Re^2: Aren't there code refs as well as function refs?

It may well be useful; if it is useful, it is as evidence towards the hypothesis that things don't work the way I think they do.

There are a lot of places where anonymous blocks occur in magic being worked by packages. Here's an example from the perldoc for Test::Exception where the throws_ok function uses this:

throws_ok { read_file( 'unreadable' ) } qr/No file/, 'no file';

I'm wondering what throws_ok() receives, where, and how. Yes, I notice the missing comma; this is like a print statement where the first optional param (fd in that case) is not separated by a comma from the regular arguments.

Comment on Re^2: Aren't there code refs as well as function refs? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Aren't there code refs as well as function refs? by LanX (Saint) on Mar 04, 2023 at 07:59 UTC
It's obviously using a prototype, the missing comma is typical And looking into the sources proves it `sub throws_ok (&$;$) { my ( $coderef, $expecting, $description ) = @_;` [download] See my other post for more Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the 𐍀𐌴𐍂𐌻 Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: Aren't there code refs as well as function refs? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 07, 2023 at 00:30 UTC
The prototype of `throw_ok` is `&$;$`, so `throws_ok { ... } ..., ...;` [download] is equivalent to `&throws_ok( sub { ... }, scalar( ... ), scalar( ... ) );` [download]	[reply] [d/l] [select]