Re: Creating sub from string without munging the symbol table

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Creating sub from string without munging the symbol table by stevieb (Canon) on Jun 22, 2015 at 18:31 UTC
Your post may have been helpful for myself and future readers of this thread if you explained why not to do it, and or examples of code how to get around it, which is what my question was in the first place.	[reply]
Re^3: Creating sub from string without munging the symbol table by jeffenstein (Hermit) on Jun 23, 2015 at 09:03 UTC
I'm guessing sundialsvc4 read it as "create an entire subroutine from a string", when in reality you are asking only about "adding a subroutine to the symbol table using a string for the name"	[reply]
Re^2: Creating sub from string without munging the symbol table by Anonymous Monk on Jun 22, 2015 at 18:56 UTC
Every function in every perl (or ruby or python or javascript or java) program is created from a string. The program source. And it is done using exactly the same parser as you invoke via eval.	[reply]
Re^2: Creating sub from string without munging the symbol table by Anonymous Monk on Jun 22, 2015 at 18:13 UTC
sundialsvc4: I’m afraid that my mouth filled up with ... ahh, something that I politely just spit out ... when I read, “create a `sub` from a string.” D-O-N-’-T ... D-O ... T-H-A-T! ... in any programming language under the sun. well duh you gotta validate* the strings first flushells*	[reply]