Re: Re: Lexical use/no Module?

Ahh, a most interesting idea.

And as for your disclaimer, I'd be surprised to find someone who *would* promote hacking the symbol table. But I like to boldly go where no man has gone before (or do I rush in where angels fear to tread?). I even once replaced UNIVERSAL::can ;) Stevie-O's scratchpad

--Stevie-O

$"=$,,$_=q>|\p4<6 8p<M/_|<('=>
.q>.<4-KI<l|2$<6%s!<qn#F<>;$,
.=pack'N*',"@{[unpack'C*',$_]
}"for split/</;$_=$,,y[A-Z a-z]
         {}cd;print lc
[download]

Comment on Re: Re: Lexical use/no Module? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Lexical use/no Module? by stvn (Monsignor) on Jan 29, 2004 at 04:19 UTC
Stevie-O Don't get me wrong, I love hacking the symbol table. Personally, I tend to do it more often than I should as well. What I do not advocate however, is messing around with Perl's global variables (`$$` in your example). I assume you used it as an example only, since it's doubtful that having your program print "Bling Bling" everytime you try to find out the process id is really what you are going for. Personally I never thought symbol tables were all that complex or magical. Its just a bunch of hashes which represents a heirarchy of namespaces. Different paradigm than "normal" maybe but magical, ... nah not so much :) -stvn	[reply] [d/l]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: Re: Lexical use/no Module?
by stvn (Monsignor) on Jan 29, 2004 at 04:19 UTC

Don't get me wrong, I love hacking the symbol table. Personally, I tend to do it more often than I should as well. What I do not advocate however, is messing around with Perl's global variables ($$ in your example). I assume you used it as an example only, since it's doubtful that having your program print "Bling Bling" everytime you try to find out the process id is really what you are going for.

Personally I never thought symbol tables were all that complex or magical. Its just a bunch of hashes which represents a heirarchy of namespaces. Different paradigm than "normal" maybe but magical, ... nah not so much :)

[reply]
[d/l]