Re: What is this doing, and why is this a good method of doing it?

I'll bite, rather than switching strict refs off then on again is it a good method? Is there a side effect of switching I dont see?

for (@x) {
    no strict 'refs';
    *$_ = sub {
        use strict 'refs';
        # ...
    };
}
[download]

Also why is the semicolon required before the no strict 'refs'?

Comment on Re: What is this doing, and why is this a good method of doing it? Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: What is this doing, and why is this a good method of doing it? by japhy (Canon) on Jul 25, 2005 at 02:11 UTC
Because at compile-time, when Perl has parsed the `no strict 'refs'` part, it realizes it was inside a `{...}` construct, the inside of which can be a block or an expression. Since it expects it to have been an expression, the use of `no` raises a compile-time error. To force Perl to realize the interior is a block, the `;` is added to the beginning. Jeff `japhy` Pinyan, P.L., P.M., P.O.D, X.S.: Perl, regex, and `perl` hacker How can we ever be the sold short or the cheated, we who for every service have long ago been overpaid? ~~ Meister Eckhart*	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^2: What is this doing, and why is this a good method of doing it? by Anonymous Monk on Jul 25, 2005 at 12:36 UTC
The difference is that here the defined sub has `use strict 'refs'` in effect, while in Japhy's original code, the defined sub has `ref` strictness in effect if, and only if, `ref` strictness is in effect just before the `for` loop.	[reply]