Re^2: Are we seeing syntax inconsistency?

No, that doesn’t work in the general case. It would work here, because the string which eval sees is, say, sub { print 0 } on the first iteration. But if the loop was for( "foo bar", "baz quux" ) ){ ... }, then the eval would incorrectly be called to compile sub { print foo bar }, which may fail to compile or may compile to nonsense.

You want to stick the value in a lexical and close over the lexical. That is the correct general solution.

Makeshifts last the longest.

Comment on Re^2: Are we seeing syntax inconsistency? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Are we seeing syntax inconsistency? by sgifford (Prior) on Nov 11, 2005 at 18:22 UTC
Right, I gave that as an example to clarify what's going on, not a recommendation. Though I think it can be made to work in the general case with judicious use of quotes and `quotemeta`. :)	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: Are we seeing syntax inconsistency? by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Nov 11, 2005 at 18:29 UTC
You mean something like `eval qq{ sub { print "\Q$_\E" } }`? Not what I think of as a pretty solution, since you’re firing up the compiler (and repeatedly) at runtime, but yeah, that would do it. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: Are we seeing syntax inconsistency? by sgifford (Prior) on Nov 11, 2005 at 18:56 UTC
It may not be pretty, but I personally believe that, on a deeper level, the Perl interpreter enjoys this approach more. :-)	[reply]