Re: Not able to execute perl sub routine

welcome to the monastery sachin raj aryan!

if &sub is looking old style to many monks (not me, and is quite good if you do not use prototypes at all and if if you are aware that ⊂ will call &sub(@_); behind the scenes), what is looking very weird is the ancient require "file.pl"; style.

Code to be required and it's contained subs must go in modules and modules must be used via use

A simple module is more flexible than a required file, is easier to be tested.

Perl Modules are described in perlmod

PS: many simple module implementations can profit of the Exporter one to pull subroutines into the namespace.

There are no rules, there are no thumbs..
Reinvent the wheel, then learn The Wheel; may be one day you reinvent one of THE WHEELS.

Comment on Re: Not able to execute perl sub routine Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Not able to execute perl sub routine by Laurent_R (Canon) on Dec 03, 2016 at 22:12 UTC
if &sub is looking old style to many monks (not me, and is quite good if you do not use prototypes at all and if if you are aware that ⊂ will call &sub(@_); behind the scenes) I disagree, it is not "quite good". Or I would at least phrase it the other way around: It is really bad unless you really know what you're doing and really need that feature. Otherwise, simply don't use that obsolete syntax. For the rest, I agree that it is usually better to use a module with `use` rather than `require`.	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: Not able to execute perl sub routine
by Laurent_R (Canon) on Dec 03, 2016 at 22:12 UTC

if &sub is looking old style to many monks (not me, and is quite good if you do not use prototypes at all and if if you are aware that ⊂ will call &sub(@_); behind the scenes)

unless you really know what you're doing and really need that feature

For the rest, I agree that it is usually better to use a module with use rather than require.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]