Sponsored Content
Full Discussion: what is the exact reason ?
Top Forums Programming what is the exact reason ? Post 11602 by Perderabo on Saturday 8th of December 2001 12:13:47 PM
Old 12-08-2001
Well it should be obvious that your compiler is doing all pre-increments before the addition and all post-increments after the addition.

So 2 and 6 are legal values for your code. So would be 3 and 5. Any behavior at all is legal according to the standards. This is because your code is illegal. The standards do not prescribe what the compiler must do with illegal code. In an ideal world, your code would not compile. Once you attach a pre or post increment to a variable it is illegal to reference that variable again until the next "sequence point" (basicly a comma or semicolon).
 

7 More Discussions You Might Find Interesting

1. Programming

Reason for Segmentation fault

The following program fails with "Segmentation fault" error message, while I try to run in Ubuntu (Debian) Linux m/c. It is not creating any core file, so I could not cross examine it with the debugger. See the comments for much better understanding. Could any one tell me the exact reason why the... (20 Replies)
Discussion started by: royalibrahim
20 Replies

2. Red Hat

Server usually restart not reason

Hi everyone, - I have CentOs server 5.4 , I usually remote by ssh. - My problem is server usually restart but I don't reason. I check log in file /var/log/messages: I don't see "signal 15" which kernel have to receive before restart. Everyone can see in attach. - I try to restart with command... (3 Replies)
Discussion started by: vietbk87
3 Replies

3. UNIX for Advanced & Expert Users

programs are being autostarted for no reason

I have nothing in these folders and several programs are being autostarted for no reason. Chromium, nautilus, Okular, and quadrapassel are the programs being started. I have nothing in my .bashrc. Not sure where else to look. I have no idea why this is happening and it is driving me crazy. ... (0 Replies)
Discussion started by: cokedude
0 Replies

4. Shell Programming and Scripting

QUESTION1: grep only exact string. QUESTION2: find and replace only exact value with sed

QUESTION1: How do you grep only an exact string. I am using Solaris10 and do not have any GNU products installed. Contents of car.txt CAR1_KEY0 CAR1_KEY1 CAR2_KEY0 CAR2_KEY1 CAR1_KEY10 CURRENT COMMAND LINE: WHERE VARIABLE CAR_NUMBER=1 AND KEY_NUMBER=1 grep... (1 Reply)
Discussion started by: thibodc
1 Replies

5. Shell Programming and Scripting

echo exact xml tag from an exact file

Im stumped on this one. Id like to echo into a .txt file all names for an xml feed in a huge folder. Can that be done?? Id need to echo <name>This name</name> in client.xml files. $path="/mnt/windows/path" echo 'recording names' cd "$path" for names in $path than Im stuck on... (2 Replies)
Discussion started by: graphicsman
2 Replies

6. AIX

Cluster failure reason

Hi guys ! I'm a French IT student in AIX, and i'm note very fluent in english. I have a task : Write a script to inform the administrator if on of a cluster UC is not working. I'm not going to ask you the script ^^' But i want to make a list of the failure reason of a cluster (network,... (10 Replies)
Discussion started by: Tharsan
10 Replies

7. OS X (Apple)

What's the reason behind having -n option for mv command?

Sorry for a question that may seem dumb but learning UNIX basics I still can not grasp benefits of using mv -n source file target file I can understand the need for cp -n source file target file when you get a copy with contents untouched but the former baffles me. I know that this about... (8 Replies)
Discussion started by: scrutinizerix
8 Replies
Hook::LexWrap(3)					User Contributed Perl Documentation					  Hook::LexWrap(3)

NAME
Hook::LexWrap - Lexically scoped subroutine wrappers VERSION
This document describes version 0.23 of Hook::LexWrap. SYNOPSIS
use Hook::LexWrap; sub doit { print "[doit:", caller, "]"; return {my=>"data"} } SCOPED: { wrap doit, pre => sub { print "[pre1: @_] " }, post => sub { print "[post1:@_] "; $_[1]=9; }; my $temporarily = wrap doit, post => sub { print "[post2:@_] " }, pre => sub { print "[pre2: @_] "}; @args = (1,2,3); doit(@args); # pre2->pre1->doit->post1->post2 } @args = (4,5,6); doit(@args); # pre1->doit->post1 DESCRIPTION
Hook::LexWrap allows you to install a pre- or post-wrapper (or both) around an existing subroutine. Unlike other modules that provide this capacity (e.g. Hook::PreAndPost and Hook::WrapSub), Hook::LexWrap implements wrappers in such a way that the standard "caller" function works correctly within the wrapped subroutine. To install a prewrappers, you write: use Hook::LexWrap; wrap 'subroutine_name', pre => &some_other_sub; #or: wrap *subroutine_name, pre => &some_other_sub; The first argument to "wrap" is a string containing the name of the subroutine to be wrapped (or the typeglob containing it, or a reference to it). The subroutine name may be qualified, and the subroutine must already be defined. The second argument indicates the type of wrapper being applied and must be either 'pre' or 'post'. The third argument must be a reference to a subroutine that implements the wrapper. To install a post-wrapper, you write: wrap 'subroutine_name', post => &yet_another_sub; #or: wrap *subroutine_name, post => &yet_another_sub; To install both at once: wrap 'subroutine_name', pre => &some_other_sub, post => &yet_another_sub; or: wrap *subroutine_name, post => &yet_another_sub, # order in which wrappers are pre => &some_other_sub; # specified doesn't matter Once they are installed, the pre- and post-wrappers will be called before and after the subroutine itself, and will be passed the same argument list. The pre- and post-wrappers and the original subroutine also all see the same (correct!) values from "caller" and "wantarray". Short-circuiting and long-circuiting return values The pre- and post-wrappers both receive an extra argument in their @_ arrays. That extra argument is appended to the original argument list (i.e. is can always be accessed as $_[-1]) and acts as a place-holder for the original subroutine's return value. In a pre-wrapper, $_[-1] is -- for obvious reasons -- "undef". However, $_[-1] may be assigned to in a pre-wrapper, in which case Hook::LexWrap assumes that the original subroutine has been "pre-empted", and that neither it, nor the corresponding post-wrapper, nor any wrappers that were applied before the pre-empting pre-wrapper was installed, need be run. Note that any post-wrappers that were installed after the pre-empting pre-wrapper was installed will still be called before the original subroutine call returns. In a post-wrapper, $_[-1] contains the return value produced by the wrapped subroutine. In a scalar return context, this value is the scalar return value. In an list return context, this value is a reference to the array of return values. $_[-1] may be assigned to in a post-wrapper, and this changes the return value accordingly. Access to the arguments and return value is useful for implementing techniques such as memoization: my %cache; wrap fibonacci, pre => sub { $_[-1] = $cache{$_[0]} if $cache{$_[0]} }, post => sub { $cache{$_[0]} = $_[-1] }; or for converting arguments and return values in a consistent manner: # set_temp expects and returns degrees Fahrenheit, # but we want to use Celsius wrap set_temp, pre => sub { splice @_, 0, 1, $_[0] * 1.8 + 32 }, post => sub { $_[-1] = ($_[0] - 32) / 1.8 }; Lexically scoped wrappers Normally, any wrappers installed by "wrap" remain attached to the subroutine until it is undefined. However, it is possible to make specific wrappers lexically bound, so that they operate only until the end of the scope in which they're created (or until some other specific point in the code). If "wrap" is called in a non-void context: my $lexical = wrap 'sub_name', pre => &wrapper; it returns a special object corresponding to the particular wrapper being placed around the original subroutine. When that object is destroyed -- when its container variable goes out of scope, or when its reference count otherwise falls to zero (e.g. "undef $lexical"), or when it is explicitly destroyed ("$lexical->DESTROY") -- the corresponding wrapper is removed from around the original subroutine. Note, however, that all other wrappers around the subroutine are preserved. Anonymous wrappers If the subroutine to be wrapped is passed as a reference (rather than by name or by typeglob), "wrap" does not install the wrappers around the original subroutine. Instead it generates a new subroutine which acts as if it were the original with those wrappers around it. It then returns a reference to that new subroutine. Only calls to the original through that wrapped reference invoke the wrappers. Direct by- name calls to the original, or calls through another reference, do not. If the original is subsequently wrapped by name, the anonymously wrapped subroutine reference does not see those wrappers. In other words, wrappers installed via a subroutine reference are completely independent of those installed via the subroutine's name (or typeglob). For example: sub original { print "ray" } # Wrap anonymously... my $anon_wrapped = wrap &original, pre => sub { print "do..." }; # Show effects... original(); # prints "ray" $anon_wrapped->(); # prints "do..ray" # Wrap nonymously... wrap *original, pre => sub { print "fa.." }, post => sub { print "..mi" }; # Show effects... original(); # now prints "fa..ray..mi" $anon_wrapped->(); # still prints "do...ray" DIAGNOSTICS
"Can't wrap non-existent subroutine %s" An attempt was made to wrap a subroutine that was not defined at the point of wrapping. "'pre' value is not a subroutine reference" The value passed to "wrap" after the 'pre' flag was not a subroutine reference. Typically, someone forgot the "sub" on the anonymous subroutine: wrap 'subname', pre => { your_code_here() }; and Perl interpreted the last argument as a hash constructor. "'post' value is not a subroutine reference" The value passed to "wrap" after the 'post' flag was not a subroutine reference. "Uselessly wrapped subroutine reference in void context" (warning only) When the subroutine to be wrapped is passed as a subroutine reference, "wrap" does not install the wrapper around the original, but instead returns a reference to a subroutine which wraps the original (see "Anonymous wrappers"). However, there's no point in doing this if you don't catch the resulting subroutine reference. AUTHOR
Damian Conway (damian@conway.org) BLAME
Schwern made me do this (by implying it wasn't possible ;-) BUGS
There are undoubtedly serious bugs lurking somewhere in code this funky :-) Bug reports and other feedback are most welcome. SEE ALSO
Sub::Prepend COPYRIGHT
Copyright (c) 2001, Damian Conway. All Rights Reserved. This module is free software. It may be used, redistributed and/or modified under the same terms as Perl itself. perl v5.18.2 2017-10-06 Hook::LexWrap(3)
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:02 PM.
Unix & Linux Forums Content Copyright 1993-2022. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy