use Perl

• Looks Nice (Score:3, Insightful)

  by Ovid (2709)

  Hmm ... seems like an awful lot of duplicated code for checking the file status. Five subs are identical, so I deleted them.

  package File::Finder::Steps;
  
  use constant OFFSET => qr/^(\+|-|)(.*)/;
  
  my %status = (
      links => '(stat(_))[3]',
      inum  => '(stat(_))[1]',
      atime => 'int(-A _)',
      mtime => 'int(-M _)',
      ctime => 'int(-C _)',
  );
  
  while (my ($sub,$op) = each %status) {
      eval <<"    END_SUB";
  
  • Re:Looks Nice (Score:1)

    by bart (450)

    Heh. Earlier today, I read Schwern's paper on accessors and closures [guild.net]. Is it me, or is there more than some similarity in the problem statement?

    # And then eval() a new subroutine for each of them.
    foreach my $accessor (@Accessors) {
        eval qq{
            sub $accessor {
                my(\$self) = shift;
                if( \@_ ) {
                    my \$data = shift;
         
    • Re:Looks Nice (Score:2)

      by Ovid (2709) on 2003.12.17 15:13 (#26644) Homepage Journal

      Yeah, this is a technique I use a lot, though really I should have done this:

      my %status = (
        links => sub { (stat(_))[3] },
        inum  => sub { (stat(_))[1] },
        atime => sub { int(-A _) },
        mtime => sub { int(-M _) },
        ctime => sub { int(-C _) },
      );
      
      while (my ($function,$op) = each %status) {
        no strict 'refs';
        *$function = sub {
          my $self = shift;
          my ($prefix, $n) = shift =~ OFFSET;
      
          return sub {
            _n($prefix, $n, $op->());
          };
        }
      }

      It has the advantage that it fits Randal's formatting and it matches Schwern's fix of using closures. Plus, I think it's a bit cleaner.

      Reply to This

      Parent