When I tested eval, it did invoke overload methods. Here's the test (see also Re^4: Reference assessment techniques and how they fail for a longer version for code refs):
use strict; use warnings; use Test::More 'tests' => 4; use Scalar::Util qw( blessed reftype ); my $side_effect = 0; package OverloadHash; use overload '%{}' => sub { $side_effect = 1; {} }; package main; sub is_hash_eval { no warnings qw( void uninitialized ); return '' ne ref $_[0] && eval { %{$_[0]}; 1 }; } sub is_hash_util { my $suspected_hash = shift; return 0 if '' eq ref $suspected_hash; return 1 if 'HASH' eq reftype $suspected_hash; if ( blessed $suspected_hash && overload::Method( $suspected_hash, '%{}' ) ) { return 1; } return 0; } check_method( \&is_hash_util, 'utils' ); check_method( \&is_hash_eval, 'eval' ); sub check_method { my ( $tester, $name ) = @_; $side_effect = 0; my $overhash = bless {}, 'OverloadHash'; ok( $tester->( $overhash ), "$name: overloaded reference" ); # this test fails for the eval method ok( ! $side_effect, "$name: no side effect" ); }
I agree that the best solution to all this would be something sweet in Scalar::Util. I trust it to stay up to date, and it's the right place for it.
In reply to Re^6: Reference assessment techniques and how they fail (run?)
by kyle
in thread Reference assessment techniques and how they fail
by kyle
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |