in reply to Re^5: Modernizing the Postmodern Language?
in thread Modernizing the Postmodern Language?

> The package/filehandle conflict is one of the few actual problems with bareword filehandles in Perl,

what about declared subroutines?

Without brackets they become barewords.

I find the whole, 4ish "how do I pass bareword FH to subroutines?" by "referencing of a glob" syntax like \*DATA extremely confusing.

I won't miss them.

I only wished I wouldn't find so many perldocs and modules on CPAN still advertising them in their POD.

And if you still insist on bareword FHs, you can still let a sub return them.

sub FH {
   return $fh;
}

[download]

Cheers Rolf
(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Modernizing the Postmodern Language?
by jcb (Parson) on Jul 01, 2020 at 02:18 UTC

    I believe that sub would need to be:

    sub FH { our $FH; return $FH }

    [download]

    So does this lead to a use filehandles pragma that will (mostly) work for declaring filehandles by establishing the proper subs?

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
      This

       sub FH :lvalue  { my $fh }

      should do.

      But I don't have the time to test it in all edge cases.

      Cheers Rolf
      (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
      Wikisyntax for the Monastery

[reply]
[d/l]

        You are correct about needing the :lvalue attribute, but if I understand correctly, my will create a new scalar every time FH is called.

        Another alternative could be: { my $fh; sub FH :lvalue { $fh } }, using the closure to capture a single instance of the lexical. TIMTOWTDI really works!

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Meditations