Re: Local for lexicals

Update: Did you ever want to just take back something ignorant? Yeah, all the time. So the original part of my post is left below for posterity to snigger at. And it's probably obvious that you can get your desired effect with a string-eval, with all the safety caveats that that implies. Nevertheless, here it is:

#!perl
use strict;
use warnings;

sub lambda {
  my $varname = shift;
  my $fn_body = shift;
  my $estring= "sub { my \$$varname = shift; $fn_body }";
  print "Evaling $estring\n";
  eval $estring;
}

my $x = 3;
my $closure = lambda 'x' => q { $x**2 };
for (1..4) {
  print $closure->($_), "\n";
}
print "And my X is $x\n";
[download]

--- original below ---

How close is this to satisfactory? (Packagery is just in there to test cross-package calling.) It's not actually using lexical x, but I can't see why that's important (though it could conceivably be, if your function were to call other functions).

#!perl
use strict;
use warnings;

sub lambda {
  my $varname = shift;
  my $fn = shift;
  my $pkg = do { no strict 'refs'; * {caller().'::'} };
  sub {
    local ${$pkg}{$varname} = \shift;
    $fn->()
  }
}

package a::b::c;

our $x;
my $closure = main::lambda 'x' => sub { $x**2 };
for (1..4) {
  print $closure->($_), "\n";
}
[download]

Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.

Comment on Re: Local for lexicals Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Local for lexicals by LanX (Saint) on Aug 13, 2009 at 10:52 UTC
like all other "localizing" approaches the user is forced to do either `my $x` or `our $x` in the scope surrounding the lamda to use your solutions under `use strict`! Cheers Rolf	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: Local for lexicals by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on Aug 13, 2009 at 14:10 UTC
Well, you could declare $x within the call to lambda, instead of surrounding it: `#!perl use strict; use warnings; sub lambda { my $fn = pop; my @foo = @_; # foo references $x, etc. sub { # Put values into referenced params ${$foo[$_]} = $_[$_] for 0..$#_; &$fn; } } my $x = 3; my $closure = lambda do { my ($x, $y); \($x, $y) => sub { print "Got $x and $y\n" } } ; $closure->($_, $_+1) for (1..4); print "And my X is $x\n";` [download] Though I suspect that's a distinction that won't be seen as advantageous. It's just as easy to write `my $closure = sub { my ($x, $y) = @_; print "Got $x and $y\n"; };` [download] which is the Perlish way to do what the OP wants to do. Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.	[reply] [d/l] [select]