Testing for existence of subroutine ref?

legLess has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

Monks ~

Perl, sadly, is doing what I tell it to, rather than what I want. I'm using a nested hash as a configuration structure; in the code below is a bare-bones example. Most actions within a page use the same config_item (names changed to protect the innocent), but every now and then an action (e.g. the devious "action3" below) needs a different config_item. So I thought I'd add another nesting level and figure out a way to detect those special cases (they happen often enough, and are useful enough, that I'd hate to factor them out). Other than simplification, the only substantive change from my working code is that my subrefs are named rather than anonymous.

my %runmodes = (
    config_item => 'regular',
    action1 => sub{ print "action = 1" },
    action2 => sub{ print "action = 2" },
    action3 => {
        config_item => 'special',
        subroutine => sub{ print "action = 3" },
    },
);

sub get_config_item {
    my( $runmodes, $action ) = @_;

    my $config_item = $runmodes->{ config_item };

    if( exists $runmodes->{ $action }{ subroutine } ) { # error line
        &{ $runmodes->{ $action }{ subroutine }};
        $config_item = $runmodes->{ $action }{ config_item };
    }
    else {
        &{ $runmodes->{ $action }}
    }

    return $config_item;
}

print ", ", get_config_item( \%runmodes, "action3" ), "\n";
print ", ", get_config_item( \%runmodes, "action1" ), "\n";


# OUTPUT
#
# action = 3, special
# Not a HASH reference at str.pl line 22.
[download]

The "exists" test on the error line isn't the first thing I tried, just the most recent, and it's nicely illustrative of what I want to do. I understand why the error's happening, but I can't think of a way to check for that subref without dying (eval, perhaps, but I'm hoping there's another way). I also know I could standardize the hash structure as follows (with attendent changes in the rest of the code, of course):

my %runmodes = (
    config_item => 'regular',
    action1 => { subroutine => sub{ print "action = 1" }},
    action2 => { subroutine => sub{ print "action = 2" }},
    action3 => {
        config_item => 'special',
        subroutine => sub{ print "action = 3" }},
    },
);
[download]

But two things bug me about that solution. First, those extra "subroutine"s sitting there, redundant, look ugly. Second, regardless of how I solve this particular problem, I still don't know if there's a way to do what I'm trying. Thanks muchly for any assistance.
--
man with no legs, inc.

Comment on Testing for existence of subroutine ref? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
•Re: Testing for existence of subroutine ref? by merlyn (Sage) on Feb 18, 2003 at 03:38 UTC
Normally, I hate code that uses `ref`, but this is precisely what you need here. Something like: `if (ref $runmodes{$action} eq "CODE") { # it's a coderef, so run it... ... } else { # it's something else {grin} ... }` [download] -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Re: Testing for existence of subroutine ref? by feanor_269 (Beadle) on Feb 19, 2003 at 03:10 UTC
Why do you hate code that uses ref? Am I missing something? Am I posting alot today, or is it just me? (the last bit is just rhetorical, for those who would think to actually answer this, I know it's subjective.) feanor_269	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Testing for existence of subroutine ref? by djantzen (Priest) on Feb 19, 2003 at 03:43 UTC
It's often a symptom of poorly organized code if you have to check explicitly what something is in order to determine what to do with it. Ideally you'd want the structure of your code to shape the flow of data/entities such that at any given point you can reliably expect a certain type of thing. Imagine walking around with a single instruction "doIt" along with a collection of minor instructions that you had to follow according to what the thingy was to which you were to "doIt". You don't want to have to decide to "drink" from a coffee cup and "drive" a car; rather, you want to be able to rely on the thing you attempt to drink from being a coffee cup, and the thing you hotwire being a car. Another way of thinking about it is that it's better to offload decision-making onto the surrounding structure as opposed to navigating an open-ended environment according to a complex rulebook. "The dead do not recognize context" -- Kai, Lexx	[reply]
Re: •Re: Testing for existence of subroutine ref? by ihb (Deacon) on Feb 20, 2003 at 01:25 UTC
Wouldn't `UNIVERSAL::isa()` suite better?	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Testing for existence of subroutine ref? by djantzen (Priest) on Feb 18, 2003 at 03:43 UTC
The problem is that you're calling exists on a subroutine reference for `action`s 1 and 2. Why not test for something else, such as a HASH reference or a CODE reference using ref? What about: `sub get_config_item { my( $runmodes, $action ) = @_; my $config_item = $runmodes->{ config_item }; if( ref $runmodes->{ $action } eq 'HASH' ) { # error line &{ $runmodes->{ $action }{ subroutine }}; $config_item = $runmodes->{ $action }{ config_item }; } else { &{ $runmodes->{ $action }} } return $config_item; }` [download] Honestly though, this looks to me like a candidate for refactoring, as the contortions that you're now enduring will only get worse as the code expands over time. "The dead do not recognize context" -- Kai, Lexx	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: Testing for existence of subroutine ref? by bbfu (Curate) on Feb 18, 2003 at 03:38 UTC
Change your if line to this, instead: `if( ref($runmodes->{ $action }) eq 'HASH' ) {` That should do the trick, no? bbfu Black flowers blossum Fearless on my breath	[reply] [d/l]