in reply to Command line to array

MeowChow probably didn't suggest this one because it's horrible practise, but I think you get away with something like this provided that you didn't give a damn about security:

my @list=('test', 'Hello!');

my $func_name=shift @list;

&$func_name(@list);

sub test {
print @_;
}

[download]

To my suprise, this works fine.

____________________
Jeremy
I didn't believe in evil until I dated it.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Command line to array
by merlyn (Sage) on Apr 26, 2001 at 05:59 UTC
[reply]
      Merlyn, how bad is it to do:
      use strict;
no strict 'refs';

      [download]
      From your post it sounds as though you disapprove, is this so? I'm concerned as I use jump tables quite often. AFAIK this isn't possible without undoing strict refs. Is there another way of doing jump tables? Or a healthier alternative? 

      --
      Brother Frankus.

      ¤

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
        Have a list of approved subroutines: 
        my %table = (
  fred => \&fred,
  barney => \&barney,
  betty => \&betty,
  wilma => \&wilma,
);
...
my $func = "betty";
$table{$func}->(@args); # call betty(@args);

        [download]
        This ensures that $func can't go wild and execute metafunctions that aren't part of the plan. And this does work under use strict.

        -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker

[reply]
[d/l]
        I have had to use this mode of subroutine array referring before. I used no strict only around the calling statement. This worked, but I assume it does still raise a number of issues about the correctness of breaking 'strict' code. 
        {
    no strict;
    &$func_name(@list);
}

        [download]
[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom