Re^2: Aren't there code refs as well as function refs?

Prototypes kept going! I kind of went off them a long time ago, they seemed to not be where things were going. Also--I notice they don't affect indirect and other common kinds of calls; this would look hugely likely to cause immense confusion!

I can of course dig into the places where I wonder what's going on. That code tends to be over my head, though, so it's a deep dive.

Perl is always an adventure!

Comment on Re^2: Aren't there code refs as well as function refs?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Aren't there code refs as well as function refs? by kcott (Archbishop) on Mar 04, 2023 at 07:26 UTC
I avoid prototypes in my code, except for the empty prototype '`()`' to create "Constant Functions". In `v5.36.0`, the experimental status of subroutine Signatures was removed. You may find this to be a better method to declare parameters. Do note that prototypes and signatures are not different syntaxes for the same thing: follow the link for details. This is something I do like and have been using in all of my personal code since Perl `v5.36.0` was released. Not that I'm recommending it but, just so you know, you can use both a prototype and a signature with the same subroutine. If you do this, use of the :prototype() attribute is advised to avoid ambiguity. — Ken	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: Aren't there code refs as well as function refs? by Bod (Parson) on Mar 04, 2023 at 12:07 UTC
I avoid prototypes in my code, except for the empty Likewise... When I first came across prototypes in Perl they sounded extremely useful. However, I have come to realise that they are never really necessary at all - or if they are, I have not come across the use case. The complications they add to understanding and maintaining the code is not worth the tradeoff.	[reply]