Re^2: Import constants as scalar instead of bareword sub

What Exporter supports? Autocopying function to scalar? Can you give me example how I can get $O_NONBLOCK using use Fcntl qw(some dirty Exporter magic);?

About modification of constants... yeah, you right. But I suppose this can be solved without performance loss by marking that scalar read-only in SV..? Anyway, I prefer read-write scalars to bareword subs. And if I'll see in somebody's code: $EINTR=123; than I will fire that guy immediatelly! :)

Comment on Re^2: Import constants as scalar instead of bareword sub Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Import constants as scalar instead of bareword sub by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Nov 02, 2005 at 20:12 UTC
Do you also disallow soft references? `${$foo} = 123;` is just as dangerous. As for autocopying a function to a scalar, that's not hard to do with a generalized import function. Learn a little symbol table magic - it's good for the soul. :-) My criteria for good software: Does it work? Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: Import constants as scalar instead of bareword sub by powerman (Friar) on Nov 02, 2005 at 21:32 UTC
Hm. This is Meditation, AFAIK, not Seekers of Perl Wisdom. I don't ask "is it possible to do some dark magic with symbol table using some generalized import()", I can do this without problems, as least I hope so. :) I ask "is it has sense to go this way"...	[reply]
Re^5: Import constants as scalar instead of bareword sub by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Nov 03, 2005 at 03:54 UTC
Damian in PBP says to do so, using Readonly to enforce the constancy of it. I don't agree - I prefer constant, but that's because I do most of my code in an OO fashion where "use constant" creates an inheritable method for me and export only in rare circumstances. As for auto-converting "use constant" into Readonly variables for some other module ... it's violating the API of the module. I would do that only if it's broken, not because I don't like it. Of course, you could just define your own wrapper around the offender ... My criteria for good software: Does it work? Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?	[reply]