use Perl

• Excellent name! (Score:1)

  by DAxelrod (4649) on 2006.10.26 20:41 (#51293) Journal

  I'd also considered using a similar technique for similar scoping reasons. Make sure you're handling reentrancy correctly (although this may not be a problem if this technique is for unit testing).
  
  Would it be possible to show the code in which this is used? I'm having trouble thinking of a situation in which local woudn't cut it (although there obviously is if several different people have thought of this technique).
  
  I really like the name "scripting token". My first thought was to call the scalar a "canary", because it exists only to trigger other behavior when it is destroyed, vaguely like a canary in a mineshaft; but your name is much more descriptive.

  Reply to This

  • Scoping token in action (Score:1)

    by dpisoni (6979)

    I can give a little, though I think in most cases I didn't use it in as novel ways as I conceived that I would. (I'll have to redact a bit, but that's okay.) But I have a mean over-engineering streak...

    The method in the journal entry exists in my project Testing superclass (which isa Test::Class.) In addition, there is:

    sub mock_network {
        my $proto = shift;
        $proto->mock_class_constructor( NETWORK_PKG() . '::new', @_ );
    }
    sub mock_implementation {
        my $proto = shi