Re^2: Rosetta Dispatch Table

in reply to Re: Rosetta Dispatch Table
in thread Rosetta Dispatch Table (Interview Question)

some annotations:

I would be cautious about name spaces like first:: and last:: , if you really need extra packages I'd use an extra parent one like callback::first etc
I'd use ->can beforehand to check if the callback is really available, to avoid an unexpected die without good notice
the STASH - your built in dispatch table - is a hash , just global (which leads to the first remark :)

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)

Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

Comment on Re^2: Rosetta Dispatch Table Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Rosetta Dispatch Table by tybalt89 (Monsignor) on Nov 26, 2017 at 18:45 UTC
Is there a case that ->can is needed that is not caught by UNIVERSAL::callback ?	[reply]
Re^4: Rosetta Dispatch Table by LanX (Saint) on Nov 26, 2017 at 20:36 UTC
The code you've shown does only handle methods. ->can does also handle normal subs. Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re^4: Rosetta Dispatch Table by shmem (Chancellor) on Nov 26, 2017 at 19:26 UTC
Is there a case that ->can is needed that is not caught by UNIVERSAL::callback ? No, afaik; it rather catches too much. If some package ought to have a `callback` method which it hasn't due to some fubar, `UNIVERSAL::callback` kicks in - long faces, head-scratching. But! if someone writes a method/function for package UNIVERSAL, they should know what they are doing, and my bets are that you do. perl -le'print map{pack c,($-++?1:13)+ord}split//,ESEL'	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: Rosetta Dispatch Table by LanX (Saint) on Nov 26, 2017 at 18:54 UTC
Checking ->can is cleaner than adding a fallback method to UNIVERSAL. Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]

In Section Meditations