Re: Perl function calls.

What did you do to test it? Were you expecting a failure? Are you sure that this test method actually produces a failure?

Of note, the call to open in the sub won't throw an error on its own. You need to check its return value:

open my $p, '<', $filename or return "Could not open $filename: $!";
[download]

Which should be compatible with the way you intended to catch errors. However, I'll also point out that or die "error message" tends to be the preferred way of doing this rather than or return "error message".

"There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.

Comment on Re: Perl function calls. Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Perl function calls. by user786 (Sexton) on Jul 07, 2014 at 15:05 UTC
This method actually did not produce any failure. Yes that correct,die is preferred way. I have used auto die in the script. But I'd like to know/learn how it works with the return message. It would be really helpful for me if you can help me understand it.	[reply]
Re^3: Perl function calls. by hardburn (Abbot) on Jul 07, 2014 at 17:34 UTC
Well, if it didn't return failure, then I'm not sure how you can say your error code didn't work. If there's no failure for it to catch, then of course it won't run. As it is, your error code should work fine if the function is expected to return an error string on failure. Since the function doesn't return an error string in any branch, the error will never be picked up. "There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.	[reply]