Re^2: What CODE typeglob slot is my anonymous sub in?

Because if I have 'tinytext' in the list, then the type returned is { type => 'tinytext' }, and that's invalid. I need both TEXT() and TINYTEXT() to return a type of 'text', but the error message needs to report the actual subroutine called. If this were a one-off, I wouldn't care. However, I need multiple aliases which return identical types but whose error message needs to return which alias was called.

Update: I know it's easy to modify the generator to do this and that's what I'll do (a hash mapping instead of a list). It just bugs me that if an anonymous sub is assigned to a CODE slot in a type glob and I call the actual sub, I can't figure out which one it is.

Cheers,
Ovid

New address of my CGI Course.

Comment on Re^2: What CODE typeglob slot is my anonymous sub in?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: What CODE typeglob slot is my anonymous sub in? by shmem (Chancellor) on Apr 24, 2007 at 13:32 UTC
It just bugs me that if an anonymous sub is assigned to a CODE slot in a type glob and I call the actual sub, I can't figure out which one it is. That's because you don't call, it - perl does. You just name it... ;-) But then, I guess there is a way with some XS devilry involved. Devel::Peek's "CvGV($cv)" returns one of the globs associated to a subroutine reference, so I deem it possible to get at the right one. Haven't got time right now to find out how Ilya did it. --shmem _($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo. G°\ / /\_¯/(q / ---------------------------- \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."· ");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}	[reply]
Re^3: What CODE typeglob slot is my anonymous sub in? by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Apr 24, 2007 at 20:26 UTC
Have you considered asking stvn if Moose provides this information? I know he was doing a lot of work early on in providing appropriate meta-information for subroutines and methods. 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]