On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 20:18, Parag Kalra wrote:
> Thanks Shawn and Jim. caller(0) did the trick.
>
> Cheers,
> Parag
Did you even look at the output of "perldoc -f caller"?
Apparently not.
So when others tell you the same thing, then you thank them.
Nice.
Ken Wolcott
--
To unsubsc
> "NA" == Nathan Arthur writes:
NA> First, some background - I'm a long-time programmer, primarily in
NA> java, secondarily in PHP and shell script. I have started working
NA> with a new team who uses perl, so I've had to learn it - from them,
NA> from books/tutorials, from this list
Thanks Shawn and Jim. caller(0) did the trick.
Cheers,
Parag
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Jim Bauer wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 18:30:04 -0800, Parag Kalra wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just like $0 reveals the current script name is there any variable
>> using which I can find the current sub-rou
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 18:30:04 -0800, Parag Kalra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just like $0 reveals the current script name is there any variable
> using which I can find the current sub-routine I am currently in.
printf("currently in %s\n", (caller(0))[3] =~ /^.+:(\w+)$/);
See `perldoc -f caller'.
-
Anand Parthiban wrote:
Dear Team,
Hello,
I have a Issue while using Filesys::SmbClientParser
Below is my code :
#!/usr/bin/perl
use Filesys::SmbClientParser ;
$smb = new Filesys::SmbClientParser(undef, (user => $input_hash{DMS_USER},
password => $input_hash{DMS_PASS}));
$path = "\path\to\f
Hello,
I have been lurking on this list for a few months, and I thought
perhaps you'd all like the perspective of a 'newbie' about this issue.
First, some background - I'm a long-time programmer, primarily in
java, secondarily in PHP and shell script. I have started working
with a new team who u
Hi all,
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 19:35, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>> If we take off the parts where you just rip through
>> people's style, platform, or design choices, or reprimand them for not
>> following what you consider to be the One True Way of writing emails,
>> the number is good, but not that
Dear Team,
I have a Issue while using Filesys::SmbClientParser
Below is my code :
#!/usr/bin/perl
use Filesys::SmbClientParser ;
$smb = new Filesys::SmbClientParser(undef, (user => $input_hash{DMS_USER},
password => $input_hash{DMS_PASS}));
$path = "\path\to\folder" ;
$share = "d$" ;
$ip = "192.1
On 10-12-30 09:57 PM, Parag Kalra wrote:
I have already tried that.
Specially - caller(3) but it returns the details of the caller i.e
from where it was called and no particular details of where it is in.
Have you tried caller(0)?
sub foo_bar {
my @caller = caller(0);
print "@caller\n";
I have already tried that.
Specially - caller(3) but it returns the details of the caller i.e
from where it was called and no particular details of where it is in.
Cheers,
Parag
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Kenneth Wolcott
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 18:30, Parag Kalra wrote:
>> Hi
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 18:30, Parag Kalra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just like $0 reveals the current script name is there any variable
> using which I can find the current sub-routine I am currently in.
>
> Snippet of what I am looking for:
>
> use strict;
> use warnings;
>
> sub foo_bar () {
> print "
Hi,
Just like $0 reveals the current script name is there any variable
using which I can find the current sub-routine I am currently in.
Snippet of what I am looking for:
use strict;
use warnings;
sub foo_bar () {
print "You are currently using the function - $\n";
}
&foo_bar;
Cheers,
P
Shlomi,
I'm new to Perl, but I perceive your posts to be among the most well thought
out opinions/instructions on this list and appreciate your willingness to
help. Certainly, your comments are pointed and clear, but you consistently
reference coding styles and idioms that seem to be agreed upo
Dear all
Without involving in this dicussion deeply , i just want to mention
my view . As a newbie in perl as well in this forum i found Shlomi
Fish answers very useful and to the point. So i think blaming
spamming short of thing is not right.
Thanks
On 12/30/10, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> On W
On Wednesday 29 Dec 2010 15:11:22 jeff pang wrote:
> 2010/12/29 Erez Schatz :
> > Since most of your posts are related to directing people to your site,
> > I'd say we are about even. In more tightly-moderated lists you'd be
> > banned for spamming.
>
> I agree with this point.
> Directing everyon
Hi Erez,
On Wednesday 29 Dec 2010 09:37:44 Erez Schatz wrote:
> On 12/28/2010 01:04 PM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > Hello Erez (and all),
> >
> > On Tuesday 28 Dec 2010 11:01:40 Erez Schatz wrote:
> >> This is so blatantly OT it shouldn't be on this list.
> >
> > Maybe my impression is a bit biased,
16 matches
Mail list logo
