in reply to Parsing barewords as sub/method calls?

Also worth noting what perlsub says:
In fact, if you predeclare functions you want to call that way, you don't even need parentheses: 
use subs qw(date who ls);
date;

[download]
I guess you might give e.g. use subs 'AAA'..'ZZZ';

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Parsing barewords as sub/method calls?
by LanX (Saint) on Nov 23, 2013 at 17:48 UTC
    as I said

    > > w/o predeclaring them?

    Sometimes it's not possible to predeclare them.

    Also please note that predeclaring them involves polluting the callers package.¹

    sub predeclared;

within_my_DSL { predeclare };

    [download]

    Thats not always desirable.

    And the whole dynamic AUTOLOAD-mechanism doesn't make sense in combination with predeclared subs.

    Cheers Rolf

    ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

    update

    ¹) interesting question which comes up now, is if (and how) Ruby solves this... I suppose they don't care.

[reply]
[d/l]
      What about the reverse? If within takes a code block, then a closure is formed with all the outer lexicals. Your caller now pollutes the DSL?
[reply]
        Well taking data from outer scope is mostly intended.

        The standard example of DSLs are embedded HTML¹, so one could mix Perl code and variables from the caller.

        DSLs are one of the hype things in Ruby, showing an adequate alternative doesn't worsen Perl's market position. ;-)

        I think of DSLs as OOP without the need to always notate the $obj_refs and ->.

        Cheers Rolf

        ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

        ¹) NB: I don't propagate HTML-DSLs over template engines!

        But e.g. it's thinkable to have a DSL which describes a GUI and creates either HTML or TK or Wx code.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom