Re^5: How do I test the validity of a CODE reference?

Looks like they both operate on the same thing (the CV*) to me

Yes - when you descend to that level they become very similar, indeed :-)

So the question is why does Perl and your function use different tests to determine the same thing?

Good question. My approach won't work on perl-5.6.2, so perhaps history and portability might be part of the explanation. But there could, of course, be other reasons. (I couldn't even get correct results on perl-5.6.2 with CvROOT and CvXSUB.)

Cheers,
Rob

Comment on Re^5: How do I test the validity of a CODE reference?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^6: How do I test the validity of a CODE reference?
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Aug 08, 2008 at 20:03 UTC

Yes - when you descend to that level they become very similar, indeed :-)

At a high level:

validate $x defined &$x ref $x && defined &$x

code ref returns result returns result returns result

sub name dies returns result returns false

other refs dies dies dies

undefined ? stringified returns false

I couldn't even get correct results on perl-5.6.2 with CvROOT and CvXSUB

That's odd, because defined and sub calls use CvROOT(cv) || CvXSUB(cv) in 5.6.2 as well.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]