in reply to Re: (tye)Re: ref, no, maybe?
in thread ref, no, maybe?

This thread strongly reminds me of Readonly error on $_. In his response, merlyn displays some trick using the can method. /me thinks it can be applied here also. Saves the use of UNIVERSAL, but uses eval. 
if eval( $r->can('can')) {
    #we have an object
} elsif ref( $r) {
    #we have an unblessed reference
} else {
    #no reference at all
}

[download]
Merlyn's solution looks somewhat cleaner to me. What do you think?

Jeroen
I was dreaming of guitarnotes that would irritate an executive kind of guy (FZ)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
(tye)Re: can in Re: ref, no, maybe?
by tye (Sage) on Jan 11, 2001 at 19:35 UTC

    I'd rewrite your code like this: 

    if(  ! ref($r)  ) {
    #no reference at all
} elsif(  ! eval { $r->can('can') }  ) {
    #unblessed ref
} else {
    #blessed ref
}

    [download]
    because I think the eval{} seems likely to be more expensive than the ref(). But even more important, if $r is, for example, the simple string "My::Package", then $r->can('can') will succeed (which is also a bug in merlyn's version), even if there is no package called My::Package. In fact, try "This is a test"->can('can') for fun. (:

    As for the difference between eval { $r->can('can') } and eval { $r->isa('UNIVERSAL') }, the only advantage I see to the first is fewer keystrokes. I find the latter clearer, personally. But that gave me the idea for $r->can('isa'), which I find clear (as well as short). I guess isa() screams "object" to my brain faster than can() does, not sure why.

            - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom