Automatically call hash values that are subroutine references

As noted by Oleg, it's possible to do this using various more or less arcane tricks like tie, overloading or magic variables. However, this would be both needlessly complicated and pointlessly obfuscated. As cool as such tricks are, using them in real code would be a mistake at least 99% of the time.

In practice, the simplest and cleanest solution is probably to write a helper subroutine that takes a scalar and, if it's a code reference, executes it and returns the result:

sub evaluate {
    my $val = shift;
    return $val->() if ref($val) eq 'CODE';
    return $val;  # otherwise
}

and use it like this:

foreach my $key (sort keys %hash) {
    print evaluate($hash{$key}) . "\n";
}

I don't believe that the words that others have written in disapproval of the tie mechanism are warranted. None of the authors seem to properly understand how it works and what core library backup is available

Here's a tie example based on Tie::StdHash

If you tie a hash to the Tie::StdHash class then it works exactly as a normal hash. That means there's nothing left to write except for methods that you may want to override

In this case I've overridden TIEHASH so that I could specify the initialisation list in the same statement as the tie command, and FETCH, which calls the superclass's FETCH and then makes a call to it if it happens to be a subroutine reference

Your tied hash will work as normal except for the change that you have asked for. I hope it is obvious that there is no longer a direct way to retrieve a subroutine reference if you have stored it as a hash value. Such a value will always be replaced by the result of calling it without any parameters

SpecialHash.pm

package SpecialHash;

use Tie::Hash;
use base 'Tie::StdHash';

sub TIEHASH {
    my $class = shift;
    bless { @_ }, $class;
}

sub FETCH {
    my $self = shift;
    my $val = $self->SUPER::FETCH(@_);
    ref $val eq 'CODE' ? $val->() : $val;
}

1;

main.pl

use strict;
use warnings 'all';

use SpecialHash;

tie my %hash, SpecialHash => (
    key1 => "value1",
    key2 => sub {
        return "value2"; # In the real code, this value can differ
    },
);

print "$hash{$_}\n" for sort keys %hash;

output

value1
value2

Update

It sounds like your real situation is with an existing hash that looks something like this

my %hash = (
    a => {
        key_a1 => 'value_a1',
        key_a2 => sub { 'value_a2' },
    },
    b => {
        key_b1 => sub { 'value_b1' },
        key_b2 => 'value_b2',
    },
);

Using tie on already-populated variables isn't so neat as tying then at the point of declaration and then inserting the values as the data must be copied to the tied object. However the way I have written the TIEHASH method in the SpecialHash class makes this simple to do in the tie statement

If possible, it would be much better to tie each hash before you put data into it and add it to the primary hash

This program ties every value of %hash that happens to be a hash reference. The core of this is the statement

tie %$val, SpecialHash => ( %$val )

which functions identically to

tie my %hash, SpecialHash => ( ... )

in the previous code but dereferences $val to make the syntax valid, and also uses the current contents of the hash as the initialisation data for the tied hash. That is how the data gets copied

After that there is just a couple of nested loops that dump the whole of %hash to verify that the ties are working

use strict;
use warnings 'all';
use SpecialHash;

my %hash = (
    a => {
        key_a1 => 'value_a1',
        key_a2 => sub { 'value_a2' },
    },
    b => {
        key_b1 => sub { 'value_b1' },
        key_b2 => 'value_b2',
    },
);

# Tie all the secondary hashes that are hash references
#
for my $val ( values %hash ) {
    tie %$val, SpecialHash => ( %$val ) if ref $val eq 'HASH';
}

# Dump all the elements of the second-level hashes
#
for my $k ( sort keys %hash ) {

    my $v = $hash{$k};
    next unless ref $v eq 'HASH';

    print "$k =>\n";

    for my $kk ( sort keys %$v ) {
        my $vv = $v->{$kk};
        print "    $kk => $v->{$kk}\n" 
    }
}

output

a =>
    key_a1 => value_a1
    key_a2 => value_a2
b =>
    key_b1 => value_b1
    key_b2 => value_b2

Yes you can. You can either tie hash to implementation that will resolve coderefs to their return values or you can use blessed scalars as values with overloaded mehods for stringification, numification and whatever else context you want to resolve automatically.

One of perl's special features for just such a use case is tie. This allows you to attach object oriented style methods, to a scalar or hash.

It should be used with caution, because it can mean that your code is doing really strange things, in unexpected ways.

But as an example:

#!/usr/bin/env perl

package RandomScalar;

my $random_range = 10;

sub TIESCALAR {
    my ( $class, $range ) = @_;
    my $value = 0;
    bless \$value, $class;
}

sub FETCH {
    my ($self) = @_;
    return rand($random_range);
}

sub STORE {
    my ( $self, $range ) = @_;
    $random_range = $range;
}

package main;

use strict;
use warnings;

tie my $random_var, 'RandomScalar', 5;

for ( 1 .. 10 ) {
    print $random_var, "\n";
}

$random_var = 100;
for ( 1 .. 10 ) {
    print $random_var, "\n";
}

As you can see - this lets you take an 'ordinary' scalar, and do fruity things with it. You can use a very similar mechanism with a hash - an example might be to do database lookups.

However, you also need to be quite cautious - because you're creating action at a distance by doing so. Future maintenance programmers might well not expect your $random_var to actually change each time you run it, and a value assignment to not actually 'set'.

It can be really useful for e.g. testing though, which is why I give an example.

In your example - you could potentially 'tie' the hash:

#!/usr/bin/env perl

package MagicHash;

sub TIEHASH {
    my ($class) = @_;
    my $self = {};
    return bless $self, $class;
}

sub FETCH {
    my ( $self, $key ) = @_;
    if ( ref( $self->{$key} ) eq 'CODE' ) {
        return $self->{$key}->();
    }
    else {
        return $self->{$key};
    }
}

sub STORE {
    my ( $self, $key, $value ) = @_;
    $self->{$key} = $value;
}

sub CLEAR {
    my ($self) = @_;
    $self = {};
}

sub FIRSTKEY {
    my ($self) = @_;
    my $null = keys %$self;    #reset iterator
    return each %$self;
}

sub NEXTKEY {
    my ($self) = @_;
    return each %$self;
}

package main;

use strict;
use warnings;
use Data::Dumper;

tie my %magic_hash, 'MagicHash';
%magic_hash = (
    key1 => 2,
    key2 => sub { return "beefcake" },
);

$magic_hash{random} = sub { return rand 10 };

foreach my $key ( keys %magic_hash ) {
    print "$key => $magic_hash{$key}\n";
}
foreach my $key ( keys %magic_hash ) {
    print "$key => $magic_hash{$key}\n";
}
foreach my $key ( keys %magic_hash ) {
    print "$key => $magic_hash{$key}\n";
}

This is slightly less evil, because future maintenance programmers can use your 'hash' normally. But dynamic eval can shoot the unwary in the foot, so still - caution is advised.

And alternative is to do it 'proper' object oriented - create a 'storage object' that's ... basically like the above - only it creates an object, rather than using tie. This should be much clearer for long term usage, because you won't get unexpected behaviour. (It's an object doing magic, which is normal, not a hash that 'works funny').

You need to identify when a code ref is present, then execute it as an actual call:

foreach my $key (sort keys %hash) {
    if (ref $hash{$key} eq 'CODE'){
        print $hash{$key}->() . "\n";
    }
    else {
        print "$hash{$key}\n";
    }
}

Note that you may consider making all of the hash values subs (a true dispatch table) instead of having some that return non-coderefs and some that return refs.

However, if you define the hash as such, you don't have to do any special trickery when it comes time to use the hash. It calls the sub and returns the value directly when the key is looked up.

key2 => sub {
    return "value2";
}->(),

No, not without some ancillary code. You are asking for a simple scalar value and a code reference to behave in the same way. The code that would do that is far from simple and also injects complexity between your hash and its use. You might find the following approach simpler and cleaner.

You can make all values code references, making the hash a dispatch table, for uniform invocation

my %hash = (
    key1 => sub { return "value1" },
    key2 => sub {
        # carry on some processing ...
        return "value2"; # In the real code, this value can differ
    },
);

print $hash{$_}->() . "\n" for sort keys %hash;

But of course there is a minimal overhead to this approach.