the call stack and were able to use that to debug the problem that was causing Carp to be called. But if I were in your shoes, then I would be worried of other things eventually causing more "bizarre copy" panics. In such cases, I usually look for a minor Perl upgrade, upgrades for XS-using modules, or elimination of the use of some XS-using modules. Also, these bugs are much more likely in an environment like a Perl daemon or like mod_perl where you have an interpreter instance that runs for quite a long time doing tons of things. Re-spawning the daemon periodically or configuring mod_perl to restart children a bit more often can reduce the frequency of such bugs appearing. - tye	[reply]
Re^4: Stupid question (heisenbugs) by runrig (Abbot) on Apr 14, 2012 at 06:05 UTC
The "bizarre copy" errors from Carp so far seem to only happen when one particular module wants to throw an error (unless I do something like this on purpose). When I apply this eval band aid, Carp reports the real error instead of the useless error that may never be fixed. The error has something to do with lack of ref counting of the stack. It would be nice if Carp were patched as in the RT ticket, as it restores Carp to being at least somewhat useful when this happens.	[reply]
Re^5: Stupid question (mortalization) by tye (Sage) on Apr 14, 2012 at 15:46 UTC
Re^6: Stupid question (mortalization) by runrig (Abbot) on May 11, 2012 at 23:52 UTC
Re^2: Stupid question by flexvault (Monsignor) on May 12, 2012 at 10:32 UTC
tye, #!/usr/bin/perl is the standard place for Perl as declared by Larry himself. Even if you install /usr/local/bin/perl, please also put a link in /usr/bin and please use #!/usr/bin/perl in scripts that you make public Please consider in the nix world of today, you may make your system useless if you do the above. Changing the default system "perl" is quite dangerous. 5 years ago, I would agree, but today it's better to link the other way around if you're not installing a different Perl. Just my 2 cents. Thank you "Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin*	[reply]
Re^3: Stupid question (/usr/bin/perl) by tye (Sage) on May 12, 2012 at 17:34 UTC
All I suggested is that there be a /usr/bin/perl (if there is any version of Perl installed). I don't see how there being a /usr/bin/perl would make a modern Unix system "useless". - tye	[reply]
Re^4: Stupid question (/usr/bin/perl) by flexvault (Monsignor) on May 13, 2012 at 08:16 UTC
tye, I guess I didn't explain myself properly. Several of the newer versions of nix distributions seem to be shipping a vendor updated "safer" Perl in /usr/bin. If you replace this "safer" Perl with a "compiled by you" Perl without the vendor's "patches", many of the system utilities that require the "safer" Perl just don't work. So my new rules would be: Never use or touch the /usr/bin/perl* Always use a known version of Perl ( best to compile yourself ). Preferred location is /usr/local/bin/perl ( I usually link to the known Perl. ) This is not what I would like, but it is necessary. In the past 2 years, I've had to re-install 3 different new distros that after installing a newer Perl as /usr/bin/perl many utilities just don't work. I used to routinely install a new Perl as /usr/bin/perl. I don't do that anymore! Note: Sorry to admit I did this 3 times, but old habits are hard to break. How many times on PM do you see comments of "...doesn't work...", followed by "...works on my system...". I'm pointing to the difference may be in using the vendor supplied Perl. This is not a Perl problem! I have said many times that Perl is getting better and better. I have never changed Perl code, nor do I see any need to. When I compile Perl myself, it works as documented. Thank you "Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin	[reply]
Re^5: Stupid question (/usr/bin/perl) by tye (Sage) on May 13, 2012 at 22:22 UTC
Re^6: Stupid question (/usr/bin/perl) by flexvault (Monsignor) on May 14, 2012 at 08:27 UTC
Re^3: Stupid question by aaron_baugher (Curate) on May 12, 2012 at 11:50 UTC
Whichever direction you link it, that would seem to present a problem. If you're installing a separate perl because you want to leave the stock perl pristine for the OS to use, well, the OS will expect to find the stock perl in /usr/bin/perl. If /usr/bin/perl is a link to /usr/local/bin/perl (or wherever), then the OS will be using your local version, so you might as well have just replaced the stock version with your own version, right? Another thought: if you symlink /usr/bin/perl to somewhere else, can you trust that an OS upgrade of the stock perl won't clobber your symlink? Aaron B. Available for small or large Perl jobs; see my home node.	[reply]