Re: shelling out too much

requireing a script that isn't coded for that situation could override all kinds of data and subroutines in your calling code. also, require will only load a file once. if you are sure that it won't have any strange side-effects, you could probably do

@ARGV = '-h';
do 'myscript.pl';
[download]

However, since that will recompile the code each time, you will not gain optimum performance.

Your best strategy would be to put the shared code in a module and use that in both scripts. See perlmodlib.

"What should it profit a man, if he should win a flame war, yet lose his cool?"

Comment on Re: shelling out too much Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: shelling out too much by Fletch (Bishop) on Jun 27, 2005 at 12:33 UTC
Or if you may still be using `@ARGV` in your own code you might want to localize that change. `{ local @ARGV = '-h'; do 'myscript.pl'; }` [download] -- We're looking for people in ATL	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^2: shelling out too much by tlm (Prior) on Jun 27, 2005 at 12:32 UTC
`@ARGV = '-h'; do 'myscript.pl';` [download] Joost, I too thought of proposing something like this, but then I realized that if the OP is using backticks, he/she must be collecting the standard output of the child process, which neither `do` nor `require` would yield. the lowliest monk	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: shelling out too much by Joost (Canon) on Jun 27, 2005 at 12:42 UTC
Hmmm.. you could use something like * `my $s = open(APP,"-\|") if ($s) { local @ARGV = '-h'; do 'myscript.pl'; exit; } else { die "Can't fork: $!" unless defined $s; local $/; my $scriptoutput = <APP>; close APP; }` [download] But that's probably just making it too complex. * completely untested code. "What should it profit a man, if he should win a flame war, yet lose his cool?"	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: shelling out too much by Tanktalus (Canon) on Jun 27, 2005 at 19:48 UTC
tlm, just because they're using backticks doesn't mean that they care about the output. It should mean that, but it doesn't necessarily mean that. I've seen many occurances, both here at perlmonks and at work, where people use backticks in void context as a short-cut to running system. Confusing the situation just a bit more is how the OP talks about possibly using require instead. Now, one possibility is that the OP doesn't need backticks, the other is that require wouldn't fit the bill, even if the "-h" parameter went away.	[reply]